March 5th, 2013 at 1:05 PM ^

I think the Flames moving were more of a relocation than trying to get out of Atlanta, because they were quickly replaced. The idea behind the Thrashers is that all of the Northern people that have moved to the Atlanta area (there are a TON) would want to watch the games. The big mistake is that they played at a location downtown that was harder to access for most of the demographic that they were trying to reach. An arena in the north of the city would have worked fine. (One currently would bring the Hawks a Ton of attendance as well). The only reason for a lot of people to watch the games would be if their favorite northern team was playing the thrashers. For example, the Red Wings game every year, there was A LOT of red in the building, and most of them were from the Atlanta area. I think hockey can exist in Atlanta, just depends on the success of the team, and the location of the arena.


March 5th, 2013 at 3:31 PM ^

The big mistake is that they played at a location downtown that was harder to access for most of the demographic that they were trying to reach. An arena in the north of the city would have worked fine.

I'm skeptical of the idea that the Thrashers' problems came down to a poorly-located arena.  If you're a diehard, you'll find a way to go to the games.  I'd bet that the average Red Wing fan has a drive of at least 30 minutes to get to the Joe (it's an overwhelmingly suburban fanbase), but they deal.

I think Atlanta is just like a lot of Sun Belt cities - it's hard to sell a cold-weather sport to an area that doesn't get that cold.


March 5th, 2013 at 6:45 PM ^

I sort of agree but would like to point out that Atlanta has entirely different traffic dynamic than Detroit does.  People in Atlanta try to avoid dealing with it if at all possible.  Once they've gone downtown for their workday, they don't want to go back.  And I would very much doubt the "at least 30 minutes" figure for Detroit.  It definitely doesn't take half an hour to get downtown from Downriver or Macomb County.  The average fan probably has a 20-minute drive.

Diehard fans I agree with; clearly the Thrashers never had many.  But it's a little unfair when they'd been in town for 12 years and the Wings have been around for four or five generations.  Atlanta's not a real great sports town due to all the imports, but a team needs a little time to take root.  As in, kids have to grow up with the team, which means you need a lot longer than what the Thrashers had.


March 5th, 2013 at 9:18 PM ^

You hit the nail right on the head.  The traffic flow is crazy.  That is why the minor league hockey team (Gwinnett gladiators) has found reletavily good attendence because the arena is well north of the city. The diehards will do anything to attend the games- the thing that the Thrashers always lacked was that steady stream of parents taking their kids to the game that you see at other games.  It just wasn't ever there for the thrashers.  It makes we wonder how teams could be successful in Nashville and Tampa, but never in Atlanta, which kills those two population wise.  

In Atlanta you are starting to see that new generation of fans take root with regards to the Falcons and Braves, which are insanely popular right now.  The city has that "buzz" around those teams if you know what I mean. 


March 5th, 2013 at 8:30 AM ^

Outside of hockey, it seems like the Hawks, Falcons and Braves have also had tough times selling out consistently for 30 years.  There have been some good teams playing during that timespan as well.  Maybe it's been longer than that but I didn't have TBS until the mid 80s.  Excuse me, WTBS.


March 5th, 2013 at 12:57 PM ^

The braves were poorly attended in the post hank Aaron and Bobby Cox era. You couldn't give tickets away. But Cox came as manager in like '87, and the Braves made the playoffs every year from I think 1990 until 2006. Braves are huge, and so are the Falcons. Sellout almost every game that isn't against Carolina. The Hawks struggle with attendance.


March 5th, 2013 at 2:18 AM ^

Like the unis for flash for a program with little history and wants to stand out ala Boise State.  I know we have a traditional uniform but countless kids have said "that helmet" drew them to Michigan at first.  The helmet is "flashy" (for its time) so we could have been accused of the same thing decades ago ;)  

A shade or two lighter and the orange would be quite awful, very "highlighter" coloring but just evades that.  (and yes I realize we have some uniforms that are walking highliters as well)  A bit brighter than the Begnals unis but the obvious different being the same colored pants versus black.

Did Nike really do the logo? Or was that an internal thing - it looks silly, like a beaver pug :)  


March 4th, 2013 at 10:43 PM ^

I was never big on their original uniforms.

Then I saw the first one and I was like, Ok, no mutilation yet. It's teetering on that line.

Then the 2nd and 3rd picture came up and I vomited everywhere.


March 4th, 2013 at 10:53 PM ^

I guess this is what a middling program without history, tradition, or identity located in Nike's backyard has to do to compete with Oregon.


March 5th, 2013 at 9:53 AM ^

Perhaps you need to learn your history.  They started playing football only 14 years after Michigan in 1893.  They have the 7th oldest college rivarly in football against Oregon in "The Civil War".  To say they have no history or tradition... you sir need to get off your high horse.

Ali G Bomaye

March 5th, 2013 at 11:58 AM ^

Most D-1 teams started playing football in the early 1900s.  When someone says a school has "no tradition," that is usually taken to mean that they have never been consistently competitive and relevant, rather than to mean that they literally have not been around for very long.

Oregon State had a grand total of three top-10 seasons prior to 2000 and has only won one Rose Bowl (in 1941).  Saying they have a football tradition is like saying Temple has a football tradition.


March 4th, 2013 at 10:54 PM ^

They're generically terrible, but nothing appreciably worse than what Nike-das churns out on average.  At least Oregon State is not wearing Zanga jams, and as we all well know they will never ever be the ugliest or most odious OSU in the country no matter what they wear.