Why do some hockey fans think it's so wrong that there are NHL teams in the SE United States?

Question

Some Southeast teams have been very successful and I don't think it's fair to say that they shouldn't have NHL teams, simply because of geographical location. Sure, there's a much greater hockey tradition in Canada and other areas in the US, but why not expand hockey's influence and develop new fan bases? The more fans we win for the sport, the higher the chances that more games will be shown on TV in the US.

Anyone can point out that some SE teams, such as the Florida Panthers, aren't doing so hot, but there are Canadian and NE US teams that are sucking just a bad. Give the SE teams a break, eh?

Answer 1

it's not the teams in SE, it's the area.
there usually isn't much winter
there are too many hillbillies
it hasn't been historically hockey-oriented
the market doesn't suit ice hockey
there are too many hillbillies
it's a different culture
there are many hockey areas with citizens more deserving
did i mention the hillbillies??

Answer 2

I am from Dallas and love hockey and love the Stars and the sport has grown very well in the state. I do agree that there are people that will complain no matter how well a team does and no matter how well hockey does in its new location the critics will find something to complain about.

However there is some credibility to the critics. In many places the sport has not taken off well at all even when the team is doing well they fail to sell out or even sell 70% and if the team does badly you can count the fans in the stands and be done by the 1st period, that is true in all markets but the NHL definitely over expanded too quickly and many of those locations are in the Southwest.

Answer 3

Let's not forget that the Panthers made it to the Stanley Cup finals in their second year in the NHL, eventually losing to Colorado in four straight games. It's true that teams in warm weather markets, like Florida, don't have as strong of a fan base like, say, Detroit, Toronto or Minnesota. But that doesn't mean that there's not support for these teams out there. The more the team is put out in front of the public eye in such markets, the more that will see hockey and take an interest in it. Sounds like a simple marketing concept, eh?

Another key factor is having superstars on your team that people can get behind. Atlanta's got Ilya Kovalchuk and Marian Hossa. Tampa Bay's got Vince Lecavlier and Martin St. Louis. If you can have these elite-caliber players, you can build around them in terms of marketing the team. Of course, these players are only part of a team and the team must be presentable...the last two Stanley Cup champions were the Lightning and Hurricanes. As of right now, the Lightning and Atlanta Thrasers are in a good battle for the Southeast lead...so it's not like they're getting a bad product. It's just getting the word out that's the thing.

Answer 4

In the season of 1999 I remember when the Dallas Stars won the Cup after 6 games with the Buffalo Sabres... It seemed that then the hockey community was up in arms about a team from Texas "stealing" the championship. There was a lot of talk about Brett Hull's winning goal (a goal that Hasek not only could not save but he didn't even see) was not a legitimate goal. I even remember ESPN's ESPY's making a lot of references to it and acting as the Stars were maliciously trying to pull something over on the "true fans" of hockey.

There is a bias against Southern teams (not just the SE division) and you should just accept it and don't worry about it. I am fascinated by the lack of respect that teams like the Stars, the Predators, the Hurricanes, etc. get from the NHL media... but its just the way it is. It is especially interesting to me that the players on these teams are primarily Canadian and European... go figure. I go to Canada frequently, I have a Canadian wife and have Canadian in-laws and I can tell you they have a huge prejudice against American players and any praise they give to a Guerin or a Weight or a Modano is only grudging.

The NHL is essentially a Canadian sport. Canadians are proud of hockey and the NHL and they see aggressive American marketing resulting in American teams in regions that they
have negative stereotypes of. Whether this is fair or not, it is what it is. Just enjoy your team and try to not get worked up by the lack of respect. This will probably only go on for a couple of generations.

Answer 5

Well maybe if those people in the SE KNEW they had a team, and supported their team, then people wouldn't complain about it. You say give them a break and they can expand the fan base. Well I say if they don't get fans it won't expand the base. If it actually EXPANDED the fan base then people wouldn't mind as much. Also if they would pick better cities it might expand the fan base. Although name two expansion teams that seem to have taken lately. Heck even the teams that have moved haven't seemed to take if you go by the last decade or so. The other problem is that certain powers that be want to "expand the fan base" by putting teams in the SE and South in general and in doing so they have put too many teams in and diluted the talent, which is starting to catch up now.

Answer 6

Hockey fans have been steeped in tradition for many decades. The greatest teams, players, and rivalries were established over 70 years before the first SE teams came into existence. I don't feel that most hockey fans have anything against SE teams. It's just these new teams are still infants in relation to the league in general. Think of it as a "teething stage". :) As a hockey player, I don't like playing in the SE because it's so humid that the ice doesn't firm up properly. There's no replacement for Edmonton ice.

Answer 7

It has nothing to do with geography. It's about fan base. Why put an NHL team in a city with very little fans? Especially when you have cities like Winnipeg who have the venues to support a team, and all the citizens are literally screaming for a team. There isn't much sense in trying to expand the league and reach more fans when you're leaving the fans that already exist out in the cold, bitter and resentful towards the game. You won't gain any fans that way; you're more likely to lose the heart of the fan who wants you, than gain the heart of an absent mind.

Answer 8

The rhetoric has less to do with success and more to do with fan support. Teams in the Notheastern US and Canada routinely draw more fans because of the hockey culture. While it is true that the Lightning and Hurricanes both won the last two Stanley Cup finals, they rarely have that rabid fan base. In the South, football (for better or worse) is the dominant topic in sports. Couple that with the lockout relegating hockey in the US to the same treatment Major League Soccer gets, and fan apathy rises. It's basically Florida Marlins syndrome...the fans do not care until the team is in the playoffs.

Answer 9

The problem is those cites are not devoted. They only go if the team is doing well - if the team is either rebuilding or has an off season then the areana's are empty. Look at Washington - they have 2 superstars in their lineup but can't fill the seats. NHL needs to do their homework before moving to another US city or expansion. In canada every potential city would support their team. Hockey is to canada like baseball is to the US. No matter how much the team is doing bad - they still go watch.

Answer 10

My only point of contention is that in order to attract non-traditional or casual fans, the NHL is changing the way the game is played in order to appeal to them.

Since most northern cities have an NHL team, it's no fault of their own that the only cities available for expansion are in SE United States. Thus, those teams are the object of scorn from us older hockey fans. Especially since Winnipeg, Quebec City, Seattle, Milwaukee, and a number of northern cities don't have an NHL team to support.

Answer 11

I think part of the reason is that there is very little youth hockey and developmental hockey in general in the area. Most hockey fans have never played hockey and have had to learn the game by watching it. Whereas in Canada and the Northern U.S., hockey is more ingrained into the sports culture at all ages. Colleges have hockey teams, towns and cities have their own youth hockey programs, and there are lots and lots of ice rinks accessible to everyone.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to have hockey in the SE U.S. In fact I think it's a great thing. Like you said, expanding hockey's influence and generating a larger fan base is great for the sport. There is simply more hockey culture in the Northern U.S. and Canada invented the sport. It's their national sport and is treated like football is in the U.S.