Would Seattle Work for the NHL?

SEATTLE -- This lovely and affluent city seems on the surface to be natural hockey country. Seattle is about 115 miles from Canada, and it's a two-hour drive to Vancouver; it is a sporty, athletic town where people spend a lot of time indoors because of wet weather; and the only pro team in town during the winter now is the NFL since the NBA departed for Oklahoma City.

Plus, this was the first city in the United States to win the Stanley Cup -- the Seattle Metropolitans beat Montreal three games to one in 1917.

But Seattle, the 15th-largest metro area in the country, seldom gets mentioned as a potential NHL location. And there are plenty of arguments against it.

There is no venue, there are few community ice rinks and next to zilch when it comes to youth hockey, and Phoenix -- the 12th-biggest metro area in the nation and the fifth-largest city overall -- is on the brink of losing its team after losing buckets of money over the years. Long Island and Atlanta have been mentioned as shaky spots in the past week, too.

Those in the existing hockey establishment here, though, say that Seattle would be a fine spot for an NHL franchise.

"I don't see any problems with the NHL surviving here," said former NHL player Doug Soetaert, who is now the general manager of the nearby Everett Silvertips of the Western Hockey League. "It is viable, with a new venue. It's a big market with a vast population, a high income level and lots of corporate sponsors. It is absolutely a market that could support an NHL franchise."

There are also plenty of possible deep-pocket owners and a citizenry that jumps on board with vigor given a good product that elicits community spirit. The Mariners got a beautiful new stadium after capturing the town's imagination with a great playoff run in 1995, and the Seahawks have a sparkling, spiffy new building right next door.

"There's definitely a void here, but there's no grassroots hockey." "I think the NHL would work here, but you'd have to have a long-term plan," said Russ Farwell, who is the general manager of the Western Hockey League's Seattle Thunderbirds, based in nearby Kent. "The NHL would love to have this market. I think it would work. I believe it would work."

The best proof that the NHL might have a good shot to succeed here is the MLS Seattle Sounders soccer team, which has average crowds of more than 30,000 at Quest Field. They have shattered the league's attendance records.

"Look how this city has embraced soccer," Farwell said. "The people here have fallen in love with it. People are using soccer terms they didn't know a year ago, it's the trendy thing to do. They did a great job introducing the sport."

OK, so the Sonics -- a once-great franchise -- couldn't get a new arena here or get funding to update KeyArena, but that venue had been redone all of 12 years earlier, and the Sonics ownership wanted $500 million in public money.

That renovation was done with specific parameters, with former Sonics owner Barry Ackerley bent on preventing any NHL encroachment. The arena was left unsuitable for the NHL and the suitability in general for hockey was so poor, Farwell said, that it eroded the Thunderbirds' fan base, too, before the move to Kent.

The absence, at least for now, of the NBA could be an opening for the NHL.

"There's a large gap for the sports industry," said Soetaert, whose Everett club hosted a preseason NHL game between Tampa Bay and, yes, Phoenix on Sept. 22 that drew 7,300.

"There's definitely a void here," one Seattle sportswriter said. "But there's no grassroots hockey."

That's why Farwell said there needs to be more civic investment in the sport, period. In a metro area of 3.3 million, he said, there are four ice rinks, and none built in the past 11 years. Compare that to an area such as Dallas, which also had no hockey to speak of 15 years ago but which now has more than 20 rinks. Dallas also is producing some talent out of its youth programs: One of Seattle's best players, Farwell said, is Colin Jacobs, a 16-year-old center from Dallas. Farwell has never had a local player on the Thunderbirds.

Soetaert is adamant that the NHL could not work at KeyArena unless the building were drastically rebuilt, but he said that the area near Safeco Field and Qwest Field would be ideal. Seattle's location, meanwhile, would be perfect for a Pacific Division club, unlike, say, Hamilton, Ont.

"Vancouver is right down the road, and what a great rivalry that would be," he said. "And geographically, it just makes sense to have another team on the West Coast. If the NHL looks to expand, Seattle would be great."

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

10-06-2009 @ 12:09PM

Entity said...

Susan,

There are a couple factors you're leaving out in your argument that hockey isn't working in the 12th largest market (Phoenix), so it can't work in the 15th (Seattle).

First, the geographic area of the Phoenix metro area is roughly three times the size of Seattle (16,573 sq. mi./5,894 sq. mi.). That lack of population density, and the Coyotes insistence on locating the team in a suburb that is less populated and more difficult to get to, has been a contributing factor in the Coyotes woes. I realize they have always lost money (I went to college in Phoenix, and attended many a game at America West Arena), but attendance was remarkably higher than any of the games I saw in Glendale. You can chalk that up to a better product on the ice in Roenick, Tkachuk and Deron Quint (kidding) or you can use the central downtown location as a factor as well. AWA wasn't a good arena for hockey by any means, but its location was better than the current option.

Second, you can factor in population demographics. In Maricopa County, nearly 30% of the population is Hispanic. I'm not saying that Hispanics don't watch hockey, because I've seen more than a few at games, but I'd venture to guess that they are largely disinterested in the sport. King County, WA, sports a Hispanic population under the 10% mark.

Additionally, while there may be very little hockey groundwork in Seattle, there are some roots in the Northern Washington area to grow on. This is an area of the country which actually gets CBC programming OTA, so Hockey Night in Canada has been around for a long time. I'm sure the viewership base for hockey is much more established with Seattle residents than it was with Phoenix residents when the Yotes moved from Winnipeg.

All of this plays a role in the success of a sport in any given city. I'd put my money on Seattle being more supportive of the NHL than Phoenix has been, but there's probably a reason I'm not employed by the NHL, so take my 2 cents (alright, it was more like a dime) of opinion as you will.

10-07-2009 @ 11:23PM

claytor said...

I actually believe Susan was making something of a push for, and not against, Seattle earning an NHL franchise.

That being said, the observations are spot on, Seattle has always been a solid sports city, supporting woeful teams with the same sense as they do winners. The Sonics didnt move because nobody showed at games, they moved because Bennett wanted oodles of cash, and public dollars at that. A half of a billion dollars is nothing to scoff at.

Personally speaking, i think market size has little impact when compared to fanbase. It has to be, or Philly wouldve lost the Flyers eons ago, lol.

Bad joke, i know, just saying if you place a product in the realm of a fanbase more inclined to gravitate to it, itll blossom. Grassroots hockey would explode in the upper Washington area because kids would finally have local players to idolize, youd have an instant rivalry with Vancouver, AND be on the doorstep of the birthplace of hockey itself: Canada. Not poking fun at Phoenix's expense, but putting an NHL franchise there was akin to building a NASCAR track in wine country. Just a bad match from the get go.

10-06-2009 @ 1:08PM

Josh said...

Personally, moving a team here (note: NOT expanding the league. We need to lose teams, not gain them) makes sense. It's a great sports market (as evidenced in the article) and could create a great rivalry with Vancouver. Also, the West Coast is seemingly untapped compared to other leagues. The NBA has 4 teams in California alone as well as a team in Portland and, up until two seasons ago, a team in Seattle. The NFL has 4 teams and possibly another coming for Los Angeles. The MLB has 6 teams.

The NHL has 3 teams on the American West Coast. I think that they absolutely should look to move a team there. Possibly Atlanta or Florida. Of course, this would be dependent on getting a new owner who doesn't want to move the team to Canada (Which also should happen, I believe) so this seems unlikely for the time being.

10-06-2009 @ 3:47PM

StevefromSacto said...

As someone who fought years ago to keep the Capitals from moving (heard a lot then about how bad a place DC was for the NHL), I would hate to see Seattle get a team at the expense of another city and its fans.

If you really look at this quote about Seattle:
"It is viable, with a new venue. It's a big market with a vast population, a high income level and lots of corporate sponsors," you can say the same thing about Atlanta and several other cities that already have teams.

Winning is the cure for a lot of ills. Put a competitive team on the ice in Atlanta, and the fans will pack the place.

I would rather see us grow the sport than just play musical franchises.

10-06-2009 @ 9:23PM

You make a good point. Bandwagon fans can be a strong force. Look at Carolina and Tampa Bay. When the Canes and Bolts do well, they have loads of fans. They play even .500 hockey and those fans are gone.

Seattle is a strong sports city, though. It's a city where teams have dedicated fans even when their teams are doing bad and they have a group of fans who were alienated by the loss of the Sonics. The NHL and the NBA are pretty similar leagues, picking up those fans could be pretty easy for a potential team.

10-07-2009 @ 11:28PM

This is where i agree with Josh and the Colonial.

Made the same statement, Seattle has never had an issue with fan support, so much as owners clashing over monies with the local government for funding.

Even then the Hawks got a nice new field, the Mariners have dreamy spacious Safeco, theyd def give a serious run or thought at the notion of a hockey team to cheer for. If they moved after this season, i guarantee that issue about a youth movement would all but be a dream withing six years. They never deserved what the Sonics pulled, and being from Baltimore, i can relate to how it feels to watch a schemer move a club away because he couldnt line his pockets, er i mean get a new stadium. They spent millions upon millions in renovations a decade ago for the Sonics, and then wanted a new arena?

10-07-2009 @ 6:59AM

Colonial said...

I've been beating this drum for a long time.

Its sacrilege to say up here in Canada but, aside from a 2nd team in Toronto, I honestly think Seattle or Portland are the best options for the NHL. As much as everyone seems to love the Jets (in hindsight) they seem to be much better options than bringing back Winnipeg.

10-08-2009 @ 6:47PM

NYCGoalie said...

I've also beaten on this drum more than a couple of times myself:

1) History of hockey in the area
2) Natural rivaly with Vancouver
3) Lack of competition with the NBA
4) Many corporate HQ's (Costco, Microsoft, Starbucks, etc)

The reason the NHL is not in Seattle is not because it wouldn't work. The main reason is that no owner wants to tangle with a city that doesn't budge on money. They'd rather move into a small venue that gives them consessions (ie. - Kansas City) than deal with a stingy local government. With the lack of a national TV deal, consessions at the gate are something NHL owners fight for tooth-and-nail.

To build a new stadium out of pocket, to then be taxed up the ying-yang on top of it....you can start to see how few owners would think this is a viable situation.

And as for the whole notion of "there's no grassroots hockey here": There was absolutely no grassroots hockey in either San Jose, Nashville, Texas or Columbus either. Once NHL teams arrived, the minor and adult leagues began to flourish. Alabama-Huntsfille (which is not too far from Nashville) now has a Division I NCAA hockey team!! So the idea of "if you build it, they will come" is not that crazy.

To me, moving either the Coyotes or Panthers to Seattle would make so much sense. You just need the right owner and a City council who's willing to give some tax concessions to them.

10-10-2009 @ 2:53PM

killthief said...

I live in Seattle and would love to have NHL here! We definitely do have a promising market here. There are many opportunities for large sponsorships and I know there would be many fans eager to see hockey come to Seattle. We are right next door to Vancouver, and we are a big sports city (Qwest Field is the loudest stadium in the NFL... we create all those opposing team false starts!). I say we tear down the Key and put in some ice!!!

10-15-2009 @ 12:23AM

Isaac said...

I understand this is rather late for a comment, but I just read the article because of a recent spark within me to bring back basketball and hockey to Seattle. Anyways, Susan Slusser, YOU ARE AN IDIOT! The grassroots of Emerald City hockey goes deeper than any other city, seeing as we have the very first championship in NHL history. Write articles regarding something that you actually know about next time you try and objectively cover a topic!