Ahem, “evidence-based claims” like your assertions regarding VAN, CAL and EDM? Right. They performed dismally in every respect, but they were still okay because, well, EVERYONE was still so interested.

[rolls eyes]

Here’s your disconnect:

1) Vancouver and Calgary didn’t even necessarily need to build the fanbase up in terms of loyalty to the team, because they already had an inherent hockey-centric culture in the area. They already had kids playing hockey, they already had rinks, they already had plenty of interest in hockey. Thats a cultural thing that is a large strength to Canadian franchises, because it helps them ride out tough times, because of loyalty and inertia towards supporting hockey in all its forms, including major leagues. The thing is, the two of those are not relevant comparisons to Phoenix in this instance, because (as Jibble is saying), part of the strategy with moving into markets with next to no hockey culture whatsoever should’ve been a long-term (very long-term) aim of cultivating that hockey culture, which is your fan base for a hockey team.

When the Coyotes got to town, they, just like any of the other southern expansions during that time, should’ve known they didn’t have a pre-existing fan base to see the franchise through tough times like EDM/VAN/CAL did. They needed to succeed first (and for longer than marginal success over 5 years) and they needed to manually build that culture and fanbase. The problem is, they never built that fan base, and the team completely face-planted and didn’t have a fanbase to help push it back up. Until that fan base is created, which is a 20+ year process, a franchise in the area will not be able to face-plant for very long, or it won’t get back up. It is wrong to dismiss the fanbase, such as it currently is, for not supporting that franchise, because that fanbase was never given a chance to grow.

2) 5 years of making the playoffs wasn’t much success. Remember, you had a solid handful of teams like Calgary, Vancouver, Columbus, etc. that had taken up permanent residence in the Western Conference basement. Realistically, it should’ve been something like 10-12 teams competing for 8 playoff spots. Besides that, maybe I’m remembering it through the red and white colored glasses of a 13 year old Wings fan at the time, but what did they do when they made the playoffs anyways? All I remember is that weird goal where Fedorov dumped it, it bounced off the boards, hit the goalies skate, and went in. I don’t remember the Coyotes of that time as anything more than cannon fodder for Dallas/Detroit/Denver in the first round. Furthermore, the kind of success needed to help build that franchise was not just make the playoffs and expect everyone to shell out cash for tix, but to consistently make the playoffs, have some serious runs, and to grow the sport locally. I can’t speak to what the Coyotes did to grow the sport locally, and increase the visibility of hockey in general, but I think I can say that they never came up with any memorable playoff runs or even fantastic series. One thing that helped San Jose succeed so much was some early playoff success, and failing success, at least putting up a hell of a fight.

3) I have a special place in my heart for Edmonton, because they blamed the Canadian dollar for all their problems before the lockout, and since the lockout, with the exception of a lucky SCF run, have pretty much proved that Kevin Lowe and everyone else in management still couldn’t win, because they still don’t have a clue what they’re doing. Given that they weren’t very good before the lockout, and they haven’t been very good since the lockout (except for about 3 very well-timed months), maybe its fair to say the team actually had a problem that went further than the Canadian dollar. Besides, after they nuked a dynasty, if I were a fan, I’d be pretty pissed off too. It’d be like if the Wings traded Lidstrom and Yzerman for Hal Gill and Rico Fata. To my way of thinking, almost all the problems Edmonton has ever had since they traded Gretzky lie solely on their shoulders. If I were an Oilers fan, I’d tell ‘em to fuck off too. Even still though, the big difference here is that, like with VAN and CAL, even if the team hadn’t been there long (like in the Senators’ case), the hockey culture already existed. That culture and fanbase never existed in Phoenix, but it exists everywhere in Canada. That is an advantage every Canadian franchise has, and one that many US franchises do not, but it is not truly indicative of the success of a non-traditional US market, if the market hasn’t even had a fair chance to build that culture.

4) Again, you’re running into the same issue. Buffalo in particular, being so close to Canada, has significantly more influence from Canadian culture than Phoenix does. Its more of a traditional market, even if it is a smaller one. There is some amount of hockey culture there, and the team existed for several decades before hitting some very hard times in the early 00’s. They had an existing hockey culture, and they were able to build on it for a very long time. Then, when the franchise had trouble, they were able to use that culture to help get them through it. Pittsburgh is similar, in that they had an awful long time to build some hockey culture. Especially helpful in that regard was actual playoff success and having some star players. Winning Cups and having stars like Lemieux and Jagr goes miles in building those fan bases. Phoenix has had neither, which doesn’t make the process impossible, but it doesnt make it harder and longer.

Ultimately, the bottom line is that Phoenix is not really comparable to any team north of probably San Jose/Nashville. When you get north of that, you’re mostly working with locations that had inherent hockey interest and often teams with long term presences in their areas, creating fan loyalty across generations. It appears from your arguments that the Phoenix market is a failure (at least so far) because they have not created a complete team-sustaining hockey fanbase in their first 13 years of existence, the last 6 of which have been marred with a lockout and a downright awful team, for whom all excuses for failure have been removed by parity and cost certainty under a salary cap, while the first 6 were of very moderate and not very memorable success in an area that was just discovering hockey. I think Jibble and I are both contending that it takes significantly longer than that to build the fanbase, and that you can’t properly judge the market because the fanbase was never properly built by the team. Further, comparisons to other areas with already established (PIT/BUF) or inherent (Canada) fanbases are invalid, because its apples to oranges.

Really? In what sense has the Bruins’ ownership, or the Leafs’ ownership, or the Canadiens’ ownership, or even the Hawks’ ownership, ever lived on the edge of bankruptcy? Even when they aren’t any good at building winning teams, the Original Six teams don’t have any trouble attracting ownership that are properly capitalized. When was the last time the Rangers saw a circus like the clown car that is the Tampa ownership?

… in the definition of “strong owner”. I don’t view a strong owner as one who seeks to maximize immediate profit, or one with deep pockets and not much else; rather, I see a strong owner as one who seeks to build a winning team on the ice, and a larger and more passionate fan base in their home city.

By that definition, the Pre-Expansion Six teams have one strong owner, three middling-to-weak owners, and two new owners whose commitment has yet to be tested.

Pittsburgh is neither a very large not a very wealthy market. It’s got inherent strengths that Phoenix doesn’t have, but it isn’t my idea of a particularly strong market.

So, Gerald, which large market ownership groups have been as weak as the ones in Phoenix, or Tampa? Surely, since you’re prepared to shoot your mouth off like this, you can make a case, right?