From: wilson@cs.ucf.edu (tom wilson)
Subject: Tampa & Miami
Organization: University of Central Florida, Orlando
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 12:00:35 GMT

I am absolutely amazed at the thought processes behind some of this
expansion bashing, but perhaps I'll shed a little local light on the
matter. First, I haven't heard much news outside of what's on the net and
it's hard to say what is news and ranting on this expansion topic. I'm not
going to pretend to defend Tampa against 100,000 Tampa haters. I just happen
to live down here.

1) Since Tampa was announced as a new NHL city, people have been bashing it,
mainly because their opinions are that hockey doesn't belong down here. Why?
Who knows. Plenty of people play hockey down here, on and off the ice. Just
'cause the locals didn't invent it doesn't mean they don't play it. Why did
Tampa and Ottawa get teams? Because they were willing to fulfill the promise
to fork over $50M. Miami backed out if I remember correctly. I didn't say the
cities had the money, just that they would get it. Evidently it was payed.
The lack of the promised arena is a different matter that has just arisen and
has nothing to do with the previous bashing. Thank God the team got off to a
good start so that most people shut their mouths. Now that the team is losing,
I'm sure everyone is picking relocation cities. I will admit that the number
of people with football-mentality grossly outnumbers the hockey fans here.

2) Now Miami has been granted a team and they are an automatic success! Even
further south but that's ok. Why? The owners have money. That will make people
like the sport, huh? No that's a reason for the south-bashers to accept the
situation. Believe me, Miami will have a harder time getting fan support than
Tampa. Why? The northern retirees that everyone admits are down here, don't
flock down to Miami. What's down there? A lot of crime, immigrants from less
exciting countries, hurricanes (not the team), and everglades (ooh skeeters).
I've been to Miami twice, and I don't really like going. I have a similar
aversion to New York (the crime aspect). What's Tampa got going for it? Well,
where the rink is now is only 1 hour from that other Disney (you know the
bigger one - Disney World) as well as a jillion other tourist traps. Tampa
has many too (Busch Gardens - now why didn't they get the team).

3) Why did Miami get a team? Money behind the owners? That's part of it. When
Gil Stein was down for Tampa's opening night game, he said on TV that expansion
would come to the south and the likely candidate was Miami. Now either he had
already been talking to the current owners or the general plan was there.
Why down there? To put another team in the area. For the tons of fans? Not
likely. For the same reason San Jose got a team - to support the lone team
for miles around. This make traveling for opposing teams easier since they can
play two down here instead of just one. Sounds dumb but it's a money thing.
For the same reason, I think expansion will hit Texas (possibly Houston, I
think Atlanta is out since they had their chance and they have a new minor
league team). The league wants to expand to 28 teams and they would like them
to be as stable as possible with teams in nearby areas.

I guess I only have questions left.

What is it that people have against Tampa's team? Hockey shouldn't be down here
is a dumb reason. They haven't sold out every game? Well this is cause for
concern, but I don't think you relocate the first year. They don't have an
18,000 seat arena? Well, San Jose still seems to playing in the same arena
as last year. If Tampa's not filling the little one, why rush to build the
big one (just a sarcastic question)? Other cities deserve a team? Why? Just
'cause they are "up north"? What a stupid reason! Perhaps the fact that a
city has supported minor league teams or some such would be a good reason. I'm
sure this applies to some places (sounds like a good reason to leave the minor
league team there though).

Why is Miami bound for success without even selecting a team, let alone playing
a game, while the reverse is true for Tampa? I guess the owners will buy
players and fans with all that money. Maybe they will buy the refs to make the
team good just in case.

Finally, why is it not ok to have teams in supposedly "non-hockey" areas?
I understand the disadvantages associated with the locations, but why condemn
the teams before they even play?

I don't have a problem with Miami or Anaheim getting teams. I like the reasons
people have given for "accepting" them into the narrow spectrum of where it
is ok to have teams. The Miami award was paramount in Tampa's survival.
Likewise, Miami will have the same difficulty if Tampa folds and relocates.
I don't see the Anaheim award as critical, but it can only help the two teams
in the general area.

The next two expansion locations have to consider, above all else, long term
stability of the league. This means another team will need to be added out
west to allow Winnipeg into the Norris where it belongs. If Toronto is moved
as people say, the other team could be anywhere in the eastern US or Canada.
As much as people don't like it, I think a team in Texas would be the wise
choice. Not because I want hockey there, but to make travel easier on the
teams that are traveling to Florida (particularly from the west).

Tom
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey