Top Hockey Towns

[Sotnos]

I mean, IIRC, at Tampa's victory parade/celebration, they had 30,000 fans come out.

You say this like it was a bad turnout. It was in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, with like 2 days advanced notice. I was able to get the day off work, but if others weren't so lucky they'd have had a hard time getting there unless they worked in downtown Tampa. That is not to mention that it was an incredibly hot day to be standing on pavement for several hours when it was being televised on every station in town. It was a very good crowd & a great event.

I'm not arguing "hockey town worthiness" or whatever, because it's a stupid topic IMO, but you weren't presenting the whole picture here.

 

[Injektilo]

You say this like it was a bad turnout. It was in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, with like 2 days advanced notice. I was able to get the day off work, but if others weren't so lucky they'd have had a hard time getting there unless they worked in downtown Tampa. That is not to mention that it was an incredibly hot day to be standing on pavement for several hours when it was being televised on every station in town. It was a very good crowd & a great event.

I'm not arguing "hockey town worthiness" or whatever, because it's a stupid topic IMO, but you weren't presenting the whole picture here.

alright, fair enough. I was just using it as an example to point out that being a big market has nothing to do with how big a hockey town you are. I mean, I don't think there can be any debate that Montreal and Toronto are the two biggest hockey towns out there, but that's based on far more than just attendance and revenue in general.

 

[Phanuthier*]

You say this like it was a bad turnout. It was in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, with like 2 days advanced notice. I was able to get the day off work, but if others weren't so lucky they'd have had a hard time getting there unless they worked in downtown Tampa. That is not to mention that it was an incredibly hot day to be standing on pavement for several hours when it was being televised on every station in town. It was a very good crowd & a great event.

I'm not arguing "hockey town worthiness" or whatever, because it's a stupid topic IMO, but you weren't presenting the whole picture here.

Not to start a war or anything, but if one were to compare Calgary vs. Tampa Bay, Cagary's event was also in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, with a day's notice.

Not to knock Tampa fans or anything. Much better then Canuck fans

 

[Mountain Dude]

You say this like it was a bad turnout. It was in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, with like 2 days advanced notice. I was able to get the day off work, but if others weren't so lucky they'd have had a hard time getting there unless they worked in downtown Tampa. That is not to mention that it was an incredibly hot day to be standing on pavement for several hours when it was being televised on every station in town. It was a very good crowd & a great event.

I'm not arguing "hockey town worthiness" or whatever, because it's a stupid topic IMO, but you weren't presenting the whole picture here.

It was in the middle of a work day here in Calgary as well, we got 100 000.

 

[X0ssbar]

I've lurked here for quite some time, but recently registered to answer a Canes specific question.

Anyway, I'm very entertained at the preoccupation of contraction discussions that occur over and over here.

I don't doubt that there is some generally agreed upon 'best hockey town' list. The top half will largely stay the same regardless of what snapshot is used. The middle and bottom would probably change to some extent over different periods of time.

Anyway, for those that would like to see a 24 team NHL or a 20 team NHL.... Would the perceived "increase in talent" draw enough fans to the game (I presume we're talking general interest and viewership) to counter the tens of thousands (100s?) that lose their teams? How is this better for the NHL?

The cities at the bottom of that list are either cities that have a history of hockey, but have gone thru recent pain (Buffalo, Pitt) or are new cities that are seeing the hockey interest just begin to grow at the grass roots which should pay off as the fanbase gets more mature (Atl, Carolina). I'm just not sure how removing up to 1/3rd of your franchises is better for the game. Anyone?

Thanks.

Completely agree - good post.

The only thing I want to contract are these contraction threads.

 

[canes-sth]

Shocking. More hockey fans in Calgary than in Tampa. So what?

 

[Dadof5boys]

Completely agree - good post.

The only thing I want to contract are these contraction threads.

 

[jacketracket*]

You would be crazy to eliminate the Islanders. Can someone tell me what the only team in the U.S. to win 3 or more cups in a row? The Islanders. The fans on Long Island are very passionate. Huge Fan base as well.

11. Los Angeles
15. Columbus
17. Calgary
18. Chicago
19. Edmonton

Those teams deserve to be there? Chicago? Calgary? Because they had 1 fluke Stanley Cup run. Please.

Im not a contraction proponent, and so I'd never suggest that any team "deserves" contraction over another.

I do find it interesting that the CBJ ranks 15th in the league in ticket revenue over the last 4 years, while finishing at the bottom of the Western Conference each year and not drawing any playoff revenue.

IMO, that's pretty impressive for a new market.

 

[X8oD]

You say this like it was a bad turnout. It was in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, with like 2 days advanced notice. I was able to get the day off work, but if others weren't so lucky they'd have had a hard time getting there unless they worked in downtown Tampa. That is not to mention that it was an incredibly hot day to be standing on pavement for several hours when it was being televised on every station in town. It was a very good crowd & a great event.

I'm not arguing "hockey town worthiness" or whatever, because it's a stupid topic IMO, but you weren't presenting the whole picture here.

Detroit had 2 days to plan theirs...

The first time they pulled out almost 3 million, the 2nd and 3rd time it was 1-2 million.

 

[jacketracket*]

I love seeing Columbus on the list though.

Just curious ... in a good way, or bad (as in they should be contracted)?

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

You say this like it was a bad turnout. It was in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, with like 2 days advanced notice. I was able to get the day off work, but if others weren't so lucky they'd have had a hard time getting there unless they worked in downtown Tampa. That is not to mention that it was an incredibly hot day to be standing on pavement for several hours when it was being televised on every station in town. It was a very good crowd & a great event.

I'm not arguing "hockey town worthiness" or whatever, because it's a stupid topic IMO, but you weren't presenting the whole picture here.

I don't think those facts detract from the original poster's point, though. This was Tampa's first Cup. In a market of 2.2 million people, they drew 30,000 (some estimates actually had it even lower at around 20,000). By way of comparison, for the Avs' first Cup, the estimates for the parade in Denver were between a quarter and half a million people. And that's in a market that is currently the same size, 2.2 million (and it was obviously even smaller back in '96). It was also in the middle of the day, it had the same short notice, and it was also very hot that day, and pretty uncomfortable... I can attest. I too am not being critical; I'm just pointing out that there are in fact significant differences between markets when it comes to passion and interest in the game. The parade in Tampa was a fairly small gathering, with a large portion of attendees seemingly consisting of people who happened to be downtown anyway. The feeling in Colorado couldn't have been more different... it was as if the entire six-county region came to a halt. And you most likely didn't even have to worry about getting off work, because chances are your boss was taking off too.

 

[Sotnos]

I'm very tired of people bringing up the parade for the umpteenth time as if it means something, but the fact remains that there were a lot of factors that kept people away. The people I saw certainly didn't look like they 'just happened' to be downtown for it, but think what you like, I only live here.

If you all want to think that makes this market inferior in some way, be my guest(s)!

(The crowd for the Buc's Super Bowl parade was estimated at 100K, so I guess it's a bad football market too!)

 

[Boltsfan2029]

You say this like it was a bad turnout. It was in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, with like 2 days advanced notice. I was able to get the day off work, but if others weren't so lucky they'd have had a hard time getting there unless they worked in downtown Tampa. That is not to mention that it was an incredibly hot day to be standing on pavement for several hours when it was being televised on every station in town. It was a very good crowd & a great event.

I'm not arguing "hockey town worthiness" or whatever, because it's a stupid topic IMO, but you weren't presenting the whole picture here.

Don't forget the 15,000+ people inside the building, many of whom skipped the parade in order to get good seats. It's also a shame the Canadian television broadcast of the game didn't show the outside of the building during Game 7, where 30,000+ people were crammed watching the game being broadcast onto the outside wall of the arena's adjacent garage (and there were only 30,000 because the police had to seal the area & turn people away for fear the plaza would collapse from the weight, as it is built over another underground garage).

So, yes, Calgary had us beat on parade attendance. 100,000 greeting their team is, indeed, impressive. Congratulations to them!

 

[Dave is a killer]

I don't think those facts detract from the original poster's point, though. This was Tampa's first Cup. In a market of 2.2 million people, they drew 30,000 (some estimates actually had it even lower at around 20,000). By way of comparison, for the Avs' first Cup, the estimates for the parade in Denver were between a quarter and half a million people. And that's in a market that is currently the same size, 2.2 million (and it was obviously even smaller back in '96). It was also in the middle of the day, it had the same short notice, and it was also very hot that day, and pretty uncomfortable... I can attest. I too am not being critical; I'm just pointing out that there are in fact significant differences between markets when it comes to passion and interest in the game. The parade in Tampa was a fairly small gathering, with a large portion of attendees seemingly consisting of people who happened to be downtown anyway. The feeling in Colorado couldn't have been more different... it was as if the entire six-county region came to a halt. And you most likely didn't even have to worry about getting off work, because chances are your boss was taking off too.

yes and the Colorado Rockies became the New Jersey Devils ... so whats your point?

 

[Boltsfan2029]

I'm very tired of people bringing up the parade for the umpteenth time as if it means something,

Aren't they going to determine contraction by parade attendance?

 

[Terrier]

Well, to be fair, in Boston and Chicago, it has more to do with the horrible owners than the lack of interest. If both teams had new owners, interest in the clubs would be greater.

I'll vouch for Boston. The Bruins don't sell every single seat, and the mere mention of the owner's name elicits thunderous boos, but they do have a decent TV following and a great radio signal, certainly compared to the basket case that is the Blackhawks. Plus, Boston is a market that also supports four Division I teams just in the city alone, and the number of high school teams in the state is just about equal to that of Minnesota.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050216_150213_2824

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

I did a composite ranking of revenues and attendance (averaged over the past 4 years) - I think this is a pretty good proxy for the top hockey towns:

1. Toronto
1. Philadelphia
3. Detroit
3. NY Rangers
5. Montreal
6. Dallas
7. Colorado
8. Minnesota
9. Vancouver
10. St. Louis
11. Los Angeles
11. San Jose
13. Tampa Bay
13. Ottawa
15. Columbus
16. Boston
17. Calgary
18. Chicago
19. Edmonton
19. New Jersey
---------------------- Above is what a 20-team league might look like
21. Washington
22. Florida
23. Buffalo
24. Atlanta
---------------------- Above is what a 24-team league might look like
24. NY Islanders
26. Pittsburgh
26. Nashville
28. Phoenix
29. Carolina
30. Anaheim

can't base it solely on attendance...is Dallas a better hockeytown than Edmonton?
given they got the Cowboys, and Mavs there, I think its number 3 on their list. In Edmonton, the Oilers are number 1.
same can be said about Philly...do fans care more about the Flyers or the Eagles?
what about New York? Yankees or Rangers?

Buffalo is more of the hockey town than New Jersey.

 

[ceber]

Who gives a crap how many people show up to a parade?

What counts is how many dollars people are willing to spend on a team. Haven't you guys been paying attention? The number of fans is meaningless. All the NHL and the NHLPA cares about is the number of greenbacks coming in the door. 15 rich nutjobs willing to pay a fortune for luxury boxes and have their companies fight over marketing space on the boards makes for a better hockey market than a 150k passionate, middle-class fans fighting to the death over season tickets as far as the people involved in this league are concerned.

I might be a little bitter.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Who gives a crap how many people show up to a parade?

What counts is how many dollars people are willing to spend on a team. Haven't you guys been paying attention? The number of fans is meaningless. All the NHL and the NHLPA cares about is the number of greenbacks coming in the door. 15 rich nutjobs willing to pay a fortune for luxury boxes and have their companies fight over marketing space on the boards makes for a better hockey market than a 150k passionate, middle-class fans fighting to the death over season tickets as far as the people involved in this league are concerned.

I might be a little bitter.

I hope you are joking....

give me passionate fans anyday (Oiler games) then guys in suits going to games (Leaf games)...than we know who willing to pay more NHL hockey

 

[ceber]

I hope you are joking....

give me passionate fans anyday (Oiler games) then guys in suits going to games (Leaf games)...than we know who willing to pay more NHL hockey

Sure, that's what YOU might prefer. Are you running the show though? If only...

The owners and the players don't care about the passion of the fans. They care about the size of the fans' wallets, and how much lighter they are at the end of the season.

 

[shOOt_the_mOOn]

The only teams that should even be considered for contraction are the teams that can't compete in the market place.

I'm not a big fan of profit sharing. That just means someone who owns a better franchise is always going to have to share with the owner who barely squeaks by.

If a salary cap is what's needed to help out these smaller market teams, fine.

But if an owner still can't make a go of it after implimenting a salary cap linked to revenue, they don't belong in the business.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Sure, that's what YOU might prefer. Are you running the show though? If only...

The owners and the players don't care about the passion of the fans. They care about the size of the fans' wallets, and how much lighter they are at the end of the season.

... unfortunatly...

Just to note, I am not in favour of contraction. Yes, I think there are too many teams in the league for the current talent level of the league and yes I think it was a mistake to expand to certain cities, but contraction does nothing to help the game. It can only do harm.

 

[regehr]

Nice work, Regher.

One question. If you knock out last year's cup run, what does that do to Tampa's numbers?

If you ignore last year, Tampa would fall, but only slightly - down to between Boston and Columbus.

 

[regehr]

You would be crazy to eliminate the Islanders. Can someone tell me what the only team in the U.S. to win 3 or more cups in a row? The Islanders. The fans on Long Island are very passionate. Huge Fan base as well.

11. Los Angeles
15. Columbus
17. Calgary
18. Chicago
19. Edmonton

Those teams deserve to be there? Chicago? Calgary? Because they had 1 fluke Stanley Cup run. Please.

The Isles have a great history, as does Pittsburgh - no question. However, the track records for the franchise (Isles) over the past 10-15 years has not been good. The proposed improvements to the arena might help their revenues, which is good. Whether it is enough, I don't know. This was an objective look at the viability of today's NHL's franchises by looking at revenues (quelled from various sources and averaged) plus attendance (actual sales, not percentage) over the last four years. So, the low placement of the Isles reflects their more recent bad times - a longer timeframe would probably raise their standing. But, this reflects fairly accurately the last four years.

 

[regehr]

I've lurked here for quite some time, but recently registered to answer a Canes specific question.

Anyway, I'm very entertained at the preoccupation of contraction discussions that occur over and over here.

I don't doubt that there is some generally agreed upon 'best hockey town' list. The top half will largely stay the same regardless of what snapshot is used. The middle and bottom would probably change to some extent over different periods of time.

Anyway, for those that would like to see a 24 team NHL or a 20 team NHL.... Would the perceived "increase in talent" draw enough fans to the game (I presume we're talking general interest and viewership) to counter the tens of thousands (100s?) that lose their teams? How is this better for the NHL?

The cities at the bottom of that list are either cities that have a history of hockey, but have gone thru recent pain (Buffalo, Pitt) or are new cities that are seeing the hockey interest just begin to grow at the grass roots which should pay off as the fanbase gets more mature (Atl, Carolina). I'm just not sure how removing up to 1/3rd of your franchises is better for the game. Anyone?

Thanks.

There are a number of arguments that people typically forward when talking about contraction. It is not a subject that people can look at objectively since nobody wants to see people lose their team. However, the expansion into non-traditional hockey markets does a few things that impact the league as a whole, but the effects are inter-mingled and difficult to pinpoint: 1) fewer games among regional rivals, since they have to play all the teams in the league; 2) takes fixed pool of high-end talent and spreads it over more teams (this is the talent dilution argument); 3) #1 means less viewership on TV, which means a lower national/cable TV deal; 4) #2 leads to a more defensive style of play which also impacts #3; 5) more teams in low-revenue markets means you need a larger revenue sharing pool to subsidize them; 6) more teams means each teams share of revenue, TV deals, etc is less; I could go on and on. But there are many reasons why people come back to contraction as a part of the solution to hockey's ills.