Philosophical Tension

Baltinglass Abbey, Ireland-trekearth

A recent Facebook update:

According to Wikipedia, it reads like my PhD issuing institution is growing considerably:

‘The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David (Welsh: Prifysgol Cymru, Y Drindod Dewi Sant) is a collegiate university in South West Wales, comprising the Lampeter campus and the Carmarthen campus. It is also in the process of fashioning a campus in London, England.[5] The University came into existence through the merger of the two oldest higher education institutions in Wales, the University of Wales, Lampeter (UWL) and Trinity University College (TUC) in 2010.[1][2] In 2011, it was announced that the University of Wales will also be merged into Trinity Saint David.[6][7][8]’

London would be quite interesting.

From

Zonenordiques

This is a French language site, that translates into English, out of Quebec, that is dedicated to news in regard to the likely return, according to media sources that report on hockey, within the next several years of the National Hockey League to Quebec City. Quebec lost its team to Denver, Colorado in 1995 due to an outdated arena, a weak Canadian dollar, and no suitable ownership. The owner was losing millions of dollars yearly and sold the club.

At the time I was very much opposed to the move. And even today I still reason that out of respect for Quebec and Canadian hockey fans, that supply most professional hockey players historically, and many today, the franchise should have been suspended even with a move. This would allow a hypothetical return and hope for supporters, rather than a devastating termination.

Forbes

However, the Colorado Avalanche are ranked number 18/30 by Forbes in the NHL for team worth/franchise value for 2013, with a profit. I do not reason that a market of less than one million in Quebec City would perform any better financially today, even with the better Canadian economy and stronger Canadian dollar, with the new arena that is scheduled for 2015 and with media giant Quebecor as the owner. Even with very likely more per capita hockey fans in Quebec City than Denver, I reason the markets are probably roughly equally viable today.

That is an example, by the way, of changing one's mind over the years, even when dealing with other premises and conclusions which support one's held position and somewhat patriotic emotions due to those sometimes annoying things in life called FACTS.

An example of philosophical tension.

Denver lost its first team, the Colorado Rockies, established 1976, yes like the baseball team, which was moved there from Kansas City and is now the New Jersey Devils, established 1982, but Denver is located basically in the Northwest United States, and is a city, with a slightly larger metropolitan population than Vancouver and does have a significant winter climate at times, making it a reasonable hockey market.

Some other moves and awards of new franchises by the NHL have been less successful which can be deduced by looking at the Forbes list where most of the clubs still lose money yearly.

From the article at Zonenordiques from May 31, 2013 Mr François Couture

Quote translated into English:

'It is clear that the NHL wants to be recognized as a major sport. And when you look at the map of cities represented, the NHL has more the air of the Northern League or National League Northeast that line!'

I have philosophically dealt with this issue on the blog on my post 'Why I Gave Up On The NHL'

There are reasons in my mind for this difficulty for hockey. This will be non-exhaustive and speculative, admittedly.

Northern weather is often naturally colder and more suitable for playing winter sports.

I reason, psychologically, and this is key, that most people if they have a choice would rather play and watch sports outdoors in sunny weather as opposed to being indoors.

This in my mind is something which will always be against ice hockey/hockey and the National Hockey League. The NHL can claim the sport is exciting or the most exciting all they want, but within management they are all virtually businessmen and former players and not academics, psychologists or philosophers. I reason persons in general would rather play or watch sports outside, especially in a sunny environment than being indoors.

And a philosophical note on what is 'exciting'. I reason that it is largely subjective. Someone that grows up used to hockey in Canada may view the speed and physical play as exciting where as someone from Alabama may see it as difficult to watch and boring and may instead view football as more exciting. Someone in Australia may view Australian Rules Football as far more exciting than hockey.

There is a distinct cultural perspective to what persons may view as excitement in regard to a sport.

But a businessman, and non-academic may completely miss this point. A businessman may see selling a sport like selling a product that is basically separate from cultural baggage.

This is a mistake in regard to professional sports.

Myself, when I lived in Manchester, England, I viewed Arsenal, Manchester United and Manchester City matches live, I had Arsenal away membership and Manchester United home, I will admit I was already a fan of football. However, subjectively, most of the matches were more entertaining than the Vancouver Canucks games viewed with season tickets. Yes, hockey is faster with more scoring chances in general, but it is also less controlled and more random. And, it is indoors, which in the end, for me personally does not compare to the outdoor experience, especially of a day game with the natural grass etcetera.

Therefore when I hear those in the NHL claim the sport is exciting as a claim for marketing the game in non-traditional markets I think it questionable.

Some will think so, some will not, but it is not an objective given.

But again I think overall, in the world of sports the preference goes to outdoor sports.

I do not think it any coincidence that the most popular professional sports in the world are UEFA football and the National Football League, both of which are played outdoors, the NFL mainly, and if played at night it is for financial reasons, as in obtaining larger crowds. But both sports have a culture, professional and amateur of day games in sunny conditions which largely built the sports.

This is a major strike against the National Hockey League. It can be somewhat overcome due to the interesting nature of the sport, but my point stands.

Notice the last few years the NHL has been presenting outdoor games...

In the United States of America, the National Football League, Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association are three major leagues ahead of the NHL in popularity. Baseball like football is played outdoors, and Baseball with a very strong daytime tradition. Basketball in an indoor arena game like hockey, but has a very strong outdoor basketball court tradition in America. So, although the professional game is played in the arena like hockey, the game is played by millions outside in the United States. The same cannot be stated for professional hockey as street hockey and ball hockey although similar to ice hockey do not necessarily equate in the same way, although I admit there is some crossover. For example, having excellent street/ball hockey skills does not guarantee one can play ice hockey, if one cannot skate! As well, street hockey is likely more of a Canadian and Northern American activity.

It should also be stated that in many regions of the United States, the NCAA is more popular that the NHL.

The article further states:

'If the NHL wants to be seen as a "National" league and a league "Major", it must include cities like Phoenix and Seattle within its ranks. I am becoming increasingly convinced that when the NHL has established goals for the future a few years ago, she noticed that she had holes in the West, there was a big imbalance in the provision of its teams. This imbalance must be corrected for the NHL to become Major and National.'

One of the major arguments for the NHL owner's support of Commissioner Gary Bettman is that he has increased the revenues of the League vastly.

I will take their word for it.

However, it is based on a minority of clubs very likely, if most of the teams lose money yearly, and most of the clubs are in what would be deemed more traditional hockey markets. A term I have heard Gary Bettman attempt to deny as legitimate, but I think this is questionable.

My take is that the NHL pie, particularly in the United States has become larger, but so have the pies of the other three major American sports, and the NCAA, plus Golf, plus the relative newcomer Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC).

Most of the clubs lose money yearly even though the size of the business, or size of the pie has grown. They are in more markets in the United States and receive more media coverage but they are still the third, fourth or more sporting choice in many markets.

Only 16/30 clubs make the playoffs yearly and there is only one champion. This means many teams will not have playoff revenue and many clubs will not be perceived as winners. Many clubs will not be perceived as winners in markets where the hockey team is not the first or second choice.

Therefore

This is not in my view a good way to brand.

A better way to brand is to primarily place clubs in areas where the hockey club will be the first or second sport with little competition unless in a very large city of ten million plus where a profit would be more likely and where there is plenty of media coverage.

Positive branding where a club is high up on the media ladder, financially viable with opportunities for successful on and off the ice, makes more sense than attempting with philosophical tension to place teams into markets in the hope that it may hypothetically work out.

It could argued the NHL is slowly becoming more of a major sport in the United than it was forty to fifty years ago.

Agreed.

But, I reason that better branding with more profitable franchises in more viable markets would assist with growth far more.

A successful second, or even third team in Southern Ontario, second teams in Detroit, Chicago, Montreal or a new Quebec Nordiques where the clubs would be very well supported in my mind would do more for the growth of the brand and branding than would be money losers and break even outfits in non-traditional markets that simply expands the NHL map West or South.

To be blunt, if there was a large enough arena on the south side of the Fraser River in the Lower Mainland-Fraser Valley, as in Surrey, Langley, Langley, Abbotsford close to Vancouver, it would be more profitable than many current NHL markets.

But that would not look 'good' on the NHL map.

Expanding the NHL map for the hypothetically huge American television deal which after forty five years still seems far-fetched.

The League has placed too much philosophical emphasis on the hypothetical possibilities of successful branding in new markets, where as the philosophical tension is that the more successful branding tends to still be in the North.

Quebec Nordiques-NHL

April 2, 2016

Update and another perspective:

I still reason the hockey business favours hockey markets, but reading and listening to more on building ownership I will add the following:

Basically it seems, if a sports team has a good stadium ownership or lease deal, it can stay in place even with a mediocre club and/or mediocre market for that sport. This allows a sports league to place teams in markets that are mainly theoretically good image wise markets (large population, large television market, corporate support), even if not very successful entities in the sport. Bad news if you are in locale or country that is not considered good image, even while a potentially profitable market. So with the NHL, Quebec City is considered by most observers a more profitable hockey market than Las Vegas, but I could see the reasonable possibility that Las Vegas being a major city for travel would have the more profitable arena. I would rather own the arena in Las Vegas than in Quebec City.