Back and Forth between Yahoo! and WSH

[lanky522]

repenttokyo wrote:

i would think that the greatest factor keeping hockey out of the north and mid west would be low population density,

really? Let\'s take a closer look at this...

- Edmonton, Alberta 2,847.4/sq mi density (1,081,300 metro population)
- Ottawa, Ontario 1,309/sq mi density (1,168,788 metro population)


- Omaha, Nebraska 3,370.7/sq mi density (829,890 metro population)
- Kansas City, Missouri 1,406.6/sq mi density (1,947,694 metro population)
- Milwaukee, Wisconsin 6,214.7/sq mi density (1,964,744 metro population)
- Indianapolis, Indiana 2,152/sq mi density (2,014,267 metro population)
- Portland, Oregon 4,199.17/sq mi density (2,159,720 metro population)
- Seattle, Washington 7,085/sq mi density (4,038,741 metro population)

Now I\'m not picking on the Canadian teams... I just chose the easiest teams to make a point... I don\'t think that the population or population density is really the issue. I don\'t know what all the talk about kansas city is for anyways... I mean I suppose if you include the Kansas side of the city, the above population numbers would be higher, but seattle, portland, indianapolis, and milwaukee would be other decent destinations too (especially considering that Missouri already has a NHL team in st. louis whereas Washington, Oregon, Indiana, and Wisconsin do not).

Just food for thought. I\'m not saying that any of these cities would be off the bat as supportive of an NHL team as edmonton and ottawa, but it\'s just an interesting to look at the actual populations in contrast...

[repenttokyo]

If Edmonton didn\'t exist, and someone talked about expanding to there now, I think you would get the same argument- not dense enough population. In Canada, hockey fans tend to be superfans, and that has worked out for edmonton - would that be true in Kansas or Portland? I don\'t know.

Ottawa is a special case, because it\'s the nation\'s capital and it has a history of stanley cup winning teams dating back 100 years.