Whom do you cheer for most... the players or the team?

[Roots73]

So it seems that this lockout has reached phase 2 with the owners threatening to use replacement players and the players threatening to start up a new league.

The owners are banking on the hope that the fans will back the franchises, some that have stood for decades, and in some cases have become a sporting tradition where families have cheered the same team for generations.

Meanwhile the players feel that the fans won't watch second and third tier replacement players playing in the "premier" hockey league in the world. They would rather watch the stars of the game exhibiting their skills in a player built league.

I know this arguement is alot alike the "Chicken vs the Egg" theory but it brings me to my question. As a hockey fan, which has a greater priority over what or who you cheer for. Do you cheer for the skillful player?? Or do you cheer for the team and what their monicker stands for??

Click to read more...

 

[Tinordi24*]

I hated Dale Hunter until he came to the Caps..then he was my fav player.

I loved Scott Stevens when he was with the Caps..but then he went to St Louis and I could have cared less what happened to him.

When the caps jettisoned 90% of their players at the end of last season and signed waiver wire scrubs I cheered for them and forgot about scrubs like Jagirl and the Goocher.

Its all about the logo baby!

 

[Scoogs]

First, I'm a fan of hockey.

Second, believe it or not, I am a fan of the NHL. The history behind it is too much to ignore if you are a hockey fan.

I am a fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs. And every year I want the franchise to win a Stanley Cup (no jokes please ). If that we to happen, I would say "THE LEAFS WON THE CUP"... Not, "SUNDIN WON THE CUP!"

 

[MarkZackKarl]

This is a stupid question.

The teams and players are intertwined ,you cannot separate the two by idiotically saying 'I cheer for the logo!' or 'I cheer for the players!'

The logo has no meaning withotu a player to fill it. If you only cheered for the logo, and the players did not matter ,than you would be willing to spend 90 dollars to stare at a Leafs or Sens jersey lying on the ground for 3 hours.

Only delusional fans convince themselves that the players on their home team (Or their favourite team) have no bearing on them watching the games... most because of an irrational and petty jealousy against the players that provide them with excitement.

Most fans on here, ridiculously, would rather suppport Eugene Melnyk or Ed Snider DEPRIVING THEM COMPLETELY of hockey than the players getting a fair deal.

But with clowns on here that believe that their ticket prices are based on payrolls, I guess it makes 'sense to them'. But who should care what they think anyway, if they dont even understand basic concepts.

So all in all, this question is moot, because the things aren't really separable.

 

[canucksfan]

Team comes first then the players.

 

[pacde]

This is a stupid question.

The teams and players are intertwined ,you cannot separate the two by idiotically saying 'I cheer for the logo!' or 'I cheer for the players!'

The logo has no meaning withotu a player to fill it. If you only cheered for the logo, and the players did not matter ,than you would be willing to spend 90 dollars to stare at a Leafs or Sens jersey lying on the ground for 3 hours.

Only delusional fans convince themselves that the players on their home team (Or their favourite team) have no bearing on them watching the games... most because of an irrational and petty jealousy against the players that provide them with excitement.

Most fans on here, ridiculously, would rather suppport Eugene Melnyk or Ed Snider DEPRIVING THEM COMPLETELY of hockey than the players getting a fair deal.

But with clowns on here that believe that their ticket prices are based on payrolls, I guess it makes 'sense to them'. But who should care what they think anyway, if they dont even understand basic concepts.

So all in all, this question is moot, because the things aren't really separable.

Depends what you call a fair deal. Two way linkage sounds fair - one way doesnt. Linkage to league wide revenue sounds fair - linkage to team wide revenue doesnt.

As for the intertwining of the jersey and the player, in small part you are right. Just like the intertwining of the Toyota and the Japanese engineers that built it ... I pay for the Toyota because they have good engineers... but I dont care who they are. I follow the highs and lows of my team, not the highs and lows of any player on that team unless they happen to retire there and have their jerseys hung from the rafters - in that case I make an exception. Curiously though, it seems to me that all of the people in that position that have spoken out are on the side of the owners. It an interesting mix, I go to the game to watch my team and watch the game - yeah the players play that game and when terms are good, Im interested in them - but when they move on, I dont care really.

 

[Leafer4Life]

I cheer for my favorite team, the leafs! Players do come and go, but I will be a fan of the leafs team forever, no matter who plays for them...........

 

[Scoogs]

This is a stupid question.

The teams and players are intertwined ,you cannot separate the two by idiotically saying 'I cheer for the logo!' or 'I cheer for the players!'

The logo has no meaning withotu a player to fill it. If you only cheered for the logo, and the players did not matter ,than you would be willing to spend 90 dollars to stare at a Leafs or Sens jersey lying on the ground for 3 hours.

Only delusional fans convince themselves that the players on their home team (Or their favourite team) have no bearing on them watching the games... most because of an irrational and petty jealousy against the players that provide them with excitement.

Most fans on here, ridiculously, would rather suppport Eugene Melnyk or Ed Snider DEPRIVING THEM COMPLETELY of hockey than the players getting a fair deal.

But with clowns on here that believe that their ticket prices are based on payrolls, I guess it makes 'sense to them'. But who should care what they think anyway, if they dont even understand basic concepts.

So all in all, this question is moot, because the things aren't really separable.

How can you say that? Answer this question. Do you like the Senators? Or the players playing on the Senators?

It's not a stupid question. Because like said, players come and go. So if a certain player were to leave a certain team, a fan wouldn't be a fan anymore? It's not the case. The team isnt just a logo. It represents the city you live in. You want your city to win. Right?

 

[MarkZackKarl]

waste of time

The PLAYERS On the team REPRESENT the CITY on BEHALF of the ORGANIZATION.

A logo has no brand recognition or meaning without the status of housing the world's best hockey players. It is absurd and inane to try and separate the two anyway.

The Leafs logo means nothing if there isn't the NHL/premier hockey league/best players brand/recognition attached to it.

The city takes pride in watching ELITE hockey and an ASSEMBLY of some of the best players in the game, not because it says Tampa Bay Lightning on a crest... its far more than cheering your town... because a 'team' is not tangible, it needs to have personnel to exist.

So stop deluding yourself and trying to separate the two. Of course people are going to answer I support my team over an individual player. But the whole premise of your poll is ludicrous.

The TEAM they cheer for is made up of PLAYERS. They cheer for the ASSEMBLY of players IN CONJUNCTION with the team to provide them with entertainment/distraction/civic pride etc.

Once again I bring up the logical (what a concept eh?) point: IF the players really didnt matter, and fans were indifferent between the players, then each market could charge high prices (relatively speaking) irregardless of the product put on the ice, because fans would be cheering for the jersey (what ever the hell that is supposed to mean) and would be indifferent to what return they got out of attending an NHL game.

Also, the owners would have no necessary incentive to house the best players and compensate them accordingly if the fans didnt care who the players were... They would hire cheap labour to maximize profits, seeing as if the players really didnt matter, than fans would be willing to pay the same price (what ever that may be) to watch an 'NHL' game.

 

[me2]

Most fans on here, ridiculously, would rather suppport Eugene Melnyk or Ed Snider DEPRIVING THEM COMPLETELY of hockey than the players getting a fair deal.

I'm 100% behind the players in their quest to get a fair deal. It just happens their idea of a "fair deal" is not in the ballpark of what almost everyone else thinks is a fair deal.

If the players take the owners last offer then we get hockey, Melnyk gets some profit and the players get a fair deal. The players don't want a commonsense fair deal.

I think what happened is when the players went to look up the word "fair" they got the wrong meaning and instead of "Being in accordance with relative merit or significance" took it to mean " Of pleasing appearance".

 

[MarkZackKarl]

owners doing everything wrong but still getting all the support

What was the NHL offer? Honestly, could you actually find any concrete effort on their part to table a full CBA proposal of course not... stuff like deferred arbitration possibilities, QO that could retain a player for less than their previous salary, etc... stuff that made no sense whatsoever, a non flexible cap below the league average last year that does not fluctuate no matter how much revenues increase (although it does not decrease when revenues decrease, but the NHL , even in 'dire' times has seen positive revenue growth each year for decades...)

Basically the owners shut down the game, are trying to implement a system that is bad for fans and bad for players, and have not negotiated in good faith whatsoever during the entire OWNER IMPOSED LOCKOUT that is causing us to miss our favourite sport. Yet the majority still supports them... Guess my theory on the 'masses being stupid' is holding true yet again. What a pathetic reality.

 

[BLONG7]

What was the NHL offer? Honestly, could you actually find any concrete effort on their part to table a full CBA proposal of course not... stuff like deferred arbitration possibilities, QO that could retain a player for less than their previous salary, etc... stuff that made no sense whatsoever, a non flexible cap below the league average last year that does not fluctuate no matter how much revenues increase (although it does not decrease when revenues decrease, but the NHL , even in 'dire' times has seen positive revenue growth each year for decades...)

Basically the owners shut down the game, are trying to implement a system that is bad for fans and bad for players, and have not negotiated in good faith whatsoever during the entire OWNER IMPOSED LOCKOUT that is causing us to miss our favourite sport. Yet the majority still supports them... Guess my theory on the 'masses being stupid' is holding true yet again. What a pathetic reality.

You forgot to take your meds today, didn't you...

 

[mytor4*]

my team could dress a team full of monkeys and i would still cheer for them over the players ass.can't wait for replacement players to come.before long the players won't have a spot to come back to as it will be permently taken up by a little less talanted players but a player twice as hungry.

 

[djhn579]

What was the NHL offer? Honestly, could you actually find any concrete effort on their part to table a full CBA proposal of course not... stuff like deferred arbitration possibilities, QO that could retain a player for less than their previous salary, etc... stuff that made no sense whatsoever, a non flexible cap below the league average last year that does not fluctuate no matter how much revenues increase (although it does not decrease when revenues decrease, but the NHL , even in 'dire' times has seen positive revenue growth each year for decades...)

Basically the owners shut down the game, are trying to implement a system that is bad for fans and bad for players, and have not negotiated in good faith whatsoever during the entire OWNER IMPOSED LOCKOUT that is causing us to miss our favourite sport. Yet the majority still supports them... Guess my theory on the 'masses being stupid' is holding true yet again. What a pathetic reality.

Your opinion of doing everything wrong and other peoples opinions about doing everything wrong seem to differ. I'm not a lawyer, though I sometimes try to play one on hockey message boards, but based on the reading I have been doing the NHL has done little wrong (at least on what has been made public...). The NHLPA can try to make a case on some minor issues like one minority owner that did not attend any of the relevant meetings talking about using replacement players, but the NHL can probably make a case for some unfair practices by the NHLPA as well.

What is really pathetic is when some one thinks their opinion is the only correct one and thinks that everyone else supports them...


Anyway, on the topic at hand, the players are basically mercenaries. They enter the draft to have the possibility to make an NHL pay check. They do their time until they have the freedom to sell their services to the highest bidder. With few exceptions (Borque, Ray...), there is no loyalty to the team or city in which the players are playing. Nothing wrong with that. Most of us would do much the same if we had the chance to significantly increase our pay. When all is said and done though, I cheer for the Buffalo Sabres, regardless of who is wearing the sweater.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Please elaborate on what you mean by 'cheering for the Buffalo Sabres'.

What/who are the Buffalo Sabres if the players are insignficant?

What exactly does 'cheering for the Buffalo Sabres' entail if the players do not factor in your decision to cheer for the Sabres? IF the players werent there, what would you cheer for?

Answer my questions, if you can (and I mean rationally, please).

 

[Jaysfanatic*]

The team, it's the logo on the front, not the name on the back.

Thanks Steinbrenner, there's actually one positive I can take from you.

 

[dakota]

Please elaborate on what you mean by 'cheering for the Buffalo Sabres'.

What/who are the Buffalo Sabres if the players are insignficant?

What exactly does 'cheering for the Buffalo Sabres' entail if the players do not factor in your decision to cheer for the Sabres? IF the players werent there, what would you cheer for?

Answer my questions, if you can (and I mean rationally, please).

I think he means he cheers for the Buffalo Sabres no matter what player is playing for them... he cheered for Rob Ray when he was with the Sabres, but now that he is not he doesnt care about Rob Ray... he cheers still for the Sabres though... the players are interchangeable "assets" that come and go...

you could flip your idea around if there are no teams than what would you cheer for...

 

[MarkZackKarl]

So he would be willing to pay the exact same amount to see the Sabres as a 48 point team than as a Stanley Cup champion?

Can you say irrational consumer? (and even if you factor in the emotional aspect of being a fan, spending the same amount in either time or money supporting your team regardless of how it is run or what entertainment it provides you with makes little sense. )

It doesnt mean that you stop being a fan when the team does not perform, as every team across the league hits dry patches, but to say that you have absolutely positively NO regard for the quality of team put forth in determining your decisions made around the product itself just doesnt connect at all.

Even if you are a diehard, you must get angry if your team loses 5 or 6 in a row, and then proceed to wish that the PLAYERS would pick up their game to help the team improve, the Sabres get back into the playoff hunt etc...

Like it or not, for all you poor player haters out there, you cheer for the players and logo in conjunction... Stop denying it , its not so bad once you admit it anyway .

 

[dakota]

So he would be willing to pay the exact same amount to see the Sabres as a 48 point team than as a Stanley Cup champion?

Can you say irrational consumer? (and even if you factor in the emotional aspect of being a fan, spending the same amount in either time or money supporting your team regardless of how it is run or what entertainment it provides you with makes little sense. )

It doesnt mean that you stop being a fan when the team does not perform, as every team across the league hits dry patches, but to say that you have absolutely positively NO regard for the quality of team put forth in determining your decisions made around the product itself just doesnt connect at all.

Even if you are a diehard, you must get angry if your team loses 5 or 6 in a row, and then proceed to wish that the PLAYERS would pick up their game to help the team improve, the Sabres get back into the playoff hunt etc...

Like it or not, for all you poor player haters out there, you cheer for the players and logo in conjunction... Stop denying it , its not so bad once you admit it anyway .

Welcome to the nature of Sports Business... its emotional for fans... consumers build up a loyalty to their team. This is why it is in business. Of course fans are fickle... and this is why the PA wants a higher cap... when fans want the owner to spend more money (or spend upto to a cap)... the owners feel pressure to do so... this increases the salaries... increases ticket prices...this is part of the reason why the owners are in this mess in the first place....

I have been a Canuck fan for years... I still followed the team when they were a 40 point team all the time... when Pavel Bure left i did not follow him or his career. But I still followed the Canucks... I dont know what you are trying to say but I definately cheer for the players... when they are on MY team... there is no denying that... I cheered for Jim Sandlak, Tony Tanti et al., but I do not cheer for them now (they are retired)... they are all "assets" that come and go... the next wave of young talent will be here in 5 years and most of the current players will be gone... there is no jealousy... its just business.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

I understand that the loyalty to the team comes 'first in a sense' but to try and separate the two makes no sense at all... Like saying that you EITHER cheer for the jersey or the player... its just stupid. The jersey and logo ahve no meaning unless there are players and an organization filling it!

Of course the 'elements' of the jersey change, but the jersey still needs those elements for it to give significance to fans...

Im just pointing out that saying you dont care what players are on your team is like saying you dont care how your team preforms, since its obvious that your team performance is directly correlated to the talent level of players on the club...

Players matter just as much as the logo, in the end, the TEAM takes precedent over the INDIVIDUAL, but it is ridiculous to think of hockey players as individuals in the sense that you cheer for the OVERALL product, atleast most people do. Of course teams have their favourites and their hated, but they still support the team in general... once again lending support to my claim that the team and logo work in conjunction, not as some invisible hierachy of importance that people try to separate so extensively to belittle the players in their fits of petty jealousy

 

[FLYLine27*]

So it seems that this lockout has reached phase 2 with the owners threatening to use replacement players and the players threatening to start up a new league.

The owners are banking on the hope that the fans will back the franchises, some that have stood for decades, and in some cases have become a sporting tradition where families have cheered the same team for generations.

Meanwhile the players feel that the fans won't watch second and third tier replacement players playing in the "premier" hockey league in the world. They would rather watch the stars of the game exhibiting their skills in a player built league.

I know this arguement is alot alike the "Chicken vs the Egg" theory but it brings me to my question. As a hockey fan, which has a greater priority over what or who you cheer for. Do you cheer for the skillful player?? Or do you cheer for the team and what their monicker stands for??

This is a horrible poll. You cheer for the team of course because the team has the best hockey players in the world. So yes...the best players in the world come and go. If replacments come in then its not the same..ticket sales will dropped, and nobody is going to want there team to win the cup....well i know i wouldnt

 

[SuperNintendoChalmrs]

I cheer for the Buffalo Sabres, regardless of who is wearing the sweater.

You are correct.....the logo on the front is what counts, the nameplate on the back is the ass of a rat.


:lol

 

[ColinM]

I think its a combination of the jersey and the player. I cheer for the Sens jersey because they are my favourite team in the league that is comprised of the world's best players. Had the exact same jersey been used in a major midget league I would not have shown the same interest nor will I follow the career of most players who leave Ottawa. That said I'd like to see Frölunda win the Swedish Elite League title this year since Daniel Alfredsson is on the team, but if he wasn't a Senator in the NHL I wouldn't feel the same way.

 

[RorschachWJK]

I cheer for my favourite team which is the Finnish national team of course.

 

[ArtG]

I will always cheer for the Canucks -- no matter what. Even if they have replacement players, I will always love my Canucks. I know for a fact that Vancouver will still sell out even with replacement players, that's the kind of city it is; same goes for T.O. and probably MTL too.