NHL Hockey in the Sunbelt?

A geography conundrum…. The articles below portray an interesting reason why the NHL should not site hockey franchises in places like Phoenix, Arizona, or in warmer climates in general, as there is just not the fan base. This has been noticed with some of the newer hockey franchises that have sprouted up over the years in the “sunbelt” (i.e. hockey teams in Dallas, Atlanta and Tampa Bay come to mind). Do all of these franchises do very well financially? Dallas may actually be one of the better ones financially. Maybe I’m missing something, or I don’t understand how the power of marketing can trump geography. Does the NHL believe that there have been enough people from regions with colder climates (i.e. Minneapolis, Chicago, Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Winnipeg, Montreal, etc.) that have migrated south to warmer regions and will continue to support hockey? Maybe more people have migrated south than actual census numbers show. Maybe less? On the flipside, can the same thing be said for baseball in the northern states with the cooler climates? Any thoughts?

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/news/0906/gallery.companies_going_bankrupt/

http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/the-morning-skate-how-did-the-coyotes-mess-happen/