Let me say one thing before I start getting my point across. Hockey is a fantastic sport. It's the best sport in the world in my book (Football/Soccer is in my book tied for first but it's the appeal of an average hockey game above an average football game that edges the scale to hockey's favor). So as the best sport in the world, it should be advertised as such and given to potential audiences for viewing pleasure. Hey you can't fall in love with something you never had a chance to see. And, as a hockey fan, I truly want for my sport to grow, hell I'd like it to grow to the proportions and popularity of football, the most popular sport world wide, even if that's not a realistic expectation for the exact reasons given here: http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/33475-The-Boylen-Point-Why-the-NHL-isnt-big-in-the-USA.html.

  Naturally, as a person that truly loves the game, I want everybody to love it as much as myself and every puck nut out there. So why am I so against Bettman's rather futile plan to plant the seed of hockey when there's clearly no interest. Actually, that plan is just the extension of a deal us hockey fans know pretty much everything about. The Gretzky trade. That trade did spark an LA franchise that actually had some NHL success, but it also created a mindset in the "governing bodies" of the NHL that hockey could actually grow in areas where you could see a pink elephant flying before you could see a kid playing puck on an ice surface.

  Let me get one other thing clear. The LA deal was a success mainly because Gretzky was, and still is (the author of this article would nominate Mario or Bobby Orr but that's another debate entirely) the greatest player to ever lace up the skates. And that made him a star. The kind of star that could draw crowds to the Staples Center and be right up there with the likes of Jack Nicholson. He had commercial appeal to that exact market just because he was the most recognizable person and most promoted person in hockey history. No other player would have done that for that franchise. Not even Marcel Dionne, Dave Taylor and Charlie Simmer, that famous "Triple Crown Line", did that to the franchise. So it's not only fair, but logical to conclude that Gretzky was about the only person that could make such an impact and since the Gretzkys of the modern era, Alexander Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby have more control over their hockey destiny (take Heatley vs. Edmonton for example) plus a hesitancy to move to non traditional hockey areas and the fact none of them have Hollywood wives gives one the right to easily state that no Gretzky trade is on the horizon. Therefore, the strategy to grow non hockey markets via acquisition of a superstar player in a cap era is about dead as can be. And that my friends, brings me to the main question of controversy here - can hockey thrive and be profitable in non hockey markets in a traditional sense?

No. No it can't. And it's not the sand of Phoenix, it's not the success of the franchise or the playoff appearances. No. it's much more simple than that. The lack of interest that is generated by either lack of favorable circumstances (The Pittsburgh Penguins wouldn't be the Pittsburgh Penguins at all if it weren't for the 1984 NHL draft and a special player called Mario Lemieux) or by all the points made by Rory Boylen of The Hockey News in the link in the first paragraph. Hockey is a rather expensive and selective sport (one must be a certain height, weight, the exceptions like Brian Gionta or Mike Cammalleri just prove my point), that requires a lot conditions to be played and so, not many of the people get a chance to enjoy it as players outside the traditional markets. I'd like to add that hockey is, unlike many other sports, a game that requires learining to properly watch it, cause the puck is small and people watching it for the first time or even first 100 games still get confused by its speed and puck tracing. And I agree, that is a big part of it, but consider this: I don't like football/soccer cause I have played it, although I did and still do, but because the game itself captivates me. The same is with hockey. It's not a matter of playing it professionally/or semi pro or heck, even playing it for fun. It's a matter of you seeing the sport for the first time and going wow. Look at them skate, look at this guy dangle, a huge hit. Anything. And if you don't get that spine tingling feeling the first time you watch it, you probably never will. And that's the basic problem in my book. People in Atlanta had the likes of Marian Hossa and Ilya Kovalchuk on their team, hockey has been shoved in their collective throat since 1999, and in 2006 they even clinched the first playoff berth and won the Southeast Division claiming the #3 seed and home-ice advantage in the first round of the playoffs. And despite all that, they can't manage to fill the arena.

  It's time for Bettman to realize that maybe, just maybe, hockey isn't for everyone. I really feel for the few and proud Thrasher fans, I really do. But there's nothing you can do. It's the law of numbers. More people like hockey in Canada or the traditional American markets making them a better fit for a hockey team. I support you in loving hockey, and being from Croatia, I know how hard it is for a puck lover to grow up in a place that knows not hockey. But is it fair for the numerous people and places like Hamilton, Quebec, Winnipeg and Hartford that are begging for a hockey team to stand by while the Thrashers play in front of empty stands and hollow cheers, admirable as they might be? And it's not like the non traditional teams have generated anything other than playoff losses (Carolina my hat goes off to ya), lack of revenue and financial trouble. So why insist on keeping them there? Why insist on the illogical? 

  Hockey is a sport that deserves crowds, momentum shifts generated by passionate fans to compliment the great game. Mr. Bettman, if I have to call you that, stop the nonsense. Hockey is begging for it.