Replies

Pro hockey has--or perhaps, I should say, "had"--come a long way since the '70s, maturing from a cult sport with regional fans to a league with national popularity and a bevy of teams even in the Sunbelt.

The author of this article misses a very critical point here. Pro hockey never "matured" from a cult sport at all -- the NHL simply gave the appearance that it had become popular on a national level by relocating and expanding into U.S. television markets with large populations but no real hockey fan support. In their NBA-oriented style of TV-based marketing of the 1990s, the NHL -- through former NBA executive Gary Bettman -- decided that a Phoenix market with 20,000 casual fans among 4 million people represented a more lucrative opportunity than a Winnipeg market with 500,000 die-hard fans among 600,000 people.

NHL execs should recall that Major League Baseball--which, besides being the national pastime, has always had a much broader fan base than pro hockey, along with a ubiquitous TV presence--didn't recover its pre-strike popularity until the McGwire-Sosa home run race in 1998.

And Weekly Standard writers and editors should note that Major League Baseball did nothing more than hitch its wagon to a steroid-enhanced home run race in order to recover its pre-strike popularity. When you consider the role that steroids, juiced-up baseballs, and a miniscule strike zone played in baseball's offensive explosion of the 1990s, the sport really only recovered its popularity by pushing itself across that thin line that separates "competitive sport" from "staged event."

If that's what it means to be popular on a national level here in the U.S., then I'll take the cult sport any day, thank you.

The author of this article misses a very critical point here. Pro hockey never "matured" from a cult sport at all -- the NHL simply gave the appearance that it had become popular on a national level by relocating and expanding into U.S. television markets with large populations but no real hockey fan support. In their NBA-oriented style of TV-based marketing of the 1990s, the NHL -- through former NBA executive Gary Bettman -- decided that a Phoenix market with 20,000 casual fans among 4 million people represented a more lucrative opportunity than a Winnipeg market with 500,000 die-hard fans among 600,000 people.

I've been in that casual Phoenix market for 20+ yrs (even though I'm originally a die-hard BroadStreetBully fan). I'm not going to argue the Phoenix point, but I will argue the Winnipeg point.

When economic-push-came-to-shove Winnipeg didn't want to or couldn't support NHL hockey. This goes beyond the discounted Canadian dollar. Winnipeg had more than enough time to show that they wanted hockey to stay. Die-hard fans are great, but they have to support the game. They have to financially support the game over 80+ games. I remember reading articles at the time that stated many Winnipeg fans resented millionaire players, didn't want to raise taxes to support a new rink, etc. Where were the big business players in Winnipeg at the time? Die-hard fans are great, but they have to also afford the ticket price. They couldn't. That said, I am not unsympathetic to Winnipeg fans. Years ago I used to see many fans with Jets jerseys at Coyotes games. I did feel sorry for them. But when hockey left town in Winnipeg, this market was making a 20+ year or even lifetime decision relative to NHL hockey. Love for the game from these fans are great, but it takes economics now. Are the players more interested in economics or are they still in it for the love of the game?

I've been under the impression that hockey was popular primarily in the NE US(this according to my Dad/formerly of BuffaloNY).When it was announced TB would get a franchise,i assumed it would flop just like soccer.Most of the hockey fans i know here in Tampa Bay are northern transplants whose enthusiasm borders on fanatical.I work with a few.They don't just attend games,but they sink massive amts of $$$$ into autographed sticks,pucks,jerseys,trading cards,.....