nyr7andcounting said:
but you can't argue that almost all of the arena is not sold for each game. Say whatever you want about fan support and attention to hockey in NYC and say whatever you want about the stands not being full, because you are right most of the time. But the bottom line is that each game almost all of the tickets are sold. but you as far as ticket sales go they are fine, even if it might not look like it.
How come the stands are filled in Edmonton, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, St.Louis, Vancouver, Minnesota, Columbus, Detroit, Philadelphia, Colorado along with several other markets small and large, win or lose but Madison Square Garden with the twelth hightest ticket prices and an 80m dollar all-star team is not filled win or lose, year after year?
To be honest your not giving me anything beyond Espn's link as proof the seats are sold and those numbers come from Dolan.
I think I'm making a very fair argument as to why the seats are not sold even beyond what I see at Msg for games. Which are the same problems you see at the Coliseum and the Meadowlands, it goes beyond winning or losing.
You can clearly make a better case for the Knicks who are the signature tennant with a bigger fan base for empty seats that are paid for, but not the Rangers.
http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/44768.htm
An hour after the Nets played their way into playoff position, the Knicks were playing themselves higher in the lottery and deeper into the depths of irrelevancy.
In a half-empty Garden — and that's being kind — the Knicks led 125-122 in OT before a 10-2 Hawks run proved their undoing.
Bottom line teams with these problems do not have their seats sold out in advance at those prices:
1. What the Msg ticket people have directly told me countless times about seats being available for practically any game in any section.
2. The constant ads for available tickets during Ranger telecasts.
3. The 60,000 tv rating per game, per home reported by Newsday.
4. Fan attention dictates interest in a team and the Rangers right now are the eighth team in this market with no radio or print media interest. The Nets and Red Sox have far better media attention now.
nyr7andcounting said:
The unfortunate thing is that as little coverage as the Rangers get in NYC, it's still more than most other markets. Yes, NYR is competing against other teams in their market for attention...but even though they are losing the battle they are still in better shape than most of the other NHL teams. Come up with as many problems as you want, there are more in other NHL markets.
The battle has been over for years. Baseball knocked hockey right off the map here as a major sport with the general public and owns the media on hockey's best day of the year.
Even other mainstream sports are struggling badly to keep up.
Please look at the Post today. The Nets got three articles in today's paper among the ton of Steinbrenner-Yankee-Mets coverage. When was the last time a Ranger game generated more than one article in a local paper when they played a game?
Larry Brooks did an article on the Mets, not the Hartford Wolfpack, which is what happens in other NHL hockey markets.
During the lockout I have seen the Nashville, Pittsburgh papers do regular updates on the team propects, players and the lockout. Philadelphia, Colorado, Boston all have full lockout and team coverage with player quotes.
Outside of Larry Brooks pro-NHLPA rants when was the last time you read a hockey article from him with an update or quotes from a Ranger player?
There is also the Garden's image and exposure problems which are getting worse:
http://www.nypost.com/sports/mets/44749.htm
Yesterday, MSG re-ran Saturday evening's "SportsDesk" every half-hour from 6 a.m. until noon. Saturday afternoon and then yesterday afternoon, MSG totaled four hours of time-buy infomercials. Unless one is in the market to purchase a collection of "Dean Martin Show" tapes, there's too often no reason to watch MSG Network,
flag or a 
flag? just wondering why there would even be a leafs flag 
