Just the name of this thread will quickly remind us that, back in Original Six hockey, there were twice as many teams in the USA (Chicago, Detroit, New York and Boston) than in Canada (Toronto, Montreal).

Bettman’s failure is not about whether Americans like hockey or not. It’s about where, in America, there are hockey fans (all those four cities are northern, winter cities).

Another aspect of the failure is the on-ice entertainment value. Even after the first expansion into the 1970s, there were still few enough teams that each team could amass an all star line of talent with multiple hall of fame calibre players (Canadiens and Islanders are prime examples of this). 

By the time of the late 90s, there were just too many teams, which sufficiently diluted the talent pool available to allocate to each team. A simple matter of too much supply of inferior skilled players, too many teams with perhaps one star all alone with no talent to help make it much fun to watch.

So, Bettman put teams in non-winter cities with too few quality players to maintain a standard of on-ice quality.

Meanwhile, hockey-loving winter cities such as Winnipeg and Quebec City lost teams, and hockey-rabid regions such as southern Ontario don’t have enough teams (Toronto could have three NHL franchises and they’d all make money - after selling out three 20,000 seat arenas, there’d still be a waiting list for tickets in this town, especially if any one of them had the gall to actually care about trying to win a Stanley Cup).

When NHL was at its height, with the 1994 New York Rangers following Mark Messier to victory and hockey was splashing all over Sports Illustrated front covers, expansion should have happened in a measured controlled manner, starting with a few northern teams that might continue to support at last a Batman & Robin type distribution of a couple of top starts for each team - that formula seems to work, whether it’s two scorers such as Lemieux/Jagr or a goalie/player combo such as Roy/Sakic or Brodeur/Stevens.

But, it didn’t happen that way. And here we are. 

And, having mentioned Toronto, I’ve got to say, here again is an example of why Mr. Bettman should be removed from the office of commissioner. Big cities can handle multiple teams - we’re all sports fans here so I need not list all the cities with more than one team within an hour’s drive of each other. Toronto Maple Leafs should not have been permitted to insecurely protect its territory - Bettman should have pushed for another team right in Toronto or as close to it as possible. Mr. Bettman should have given Jim Balsillie a big bear hug and thanked his lucky stars a billionaire winner would come along and say "I can put a team in the league in a region that loves hockey, and I can keep the bills paid and the lights on out of my own pocket if I have to. We can put that team in a region that will sell out for the next 100 years, and create a "subway series" in Toronto or a 401 (the highway) rivalry that will burn a new lane between Buffalo, Toronto, Ottawa and the new team. TV ratings will blow the roof off, and the mecca of hockey that Toronto thinks it is, if it has any pride at all, will put together a competitive team to stay on top of things."

Mr. Bettman’s business people should have advised him "Toronto is the media capital of North America after New York City. Chicago’s got Cubbies and White Sox, NYC has got Islanders and Rangers and Devils across the river within an hour’s drive from Long Island to New Jersey…Toronto can more than handle it." 

But, it didn’t happen that way, and here we are. 

If there are fans, that’s where a team should be. Green Bay WI is not New York City, but there are football fans up there, so the NFL finds a way to help that team remain viable. Mr. Bettman should go on commissioner weekend retreats and, while sitting around the campfire roasting marshmallows, ask "how can I apply what you guys do in the NFL to make sure there’s hockey in Winnipeg and Quebec City and more hockey in southern Ontario?"

But, evidently, he’s never done that, and here we are.

I’ve digressed a tad from the topic name, but one can’t help getting emotional and passionate about this game we love that our commissioner has ruined.

D&D’s Sports Talk. 

http://media.hamiltonspectator.com/acrobat/5b/f2/f6c09cde4e768c745dea00993243.pdf

[quote]Del Biaggio once claimed his shares included the right to buy out the other partners if certain financial obligations were not met.

That is crucial to any potential bid by Balsillie, who would need full control to take advantage of clauses in the Predators’ arena lease that allow the team to move by the end of the 2009-10 season if attendance targets are not met and the team loses a total of $20-million over three seasons.[/quote]

Ah, but when Balsillie puts that clause in, it’s "working against the rules" and "we don’t give up on NHL franchises or their fans."

 Got it.

A stalker rarely makes the lead, and seldom possesses a big late kick. They have the speed to stay close and pass tiring front runners, and can hold off the big closers that lag well behind. Stalkers can make the lead if no front runners are in the race. Prefer stalkers when numerous front runners are present, and without the presence of a strong and fit rally or closer horse.

Rally or closers are best when an abundance of early speed exists and are often victimized when a front runner is loose on the lead. Playing rally or closers is more precarious than horses with speed as they can run into traffic problems. And, statistics show that horses closer to the lead win the majority of races. However, under certain circumstances, closers are a very positive choice
———————-
BetAmerica offers great racing action from top thoroughbred and harness tracks all with FREE VIDEO.
—————-
thomas
————–
horse racing online-horse racing online