what do you think would be a good city to have a hockey team in? Id say either madiosn or las vegas, please i will not take any answers from anywhere outside of north america (id be kewl to see a mexican team...lol)
2007-12-23 13:30:43 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Hockey
ok rick i will take las vegas back and put in...Maine
2007-12-23 13:43:50 · update #1
bring the whalers back to hartford!!!
2007-12-23 14:31:17 · answer #1 · answered by J R 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hamilton, Ontario.
There's a population of 5 million within driving distance of the arena (just 30 minutes from Toronto) in probably the world's hottest hockey hotbed. There's a waiting list of thousands for Leafs season tickets (where it costs a couple of hundred dollars for a playoff seat) so a second team in the area would have no problems.
When it was rumoured the Predators would move to Hamilton last year, the team's prospective buyer began selling season tickets with the provision that deposits would be returned if the deal didn't work out. The arena sold out in a day (not just for a game, but for the season.)
There's nowhere in North America or Europe that could top that.
2007-12-23 15:21:54 · answer #2 · answered by Paul O 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't see how Las Vegas would be a good idea. I mean, how many people in the American Southwest care about ice hockey? Analysts don't even think basketball will be good there...
The cities I think could support an NHL team are:
1) Hartford - they've shown they have the fan support, but they need a better arena
2) Hamilton, ON - it's smack-dab in the middle of hockey country in Canada, also in a populated region
3) Milwaukee - people go crazy in WI for Badgers hockey, so why not put a team in their most populous city?
4) Winnipeg - I'm pretty sure people in Manitoba care more about hockey then they do in Phoenix
2007-12-23 13:40:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Gotta be somewhere that kids can play it outdoors on their own time. Street hockey (or pond hockey) breeds true fans. If you can't play the game because the weather isn't conducive to the sport, it'll never really fly.
Established Canadian cities like Winnipeg or Quebec City, or northern U.S. sites like Milwaukee or Hartford would have the best chance for success.
DO NOT PUT A TEAM IN HAMILTON ONTARIO UNLESS YOU WANT TO WAVE GOODBYE TO THE BUFFALO SABRES.
2007-12-23 17:02:20 · answer #4 · answered by ULAM 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
28 of the 30 cities that currently have teams but i aint tellin you which two dont deserve them. why water what cant grow trim back and let new life sprout from within. and yep i just compared gardening to the business of running the nhl.
rick the attraction to vegas isnt the hometown fans as much as there is no major sport in las vegas. its more as an added attration for the tourist and maybe a way to attract casual observer. vegas is also known for haveing a lot of people living there that arent from there, with a good chance they came from cold places and would be knowledgable, faithful hockey fans. then there is the simple economics of it. of all places mentioned vegas has strongest finacial infrastructure. also lack of compatition from the other major sports lead to better prospects. kc has baseball and football and failed in the past with nhl. winnipeg, hartford, and several other names in the list again have failed teams. nhl sees it as an untaped market. but please refer to me first paragragh for my thoughts overall on the matter.
2007-12-23 14:50:23 · answer #5 · answered by Jay Argentina 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
winnipeg hamilton bettman wont alloe expansion to canada . the stupidest sports answer was his congratulations to the ducks for being the first west coast team to win the cup . vancouver seattle and vancouver won the cup all three cities are futher west , also he is so ignorant of history he does not realise that the cup has been on loan to the nhl it is not there property it is the property of a west coast city it was not even given for hockey the commish is to ignorant to know basic history thanks
2007-12-25 07:12:18 · answer #6 · answered by no idea????? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Winnipeg and Quebec City.
2007-12-24 09:41:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yea Charleston boy is right! every city deserves one because there are fans in every city in north america!!!!! but unfortunately we cant have 500 teams in the NHL so we pick the big cities that can prove they are able to support a hockey clup!
i think we need more canadian teams! like winnepeg, halifax!
kansas city,seattle, etc
2007-12-23 13:41:45 · answer #8 · answered by Devils4History 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Every state should have at least one, which means California and Florida has to give some up.
can you imagine a 50 team league?
2007-12-23 22:00:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I will admit upfront that I stole this from someone who wrote to the Sports Guy on ESPN; the NHL should go to 24 teams, 12 in the U.S. & 12 in Canada. Therefore many Canadian citiies that have had teams & those that would support a team would get one (pick your favorites: Winnipeg, Windsor, Quebec, etc.) and the U.S. would lose teams from non hockey areas (Florida, Carolina, Atlanta).
Losing a few U.S. teamswould be a great way to distribute some talent to Canadian cities that deserve to have their teams back.
2007-12-23 14:02:28 · answer #10 · answered by kris d 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Seattle
Milwaukee
Winnipeg
Kansas City
Quebec City
Salt Lake City
San Francisco
Move all teams out of warm/tropical climates. I don't want to offend any fans here, but ice hockey does not belong in warm climates. Watching a game with the puck bouncing around on the ice in December is ridiculous. Plus, when players travel out of the cold to the warm it screws with their head. Hockey should always have that winter/hockey feel.
Bringing indoor surfing to Canada would be the equivalent.
2007-12-23 13:56:05 · answer #11 · answered by Bryan 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋