Attendance figures: Interesting stuff.

[Marv4Life]

The Ducks, Lightning, Hurricanes, Devils and Stars have all won Cups in the past
10 years. None of the teams rank higher than 18th in home attendance.

If those 2 teams sold out every game they'd still be in the bottom half in the league of attendance due to their seating capacity.

And in case you were unaware, the Devils were on their way to being the worst team in the league before the All-Star break. Add in the bad winter, insane ticket prices for the crap product on the ice, and overall clueless, out-of-touch management, it's not surprising where they are ranked.

The Devils even have a new barn and have won multiple cups over the years

It's 2011. We haven't done anything special since 2003. It's a "what have you done for me lately" world.

 

[KevFu]

And I for one am sick and tired of the elitism that seems to permeate these threads.

No wonder people never attempt to understand the reasons why some franchises fail.

I agree with the first part.

I disagree with the second part. What franchises have "failed" ?

We haven't had a sports team fold since Cleveland's NHL team. There's been teams moving because they can make more money somewhere else, but I wouldn't insult Winnipeg, Quebec, Hartford, Minnesota (NHL), Montreal (MLB), Vancouver, Charlotte (NBA), Los Angeles (NFL x2) as failed markets.

 

[rwilson99]

That is NOT where these figures are coming from. They came from ESPN's website.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

From the same site... in 01-02

The playoff bound Chicago Blackhawks (15,568) failed to outdraw the lowly Tampa Bay Lightning (15,722) despite the fact they missed the playoffs for the 6th straight season, burned through four 50-loss seasons and entertained 3 ownership groups during that woeful time period.

 

[mucker*]

You know, I think a lot of people on here who criticize the Lightning attendance are being ignorant.

Back in 2004 the Lightning sold out almost every game. In fact, as soon as they got competitive in the early part of this decade, through the 2007 season, they drew fine.

Attendance regressed once play got bad, this was though in part due to the economy.
Tampa has not had the rise in attendance to the 2004 level, but many of you are making a mistake and looking at this only through a vaccum.

The Bucaneers had a waiting list 5-6 years ago that was 25+ years long. Now, even they, in the NFL in Florida, going 10-6, failed to sell out every single game.
The Rays had terrible attendance last season, with a first place team.

So to look at the Lightning and say Tampa is a bad hockey town and hockey does not do well in the south, well I guess you forget 2004, and by your logic, they also don't care about football and baseball.

No, what really is going on and can explain their mild attendance is this, the economy.
Tampa has been hit as hard as they come by in the US.
They have some of the highest foreclosure rates and unemployment rates.
Nowhere did the housing bubble hit as bad as it did in Tampa, and this has affected most of the entertainment and disposable income businesses.

Please have some perspective.

 

[BeachBolt]

You know, I think a lot of people on here who criticize the Lightning attendance are being ignorant.

I don't see anybody really criticizing our attendance...

 

[vivianmb]

I'm going to say something that is evident, but still needs to be said:

Hockey is the number one sport in Canada. It explains why the Leafs and Canadiens are the number one and two teams in the NHL in terms of revenue per game, but for the life of me I can't understand why the Leafs are given that pass.

Meanwhile, how are those Blue Jays and Expos doing? The Expos died from fan apathy and the Blue Jays most glorious years for attendance were when gasp they were competitive?

Attendance of a team has everything to do with performance, unless it is the number one sport for a given area. The I-95 corridor sells out every NFL game, even though some of the teams are run like a preschool. But take a look at some other sports along the I-95 corridor, and you'll realize that the competitiveness of the team is a requirement.

One cannot equate a super-hyper hockey market and their attendance against other cities that are failing to sellout where ownership doesn't appear to put forth a good effort and hockey isn't the top sport.

this can be applied BOTH ways.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The Blues and Sabres have had "powerhouse" teams? LOL REALLY?

LOL YES REALLY.

If you are over 17 years old you should remember the President's-Trophy-winning Blues and Sabres.

And when you say they were horrible teams the year before....the year before WHAT?

The year before these numbers... ie last year.

Do you actually follow the NHL?

 

[None Shall Pass]

That is NOT where these figures are coming from. They came from ESPN's website.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

Thank you!

 

[Blue Regime]

Rangers fan here sticking up for the Devils and Islanders...

We had one of the worst winters snow-wise this year, and that definitely affected attendance for both NJD and NYI. It probably did for my Rangers, too, but the announced crowd at MSG is pretty much always 18200 regardless of how many people actually show up.

The reason they do not come up in relocation talks, however, is because the markets have proven that when times are good, they can easily sustain a team. Although they may be behind other sports such as baseball and football, both the Devils and Islanders still hold a reasonable media presence in their respective areas. The Devils fanbase is, from my firsthand observations, one of the youngest fanbases in all of sports. When I was younger and lived in NJ, the Rangers had a stranglehold on the market. Now, however, the ratio of Devils to Rangers fans is probably closer to 3:1.

 

[Odie]

What you describe is market capitalism. And if you read what I wrote, that has no place in sport, and you are degrading your sporting culture by accepting the shameless over-corporatization of sport. (I'm not saying americans are stupid, because there are considerable PR machines at work here and other factors)

As opposed to other sports with giant "Samsung" and "Sony" logos right in dead center of their jerseys? Hi, I play for Toshiba.

 

[tarheelhockey]

As opposed to other sports with giant "Samsung" and "Sony" logos right in dead center of their jerseys? Hi, I play for Toshiba.

Or worse...

 

[pepty]

The Blues, Sabres, and Senators have scarcely participated in a SCF, much less won the cup, since nearly the stone age, yet all rank in the top 12 in home attendance.

All of the above teams have had considerable success over the years.

The Senators were in the Finals just a few years ago and all the above teams have been in the playoffs more often than not (Ottawa 12 out of 13 years).The Blues successful runs are further in the past.

When the Sens went to the Finals, attendance surged, it fell rather sharply the next couple of years.

Teams that almost never get in the playoffs are in a tough position when it comes to selling seats. Management has to have some hope to offer the fans.If the Sens never got to the conference finals or SC Finals and rarely made the playoffs I am sure the attendance fgures would be quite different. Same goes for the Sabres.

 

[Retail1LO*]

LOL YES REALLY.

If you are over 17 years old you should remember the President's-Trophy-winning Blues and Sabres.



The year before these numbers... ie last year.

Do you actually follow the NHL?

My apologies boss. Seriously. I just did NOT realize that winning the president's trophy one year makes you a powerhouse. My bad.


And the reason I asked the year before... It's because I wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

I watch the NHL every night there's a game on.

 

[Retail1LO*]

What's really funny, is I'm not criticizing any team or its attendance. I simply stated some numbers and asked everyone else to discuss them. It's amazing how quickly people are ready to assume what you mean by it, and put words in your mouth. It's also amazing how defensive people get. If you want to rationalize it, or school me on why it is, feel free. But acting like a child whose being made fun of because he has a blankie, is ridiculous.

 

[tarheelhockey]

My apologies boss. Seriously. I just did NOT realize that winning the president's trophy one year makes you a powerhouse. My bad.

How else would you describe a team that finishes first overall in the league?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

What's really funny, is I'm not criticizing any team or its attendance. I simply stated some numbers and asked everyone else to discuss them. It's amazing how quickly people are ready to assume what you mean by it, and put words in your mouth. It's also amazing how defensive people get. If you want to rationalize it, or school me on why it is, feel free. But acting like a child whose being made fun of because he has a blankie, is ridiculous.

You asked in the OP why the Hurricanes', despite having won a Cup, only rank, in their best season, 19th. To put another way, why winning the Cup had no significant impact on attendance.

I answered using numbers.

Nothing defensive about that.

 

[devils1119]

Devils numbers severely impacted by two sub 7,000 crowds due to snowstorms, including one actual frickin blizzard. Just for the record.

 

[Retail1LO*]

How else would you describe a team that finishes first overall in the league?

For ONE season?

I dunno. A fluke?

 

[Retail1LO*]

You asked in the OP why the Hurricanes', despite having won a Cup, only rank, in their best season, 19th. To put another way, why winning the Cup had no significant impact on attendance.

I answered using numbers.

Nothing defensive about that.

I wasn't referring to you specifically, Anton.

 

[ComradeChris]

How else would you describe a team that finishes first overall in the league?

Sometimes first overall should be second or third because of the divisions.

I.E. this year Sharks should have been 1st and canucks 3rd. The main difference was the Sharks were playing the Ducks, Yotes, Stars, and the Kings 6 times a year while the Canucks were playing the Oilers, Avs, Wild, and the flames 6 times a year.

One division consists of 4 playoff teams where the other one only has one. I wonder if division strength has a say in who gets the Presidents trophy?

tldr; I'm sure if the Sharks were in the NW they would have gotten more points this year than the Canucks in the NW who would have gotten less points if they played in the pacific.

 

[Kirikanoir]

I.E. this year Sharks should have been 1st and canucks 3rd. The main difference was the Sharks were playing the Ducks, Yotes, Stars, and the Kings 6 times a year while the Canucks were playing the Oilers, Avs, Wild, and the flames 6 times a year.

tldr; I'm sure if the Sharks were in the NW they would have gotten more points this year than the Canucks in the NW who would have gotten less points if they played in the pacific.

Vancouver should have been 3rd? Really. Vancouver had a better record than Detroit against the central, and were only 1 win different in the Pacific than San Jose.
You really should check your facts before posting comments like that.


Detroit vs Central.....12-10-2=26 Points

Vancouver vs Central 12-5-3=27 Points

San Jose vs Central ..13-6-1=27 Points




Vancouver vs Pacific 13-5-2=28 Points

San Jose vs Pacific ..14-5-5=33 Points

Detroit vs Pacific.......8-8-4=20 Points


Vancouver played 4 less games against the Pacific yet only had 5 less points. With the extra games all Vancouver would have need was to basically go .500 in those 4 extra games to match San Jose.


Vancouver vs NW 18-4-2=38 Points

San Jose vs NW...12-6-2=26 Points

Detroit vs NW......15-3-2=32 Points

And lets not forget that Vancouver when they clinched the President Trophy still had 4 games left against the NW.

With the standings so tight the line between being a playoff team or missing was razor thin. I would point out that Calgary finished with 94 points only 4 and 5 points back of 5 playoff teams. It does not take much of a point swing for Calgary to get in and one of the others to miss out.

San Jose did not finish behind Vancouver because Vancouver had some unfair advantage in their own division. They finished where they did because they did not play well enough early in the season and because Vancouver was 3-0-1 vs San Jose in the season series.

 

[tarheelhockey]

For ONE season?

I dunno. A fluke?

You realize the Sabres were a 110-point team two years in a row, less than five years ago?

I'm done with this line of conversation.

Sometimes first overall should be second or third because of the divisions.

The year the Blues won it, they were 5 points up on the 2nd place team... which was Detroit, in their division. The year the Sabres won, they had the tiebreaker over Detroit who played in a miserably weak Central.

Anyway, the legitimacy of the award is beside the point. Taking a 2-month hot streak and subsequent publicity from years ago, and ignoring the entire seasons of results surrounding it, is a ridiculous way to form a judgment on any market's reaction to winning.

 

[Retail1LO*]

You realize the Sabres were a 110-point team two years in a row, less than five years ago?

I'm done with this line of conversation.




The year the Blues won it, they were 5 points up on the 2nd place team... which was Detroit, in their division. The year the Sabres won, they had the tiebreaker over Detroit who played in a miserably weak Central.

Anyway, the legitimacy of the award is beside the point. Taking a 2-month hot streak and subsequent publicity from years ago, and ignoring the entire seasons of results surrounding it, is a ridiculous way to form a judgment on any market's reaction to winning.

I do realize it. I'm just trying to get you riled up. LOL Relax bro.
I wasn't judging any market, however. All I was doing was bringing up numbers, and asking what others make of them. I guess most were comfortable assuming that I was inferring something specific. As I said in a prior post, it's interesting to see how defensive people get when they think you're attacking their team. :-p

 

[barneyg]

I do realize it. I'm just trying to get you riled up. LOL Relax bro.
I wasn't judging any market, however. All I was doing was bringing up numbers, and asking what others make of them. I guess most were comfortable assuming that I was inferring something specific. As I said in a prior post, it's interesting to see how defensive people get when they think you're attacking their team. :-p

I don't see many people getting defensive here. Honestly if you're going to bring independent variables (events) that occurred over a decade ("teams x,y,z all have won Cups in the past 10 years"), you need to bring up a dependent variable (attendance) that is also measured over a longer time span. Simple stuff, really.

 

[Retail1LO*]

I don't see many people getting defensive here. Honestly if you're going to bring independent variables (events) that occurred over a decade ("teams x,y,z all have won Cups in the past 10 years"), you need to bring up a dependent variable (attendance) that is also measured over a longer time span. Simple stuff, really.

Why? What if I only wanted to have a conversation over independent variables? :-p LOL