Do the players really have a choice?

[The Frugal Gourmet]

And I bet you sell out the arena all by yourself too don't you? Speaking in generalities, hockey doesn't exist south of the Mason Dixon just like Nascar doesn't exist north of the 49th. People in the southern states don't care about hockey and people in Canada don't give a rip about Nascar. The empty seats in the hockey hotbeds like Carolina, Florida, Tampa (had terrible attendance all year right up until the finals), Nashville, Phoenix and southern California tell you everything you need to know. Dallas has been the only success story, but when you have one fo the top teams in the league for a decade it is easy to draw fans. Hockey doesn't draw as well as high school football for crying outloud. It just doesn't matter down here.

You weren't speaking in generalities. You were speaking in dramatic matter-of-fact fashion, as if to insinuate that there are no hockey fans in the South (when clearly there are very many).

But, if you want to speak in generalities I still think it's bull, frankly. Your comparisons are overblown. For instance, I can think of only one team on the list which might have its attendence rivaled by an average High School football game and High School football doesn't charge $50 a ticket. Of course, this is nothing about the competitiveness and growth potential in the market. 3/4 of those markets can easily rival small-market teams in the North in terms of profit.

I also notice that you neglected to mention certain other teams below the Mason-Dixon line such as Colorado or St. Louis.

 

[Mothra]

I was in Tampa as late as last December and the place was half empty. The only way that places like Carolina, Tampa, & Florida can appear full is in the Finals. Aside from that, those are probabably the 3 worst thought out markets in the NHL.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/teamsched?team=tam&season=2004

according to this.....the last 4 home games in December

12/20 Dallas 16,233
12/27 Boston 19,942
12/29 Anaheim 17,662
12/31 Florida 15,234

I dont know what capacity is there....but that looks more than half empty

 

[The Frugal Gourmet]

Not for nothing, I have friends that live in Florida and I visit them often enough. Tampa Bay with a full building is a miracle, kind of like Carolina filling their building during the run. And they were not 100% filled. I was in Florida during the semis. Me and my friends walked up to the window and bought tickets and there were still plenty of empty seats. I was in Tampa as late as last December and the place was half empty. The only way that places like Carolina, Tampa, & Florida can appear full is in the Finals. Aside from that, those are probabably the 3 worst thought out markets in the NHL.

Those are indeed weak markets, but while I lived in New York, I had the exact same experiences with New Jersey or the Islanders. You could always get tickets to either of those two events and the arenas were scarcely ever sold out. Even when those two were doing relatively well.

 

[True Blue]

Those are indeed weak markets, but while I lived in New York, I had the exact same experiences with New Jersey or the Islanders. You could always get tickets to either of those two events and the arenas were scarcely ever sold out. Even when those two were doing relatively well.

Not debating that at all. NJ was another fairly poorly thought out market. The Isles just cannot compete with the Rangers, no matter how well they do or how poorly the Rangers do. And in NJ, while they DO have fans, the way to the Meadowlands is so convoluted that it makes it real tough. Not to mention that most are Rangers fans

 

[The Frugal Gourmet]

Not debating that at all. NJ was another fairly poorly thought out market. The Isles just cannot compete with the Rangers, no matter how well they do or how poorly the Rangers do. And in NJ, while they DO have fans, the way to the Meadowlands is so convoluted that it makes it real tough. Not to mention that most are Rangers fans

Yup. I'm just trying to show that it's not necessarily a North/South thing. Some markets are just flat out better than others.

 

[Epsilon]

The league was pretty good way back when without them and if that's their only incentive to come, then they should stay home. Not too many Euros in the other "Big 3" sports and they don't suffer.

1. The league was between 1/2 and 2/3 the size it is now back then.

2. The other "Big 3" sports have the advantage of the massive skilled player base developed in the United States, not to mention Japan and Central America in the case of MLB.

3. The NBA teams are trying to bring in European players more and more. Finally they can get some guys whose primary concern is shooting and fundamentals rather than getting on the Sportscenter Top 10.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Yup. I'm just trying to show that it's not necessarily a North/South thing. Some markets are just flat out better than others.

That is very true. There are good markets and there are bad markets. There just happen to be more bad markets in the south than there are north. I think we can agree on that.

 

[Old Hickory]

The empty seats in the hockey hotbeds like Carolina, Florida, Tampa (had terrible attendance all year right up until the finals), Nashville, Phoenix and southern California tell you everything you need to know.

I can tell you haven't done your research.

Regarding your empty seats comment.

By Capacity

1 Toronto 41 794,439 19,376 103.0
2 Minnesota 40 741,208 18,530 102.6 41
3 Vancouver 39 726,607 18,630 101.1
4 Detroit 40 802,640 20,066 100.1
5 Colorado 40 720,280 18,007 100.0 38
6 NY Rangers 37 668,737 18,073 99.3
7 Dallas 40 734,024 18,350 99.0
8 Los Angeles 40 714,215 17,855 98.6
9 St. Louis 41 760,976 18,560 97.6
10 Calgary 40 664,038 16,600 96.8
11 Montreal 41 842,767 20,555 96.6
12 Ottawa 41 728,101 17,758 96.0

The Kings have higher % of capaciy than Calgary, Montreal and Ottawa. In other words, less empty seats

 

[quat]

Can't start up an NHL II without folding NHL I. Can't fold NHL I without paying 100% of existing contracts. Think owners want to pay nearly $100m in total contract worth just so that they can start a new league?
Replacement player hockey is not a real option either as fringe players playing fringe hockey in arenas that are 65% empty is not going to do anyone any good.

Hey, the .... ahem... lawyer is back ! Or they could just offer to guarantee the existing NHL 1 contracts. I think all this talk of the league shutting down is extremely off the mark. They are in the process of negotiating a new CBA, and the media is being involved by both sides. I would say the players feel they are losing, so are ratcheting up the volume to try and win back support. I doubt they're going to do that, because although the fans love the players they recognize the game itself needs some fixing.

 

[loudi94]

1. The league was between 1/2 and 2/3 the size it is now back then.

2. The other "Big 3" sports have the advantage of the massive skilled player base developed in the United States, not to mention Japan and Central America in the case of MLB.

3. The NBA teams are trying to bring in European players more and more. Finally they can get some guys whose primary concern is shooting and fundamentals rather than getting on the Sportscenter Top 10.

There should be less teams. Whether or not Euros want to participate is up to them. It would give the league a different makeup, but not necessarily more entertaining.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

The league was pretty good way back when without them and if that's their only incentive to come, then they should stay home. Not too many Euros in the other "Big 3" sports and they don't suffer.

Errr. You might want to go back to, say, 1983, or so.
There were 21 teams in the league, including some awful teams (Washington, Winnipeg, Toronto, Detroit etc.)
Even with some Swedes and Finns, the bad teams were severely understocked.
Today we have 30 teams. And were it not for clutch and grab hockey, we'd be seeing those famous 7-1 drubbings on a nightly basis. (Though I'd prefer to see a 7-1 drubbing over these godawful 1-1 ties between Nashville and Columbus).

We simply can't afford to lose NHL caliber talent with the amount of teams we have these days.

There will always be money for superstars. But we'd lose a lot of good second and third liners if the money gets squeezed too much.

 

[eye]

Errr. You might want to go back to, say, 1983, or so.
There were 21 teams in the league, including some awful teams (Washington, Winnipeg, Toronto, Detroit etc.)
Even with some Swedes and Finns, the bad teams were severely understocked.
Today we have 30 teams. And were it not for clutch and grab hockey, we'd be seeing those famous 7-1 drubbings on a nightly basis. (Though I'd prefer to see a 7-1 drubbing over these godawful 1-1 ties between Nashville and Columbus).

We simply can't afford to lose NHL caliber talent with the amount of teams we have these days.

There will always be money for superstars. But we'd lose a lot of good second and third liners if the money gets squeezed too much.

You may be suprised to know that the amount of Canadians playing in the NHL has remained about the same since the early 70's at about 400 give or take 25. Improved talent in the USA who only had 1 American player in the league in the early 70's as well as alot of great Euro talent combined with vastly improved players from what used to play the NHL game 30 years ago has made it possible to have 30 prosperous teams if the right financial system was in place. A little tweaking of the rules and enforcment there of is also necessary.

You could argue that many of todays AHL teams are more talented than most players were on NHL teams were 35 years ago. The NHL could easily expand to 32 or 34 teams with the right economic system in place. There are many cities with suitable arenas to house future expansion.

 

[me2]

With the NHL knockout system its either 8 or 16. 8 playoff spots for 30 teams is too low. There is something odd about 16 playoff spots and 30 teams. 16 goes nicer with 32 and appeals to me from a numerical sense.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

I can tell you haven't done your research.

Regarding your empty seats comment.

By Capacity

1 Toronto 41 794,439 19,376 103.0
2 Minnesota 40 741,208 18,530 102.6 41
3 Vancouver 39 726,607 18,630 101.1
4 Detroit 40 802,640 20,066 100.1
5 Colorado 40 720,280 18,007 100.0 38
6 NY Rangers 37 668,737 18,073 99.3
7 Dallas 40 734,024 18,350 99.0
8 Los Angeles 40 714,215 17,855 98.6
9 St. Louis 41 760,976 18,560 97.6
10 Calgary 40 664,038 16,600 96.8
11 Montreal 41 842,767 20,555 96.6
12 Ottawa 41 728,101 17,758 96.0

The Kings have higher % of capaciy than Calgary, Montreal and Ottawa. In other words, less empty seats

im just curious, but how does a team have over 100% capacity? doesnt sell out means 100%?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

That is a very poor analogy....are you saying that the willingness to pay players over 1mil/season on average is stealing?

its a matter of relativity. the players are being bullied into accepting a system that they dont agree with. why ? because the owners can afford to and have a good strategy to see it through.

whether or not it improves the game is just the smokescreen. the owners want their way and they will get it.

a shame too, because (in my opinion) its not going to make the game better.

dr

 

[Evileye]

<<<<<--------------- Check out the avatar

Since you are not from the south how would you know?? Don't assume you can answer for anyone other than yourself.

22,000 people in Tampa were inside the arena for Finals game 7 with another 20,000+ outside during the game......but no one cares about hockey in the south :lol

This is true, but how many are Canadian ex pats, or Canadians on vacation?

 

[Johnnybegood13]

im just curious, but how does a team have over 100% capacity? doesnt sell out means 100%?

Was wondering that myself i can also say that the saddledome seats way more that 16,600. More like 18,100 i beleive.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

What I find is the greatest irony in all this is this.....

.... the players are continuously fighting for a free-market system. One where the owners dictate how much a player should be paid and how much they're willing to dish out to get them. Hence, the recently-expired CBA.

Yet, the players belong to a union, whos underlying purpose is to negotiate fair and equal salaries for its members, and guarantee jobs for the collective security of the union members. This is what a union stands for.

How can they say they want a free-market system, one in which competition runs rampant for their services, yet they fight amongst each other for the same job on any given roster, and compete with each other to see who ends up with the big bucks? Wait a minute, I thought they were part of a union.

Doesn't this go against the very nature of their own brotherhood?

Ah, the irony of unionized players so far out of touch with reality.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I doubt they're going to do that, because although the fans love the players they recognize the game itself needs some fixing.

i have yet to change my opinion that the game will improve with a cap. as you can see, i have accepted that a cap is coming, like it or not.

but i am going to be in the "told you so and stop your whining" side when you see how much you hate how the cap has not helped you be a better team.

dr

 

[YellHockey*]

im just curious, but how does a team have over 100% capacity? doesnt sell out means 100%?

Capacity is usually the number of seats in the rink.

There are several teams who sell standing room tickets.

 

[me2]

im just curious, but how does a team have over 100% capacity?

They put 2 dwavres in one chair.

They might have people standing plus they've sold 100% of the seating. total people/seating capacity. That is just a wild guess.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

Capacity is usually the number of seats in the rink.

There are several teams who sell standing room tickets.

so from doing simple math, we have an average of 570 people pay to stand watching the game! dang, they sure like their hockey over there at TO, lol