2007-12-14 00:09:59 · 16 answers · asked by Jill knows best 4 in Sports ➔ Hockey
If there are only 6 in Canada, there sure as heck shouldn't be two in Minnesota. I'm sure that Minnesota fans are great, but I think it works a lot better if everyone is united behind their team - Detroit, for example, is a perennial contender in an amazing hockey town, and they'd never dream of having more than one team over there. Don't ask how Florida got two, some of the NHL's team placements are really pretty hard to understand.
Honestly though, they should just let business sort itself out - if Minnesota can support two, then let them, they deserve it if they can do it. The amount of restrictions on where teams can move and what they can do is ridiculous.
2007-12-14 00:25:07 · answer #1 · answered by The Camel 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think it would be better for them to have an AHL team. This way the two teams can become affiliates and develope their prospects close to home, have good hockey for the fans who can not pay big $$$ to see an NHL game but are still big hockey fans, avoids the contraversy of placing a team in the US instead of Canada (though Minnesota is a great market), and expands the AHL to 30 teams so every NHL team has their own AHL partner!
I think Minnesota could support two teams, but I don't think it would be the best idea at the present time.
2007-12-14 08:27:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In all seriousness, I doubt it. The North Stars didn't provide their fans with a long lasting, consistent winning atmosphere and they ultimately left.
The Wild seem to be doing better at this point but they do need to get better in order to keep the building full.
If it were Toronto or Montreal, there would be no doubt that two teams would fill the building because of the rich hockey tradition. Minneapolis has a solid college/amateur tradition but that doesn't always translate to professional success for a franchise.
The similarity is being seen in MLB cities like Tampa, Miami, and Phoenix - cities where spring training is traditionally held. The thinking was that they DESERVED teams and could support them because of the tradition of the sport. But it is looking like Tampa has the best shot at keeping their team.
Philly is supposed to be a basketball city, but the Warriors left town in the early 60's and then Syracuse moved here to become the 76ers and both teams suffer(ed) low attendance when they weren't / aren't doing well on the court.
Then one must consider the population factor as well. Chicago has a large enough population to support another team, but all things considered, I doubt we will even hear of any talk about the possibility in the next twenty years.
2007-12-14 09:13:01 · answer #3 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question. They certainly have the support of the fans as Minnesota is a huge hockey state but I'm not sure about the economy. I think Michigan would also be another good state for team two but now that the economy sucks there I wouldn't move anything there.
2007-12-14 04:37:00 · answer #4 · answered by lahockeyg 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
regrettably the respond is not any. I grew up interior the twin cities and alternated watching the North Stars and struggling with Saints. the twin cities could no longer/would not help the two communities at that element. of direction that became an prolonged time in the past however the main costly fee ticket became approximately $12. The Wild would be triumphant and sellout whether they in no way win yet another game. even with the incontrovertible fact that, a 2nd group would not be so fortunate with a view to compete they could could do issues call the gang North Stars or struggling with Saints and WIN best away, exceptionally for the reason that they could could be on the Mpls side of the metro.
2016-12-11 04:29:02 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think a better location would be Wisconsin. Even Western (Madison area) WI would work - but most likely Milwaukee if anything. Hey - there's a lot of hockey and fans in WI. It's the real deal. How is the Wild attendance this season? I know the Joe is down - MI is maxed out. Too bad.
2007-12-14 03:58:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The market is a mid size market. Yes, they are hockey crazy but you don't want to dilute the product. Anyway where would the other team play? Teams can't share arenas or at least they shouldn't. Don't tell me the Met either. My suggestion is to keep the whole population loyal to the Wild.
2007-12-14 00:13:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Doubtful, and probably not gonna get to find out..
Things are changing with this organization in the fact that former Predators owner Craig Leipold is pursuing ownership there..
If this man gets your team, it will be a blessing because he was a FANTASTIC owner in Nashville and Minn. is a much better market.. This guy WILL spend $ to be good..
2007-12-14 00:28:47 · answer #8 · answered by Copas -- Tit,Toots & Leggy line 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No I don't between the Wild, Gophers, the 3 other div 1 schools, & high school hockey. I think their is enough of the sport to go around already, & also there are alot of busy parents taking their kids to youth games & practice.
2007-12-14 01:05:47 · answer #9 · answered by mnhockeyfan 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nope..... What makes you think that after losing one just a few years back you can now support two?
2007-12-14 00:13:17 · answer #10 · answered by IH8TomBrady 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋