(02-12-2013 06:55 PM)rayeates Wrote: I still say that a place that barely has snow should NOT have an NHL team!!!
(02-12-2013 07:27 PM)wickabee Wrote: I disagree. Texas and SoCal actually have some pretty deep hockey histories of their own. Nashville has really seemed to embrace the team over the years. 2 teams in the Greater LA area do not too badly. Snowbirds from Canada have been able to sustain Tampa, though not Phoenix. Florida Panthers fans are responsible for a rule about throwing copious amounts of crap (mice) onto the ice after a goal. The fact they come and go based on the team's performance has nothing to do with where they are. I seem to remember a team having to move to the sunbelt because a snow covered wastland couldn't be bothered to buy tickets anymore when the team sucked.
Hockey belongs wherever there are people.
(02-12-2013 07:34 PM)mswatson Wrote: I pretty much agree, but you have to see the irony on putting a hockey team in a place where an inch of snow closes the government, all businesses and sends people to the grocery store for milk and TP.....
(02-12-2013 07:41 PM)wickabee Wrote: Oh absolutely, but are you going to tell me Dallas shouldn't have a team?