Winnipeg?

Related to The Globe and Mail has a nice compilation of prevailing views on future NHL expansion, and whether Winnipeg would make the cut. (I'm with Shoalts.)

The Emergence of "Traditional" Hockey Markets?

One aspect of hockey's appeal, for some (Montreal Daily Star, Mar 8, 1923) 

A common criticism of the NHL's southern strategy - the post-1993 push to expand the league into the Sun Belt associated with league commissioner Gary Bettman - is that it is folly to extend a winter sport with only regional support in the United States into areas where winter means a few days of the year when you have to put on a sweater if you go outside. Most recently, the focal point has been Phoenix, a desert oasis where even Wayne Gretzky could not make hockey popular, or at least profitable.

The history of the league shows that all you really need is artificial ice technology and a developed consumer market - how else can you really explain the early success of NHL hockey in places like New York City, where there were probably no more than a few dozen amateur hockey teams when the NHL moved to town in 1925? Or Toronto, where artificial ice was a requirement before the NHL's predecessor would make a commitment? Or Los Angeles? These cities show the real reason for the NHL's success (or lack of it), was primarily customers willing to pay for the on-ice product, which was novel, fast, and yes, just a wee bit violent (but, unlike boxing, the violence was in pursuit of a more noble goal (scoring goals) than beating another man senseless).

Hobey Baker would be proud

Nonetheless, throughout its history the NHL has recognized the importance of developing the sport outside its own clubs. Initially, this took the form of supporting the creation and development of minor professional and senior amateur leagues (and keeping them at bay, in some cases). The league also directly subsidized the American Hockey Association of the United States (AHA of US, now USA Hockey) as it did the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association (now Hockey Canada), but at relatively low financial levels. But while amateur hockey in Canada has continued strong through the decades, providing the core of NHL playing rosters, the United States has never quite lived up to its potential. Part of the problem was the NHL's refusal to entertain the idea that college could be good for professional player development, but that has changed in recent decades.

What prompts me to post on the subject is a recent set of New York Times articles (here, here and here) by Jeff Z. Klein that show that hockey participation is "skyrocketing" and experiencing "explosive growth", especially in non-traditional markets in the American South and West. Klein suggests the proximity to NHL clubs has contributed to this growth, which has made hockey into "a national game" (according to the executive director of USA Hockey, anyway). (For a cool cartographic representation go here.)

This gives credence to the NHL's policy of "growing the game" which, while a longstanding historical wish for the league, has certainly become more intense and committed under Gary Bettman's tenure. And while previous US expansion was geared almost exclusively to obtaining national American TV contracts, the NHL is getting some support for the risks they have taken by putting clubs into markets to develop interest (and create hockey players) and not waiting for those markets to develop a taste for ice on their own. In short, they are actively helping create hockey markets. One day we may even start calling them "traditional".

Apologies

Apparently the blog was hacked in the last few days. I hope I have solved the problem. Sorry for any inconvenience.

The Federal Arena

Updating my last post, the Globe and Mail reports on the temptation to use federal government money to suport hockey and football stadiums....will it happen? And if so, who else will be lining up at the trough?

Language and Hockey, the Canadian specifics

Today, a Globe & Mail editorial took on the Parti Québecois criticism over the Montreal Canadiens and their lack of French-Canadian (read Quebecois) players. When I was scanning the papers yesterday it seemed to be an English paper thing – I didn’t see it in any of the French language newspapers at all, although today I see Le Devoir used it to frame their article on the Habs' Quebecois prospects. The Journal de Montréal also contributed, noting that there has been some criticism from other (unnamed) sources in the last few months. The issue has also pushed Geoff Molson, lead owner of the Habitants, to say he wouldn’t stand in the way of the return of the Nordiques.

I've written about (mis)historicizing the Habs before, and the Globe & Mail editorial repeats a few of the annoyances that I like to take issue with. The first is minor: not including Howie Morenz on their list of non-French Canadiens stars. Morenz was the greatest star of the 1920s and early 1930s, and shows that the Habs always had prominent non-French players. (Tangent: I recently taught my 21-month-old son to chant “’Oww-ee, ’Oww-ee” on the way through Mitchell, Ontario.) The second and more important myth is the 1955 Richard Riot is good example of how “linguistic tensions have played a role in the Habs’ history.” Benoît Melancon’s excellent book The Rocket: A Cultural History of Maurice Richard shows how the linguistic/political aspects of the event were at best uncertain at the time, and that its relevance to the Quiet Revolution was revised over time to create a usable past (check out this interview with the author).

If you want real relevance to linguistic tensions, then focus on the 1976 election of the PQ and the subsequent Canadiens-Nordiques rivalry, which split fans along federalist and nationalist/separatist lines (and more importantly for some, divided them according to the beer they drank, Molson’s (the Canadiens owners) or Carling O’Keefe (the Nordiques owner)). Ken Dryden’s The Game discussed this from a player’s point of view, and Rick Salutin’s play, Les Canadiens, puts this period in a larger context of Quebec history.

The issue that the PQ might want to address is probably the real reason that the Habs are no longer a team of French character – the decreasing participation of Quebecker in the NHL in general. As mentioned in one of the articles, no Quebec-developed player was chosen in the first two rounds of the 2010 NHL draft. That’s an ominous sign, I think, of a failure in the player development system (if, as the PQ implicitly suggests, success is defined as playing in the NHL). I admit there is a whole other kettle of fish to consider here, namely the possibility of discrimination against Quebeckers in the NHL (see Marc Lavoie’s work, among others), but my point is that while the Habs could maybe be doing a better job scouting Quebec Junior B, they don’t control the whole system anymore like they did in the 1950s and 60s, the heyday of Richard, Béliveau, and Plante (and Harvey, Moore, and Lach…).