The Coyotes' attendance figures revealed
by James Mirtle on Jun 3, 2009 7:00 AM CDT
in Special features
94 comments
We've heard rumours and rumblings about paid versus announced attendance in the NHL forever – or at least as long as I can remember – but what we've rarely had is an unfiltered look at how many people are going through the turnstiles in some of the league's more troubled markets.
With the Coyotes and Jim Balsillie's latest court filing, related to the Canadian billionaire's request for relocation, the numbers are spelled out in black and white (with yellow highlights):
The key figures of note from this past season? For one, the announced gate figure is an incredible 3,923 higher than the number of people who actually went through the turnstiles for each game, a total pegged at just under 11,000.
The good news? A lot of those tickets that weren't used were at least paid for (this season anyway). Paid attendance figures are actually up significantly from where they were in the first season after the lockout, when the team apparently sold just 11,340 per game and yet announced attendance of 15,570.
The chart shows just how phantom announced figures can be, as there are massive differences between the tickets "distributed" and those "announced." Where those differences come from, however, I'm not quite sure, but there were reports last month that Coyotes owner Jerry Moyes was buying tickets in order to hit revenue sharing targets for much of the year.
The relocation filing, compiled by former CFL commissioner Tom Wright, essentially trumpets the benefits of an NHL team in the "Hamilton Area" and points out the shortcomings of having a hockey team in Phoenix, and there's some interesting polling data in there from each market. A lot of it's not all that surprising (the NFL is popular in Arizona!), but if there's interest (and it's not reported elsewhere), I may get into it next week prior to the relocation hearing June 9.
0 recs |
94 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
Farce!
1) Awesome/interesting/indicting stats here. It would be great to see this chart for EVERY NHL team. As many of us suspected teams are giving away tons of tix. The “tix distributed” way of announcing attendance is a farce as this chart clearly shows!
I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else
by Fauxrumors on Jun 3, 2009 8:11 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Comically, the Coyotes aren’t even using tickets distributed, since they are announcing a thousand fans per game more than they are distributing. That’s gotta be fairly embarrassing for the league.
While obviously the exception, according to a good friend of mine who works for the Flames, Calgary actually has a turnstile count higher than the announced attendance. It’s apparently around 19,700 or so for the biggest games. A far cry from when we were struggling ourselves a decade ago.
by Resolute on Jun 3, 2009 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not surprising...
I don’t think anyone who follows the NHL closely expects the “announced attendance” figures to mean anything.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Jun 3, 2009 8:40 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Gary Bettman does.
A Nation of Masochists a blog dedicated to Toronto sports fans, who are continually punished but keep coming back for more.
by furcifer on Jun 3, 2009 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It only means something in sellout places like Montreal, Chicago, Toronto and NYRangers!
by Fred Poulin on Jun 3, 2009 9:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
wonder what pittsburgh attendace figures are. i agree that tickets sold is key for revenue but it would be intresting since we have like 120+ consecutive sellouts
" I AM CAPATIN CHAOS, and this is my trusty Sidekick cato. Say hello Cato"
Dom Deluise 1933-2009, Cannonball run
by oldtimehockey09 on Jun 4, 2009 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is why I am loving this bankruptcy. Seeing the guts of the business. In recent years I have really gotten over the mythologizing and elevating of sports into something “more”. Its great entertainment that I care passionately about.
Most of sports with their anti-trust exemptions do very little to let the public know about what the true state of affairs is and I think regardless of the outcome (i.e., team moving or staying), this will go a long way to finally figuring out whether the sport we love is being run into the ground or whether Bettman’s Bacon-esqe “all is well” is actually the truth.
The population of Pominville keeps rising!
by Blackcapricorn on Jun 3, 2009 9:26 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I was on the Conference call regarding the petition. I was suprised that the majority of the questions seemed to come from Arizona journalists and even a journalist from Tennessee.
A Nation of Masochists a blog dedicated to Toronto sports fans, who are continually punished but keep coming back for more.
by furcifer on Jun 3, 2009 10:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
10,943 people attending the game. 9,280 watching the game on TV.
Yeah, this market should be saved.
by Derek Zona on Jun 3, 2009 10:11 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The judge will look at these numbers when he is making his decision but Phoenix is also one of the biggest (5th?) markets in the U.S. so if the NHL could figure out a way to tap that marketplace it could be a huge windfall. There are some passionate Phoenix fans (like the 100 or so that showed up for Save the Coyotes), not many but some. Is that enough to save them? I don’t know. If this team wasn’t as unsuccessful as they have been perhaps they could have generated some buzz. They may be able to in the future but who knows. Either way the NHL is either dumb, stubborn or lying when they say that nothing is wrong in Phoenix.
A Nation of Masochists a blog dedicated to Toronto sports fans, who are continually punished but keep coming back for more.
by furcifer on Jun 3, 2009 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
12 years
The team has been in the market for more than a decade and hasn’t figured out (judging by these numbers) how to tap the market yet. Is there any reason for the judge to think that would change in the future (assuming that he looks at it teh way you suggest he might)? At some point any business has to cut its losses and stop pouring money down a hole with no prospect of return on the investment.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jun 3, 2009 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
The judge as I said will look at the inflated attendance statistics. He also has to look at in what way to best ensure the creditors get their money and the creditors have made it clear that is with Balsillie’s plan to move to Hamilton. Here’s the kicker though: Balsillie is on a deadline. Let’s say that Moyes et al win the case against the NHL starting the bankruptcy auction with relocation a possibility. The NHL has already said it will appeal. The chances of the appeal being heard and the auction taking place before Balsillie’s self-imposed deadline are slim. Could they hold the auction anyway pending the appeal? Sure. How can Balsillie though plan on doing anything until the appeal is sorted? Either way the NHL has got themselves stuck in a messy situation. It’ll be an interesting couple of months. Will the sign free agents? What can they do at the draft?
A Nation of Masochists a blog dedicated to Toronto sports fans, who are continually punished but keep coming back for more.
by furcifer on Jun 3, 2009 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whether or not Balsillie succeeds the Coyotes in Phoenix have a short life expectancy.
A Nation of Masochists a blog dedicated to Toronto sports fans, who are continually punished but keep coming back for more.
by furcifer on Jun 3, 2009 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly – even if Bettman keeps shutting out Balsillie, sooner or later teams with financial problems will have to be moved. Balsillie has the passion for the game, really wants the team to succeed (in Ontario) and has the financial resources to pull it off. If he pulls out, the Yotes might end up being sold to someone who not only lacks some of those qualities, but also will still move the team out of Arizona.
by -V- on Jun 3, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Especially if the judge rules that the main issue is that Moyes didn’t have the authority to declare bankruptcy because he signed over the team to the NHL – in that case, all Balsillie needs to do is find a team with financial problems with an owner who is clearly in control.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jun 3, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, this isn’t the case. If the judge rules that Moyes didn’t have the power to declare bankruptcy, all of the further questions become moot, and I seriously doubt that he’ll rule on them at all.
by J. Michael Neal on Jun 3, 2009 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’ll be an interesting couple of months. Will the sign free agents? What can they do at the draft?
This situation reminds me of the turmoil the St. Louis Blues went through in 1983, when they almost ended up in Saskatoon. Many of you may remember Bill Hunter. He wanted the Blues and about that time, Ralston Purina decided they wanted nothing to do with hockey. St Louis Game Time documents the saga here. It remains the only time an NHL team sat out the Entry Draft. Now we are a long way from that happening here. But one does wonder to what lengths Mr Moyes might go, if the league does the expected, and prevents the team from relocating. And I don’t want to even think of the Al Davis like scenerios that are remotely possible.
by tbell61 on Jun 3, 2009 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
9,280 watching the game on TV.
Where did you find this number?
by Jibblescribbits on Jun 3, 2009 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was an article mentioned regarding the share of the audience, and I think it was a calculation – mentioned in the comments of this post: http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=3145#more-3145
(Sorry, I don’t have the time right now to go through the comments and find the article link.)
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jun 4, 2009 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This story suggests a .4 local rating, or around 7,000 local households watching in Phoenix. Looks like the ratings dropped from the mid-season .5 once the team started to struggle down the stretch.
by Robert Cleave on Jun 4, 2009 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or, you know, a couple thousand households realized that, “Oh my god, the TV in the basement has been on for months!”
by dzuunmod on Jun 4, 2009 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Or, you know, a couple thousand households realized that, "Oh my god, the TV in the basement has been on for months!"
“And all this time we thought the noise was from mice!” :)
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jun 4, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A couple of things stand out for me.
First, even though the number of paid tickets went up, it doesn’t look like that was matched in any way by an increase in ticket revenue. In 07/08, the Coyotes averaged $450,000 per night at the gate. In the information that Gerald Carpenter supplied to Tyler Dellow The Coyotes ticket revenue was just under $18,000,000 for 08/09. Dividing only by the 41 regular season games, that’s just under $434,000 per night. There were plenty of stories out there about the promotional ticket deals, so it looks to me like the Comp’ed tickets were largely replaced by extremely cheap ones with extras added, and the legit tickets sold likely dropped of a bit to end up with a more or less static revenue number.
The second thing to consider re:turnstile counts vs. paid tickets is that Phoenix likely has one of the worst arena deals going, so extra bodies actually in the building don’t mean as much in terms of ancillary revenues as it would in a rink controlled by the team. In other words, I’m not sure how much of a raw dollar impact people not showing up really makes. Again, from the numbers at MC79, they only received 2 million-ish for the season in concessions and other revenues. Having everybody who paid for a seat show up might have only meant an extra $500,000 or so in total revenue for the year.
by Robert Cleave on Jun 3, 2009 10:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
From these numbers it’s clear that the Coyotes were buying their own tickets and in large quantities:
Paid attendance goes UP by 1,258 people per game (11%)
Actual attendance goes DOWN by 324 people per game (-3%)
Latest NHL press release: In a recession more people are paying to not go to games than ever before! Great News!
by Daniel Tolensky on Jun 3, 2009 10:18 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion. Coroporate seat sales are notoriously poorly attended in some markets. The Capitals had that issue for years.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Jun 3, 2009 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They were buying about 1,000 tickets a night until the league stopped them.
by Robert Cleave on Jun 3, 2009 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still – an average difference of over 2100 between tickets sold and average actual turnstills? That’s a lot of corporate seats going empty. It’s clear that a lot of folks couldn’t even give their tickets away.
by hockeycountry on Jun 3, 2009 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To play devil’s advocate even the always sold-out Leafs had a lot of paid for empty seats because the team wasn’t very good.
A Nation of Masochists a blog dedicated to Toronto sports fans, who are continually punished but keep coming back for more.
by furcifer on Jun 3, 2009 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree, but as a percentage of tickets sold, over 2100 a game is pretty high. 16% of the tickets sold don’t result in a bum in the seat. I suppose that if the tickets are cheap enough, people won’t make the effort if they get easily distracted by something else.
by hockeycountry on Jun 3, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The other way this happens is if season tickets are so much cheaper to purchase than single-gamers that people buy tickets they have no intention of using.
On the Coyotes’ 2009-10 season ticket price list, every seat in the upper level but the top four rows in the corners is 50% off the stated single-game rate — and even more if you add Ticketmaster fees to that single-game rate. Ignoring partial-season plans for a minute here, if you plan to attend 15-20 games (assuming the team stays in Glendale), you’re dumb not to buy season tickets, sell what you can, and just throw away what you can’t.
That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
by JoshCVT on Jun 3, 2009 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is really a disaster for the NHL
This is why the NHL was in a no win position from the outset, once this transaction went down. If they do win the case, and secure Reinsdorf as an owner, something I’m skeptical of, then they still have all their dirty laundry aired. Considering that is the best-case scenario for the NHL, this has really been a disaster.
by Illegal Curve on Jun 3, 2009 10:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Location of the arena
What kind of factor is the fact that Glendale is on the north-east side of the area, away from the major college-trendy areas like Tempe? Many teams rely pretty heavily on that demographic (have student discounts that can bring a pretty good number of fans to the game), and from visiting Phoenix/Tempe a few times it seems like getting from there to Glendale is a hassle.
by DanNOLA on Jun 3, 2009 11:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
edit
sorry, meant to say the north-west side of town, not north-east.
by DanNOLA on Jun 3, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s probably a major factor. Does it excuse the TV numbers? No. It does, however, explain the lack of revenue generated at the gate. I stand that the best way to make anyone a hockey fan is to have them see a game live. It’s the best sport to watch live in the world bar none.
A Nation of Masochists a blog dedicated to Toronto sports fans, who are continually punished but keep coming back for more.
by furcifer on Jun 3, 2009 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sad thing is if the arena location is that major a factor, the team is screwed no matter who the owner is. You can’t just pick up an arena and move it to a better location – this could be a white elephant of enormous proportions for Glendale.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jun 3, 2009 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you happen to notice...
…that in this filing the lawyers for Balsillie quoted a New York Rangers blog (BlueShirtBacker.com, a fellow SB Nation blog) for their data point about the arena location?
In other words, instead of actually researching whether the arena location affects the OVERALL Phoenix interests (not just those of Scottsdale or Tempe residents), they basically grabbed someone’s blog post which basically was reporting hearsay in the first place.
Brilliant.
The attendance figures are startling, for sure. I’d like to see them balanced against the “actual” attendance figures of other franchises before saying the sky is falling, though. I’d also like to see ONE (1) communication from Balsillie that does NOT proceed from the pre-established conclusion that hockey will never EVER work in Phoenix – the conclusion around which Balsillie has built his entire case, instead of establishing a conclusion based on data and research.
But I’m aware that I’m in the minority here so you folks just go ahead and roll right over me.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jun 3, 2009 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
At what point though does it become a legitimate conclusion? The NHL pulled out of Denver after 6 years. Winnipeg got 17 years, Atlanta got 8 the first time around. Oakland Seals 3 seasons. Cleveland Barons and Kansas City Scouts 2 each. Nordiques got 16. Whalers got 18, Phoenix has had pretty much the average time to figure out whether the community will support the team. The hypothesis has become a theory.
by john ogrodnick on Jun 3, 2009 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we’re accepting the prerequisite of a suitable arena as part of the mix, the Coyotes have only had six years of bottom-feeder teams upon which to build a loyal fan base.
When the Coyotes ice a competent, winning, playoff-capable hockey team and the market still won’t support it, then I’ll admit the market is a failure.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jun 3, 2009 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the question really is, are the Coytes failing because of the market or because of the management or outside forces, I’m certain the answer is in all three camps to some extent, however, I think management and outside forces (i.e. the economy, the housing bubble burst hit Phoenix especially hard) are bigger factors than the market. In other words, had the team been run the same way just about anywhere, they would be looking at a lot of losses.
But just blaming a city because of a franchise’s failure is a simplistic mostly flawed way of looking at it.
by Jibblescribbits on Jun 3, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It may be flawed, way of looking at things (franchise success) but its true. Of the NHL teams that have relocated, not one ever appeared in a Stanley Cup Final. Ultimately, if they’re not good, the people wont come (regardless of where the arena is) That goes back to ownership and to a degree Bettman though (since Moyes prob doesnt know the ins and outs of hockey from cricket), to put a good product on the ice, in a marketable city. If ownership fails, well, then the market has spoken, and its time to find somewhere and someone else to run the franchise and support it.
by john ogrodnick on Jun 3, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ummm
Of the NHL teams that have relocated, not one ever appeared in a Stanley Cup Final
Rockies- Devils, many times, and a few cups too
Nords- Avs, 2 cups.
Whalers- Canes, 1 cup
Get rid of the loser point
08-09 Avs- can we decline the penalty?
by TheRed on Jun 3, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also:
Minnesota North Stars – 1 finals appearance. Dallas Stars – 1 win, 1 finals appearance.
by dzuunmod on Jun 3, 2009 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The North Stars made it twice: 1981 and 1991.
There's no use being pessimistic, it won't work anyway.
by Mike in MN on Jun 3, 2009 5:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was referring to the franchises in their original locations. The Rockies, Nords and Whalers never made it to the Finals.
As noted, however, the North Stars did.
by Resolute on Jun 3, 2009 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now I get it. But it seems by that logic Toronto should be an empty arena, and its not.
Get rid of the loser point
08-09 Avs- can we decline the penalty?
by TheRed on Jun 3, 2009 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I’m pretty sure the Leafs have been to the finals once or twice in their time in Toronto… Even if anyone who remembers the last time now requires that little blue pill to get it up…
The point about the finals is a little too narrow, however. One thing the Rockies, Whalers and Jets had in common is an utter lack of success, never mind making it all the way to the finals. The Nords were starting to look like a good team at the end, but otherwise similar problems.
The teams that are considered to be in major trouble right now are also in similar states. Phoenix has never done anything of note, Nashville has a couple of first round exits and not much more. Florida has been a joke since their 96 run. The Islanders are just embarrassing.
by Resolute on Jun 4, 2009 8:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gotta say it’s the Nords fans who got maybe the biggest screw-job foisted upon them from one season to the next… the team won the freaking Stanley Cup in their first season away from Quebec!
by dzuunmod on Jun 4, 2009 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, but there is no chance in hell the Canadiens trade Roy to the Nordiques, and without a decent goaltender, I’m not sure that team goes very far in 1996. But yeah, that had to be more than a little bittersweet for Quebec fans.
by Resolute on Jun 4, 2009 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We haven’t been back to the Finals since 1967 yet still sell out every game. You can’t compare Toronto to the other cities in the NHL. It’s an anomaly
A Nation of Masochists a blog dedicated to Toronto sports fans, who are continually punished but keep coming back for more.
by furcifer on Jun 5, 2009 9:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Zyllyx, I don’t really care how many people go to Coyotes games, or to any other games for that matter. I only know that the ticket revenue is too low by about 10-15 million bucks a year to make a go of things, even with concessions from Glendale, better management and other revenue improvements. The median number in 07/08 for per game ticket revenue was around $800,000. Phoenix is no where near that number, and haven’t been at any point post-lockout. The Coyotes would have to sell 6,000 extra tickets a night at $60 a pop just to get to the middle.
by Robert Cleave on Jun 3, 2009 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not arguing that with you...
(1 million geek points for identifying that title reference, BTW)
We could argue endlessly about finances, but that’s really not the issue for me in this context. My point is that the franchise has failed the market and the league – the market has NOT failed the league, IMO.
To those of you who believe our market is a failure, let me say this. You introduced us to your sport by installing one of your lower-tier franchises that subsequently became one of the worst in the NHL. You gave us your brightest star as a figurehead, and his salary and inability to coach have driven the team to mediocrity and the franchise into financial trouble. Your Commissioner judged this market as potentially able to sustain a hockey team but by putting the cart before the horse – installing an NHL franchise without seeding the grassroots for the game – we are left with the worst of both worlds… a growing youth and amateur hockey culture that stands to be demolished by the loss of that franchise.
Before you call us failures, try applying a TINY BIT of context to the situation.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jun 3, 2009 6:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your Commissioner judged this market as potentially able to sustain a hockey team but by putting the cart before the horse – installing an NHL franchise without seeding the grassroots for the game
Gary Bettman is hardly my Commissioner. You must have me confused with someone else who posts around here. Anyhoo…
The North Stars weren’t any great shakes when they moved to Dallas, and I didn’t hear this kvetching about no hockey culture in Texas. They just got on with it. Phoenix had the same minor-league hockey culture.You guys got a decent team, a playoff team right out of the gate. Blaming the league for that is nonsense. If you look at the graph James provided, the average paid attendance since the Coyotes moved to Phoenix is 12,109, and that’s not much different before or after the lockout. When the Coyotes were in the playoffs regularly they weren’t drawing any more actual paying customers, and they were losing a pile of money then as well. I’ve heard people blaming the old arena (obstructed seats and other issues), and the new one (too far away from the East Side). I’m not buying it. Coyote tickets are a bargain compared to other NHL teams. If people aren’t going, it’s time to admit they aren’t interested in numbers sufficient warrant a team. The Coyotes were in fifth place at the All-Star break. Was anyone going up to that point?
None of this makes people like you or Odin Mercer lesser beings or anything. I think most of us admire your dedication. There just aren’t enough of you that give a rat’s ass. I’ve noted this before, but I’m a Winnipegger and was a Jets fan and semi-regular patron. I don’t want the team back, and I don’t want it to fail in Phoenix. If someone can find a way to make it work, all good by me. I just hope for your sake it isn’t too late in the game.
by Robert Cleave on Jun 3, 2009 8:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Coyotes were in fifth place at the All-Star break. Was anyone going up to that point?
Yes, as the team showed signs of life, the attendance improved noticeably. Then we hit the post-ASG slump (again) and people stopped coming again. I don’t blame them, either (although I kept going) – it was the second year in a row that the team had imploded drastically. The non-STH fans have been feeling pretty cynical and for good reason.
As for the Stars, they “got on with it” by building a winning team. The Coyotes “got on with it” by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I’ve only been a hockey fan and STH since after the lockout so I can’t speak from direct experience of the Coyotes in downtown Phoenix. But I do know that the Phoenix Suns’ lease terms at America West Arena were rather draconian (not to mention the facility being wholly unsuitable for NHL hockey) which might account for a good chunk of financial losses in their first few years. The financial woes post-lockout/relocation (and I do consider the move from Phoenix to Glendale a true relocation, not just a “locational adjustment”) have been done to death, obviously.
What I know is this – in the five years I’ve been following this franchise I have seen real, substantial growth in the local grassroots hockey scene. I have seen the area around Jobing.com Arena grow from a cotton field in the middle of nowhere to a lively hotspot that includes the NFL stadium and, soon, USA Basketball facilities. What I have NOT seen is a single “star-caliber” player on the Coyotes (unless you count Olli Jokinen, and given the way he played here and in Calgary I don’t count him personally). I have NOT seen a team capable of challenging for a playoff berth – and one barely capable of finishing with a +.500 record. The market does not suffer underachievers gladly.
At this point, the team is not long for Phoenix even if Balsillie is pushed aside. I think Bettman has made that clear. To be honest, I’d almost rather they go. I’m sick to death of arguing with Canadians about who deserves hockey and who doesn’t, about our franchise being “stolen property,” about how it’s the MARKET’S fault that an abhorrently-managed and -coached franchise is failing. Right now I think I’d rather the team become Balsillie’s Berries and then maybe a few years down the road we can get our OWN team. Hell, I don’t even care if it’s an NHL franchise as long as it’s home-grown instead of a magnet for Canadian snobs and haters.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jun 3, 2009 10:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously bummed by your attitude. There are lots of us who feel for your pain but you really seem to be taking everything personally.
I didn’t introduce you this sport. I didn’t saddle you with crap management, etc. As you said Gary Bettman did. No one in Canada requested that. Perhaps part of the problem here is we see a game we love being given to and now possibly yanked away from new fans, a scenario predicted by many. And while some might not resist saying “i told you so” many of us have.
by yrmom on Jun 4, 2009 12:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t saddle you with crap management, etc. As you said Gary Bettman did. No one in Canada requested that.
No, but Canada has damn certainly reveled in it — and every other problem this franchise, and every other one south of St. Louis, has faced trying to claw its way to respectability. And it’s awfully hard not to take that personally (on behalf of one’s community) when it’s usually phrased as “good riddance, they never deserved a team anyway, hockey is for Canadians.” About the only element Phoenix dodges from the standard array of insults to Sun Belt teams is the redneck bit.
I will never understand why, if Canadians love the game as they claim to do, they crap all over every effort the league makes to expand the sport’s geographic reach and fanbase. We’re almost 20 years into the NHL’s most serious Southern experiment by now. I’m pretty sure that by 1989, baseball fans had stopped making igloo jokes about the Expos and Blue Jays — and the ones that hadn’t would have been perfect fodder for Talking to Americans. And I am damn sure that we didn’t throw a nationwide party when the Expos were pulled out of Montreal in 2004. Baseball lost something when it left Montreal, and hockey will lose something when it leaves Phoenix, even if it’s hard to see with nationalistic blinders on.
That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
by JoshCVT on Jun 4, 2009 8:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How does a Canadian fan benefit in any way from growing hockey popularity in Arizona? Why should they want the Southern experiment to succeed? There seems to be an assumption that loving a sport equates to wanting everyone else to love it, and I don’t see any reason to think that this assumption holds.
I’m a huge NCAA hockey fan. I also think that the NCAA’s attempts to expand the popularity of the sport have been significantly detrimental to my interests. It’s harder to get tickets to the Frozen Four. They insist in holding it in all sorts of inconvenient places in an attempt to “build the sport’s popularity.” The games are held at times that are inconvenient for the attendees, since that’s when ESPN wants them.
I actively want NCAA hockey to become less popular, and liked in fewer places.
by J. Michael Neal on Jun 4, 2009 8:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, the “selfishness is a virtue” argument.
My response to that is pretty simple: expanding the geographic reach and popularity of the sport enlarges the base of the player pool, which eventually improves the sport at all levels. Hell, NCAA hockey fans should be at the forefront of this, considering the competition they face from the CHL — would you rather have that one second-liner from Texas who didn’t get scouted for junior hockey, or another fourth-line talent from Alberta that wasn’t good enough for the WHL?
I understand where you’re coming from; it was easier for me to be a Virginia Tech football fan when I didn’t have to assemble a decent-sized donation between me and my friends to be guaranteed season tickets, parking within walking distance of the stadium cost $5 at worst, and nobody knew about my shortcut out of town. But life moves on, and sometimes we just have to suck it up and try to keep up.
That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
by JoshCVT on Jun 4, 2009 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about admitting CIAU (or CIS) teams into the NCAA?
I, for one, would follow College hockey more if the league expanded northwards. When I went to school with Cammi Granato, there wasn’t a team of girls on the planet that could keep up with the Concordia Stingers’ women’s team, including Team USA (provided Cammi had played for our side in such a game).
Without anything to base it on, I’m fairly certain that UNB or Western could ice a team at least as good as Bemidji State.
Same goes for Laval’s football program competing in some of the lesser Bowl games.
It’s too bad that nobody is interested in extending the NCAA footprint into the snowbelt.
by TD O'Dell on Jun 4, 2009 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought the NCAA was interested, but there was some question as to whether the Canadian teams could provide the same financial support in terms of scholarships and such that Division I hockey gets in the U.S. I think it would be tremendous.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jun 4, 2009 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's some effort.
Ref Simon Fraser University’s NCAA info page and NCAA Champion Magazine’s article.
The big challenge is that Canadian university athletics are in some ways closer to U.S. college club sports than NCAA varsity sports — no scholarships, less money and way less regulation. It’s almost like they’re an extracurricular activity of an academic institution, rather than a mega-industry that the academic mission of the school has to be twisted into a pretzel to fit with. [/sarcasm] Upscaling/creating the administrative hierarchy to meet NCAA rules, especially academic qualification requirements that are all designed around the U.S. education system, is a non-trivial task.
That said, I think it’d be pretty cool to see Canadian schools compete in the NCAA. Whether it’s worth it to them, though, is an open question that seems to vary by the school.
That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
by JoshCVT on Jun 4, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know about hockey
But I believe a school needs a minimum attendance to get into Div-I BCS football.
The last game I attended at a Canadian school had fewer than 1000 people watching, so even a football powerhouse like Laval would likely only qualify for Div II or III.
Then there’s the problem of climate. Those mid-November football games can get pretty cold up here. Forget frozen tundra – we’re talking perma-frost.
by TD O'Dell on Jun 4, 2009 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Laval typically draws between 15,000 and 20,000, and sometimes, that’s only because the stadium only holds that much. If Quebec City had a 30,000-seater, Laval would fill it in the playoffs, I’m sure of it. Hell, if they had that stadium and were playing Boston College and Syracuse instead of Sherbrooke, I bet you’d see full houses for those in the regular season.
Dunno how the four-down/narrower field bit would go over with the Quebec City faithful though.
by dzuunmod on Jun 4, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus, they’d need to switch from metres to yards.
“On a besoin rien que onze virgule trois verges, les gars”
by TD O'Dell on Jun 4, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What NCAA division you are in depends upon enrollment, not size of the crowd. As for DI hockey, there are a bunch of schools that are DIII in everything else, but play in DI hockey. Johns Hopkins also does this in lacrosse.
by J. Michael Neal on Jun 4, 2009 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
tired of being shot down
It isn’t even the “selfishness as a virtue” – Sometimes it’s a case of getting tired of beating your head against a wall. When eveything you hear on the major sports channels about hockey is treating it as a joke, a fourth-rate sport at best, and how no one likes hockey – but they might if there was more scoring, or more Americans because all those foreign names are hard to pronounce (when “Abdelkader” is American, and names like “Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila” haven’t hurt NFL football one bit), or the officiating was better, or there was less fighting, or there was more fighting, or they didn’t put teams in areas where there isn’t snow, or it wasn’t on a channel that no one gets, or the NHL didn’t schedule their playoffs to avoid Conan O’Brien, or it didn’t get bumped for the pregame for a freaking horse race …
It rapidly gets to the point where you just want them to shut up, and get tired of telling people how wonderful the sport is when no one seems to get it. People who love hockey love it – and you can’t, no matter how much you try to bring it to the attention of the non-fans, MAKE them like it. And all the time it seems the league is chasing the mirage of a high national profile that it won’t reach, because for all teh efforts to bring hockey to non-traditional areas – which are laudable – very few converts are actually being made. Financially it doesn’t seem to be worth the effort.
If pulling back from areas where the sport doesn’t seem to have taken hold wwould make the league as a whole stronger … it seems like the best decision for the long-term health of the sport.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jun 4, 2009 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're ignoring the successes and getting caught up in the culture wars.
That’s my base problem with a lot of this stuff: we’ve seen that culture change in San Jose, Dallas and Carolina. (I grew up in Atlantic Coast Conference country. I can’t tell you how rewarding it has been to read Caulton Tudor, the Red Fisher of ACC basketball, slowly acknowledge that our game is worth his time — an honor he barely grants to football.)
If it were individual markets we were arguing over, that’d be one thing. And yeah, some teams are probably going to have to move. But it’s never just one that Canadians (and Northerners, but mostly Canadians) want to trash, it’s the whole Southern strategy. I’ve seen us win one of these battles. Maybe that’s why I’m so hesitant to write the whole region off.
As for the national loons in the U.S., maybe I’m off-base here, but how was the NHL’s U.S. media treatment better in 1993 (pre-Bettman) when we had eight Canadian teams and no U.S. broadcast deal at all? I didn’t have cable TV growing up, and the Web was in its infancy. I was lucky to get box scores in the agate in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, and the occasional Sports Illustrated article. I think people have lost sight of just how far we’ve come that we can complain about a channel with only ~70% (?) basic cable distribution that turns over its evening programming to hockey for seven weeks straight during the playoffs.
That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
by JoshCVT on Jun 4, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m just saying that’s why the fans get tired of hearing all the talk about how Southern teams are struggling, but they just need a little more help and they can be successful – be patient and it will happen.
A lot of fans feel they HAVE been patient, many Southern teams are STILL struggling, and they see their own teams having to direct money (including playoff revenues) to teams with ownership that still can’t turn a profit without more help, and with ticket prices lower than fans of many traditional market can imagine.
It isn’t the different culture so much as the money.
If some non-traditional teams were struggling, but the owner decided to stick it out anyway, no one would say the team had to move “somewhere that has ice in the winter.” The problem is that the struggling teams get revenue sharing dollars from more successful teams, so the cost of growing a hockey culture is borne by those who already have a hockey culture – and the costs have a negative impact on them, and risk dragging the successful teams down through no fault of their own.
I don’t think the entire region should be written off. But with so many teams struggling, some of them are not going to make it – a few teams with profits can’t support a bunch of the league on their own. The poorest performing teams are dragging down the profits and the reputation of the league like an anchor – a few teams like that can be survived, but how many teams other than the Coyotes are in this kind of a fix? It’s certainly clear that the last place to look for a straight answer is the league office.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jun 4, 2009 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you want a league where all the teams are profitable...
…you’re going to have to rehabilitate Alan Eagleson, and I don’t think that genie can be stuffed back into the bottle.
Since the salary explosion, all of the major North American sports leagues have had a significant percentage of their teams unprofitable by-the-book before national media contracts and revenue sharing, whether or not the sport was quote-unquote “traditional” in its region. The difference in hockey is that several of the unprofitable clubs can be grouped together and subjected to collective regional/cultural cheap shots, where the only applicable generalization in the other three sports is “small-market.”
That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
by JoshCVT on Jun 4, 2009 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not everyone has to be profitable – but you can’t have a large minority of the teams losing real money year after year after year (despite cash infusions from others) without teh entire league suffering.
A team losing money for several years while lousy, but becoming more competitive over time is one thing, a few teams losing money out of many is another, a team losing money hand over fist but surviving just fine because the ownership knew that was going to happen and regards it as a hobby instead of a business in another thing yet – but the numbers on the struggling teams in the NHL ar horrible. There is more than just one, they are losing a lot of money, revenue sharing is not helping them out, and in some cases there isn’t really a prospect on any timeframe that anyone is willing to put up with for profitability. The big media contract isn’t going to come.
And whether they are dismissed as “small market” or “Southern” is semantics. One is specifically geographic, and the other is not – but neither is used in a flattering connotation. Either way, some teams just aren’t working out, and the question is how much longer is the league going to attempt to nurture them along before they pull the plug.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jun 4, 2009 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do I care whether other people like hockey? I sense that there are a lot of people who need their feelings validated by knowing that other people like the same thing they do. I don’t need that. I honestly don’t care how many people like hockey. If they do, great. If not, I’m pretty sure they will find some other hobby that they enjoy.
by J. Michael Neal on Jun 4, 2009 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I kind of like the fact that I’m a fan of a sport that isn’t as popular. I just wish that people could dislike hockey without ripping it – just admit that it isn’t their style of sport, and be done with it.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jun 4, 2009 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would be nice, wouldn't it?
Now think about Southern hockey fans. When we listen to local/regional media, we get an outsized share of people ripping hockey (when they bother to mention it). So we flip over to hockey-exclusive US/Canada-wide media, hoping to not have to put up with so much crap… where we promptly get an outsized share of people ripping our region.
Wonder why we seem so defensive sometimes? We’re stuck in the crossfire. We’ve slowly gained ground on the locals, but the hell if we can catch a break from the group that we just want to be a normal part of.
That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
by JoshCVT on Jun 4, 2009 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I want the kid coming who wants to go to school. Oddly enough, the hockey team is not my first priority when it comes to how the University of Minnesota makes its decisions. Really, as long as all of the NCAA schools are drawing from the same pool, I don’t care all that much what the average talent level is. It’s still hockey, and I still enjoy it. In fact, I enjoy it enough that I want to be able to get a ticket, and I want that ticket to be in a hockey arena, not a football field, because I want to be able to see the play.
I’ve been watching NCAA hockey for more than three decades. If you want me to think that expanding the sport is a good idea, then you have to explain to me what I get out of it. If my reward is more expensive tickets that I have trouble getting, in cities that I don’t want to go to, then I’d prefer to remain a niche sport, thank you very much.
As for being selfish, I haven’t noticed that most people lack for things to occupy their spare time. As much as I like hockey, most people’s lives will be perfectly fulfilling whether they ever see a hockey game or not. Spare me the idea that there’s some humanitarian reason to want to see more people like the game. They’ll get along fine without it.
by J. Michael Neal on Jun 4, 2009 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you want me to think that expanding the sport is a good idea, then you have to explain to me what I get out of it. If my reward is more expensive tickets that I have trouble getting, in cities that I don’t want to go to, then I’d prefer to remain a niche sport, thank you very much.
Well, I suggested a higher talent level on the ice, but you said you didn’t care all that much about that. So now that we’ve taken the quality of on-ice play out of the discussion, all we’re discussing is your personal “game experience.”
If that’s all you care about, then your position is pretty solid. But it’s also not about hockey anymore.
That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
by JoshCVT on Jun 4, 2009 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the sense you mean here, this discussion has never been about hockey, from my point of view. It’s about my having a hobby that I enjoy. I don’t care about what’s best for “Hockey” at all, because it doesn’t exist in any meaningful sense. I care about the enjoyment people derive from watching a particular set of actions. Like pretty much any other form of entertainment, hockey doesn’t have any value beyond that and the enjoyment people derive from playing it.
I do care about whether other people have things that they enjoy doing, in the same way that I enjoy hockey, but I don’t think that they need hockey in order to have something like that. So, I really don’t care about bringing hockey to new people, unless I get married again and want to have something to do with my wife. Sure, there is undoubtedly improvement in some people’s marginal enjoyment if hockey displaces something they don’t like as much, but it isn’t a significant factor worth much of my worry. Of course, I think the net enjoyment in the world would be increased more by a team in Hamilton than it is by having a team in Phoenix, so I don’t have much of an altruistic motive to want the Coyotes to stay where they are. While I don’t discount the loss that would be suffered by southern fans losing their team, I don’t see any reason that I should consider your enjoyment more important than I do a bunch of Canadians.
by J. Michael Neal on Jun 4, 2009 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Part of this is that as it stands, hockey is the one “major” sport (don’t get me started on curling) that Canadians can reasonably claim dominance in. Broadening the sport’s horizons (which I personally would love to see happen) would put that at risk.
(And for the record, as an Expo fan to the team’s dying days, I can tell you that I heard it all from American fans right up to the bitter end – though, to be fair, it’s hard to reasonably claim your town deserves an MLB team when there were between 4-8,000 fans in the Big O most game nights.)
by dzuunmod on Jun 4, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell, Gary Bettman didn’t even saddle Phoenix with crap management. The 25 other owners of the time did, and frankly, after a dozen years of crap management, no Phoenix fan has any call to blame anyone other than their own franchise for the ineptitude of the Coyotes. Likewise, “we” did not saddle you with Gretzky. That was a decision of the franchise, and iirc, he came on board the last time the Coyotes were on death’s door.
by Resolute on Jun 4, 2009 8:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Coyotes made the playoffs each of the first five years they were in Phoenix. The idea that they have always been a sad sack franchise is not true.
by J. Michael Neal on Jun 3, 2009 9:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Coyotes decline
Could it be attributed to the ouster of Bobby Smith as GM by Gretzky and his appointment of his cronies that have slowly been weeded out one by one?
by Exit716 on Jun 4, 2009 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gary Bettman is hardly my Commissioner.
Ditto here – and a resounding one. Don’t blame other hockey fans for Bettman’s decisions – he doesn’t listen to any of us, either.
And what fans think (and I haven’t read anyone really saying “Phoenix doesn’t deserve a team” – just that the market seems to not be sufficient to sustain an NHL team) is irrelevenat, in Phoenix and elsewhere. As much as owners like to play the “community” card when they are looking for tax dollars for themselves, each sports enterprise is a business venture – these men aren’t in it as a charitable venture, but to make money (or at least not always lose a lot of money). If a majority of the 29 other team owners look at their balance sheets and determine that for their own short-term and long-term financial health a team in Hamilton (or Kansas City, or wherever) is a better, more profitable proposition than a team in Phoenix, that’s it.
I feel bad for the city of Glendale, as they built an arena and would have to find someone else to fill it.
I feel bad for the Phoenix fans, as their team would be gone if that happens.
But there is nothing personal in this aspect – just a harsh business decision.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jun 4, 2009 6:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they stay, one favour please
Take Dale Hawerchuk’s number off the Coyotes’ ring of honour. That’s a real kick in the teeth to Winnipeg.
by Exit716 on Jun 3, 2009 6:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Honoring a member of the franchise is an insult just because it’s not in Winnipeg? That’s retarded. If this team moves to Hamilton and Balsillie puts Shane Doan’s number in the ring of honor or retires his jersey, I would hope I’d have the class and maturity to appreciate the sentiment.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jun 3, 2009 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It depends...
I don’t know about the Coyotes, but it could be considered a “kick in the teeth” to the Winnipeg fans if they feel that he was taken from them along with the team, and their own memories are being discounted because he was a Winnipeg Jet, not a Phoenix Coyote, and it hurts to think of him like that . The Indianapolis Colts moving from Baltimore in the dark of night is something like that – the football fans in Baltimore feel as though stars like Johnny Unitas were taken from them as well, and they loved him there. When he died, the lines for visitation went on forever – people took time off work to pay their respects, and it took them hours to do so. Seeing him recognized in the history of a team that loaded up the Mayflower trucks and moved out hurts them a great deal, because they think he should have been recognized in Baltimore as he was Baltimore to the core, and their memories were him performing in the old Memorial Stadium (which they called the world’s largest outdoor insane asylum).
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Jun 3, 2009 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I can’t speak for Winnipeggers. But I didn’t know who Dale Hawerchuk was until his name was put in the Coyotes’ ring of honor. I looked him up, studied his career, watched game film, and ended up buying a Jets’ Hawerchuk sweater to wear to the games.
If that insults Winnipeg, then too damn bad. I don’t think of him as a Phoenix Coyote, I think of him as a Jet – one of the best of the Jets. And I’m glad the franchise still honors him because otherwise, who would? The Moose?
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jun 3, 2009 7:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that insults Winnipeg, then too damn bad. I don’t think of him as a Phoenix Coyote, I think of him as a Jet – one of the best of the Jets. And I’m glad the franchise still honors him because otherwise, who would? The Moose?
Agreed. Honouring former players is just that: recognizing their contributions to the original team and help bridge the transition between the two teams. If Winnipeggers feel that Hawerchuk is their own, more power to them. I certainly don’t think of him as a Coyotes, but it would be sad and quite bullheaded not to honour and thank a tremendous player simply because that franchise relocated. I will, however, relent and say that Hawerchuk’s number should not have been honoured as a Coyotes jersey.
Supporter of the Sergei Berezin "Give and Go" - You give me puck, then you go to hell
by bkblades on Jun 3, 2009 7:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As an actual Jets fan, it doesn’t offend me. The history of the franchise didn’t end when the team moved. Recognizing Hull, Hawerchuk and Steen is fine.
by Robert Cleave on Jun 3, 2009 8:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn’t. The Coyotes just gave Ducky a Coyotes jersey with his number on it. Right now there are no jerseys retired or, indeed, honored in Jobing.com Arena for the obvious reason that there’s never been a Coyote worthy of it (excepting Shane Doan, and he’s still playing).
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jun 3, 2009 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amen. (Spoken as a still-bitter Expo fan who’s watched the Nationals try their darndest to wipe the slate totally, completely clean. So they can crap all over it.)
by dzuunmod on Jun 3, 2009 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know - the way the Nats have looked ever since the Lerners took over, I wouldn’t want the mostly-proud history of my team to be associated with them. ;)
You’re right, though, on the whole. The history of the franchise ought to be respected. I always thought the Habs were incredibly classy to raise that Expos banner at Bell Centre, keeping the baseball legacy of the city visible. The Nats should have put something similar in one corner of the outfield fence — it didn’t have to be much, and I’m not sure they even needed to keep the numbers retired. Just something to acknowledge that there was a predecessor club with worthy memories.
That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
by JoshCVT on Jun 4, 2009 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s one nice point in the whole thing though, you’re right: if I had to choose a storybook ending for the franchise post-Montreal, I couldn’t have done much better than what’s actually happened.
by dzuunmod on Jun 4, 2009 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
And don’t forget that Youppie is now the official Habs mascot, since the Expos moved away.
by Habs on Jun 4, 2009 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m glad he’s not wandering the streets panhandling and needing to sleep in a shelter at nights.
by J. Michael Neal on Jun 4, 2009 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There does exist an certain amount of revelling in Phoenicians' collective misery
To deny that requires blinders.
No matter how many Canadians do sympathize with the Yotes plight, there will always be a segment of the population who have no class about it. What I like about James’ site, is the relative absence of such people, compared to many sites.
Not every black person took joy in O.J.’s acquittal, and none but the most ignorant revelled in the deaths of Nicole and her boyfriend. The fact that many blacks cheered the initial verdict simply showed a widespread sense in the community that they had finally won one.
At the risk of drawing parallels between the plight of African-Americans for four centuries, to the Canadian sports fans of the last two decades (which would be, of course, ridiculous), I can understand the initial reactions of many Canadians who had witnessed 2 NHL teams, the Grizzlies, the Expos, and every AAA baseball team in the country (Vcr, Edm, Cgy, Otw) move south, in the past decade.
There was a strong contigient of Canadians who felt strongly that, finally, after so much perceived injustice, that we had finally won one.
I like to believe that that sentiment has subsided over the past month, replaced with a degree of empathy, but none of can can honestly argue that it has gone away completely. Very few of us could even contend that that opinion will ever go away.
I would love to see a seventh Canadian team, and if the Yotes are unable to sustain themselves, then maybe they should move. I would hope that that opinion is not interpreted as revelling in the Coyotes demise, but I do admit that such a wish should make me unpopular among Phoenix fans.
We need to better divorce our passion for the prospect of a new team, from our need to mercilessly point out the failings of the franchise. Conversely, Yotes fans need to recognize that for every ignorant, bile-spewing Canadian, there are hundreds er a hundred er dozens and dozens of us that feel your pain.
After all, we have been through it in every major city in the past 14 years.
R.I.P. Quebec Nordiques, Winnipeg Jets, Vancouver Grizzlies, Montreal Expos, Vancouver Canadians, Calgary Canons, Edmonton Trappers, Ottawa Lynx.
Get well soon, Phoenix Coyotes.
by TD O'Dell on Jun 4, 2009 9:27 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
