NHL to KC?

Hockey in Kansas City has roughly the same lifespan as a popsicle in Hades.

 

I thought they had been around longer, but still they have a long enough history, I think, to be considered at least partly historic.

 

I don't think Kansas City can support the NHL, but I suppose it's possible. After all, back in the 1980s, the old Kansas City Comets of the MISL drew more than 15,000 regularly to Kemper Arena. Whose to say an NHL team - run properly which the Scouts, Kings and A's weren't - couldn't succeed there?

 

Any franchise that has struggled like the Royals won't "draw flies." If/When Kansas City starts winning again, Kauffman Stadium will average at least 30,000 a game. While the Chiefs are kings in KC, Kansas City is at heart a baseball town.

 

What we do know is that it would be successful and supported in Southern Ontairio so why would you even run the risk?

 

In this study, KC was among the most overextended sports markets, looking at personal income required to support a team:

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/2006/0213/sports_overextend/5.html

 

Would you consider it possible that the 23/24 owners of U.S. based franchises would prefer to keep the team out of a hockey-mad market because they know that putting a team in Hamilton would put upward pressure on the salary cap?

Because seriously, how would moving a team to Canada benefit, say, the San Jose Sharks at all?

I know it's maybe a little nuts, but just for the consiracy theorists to chew on.....

 

KC is sports mad and any kind of decent team is going to do OK there. The Royals attendance isn't good, but you would expect a team to do worse after so many 100-loss seasons. In 2003 when they were somewhat competitive you had mid-week sellouts on week nights in September.

As far as the Scouts go, is any city in the U.S. the same today as it was 30 years ago? Just because the NHL didn't work in the 70s doesn't mean it wouldn't work there today.

Filling the building won't be the problem for the NHL in KC. THe problem is going to Kansas City won't do anything to help the TV ratings in the U.S., but then neither would any available market in Canada.

 

the NHL board of Governors must be some stone cold idiots or they just don't care.

 

KC won't be able to support it over the long haul. There's not enough money there to support the Chiefs, Royals, KU/KSU/MU and hockey, mainly because of the ticket prices. It'd be a novelty item for 3-5 years.

If the Royals were committed to winning, the town would support it. Seven years ago the team's outfield was Beltran, Damon and Dye. All three were gone within a few years and the fans have little confidence the team wants to compete. But there were times in 2003 when they'd have 20,000 walk-up buyers.

 

Insert Quote
In this study, KC was among the most overextended sports markets, looking at personal income required to support a team:

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/2006/0213/sports_overextend/5.html

Did you notice the #3 market most ready for a pro sports team? Hartford-former home of the Carolina Hurricanes. There is a ton of corporate money in place, is a larger TV market than KC and there is talk of a new downtown stadium.

 

I don't think it's nuts at all.

Bettman has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't want another team in SW Ontario.

Remember, he's totally US centric when it comes to the NHL, despite all evidence to the fact that it would work in Hamilton.

Remember when Fox had their Saturday games of the week after the all star break? In the however many years they had the rights, they NEVER showed a game featuring a Canadian team. Never.