From: allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Tampa & Miami
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:37:44 GMT

wilson@cs.ucf.edu (tom wilson) writes:

>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.

Both Hamilton and Florida had good bids for francise expansion. (Strong
backing, good season ticket base, etc.) However, they wanted to change
the payment schedule for the francise fee. (They HAD the money, they just
wanted to structure the payments differently.)

Ottawa and Tampa Bay did NOT have a very good bid; however, they claimed
that they would make the payments on time, have the required number of
season tickets, etc. So, the NHL went with their bids. As it turns out,
they were late with payments, didn't have the financial backing they promised,
lacked arena facilities, etc.

The Compuware and Tim Horton's deals would have been stronger bids, except
they made a mistake - they were honest. And of course, Buffalo didn't want
Hamilton to get a team, but they didn't want to out-right veto their bid,
so they had to convince other teams to make the rules non-friendly to
a Hamilton team; hence Ottawa and Tampa got teams.

>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.

I have nothing against the Tampa Bay TEAM. In fact, I am impressed with
their great start. I EXPECT new francises to be awful, and then build
up to a competative team. However, when a city is awarded a new
expansion team, you should expect that the team will get enough support
until it becomes competative.

>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).

If Tampa Bay can't fill a small 10,000 seat arena (with all the excitement
which surrounds a new francise), then there is cause for concern. Hamilton
deserved a team more because: They had guaranteed 16,500 season tickets,
they already had an arena (Copps), and they had good financial backing
(Tim Horton's Donuts).

Canadians fans are more likely to support a hockey team. (Look at Quebec;
they had the worst record in the NHL for years, yet they did better than
many teams with better records.)

>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.

Miami has better financial backing than Tampa. Blockbuster Video can help
pay the team's bills while it is a young, struggling francise. And there
is also the marketing ability of Blockbuster.

>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?

Because there is more of a chance that the team will fold. Because fan support
may be too low to support a team when they are not playing well. Look at
the LA Kings; before Gretzky, they were struggling. (Can you say 'California
Golden Seals'?)

>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).

I've never heard of Toronto moving. Seems quite unlikely to me. They may
get a bigger arena, but I doubt the Leafs will go to another city.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey