This is the "Team Name Poll" thread. Somebody needs to start up the "Why NHL Hockey Ain't in Milwaukee and Why Comparing Hockey Participation Rates to Soccer Participation Rates and Whether That Has Anything at All to Do With the Viability of a MLS team in Milwaukee" thread somewhere else. I'm sure we'll all chime in when that thread is started and that it will be a fruitful discussion.
Why NHL Hockey Ain't in Milwaukee and Why Comparing Hockey Participation Rates to Soc Wow, that was magical. Who saddled me with the responsibility of having started this thread by the by? I blame CityIceMan.
ok, i'll play. when i worked for the Milwaukee Admirals in the early and mid '80s, there was only one H.S. hockey team (University School) in the area. The joke was, "who did they play against?" The sport has exploded throughout the area since then...on relative terms. The five county area now has 13 high schools playing boys hockey. i'm not sure how many play girls hockey. Compare that to soccer and it is but a blip on the radar screen. Participation does not translate 100% to spectator interest, but it is an indicator of the level of support the sport will receive. peter
The reason Milwaukee doesn't have an NHL franchise is because we have the Bucks and the UW Badgers hockey team has a strong statewide presence. Even before FSN North, they were covered on live TV.
Actually the reason MKE doesn't have an NHL team is because the Pettits believed the NHL was overcharging for expansion teams back in the mid-80s. Not that they couldn't afford it, bit it was more a matter of principle. The NHL was asking (and getting) more for an expansion team than existing teams were selling for. peter
So this thread actually has a life and is interesting, I knew I started it for a reason. The Petits sticking to principle leads me to this question and maybe I should know the answer, how much would the lowest priced MLS team sell for? MLS has stated at least, that it is charging a $15 million expansion fee and that that fee will be "increased substantially" after the end of the year. Would all current teams sell for above that $15 million mark and if so, when MLS raises the expansion price where will they have to keep it to avoid the very situation that the Petits didn't want any part of.
I had also heard that the owner of the Blackhawks, "Dollar Bill" Wirtz was against it as supposed infringement on his market
es verdad. Pettit and Wirtz had a falling out a few months into their minor league affiliate arrangement in 1985. peter
Isn't Milwaukee the most saturated sports market already for its size? Or second after CIncinnati or something like that. I can't help think about that. Of course, if soccer could become a focal point of the community that would help....but it seems like a stretch.
There's a few threads in the main expansion forum that have this info, but both of those are up there but a little behind others like Tampa and Pheonix primarily, and maybe Pittsburgh, maybe Denver (though they support their teams greatly), maybe a couple more.
A pro sports franchise isn't some sort of standardized commodity. I.e., there's world of difference between what it takes - in fan support, ancillary revenue, television dollars, what you need to charge for tickets, etc. - to be considered a successful NHL franchise versus a succesful MLS franchise. The Crew aren't exactly a "focal point" here in Columbus but, even in a bad year, I think the team's close to breaking even financially. Of course, owning one's stadium is key in that respect. The stadium not only allows the MLS club in question to maximize revenue (by being able to tap to match-day revenue streams and through control of scheduling - for example, I think the Fire's mid-week attendance numbers are, historically, about 30% lower than are weekend games) to an extent impossible when the club's a renter in someone else's stadium, but also let's the club pull in substantial amounts of revenue from other events; some soccer (MLS Cup Final, All Star Game, WC quals, college) some non-soccer (other sports, concerts, etc.). I don't think a Milwaukee MLS team would need to become huge in order to succeed. It would need to have its own stadium in the right location and would need to be well run (in many different ways), to be sure. But it wouldn't need to, say, displace the Brewers as the main event during the summer months.
Personally, I'm glad that Milwaukee doesn't have an NHL team. I enjoy going to the Admirals games for $ 15-17 much more than I do going to Blackhawks games for more $$$. For Thanksgiving, my family and I are taking in the Blues vs. Blue Jackets game in STL next Saturday night...$ 30 per person to sit 5 rows from the top of the Savvis Center to watch the two worst teams in the NHL "battle it out". Yikes. The things we do in the name of family bonding.
That was why Seattle and Hamilton fell by the wayside. Ottawa and Tampa got their teams because the prospective owners had the cash even when lacking appropriate facilities.
13...in the entire Milwaukee area? I never cease to be amazed at hockey's lack of popularity in Wisconsin. I've had 5 different roommmates from the other side of the border and none of them had ever been to a hockey game. I don't think the fact that the NHL hasn't been knocking on Milwaukee's door really has much relevance to how soccer would be supported there. It's just not a hockey city.
I recall thinking this same thing when we moved from Minnesota to western Wisconsin when I was a kid. Like all Minnesotans, I started playing hockey by the age of five... and assumed that this was simply the way the world worked. It was quite a shock when we crossed over the St. Croix River and almost no one played the game.
Hockey is a real expensive sport for high school athletic departments. Having only 13 teams in the Milwaukee area is not that suprising. Remember, the WIAA only started having state hockey tournaments in 1970 and Milwaukee has some pretty good Hockey clubs.
