I think that you're absolutely right. I need to take a course in comprehension of minor league hockey attendance numbers so that I can voice my opinions in the same forums as you. Get over yourself. You really think that I just started following minor league hockey last night? I'm perfectly capable to grasp concepts such as paid attendance vs. actual butts in seats just as I am capable to realize that in most American cities hockey will always take a back seat to other sports and minor league hockey even more so. It seems to me that you're prepared to come up with every excuse in the book to give the ECHL more credence at this point. The fact remains, and you can argue this until you're blue in the face, for a clinching second round playoff game 1,602 fans is abysmal, week night or not. You can attempt to downplay its significance as well by pointing to AAA Norfolk and their equally bad attendance numbers. That's sad in its own right and maybe even more so considering they are a couple seasons removed from a Calder Cup.
The fact remains, and I've stated this earlier on these boards, the ECHL and CHL took a foolish chance when the NHL strike occurred a year and a half go. They went into markets Denver (CHL Cuthroats) and Bay Area (ECHL Bulls) and hoped to fill the gap left for starving Sharks and Avalanche fans. Anybody with common sense could have foreseen that when the strike ended (which it did four months later) people would go back to the superior product and the attendance numbers would dwindle for AA hockey. This happened quickly and the Bulls were forced to pull the plug mid season (which appears to be happening often in the E now) and the ECHL was forced to alter scheduling mid season again. You can take the stance that- "hey it was worth a shot" or "sometimes you win some and sometimes you don't". My stance is the higher ups with the ECHL look foolish for exercising no forethought to see this coming down the pike. They pride themselves on not being too hasty and going into markets without doing their homework first and making sure that markets are in it for the long haul with stable ownership etc. Well, this was ridiculous and it makes the league look bad...
I'm not so sure foolish is the correct term for the decision. I agree that San Francisco was a reach. I lived in the Bay Area for over 30 years and I go back to the Shamrocks playing in the Pacific Coast League in the Cow Palace. I went to Sharks and Spiders games there as well as the Seals in Oakland. I live in a city now with an ECHL team that has won the Kelly Cup twice in the recent past and can't fill half their building anymore and it pisses me off so much that I don't go anymore unless I have free tickets. So I get your frustration.
That being said, I also get that teams at this level exist for different reasons and that it's not only a lower level of talent on the ice, but also a lower level off the ice as well. Idaho used to fill its building to the rafters (a little over 5,000) for all weekend games at least and the playoffs there were true "white outs" and SRO crowds. It was a new product, a new sport and the city was growing tremendously at the time as well. Once the newness wore off there was nobody to bring people in the door. The "marketing" staff was a few college interns making squat sitting around trying to drum up ideas. They had no experience to draw from for ideas that had worked in other places because there were no other places. There was no budget for marketing because there was really no interest in making money. The team is owned by a company that owns and runs hotels. If the team loses money then its a tax write off. If it breaks even, then no harm no foul and making a little money is actually a worse deal for them. They can't make enough money for it to be a financially viable investment. It keeps a tenant in the arena which they own which is in a hotel they own.
Nobody owns an ECHL team to get rich. They are tax write offs and toys and tools to increase downtown traffic to businesses......whatever else. So to expect an ECHL franchise to flourish within a major market with major sports franchises is a reach. The teams that do well do well for different reasons too. Some are run by people with a passion for hockey and forsake the cost because they love it. Some are the only game in town. Whatever the reason one fails and one survives or flourishes there is no blueprint like there is in say the NFL. No owners groups or tv contracts to split up to help the smaller markets. They are on their own and therefore you have 25+/- different situations to try and mold into a league.
I get your frustration and I'm sure I have many of the same ones as well but at the end of the day, 25 of anything will have strong ones and weak ones and most in the middle somewhere. I love minor league sports but they are a struggle and will always be a struggle. Football has tried a few different ventures to have a minor league but have always failed, even when the NFL was involved. The CBA was all but dead until the NBA came in to help out but the D League certainly isn't flourishing by any means. Minor league baseball survives because of help from their MLB clubs and because of the time of year they play. It's cheap and people can take the family out and enjoy the outdoors and more people enjoy and understand baseball.
Hockey is a sport that people won't get into on tv. It has to be experienced live but that requires getting them in the door and educating them on what they are watching. That is and always be the problem faced by minor league hockey. Not foolish, just reality.
