Is it time to Nuke the Whale? (NWHL)

[GindyDraws]

From a competition standpoint, the Connecticut Whale have only managed to finish outside of last place once in league history in the inaugural season back in the 2015-16 campaign, and ever since, the club has moved to multiple ice rinks (four in 5 years) and has had a hard time getting talent to invest into the team, which has yielded win totals of 5, 3, 2, and (so far) 0 in subsequent years. Although having multiple teams is a sign of health and stability in any league, I feel like nuking the Whale will be addition by subtraction, especially if the league is able to find partners able to fund them and get them into Toronto & Montreal as early as 2020.

Click to read more...

 

[GindyDraws]

Currently, the Whale are 0-8-1, having allowed the most goals and tied with Metropolitan with the least amount of goals scored.

 

[mk80]

Well to be fair every league in any sport is going to have it's own bottom of the standings team(s). As long as they are making money there's no reason not to drop them.

 

[JMCx4]

As this season preview from The Ice Garden blog points out, the Whale are coming off an undeniably horrible season. Add to (or subtract from) that a new head coach & a huge roster turnover, and it shouldn't be a surprise that they're struggling again. But as the blogger says in wrapping up her preview: "... the climb of the tallest ladder begins by grabbing the bottom rung."

 

[Royalsflagrunner77]

Whats the average attendance for that league ?

 

[royals119]

Whats the average attendance for that league ?

Last year's numbers
Minn: 1200
Buffalo: 1101
Metropolitan (Monmouth NJ): 721
Boston: 706
Connecticut: 423

 

[Cyclones Rock]

At an announced attendance of 423, the big question is: "If you nuked the Whale would anybody notice".

Women's professional hockey is a non starter. It's a massively inferior product and will never have any significant following.

 

[GindyDraws]

At an announced attendance of 423, the big question is: "If you nuked the Whale would anybody notice".

Women's professional hockey is a non starter. It's a massively inferior product and will never have any significant following.

Women should have an opportunity to earn a living professionally in sports; it's not their fault they were put decades behind the 8-Ball. My argument isn't "Oh, if you get rid of the worst team in a sport should anyone give a rat's ass", my argument is "if you get rid of the worst team, will this help the league?"

Those attendance figures and the team's inability to get, let alone retain, players of merit illustrates the problems of the franchise, and realistically, once the NWHL expands into Canada, it should consider the elimination of Connecticut. A counterargument may be that people should invest in the Whale, but from a logical perspective, you don't want inferior franchises struggling to keep up and placing a burden on already thin resources. If they're unable to compete and the market doesn't have interest in the team, then why should they exist?

 

[JMCx4]

I'm not sure what has or has not changed since this March 2019 press release from the League offices, but it does seem to allude to then-future financial support for the Whale franchise ...

... "In the last 18 months, four NWHL teams have formed mutually-beneficial partnerships with the NHL teams in their markets, resulting in effective cross-promotion and the development of girls' programs," said NWHL Founder and Commissioner Dani Rylan. "We appreciate these partnerships and are focused on plans for the Connecticut Whale that will give the team and players the additional support they have long deserved." ...

 

[tarheelhockey]

I feel like there's a ceiling to how many fans will come out to see a losing team, but there's also a basement where losing doesn't explain the numbers.

There's a vicious cycle between revenue and quality of product. Realistically if you want to have a successful franchise you can't wait for a winning team or it will never come.

Aside from the obvious that women's hockey has lower attendance historically, is there anything else causing such tepid fan support? What's the arena situation? Is the team being marketed? Is it up against competition? Is it a fixable situation?

 

[Cacciaguida]

Such a shame. The Whale are my favourite branded team in the league. Which obviously is because of the Whalers.

Women should have an opportunity to earn a living professionally in sports

Says who? If the demand isn't there, it just isn't.

 

[CrazyEddie20]

Such a shame. The Whale are my favourite branded team in the league. Which obviously is because of the Whalers.


Says who? If the demand isn't there, it just isn't.

We could say the same for the beer leaguers who have jobs in the FHL and SPHL. The demand isn't really there for that product either.

The real question to be asked: If this were actually marketed competently and comparably to the men's game, would there be more demand? Yes, there would be.

 

[tarheelhockey]

We could say the same for the beer leaguers who have jobs in the FHL and SPHL. The demand isn't really there for that product either.

The real question to be asked: If this were actually marketed competently and comparably to the men's game, would there be more demand? Yes, there would be.

I wish the conversation could gravitate to this point more often. The demand for any minor league hockey, regardless of level or gender, is always pretty dubious. AFAIK, Providence and Rochester are the only cities that have held a minor league hockey team since before 1990. Hundreds of men's teams have failed, often with attendance in the NWHL range.

So before we jump to the gender issue, it makes sense to take a bigger step back and ask, does this organization have strong fundamentals? Do they have a sound plan for attracting season ticket holders? Do they have the capital to advertise and to make the gameday experience attractive? Are they in a favorable environment for sports enterainment? What's their lease situation? Those are basics that cut across all teams in all leagues.

 

[210]

Hundreds of men's teams have failed, often with attendance in the NWHL range.

Attendance averages released by the NWHL for the 18-19 season:
Minnesota: 1,200
Buffalo: 1,101
Riveters: 721
Boston: 706
Connecticut: 423

Even counting the SPHL/FPHL/etc I'm guessing that very few had numbers as low as the average NWHL game.

 

[royals119]

I wish the conversation could gravitate to this point more often. The demand for any minor league hockey, regardless of level or gender, is always pretty dubious. AFAIK, Providence and Rochester are the only cities that have held a minor league hockey team since before 1990. Hundreds of men's teams have failed, often with attendance in the NWHL range.

So before we jump to the gender issue, it makes sense to take a bigger step back and ask, does this organization have strong fundamentals? Do they have a sound plan for attracting season ticket holders? Do they have the capital to advertise and to make the gameday experience attractive? Are they in a favorable environment for sports enterainment? What's their lease situation? Those are basics that cut across all teams in all leagues.

I agree with you on the gender issue. However, you are missing some teams there in the history of cities with long term hockey. Off the top of my head Hershey has been around longer than both by a significant margin. Kalamazoo has had a Wings Hockey team in various leagues since the 70's, as has Fort Wayne with the Komets. Toledo has had pro hockey going back to the early part of last century, with a short break to build a new arena several years ago, although the teams have had different names in different leagues. Yes, a lot of teams have failed, but there are more than two cities with long term teams, and discounting teams that changed leagues for whatever reason is dubious at best. If you point is there isn't a demand for minor league hockey, I would say a city that has continued to support teams over several leagues and name changes for many decades, is more proof of the demand for hockey, not less. The fans still wanted a team despite the outside factors that doomed the league or the fact that their building was outdated, or whatever other factors caused a change in name/ownership/league/venue.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I agree with you on the gender issue. However, you are missing some teams there in the history of cities with long term hockey. Off the top of my head Hershey has been around longer than both by a significant margin. Kalamazoo has had a Wings Hockey team in various leagues since the 70's, as has Fort Wayne with the Komets. Toledo has had pro hockey going back to the early part of last century, with a short break to build a new arena several years ago, although the teams have had different names in different leagues. Yes, a lot of teams have failed, but there are more than two cities with long term teams, and discounting teams that changed leagues for whatever reason is dubious at best. If you point is there isn't a demand for minor league hockey, I would say a city that has continued to support teams over several leagues and name changes for many decades, is more proof of the demand for hockey, not less. The fans still wanted a team despite the outside factors that doomed the league or the fact that their building was outdated, or whatever other factors caused a change in name/ownership/league/venue.

Yes, I have no idea why I said Providence (Bruins are a 90s team) but that should have said Rochester and Hershey.

I would say it’s VERY relevant that teams and entire leagues have failed, causing even very traditional hockey cities to lose their teams. The point isn’t that K-zoo or Toledo are bad hockey towns. The point is that minor league hockey is by nature a marginal economic proposition, prone to ups and downs but mostly downs. The idea that a startup minor league, of any level or gender, should be instantly self-sustaining... that’s just not the reality. Low minor leagues (A-level hockey) always draw in the low thousands, even for men’s hockey in the best of times. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

I wish the conversation could gravitate to this point more often. The demand for any minor league hockey, regardless of level or gender, is always pretty dubious. AFAIK, Providence and Rochester are the only cities that have held a minor league hockey team since before 1990. Hundreds of men's teams have failed, often with attendance in the NWHL range.

While I agree with the general premise you're making, you've got some issues. There's a lot more teams than Providence and Rochester that have consistently had hockey since before the 90s. Royals brings up a few good ones like Fort Wayne, Hershey, and Kalamazoo but there's many that have been around more than 30 years. I'm didn't do a ton of research on this, but the easy ones are:

• Springfield, MA- only 3 teams in the AHL since 1926.
• Milwaukee, WI - various teams since 1970
  
• Portland, ME - to Hutch's delight since '77 with a single non-voluntary, non-lack of demand-related break of one year in 2017
• Salt Lake City - various teams since the 60s
• Peoria -various teams since the 70s
• Binghamton -various teams since the 70s.

The second issue is that the NHL's non-traditional push in the 90s exposed hockey to the entire continent. That's like saying that the American demand for hockey in general was always pretty dubious before 1967. Your benchmark for grading demand for minor league hockey is wildly off. Pensacola, Norfolk, Idaho, Wichita, Charlotte, San Antonio, Des Moines, and Huntsville are the markets just off the top of my that have hosted hockey consecutively since before 2000.

So anyways, kinda agree with the premise, but there's some glaring problems with the grading system.

 

[tarheelhockey]

While I agree with the general premise you're making, you've got some issues. There's a lot more teams than Providence and Rochester that have consistently had hockey since before the 90s. Royals brings up a few good ones like Fort Wayne, Hershey, and Kalamazoo but there's many that have been around more than 30 years. I'm didn't do a ton of research on this, but the easy ones are:

• Springfield, MA- only 3 teams in the AHL since 1926.
• Milwaukee, WI - various teams since 1970
  
• Portland, ME - to Hutch's delight since '77 with a single non-voluntary, non-lack of demand-related break of one year in 2017
• Salt Lake City - various teams since the 60s
• Peoria -various teams since the 70s
• Binghamton -various teams since the 70s.

The second issue is that the NHL's non-traditional push in the 90s exposed hockey to the entire continent. That's like saying that the American demand for hockey in general was always pretty dubious before 1967. Your benchmark for grading demand for minor league hockey is wildly off. Pensacola, Norfolk, Idaho, Wichita, Charlotte, San Antonio, Des Moines, and Huntsville are the markets just off the top of my that have hosted hockey consecutively since before 2000.

So anyways, kinda agree with the premise, but there's some glaring problems with the grading system.

Making a mountain out of a molehill here. I wasn’t proposing any sort of “grading system”, I was just pointing out that demand for minor league hockey is low and unstable by nature. The fact that only 2 franchises in the entirety of the minor leagues (and zero below the AHL) have been in place for more than 30 years is testament to how much these organizations hang by a thread, even the healthier ones.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Making a mountain out of a molehill here. I wasn’t proposing any sort of “grading system”, I was just pointing out that demand for minor league hockey is low and unstable by nature. The fact that only 2 franchises in the entirety of the minor leagues (and zero below the AHL) have been in place for more than 30 years is testament to how much these organizations hang by a thread, even the healthier ones.

Not exactly making a mountain out of a molehill. Franchises don't matter. The only thing that matters is whether the market is hosting hockey, which is the definition of demand, not whether it's the same franchise. Fort Wayne has hosted the Komets since 1952, they've just been in different leagues. They've never hung by a thread and have operated continuously, despite not being one singular franchise. None of those changes meant they are unstable or that demand is low. Binghamton has hosted minor league hockey (AHL 37 years, UHL 5 years) since 1977. Just because they've been different franchise doesn't mean anything. They've hosted hockey continuously and haven't stoped. You need to take some sports marketing classes if you think that the demand is low or unstable simply because they've hosted different franchises. The AHL just reorganized itself and had 11 franchise changes as part of the new system of development. It certainly doesn't mean that demand for hockey was low or unstable.

The grading system was more of a dig at the pre-1990 history mark considering that if you really wanted to measure hockey's growth, putting it before 1990 (and therefore before hockey truly grew for the second time in the history of the sport). Hence equating it to grading American interest in hockey pre-1967, when they doubled the size of the league and left cold-culture areas for the first time.

 

[210]

Making a mountain out of a molehill here. I wasn’t proposing any sort of “grading system”, I was just pointing out that demand for minor league hockey is low and unstable by nature. The fact that only 2 franchises in the entirety of the minor leagues (and zero below the AHL) have been in place for more than 30 years is testament to how much these organizations hang by a thread, even the healthier ones.

It's a testament to cherry-picking stats considering the most successful league in AA hockey is only 31 years old...

 

[tarheelhockey]

It's a testament to cherry-picking stats considering the most successful league in AA hockey is only 31 years old...

And there’s a reason for that.

Look, I grew up watching AA hockey. So did the prior generation of my family. I’m all for it. This isn’t me picking on anyone.

But let’s be real about the historic trends. Every single franchise goes through periods of instability, for one reason or another. There’s a reason so many of them started in the 90s. Entire leagues were killed off in the decade prior, and the 90s churned through literally dozens of bankrupt franchises until the dust settled.

Even the AHL, which has NHL affiliation and the oldest franchises in the largest cities, sees teams relocate almost every season. It’s just the reality of the business model, the margins are small and capital requirements are high.

 

[210]

And there’s a reason for that.

Look, I grew up watching AA hockey. So did the prior generation of my family. I’m all for it. This isn’t me picking on anyone.

But let’s be real about the historic trends. Every single franchise goes through periods of instability, for one reason or another. There’s a reason so many of them started in the 90s. Entire leagues were killed off in the decade prior, and the 90s churned through literally dozens of bankrupt franchises until the dust settled.

Even the AHL, which has NHL affiliation and the oldest franchises in the largest cities, sees teams relocate almost every season. It’s just the reality of the business model, the margins are small and capital requirements are high.

Most AHL franchise moves of late have had nothing to do with the league's business model, they've had to do with the NHL's salary cap. The only one I can recall lately that was "AHL business" related was when the Portland Pirates were sold and moved to Springfield.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Most AHL franchise moves of late have had nothing to do with the league's business model, they've had to do with the NHL's salary cap. The only one I can recall lately that was "AHL business" related was when the Portland Pirates were sold and moved to Springfield.

That’s fair, and I’d say the NHL affiliation system changed the calculus for the AHL as a whole. To some, much lesser extent it protects the ECHL as well. A lesson learned the hard way regarding the NHL’s business interest in subsidizing a coherent minor league system.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

And there’s a reason for that.

Look, I grew up watching AA hockey. So did the prior generation of my family. I’m all for it. This isn’t me picking on anyone.

But let’s be real about the historic trends. Every single franchise goes through periods of instability, for one reason or another. There’s a reason so many of them started in the 90s. Entire leagues were killed off in the decade prior, and the 90s churned through literally dozens of bankrupt franchises until the dust settled.

Even the AHL, which has NHL affiliation and the oldest franchises in the largest cities, sees teams relocate almost every season. It’s just the reality of the business model, the margins are small and capital requirements are high.

AHL doesn't see teams relocate every season. There was the one season of madness 5 years ago with the Pacific shift, but that has improved the stability and marketability of the league and teams. Unarguably. There aren't relocations almost every season. The only one that wasn't a move to be closer to the parent was Portland to Springfield as @210 mentioned. 3 of the top 5 teams in attendance are teams that had an affiliation changed.

Entire leagues were killed off in the 80s. Hockey grew with the NHL's southern expansion in the 90s and experienced unprecedented growth and has kept growing since. Minor league hockey since 2000 has been infinitely more stable than pre-2000. Using 1990 as a marker is cherry picking when it's conveniently before the biggest growth the sport has ever experienced. It's like saying you're not sure about the internet based on telecommunications industry in the 90s.

Look at what it took for the Monarchs to fold. The market was bent over backwards by a number of owners for a very long time before it finally folded. Teams aren't folding or relocating willy nilly anymore. There was madness 5 years ago and teams are settled. If they do drop down a level, they're still hosting hockey.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

AHL doesn't see teams relocate every season. There was the one season of madness 5 years ago with the Pacific shift, but that has improved the stability and marketability of the league and teams. Unarguably. There aren't relocations almost every season. The only one that wasn't a move to be closer to the parent was Portland to Springfield as @210 mentioned. 3 of the top 5 teams in attendance are teams that had an affiliation changed.

Entire leagues were killed off in the 80s. Hockey grew with the NHL's southern expansion in the 90s and experienced unprecedented growth and has kept growing since. Minor league hockey since 2000 has been infinitely more stable than pre-2000. Using 1990 as a marker is cherry picking when it's conveniently before the biggest growth the sport has ever experienced. It's like saying you're not sure about the internet based on telecommunications industry in the 90s.

Look at what it took for the Monarchs to fold. The market was bent over backwards by a number of owners for a very long time before it finally folded. Teams aren't folding or relocating willy nilly anymore. There was madness 5 years ago and teams are settled. If they do drop down a level, they're still hosting hockey.

Albany to Binghamton was because Binghamton agreed to subsidize the Devils losses at the ahl level. I really doubt it had anything to do with distance to the parent club.