I dunno, I think that seems like the common American cultural oversimplification that letting feds do stuff is automatically wrong.

Dozens of countries probably federally patrol their water borders perfectly well. Americans just often assume state and local control is better, even if it often isn't any more efficient or effective.

Often in stuff like this the city and state are forced to share responsibility because the feds are wildly and purposefully underfunded.

"Everywhere" has, at best... serviceable pizza. Everywhere does NOT have Great pizza. Only the northeast has Great. Simple fact.

Haha, gotcha. Yeah the Quebec example is like saying "Championship level teams in England get good turnout why doesn't the USL" 😜

And I'm sure you're logically right about the level of skill in the AHL but it's still 'minor league' in America and likely perceived as such, as minor entertainment.

Also of course an NHL team is a pipe dream, and needs a lot of fortuitous luck. But to say it isn't "deserved" because of apathy based on up-to-this-point mediocre college and AHL teams... is a stretch, IMO.

Lol okay but that's an AHL team in Quebec. You have got to see that as an outlier.

I think it's underestimating interest though, if the only metric is 'interest in things other than Pro teams'. I mean, c'mon, the CT Sun sold out their playoff games. Pro has extra panache.

If NYC only had AHL teams, you can bet people would be going to Broadway or smorgasburg or whatever else instead.

That seems harsh. I don't think people were unaware, it's more that guaranteed, top level, NHL talent only recently started playing college games here. UConn hockey led the conference in attendance last couple years, did they not? QU and Yale have always been solid.

I don't think you can count sound tigers and wolfpack games. They are fun diversions but AHL atmosphere is nothing compared to the NHL. Can't say CT doesn't deserve NHL because they don't have some sort of rabid AHL fanbase, because show me an AHL team who does...

Yeah but the other school is douchey and overpriced.

It sounds like they're trying to sell you on the 'all wheel drive' not the 'all weather tires' as what will keep you from needing snow tires. You can pretty much only buy a car with 'all seasons' on it so they don't really need to sell those to you.

If they're trying to say 'with AWD you can save money by not buying/swapping snow tires each winter', well, that's really debatable. As many have said, the Subaru AWD will drive OK in bad conditions as long as the all seasons have tread... but dedicated winter tires will still be an upgrade in a variety of ways. Maybe you can get away with not putting snows on a Subaru when you basically HAVE to put them on a 2WD sedan... maybe you can't... but I would not take the salespeople at face value on this.

I know I personally drove a Subaru for years with only all seasons. It was better than a Honda Accord with all seasons, because I wouldn't get stuck on hills, but nowhere near as good as a Subaru with Winters which wouldn't sideslip... and stopped in time.