Larry Brooks Rumors Nashville Problems

[Jarnberg]

Hartford's arena only seated a little over 15K, so for the (many) games that fans would have bought 18, 19, 20K tickets, they couldn't.

Can you prove this or give a source?

If Hartford had a team as good as the Preds with a nice, new building that seated 20,000 fans, in 2006-07, their attendance would be 17,500+, easy. If they had Carolina's team (which plainly should still be theirs), coming off a Cup win, they'd be sold out almost every game and any player on the team could be elected mayor.

Assumptions or facts?

And their TV ratings would be a lot higher, and their general appeal would be greater, since it would be a team in hockey country, not NASCAR and fiddlin' country.

Your stereotyping does nothing for your argument.

Obviously you are still upset over losing your hockey team. I would be too, as I don't want to see any NHL teams leave their cities. Its a shame that you want other teams to move and have their fans experience what you've been through. Nashville is not to blame for you losing your hockey team.

I could easily point my fingers at other cities with attendance problems but I'm not. Unlike some people on these boards, I don't go over the attendance figures on NHL.com after every game, pouncing on a chance to call out a city.

Would I like for there to be better attendance at Nashville games and other cities around the US? You bet.
It will take time to keep up great attendance, look at cities who have had hockey for a very long time and their attendance is dropping too, but again, no finger pointing. And also, you said it best:

The attendance figures are meaningless

I'd love for there to be more fans, more media attention, etc. from the city. But its growing. It takes time to build a great fan base. Our die hard fans are awesome. We attend the games and eat, breathe and sleep hockey. Its why we now have a high school ice hockey league. Its why I see more kids in neighborhoods playing roller hockey then football or baseball. But of course, you being so familiar with our city know these things right? Or do you still believe that we play fiddles and are all rednecks.

 

[ej_pens]

Building size can obviously bring down an average and it's hard to believe this could even be questioned.

If Quebec draws 12K for a dog team and sells out Montreal, their arch-rival, their average is still only 13,750.

If they had a building that seated 20K, they would have drawn 20K for Montreal and when averaged with the 12, would show an average of 16.

So what you are saying is that the people of Hartford aren't real hockey fans since they will only come out in force for a few teams every season and the rest of the games they really don't care enough to show up for? And this is supposed to be a reason to bring a team back there?

 

[Greschner4]

Actually, I'm a Red Wing/Ranger fan and have no dog in the fight. Nor do I really mean to aim solely at Nashville, but that was the city that was in the article that started the thread, so that's what I talked about.

From a purely objective point of view, it's almost impossible to make a pro-Nashville argument. The market is not big and has little history of hockey. It has no natural geographic hockey rivals. The most ominous sign is (or should be) blatantly obvious -- Nashville's attendance has been level or worse as the team has gotten significantly better. People in Nashville have sampled hockey and fewer of them are being turned into consistent fans, even as the team gets better and better and more and more exciting.

That did not and would not happen in any of the three markets I've mentioned, each of which rabidly supported winners in the relatively few occasions they had them. There really is little question that any of the three would support a team of the Preds' caliber significantly better than Nashville is.

 

[ej_pens]

That did not and would not happen in any of the three markets I've mentioned, each of which rabidly supported winners in the relatively few occasions they had them. There really is little question that any of the three would support a team of the Preds' caliber significantly better than Nashville is.

1000+ below capacity isn't "rabidly supporting winners". The Whalers never rabidly supported the NHL franchise. The attendance figures plainly show that.

 

[Jarnberg]

From a purely objective point of view, it's almost impossible to make a pro-Nashville argument. The market is not big and has little history of hockey. It has no natural geographic hockey rivals. The most ominous sign is (or should be) blatantly obvious -- Nashville's attendance has been level or worse as the team has gotten significantly better. People in Nashville have sampled hockey and fewer of them are being turned into consistent fans, even as the team gets better and better and more and more exciting.

After the lockout our numbers were higher than the year before, with our team getting better. And again, we're on pace this year to show another increase. But of course, the numbers don't mean anything right?

No geographic neighbors? Blame the NHL for not scheduling us against Atlanta and Carolina more often.

Again, would I like to see better attendance and some more support from the media? Of course. I'm not going to act like we are the perfect market for hockey. But not only has the team done better than what people expected (you know since no one has ever watched hockey here before, we play fiddles, prefer Nascar and hate the sport), but its also increasing in support; not only in number of fans but in the interest in hockey itself.

You can chose to be ignorant, thats fine. If it upsets you that much, show the NHL you mean business and don't support the NHL. That way you get your point across as the problem with the NHL is Nashville having a team, while every other city in the US deserves a team more.

 

[Greschner4]

1000+ below capacity isn't "rabidly supporting winners". The Whalers never rabidly supported the NHL franchise. The attendance figures plainly show that.

Hartford played to 90+% of capacity and sold out playoff games from 86-90 when they weren't really even a winner, merely a .500 team that won one playoff series and took Montreal to 7 games. Then they traded Francis in a horrible trade and went back from okay to bad again. They never had a 100-point, almost all young, home-grown team like the 06 Preds.

UConn basketball is essentially a Hartford operation -- in fact, they play a bunch of games in the Whalers' building -- and a winner, and ... rabidly supported.

Quebec drew more fans than Nashville does now practically every year it was in the NHL. It drew 99% of capacity, over 15K per game, in 1989-90 when it won 12 games. There truly is no point arguing its merits versus Nashville. It's not remotely close.

Winnipeg was never really a winner either. In the last two years before its lame duck year it drew almost identically to Edmonton. For all intents and purposes it IS Edmonton. There's no reason to think if it had the Edmonton teams of the past few years, its attendance wouldn't have continued to parallel Edmonton's. And Edmonton's attendance is significantly above Nashville's.

 

[Greschner4]

After the lockout our numbers were higher than the year before, with our team getting better. And again, we're on pace this year to show another increase. But of course, the numbers don't mean anything right?

No geographic neighbors? Blame the NHL for not scheduling us against Atlanta and Carolina more often.

Again, would I like to see better attendance and some more support from the media? Of course. I'm not going to act like we are the perfect market for hockey. But not only has the team done better than what people expected (you know since no one has ever watched hockey here before, we play fiddles, prefer Nascar and hate the sport), but its also increasing in support; not only in number of fans but in the interest in hockey itself.

You can chose to be ignorant, thats fine. If it upsets you that much, show the NHL you mean business and don't support the NHL. That way you get your point across as the problem with the NHL is Nashville having a team, while every other city in the US deserves a team more.

You were way too quick to offend at the NASCAR/fiddlin' point which I used not because I think that (and obviously not to offend), but because that is -- wrongly -- its reputation among sports watchers across N.A. So they see Nashville deep in the playoffs and aren't as likely to turn on the TV. I agree with you that that shouldn't matter.

Nor am I advocating uprooting Nashville and moving the team to any of the three wrongly-abandoned markets. Nashville and other newer franchises are really the vehicle with which to attack Bettman's lame stewardship of the league, part of which was to abandon good (not great) and traditional markets. Nashville can't help but get swept up in that, but it really and truly isn't anything against the city or its fans.

 

[ej_pens]

Hartford played to 90+% of capacity and sold out playoff games from 86-90

They were at 90% capacity only 2 of those seasons. The other 2 were below 90%

It's pretty hard to claim rabid support when you've only been able to get 90% capacity in 2 of your 30-some seasons in the NHL.

 

[Greschner4]

They were at 90% capacity only 2 of those seasons. The other 2 were below 90%

It's pretty hard to claim rabid support when you've only been able to get 90% capacity in 2 of your 30-some seasons in the NHL.

I didn't claim they rabidly supported the team; I claimed they rabidly supported their winners. Hartford didn't really have any winners. I'm not going to redo the research, but what did they have, a couple winning seasons? Did they win more than two playoff series in their entire NHL history?

The time period I'm focusing on -- and I'll confess probably overfocusing on -- starts in the spring of 1986 when they had a nice end of the year, swept their first round playoff series as a 4 vs 1 in the old divisional system, and took Montreal, the eventual Cup champion to 7, and carries into the whole next season when they won the division (and whiffed in the first round). The '86 playoffs and '86-87/'87-88 seasons show Hartford's potential as a market ... and show the broader point I made which is that attendance is supposed to go up, not down, as a market's team gets better.

That was really the only time Whaler hockey was any good and it was supported quite well -- 90%+ of capacity, sold-out playoff games, captivated media and city. Extrapolating from that and (if you'll accept it) UConn basketball, Hartford strikes me as a market the NHL should have stayed in.

I'll note finally that Hartford is clearly the worst of the three wrongly-abandoned markets and there's room for reasonable doubt about it. There is none about Quebec and Winnipeg.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Hartford's arena only seated a little over 15K, so for the (many) games that fans would have bought 18, 19, 20K tickets, they couldn't. The attendance figures are meaningless -- apples to orange juice. It's the same for Quebec and Winnipeg -- small arenas that would have packed in a lot more fans for a lot more games than they could actually hold, thus depressing the average.

If Hartford had a team as good as the Preds with a nice, new building that seated 20,000 fans, in 2006-07, their attendance would be 17,500+, easy. If they had Carolina's team (which plainly should still be theirs), coming off a Cup win, they'd be sold out almost every game and any player on the team could be elected mayor.

And their TV ratings would be a lot higher, and their general appeal would be greater, since it would be a team in hockey country, not NASCAR and fiddlin' country.

You can understand why Preds fans would try, but comparing Hartford, which would now be in its 35th year as a well-supported hockey market, to Nashville, limping badly in its 8th year, is pointless and silly.

Beyond ridiculous.

 

[GSC2k2*]

They were at 90% capacity only 2 of those seasons. The other 2 were below 90%

It's pretty hard to claim rabid support when you've only been able to get 90% capacity in 2 of your 30-some seasons in the NHL.

By the way, that was a relatively paltry 16 seasons in the NHL, not 30. This guy is counting the WHA tenure as well.

Talk about apples to oranges.

 

[Greschner4]

Beyond ridiculous.

Amply supported. The truth hurts, I know.

What do you think the attendance would be in a modern building in Hartford this year for the team if the Hurricanes were still there and coming off a Cup win? Or if the city had a 100-point team with all home-grown players? 14K and change?

Get real.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I didn't claim they rabidly supported the team; I claimed they rabidly supported their winners. Hartford didn't really have any winners. I'm not going to redo the research, but what did they have, a couple winning seasons? Did they win more than two playoff series in their entire NHL history?

The time period I'm focusing on -- and I'll confess probably overfocusing on -- starts in the spring of 1986 when they had a nice end of the year, swept their first round playoff series as a 4 vs 1 in the old divisional system, and took Montreal, the eventual Cup champion to 7, and carries into the whole next season when they won the division (and whiffed in the first round). The '86 playoffs and '86-87/'87-88 seasons show Hartford's potential as a market ... and show the broader point I made which is that attendance is supposed to go up, not down, as a market's team gets better.

That was really the only time Whaler hockey was any good and it was supported quite well -- 90%+ of capacity, sold-out playoff games, captivated media and city. Extrapolating from that and (if you'll accept it) UConn basketball, Hartford strikes me as a market the NHL should have stayed in.

I'll note finally that Hartford is clearly the worst of the three wrongly-abandoned markets and there's room for reasonable doubt about it. There is none about Quebec and Winnipeg.

You are right, there is no doubt about Winnipeg and Quebec (no more or less than Hartford). They are not NHL markets, they never were NHL markets and they never will be NHL markets. Of that there is not the slightest of doubts. They did not consistently fill even their paltry buildings, their corporate support was not competitive and they wouldn't draw a dime on the road (other than in Canadian markets that are sold out anyway and would sell out if their local team was playing the Seven Jolly Girls Beanbag Club).

That is all.

 

[Greschner4]

You are right, there is no doubt about Winnipeg and Quebec (no more or less than Hartford). They are not NHL markets, they never were NHL markets and they never will be NHL markets. Of that there is not the slightest of doubts. They did not consistently fill even their paltry buildings, their corporate support was not competitive and they wouldn't draw a dime on the road (other than in Canadian markets that are sold out anyway and would sell out if their local team was playing the Seven Jolly Girls Beanbag Club).

That is all.

Gary Bettman's in the house. How'd you come up with that screen name, Commissioner?

 

[GSC2k2*]

Amply supported. The truth hurts, I know.

What do you think the attendance would be in a modern building in Hartford this year for the team if the Hurricanes were still there and coming off a Cup win? Or if the city had a 100-point team with all home-grown players? 14K and change?

Get real.

Why would the truth "hurt" me?

I don't live in Nashville, by the way. I live in southern Ontario. Maybe that should help you figure out that I am a disinterested observer in this debate.

As to what attendance they might have, who knows? For all that appeearances showed, there were less than 14,000 dedicated hockey fans in the market, since that is all they could draw, even when their back was against the wall, and much less than that in other years. Of course, a decade later anyone can make up these throngs of fictional fans who would go to fictional games in a new fictional arena.

Sorry you lost your team, but Hartford is not an NHL caliber market and never was. I certainly don't gloat about it, but Hartford fans are no different frlom Saskatoon fans or fans in any other of dozens of decent sized cities who do not have the requisite size or corporate support.

 

[Greschner4]

Why would the truth "hurt" me?

I don't live in Nashville, by the way. I live in southern Ontario. Maybe that should help you figure out that I am a disinterested observer in this debate.

As to what attendance they might have, who knows? For all that appeearances showed, there were less than 14,000 dedicated hockey fans in the market, since that is all they could draw, even when their back was against the wall, and much less than that in other years. Of course, a decade later anyone can make up these throngs of fictional fans who would go to fictional games in a new fictional arena.

Sorry you lost your team, but Hartford is not an NHL caliber market and never was. I certainly don't gloat about it, but Hartford fans are no different frlom Saskatoon fans or fans in any other of dozens of decent sized cities who do not have the requisite size or corporate support.

I've never been a Whaler fan, Commissioner. Or a Nordique/Jet fan.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Gary Bettman's in the house. How'd you come up with that screen name, Commissioner?

That is my real name, unlike someone who would hide behind a screen name based on a former NHL defenceman.

By the way, Bettman tried like hell to save Winnipeg. I am not sure aobut the others (maybe he did as well, I dunno), but even the pro-'peggers around here admit it about Winnipeg.

I am not sure why you would say that Bettman comment like it is an insult, mind you. He is quite accomplished in his field. He certainly knows more about hockey economics than you do. So, thanks.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I've never been a Whaler fan, Commissioner. Or a Nordique/Jet fan.

So you're just a no-nothing anti-southern-franchise windbag, then? You have nothing to add to the debate other than to take the opportunity to slag southern franchises becase they all sit around on the porch, play the fiddle, drink 'shine and eye their cousins lustfully? Is that all? I wish you had told me, so that I could have ignored you earlier.

 

[Gnashville]

I've never been a Whaler fan, Commissioner. Or a Nordique/Jet fan.

There is a website for like minded people that ignore past attendance problems in "true hockey markets" and, loathe Gary Bettman and the Southern teams in general it's at www.jetsowner.com

 

[Greschner4]

That is my real name, unlike someone who would hide behind a screen name based on a former NHL defenceman.

By the way, Bettman tried like hell to save Winnipeg. I am not sure aobut the others (maybe he did as well, I dunno), but even the pro-'peggers around here admit it about Winnipeg.

I am not sure why you would say that Bettman comment like it is an insult, mind you. He is quite accomplished in his field. He certainly knows more about hockey economics than you do. So, thanks.

Actually, you ... er, he ... doesn't know very much at all about hockey economics. Otherwise he wouldn't have moved teams from Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hartford to lesser markets.

What economic benefit has those moves brought the league? Name one. The "broader TV footprint" idea was a disaster, with TV ratings about half what they were then. It didn't even bring expansion fees -- the simplest ones. He could have kept teams in the other cities and just expanded to Phoenix, Raleigh, and Denver. If you ... er, he couldn't even see that part, well ....

 

[Greschner4]

So you're just a no-nothing anti-southern-franchise windbag, then? You have nothing to add to the debate other than to take the opportunity to slag southern franchises becase they all sit around on the porch, play the fiddle, drink 'shine and eye their cousins lustfully? Is that all? I wish you had told me, so that I could have ignored you earlier.

If you want to ignore me, nothing's stopping you.

 

[Whalerfan11]

Karmonos and Gary Bettman have admitted that Hartford did not lose it's team because of attendance. It was because of no new arena, a greedy owner, and a corrupt mayor who may or may not have had his eye on getting the Patriots at the time (in my opinion).

We had 3 seasons of OVER 500 hockey. And when the team won it's one playoff series...that's right they won ONE and it was a best of five against Quebec, we had a parade!

Before their last season over 11,000 season tickets were sold in 30 days to try to keep the team here. We met every mark Karmonos set. And they still left.

I'm a member of a over 40 person active Hartford Whalers Booster Club and we're doing all we can to try to get the NHL back. We don't want to wish the pain of losing a franchise on anyone but it seems like the only way the NHL could come back because I don't think expansion is in the near future. Our thoughts are if a team is leaving regardless, come to Hartford. Let's fight the Bruins for the best team in New England!!

 

[triggrman]

We've had 2 seasons of over .500 hockey and have yet to win a playoff, give us a chance to grow a little before you all decide we don't deserve a team.

 

[Whalerfan11]

We've had 2 seasons of over .500 hockey and have yet to win a playoff, give us a chance to grow a little before you all decide we don't deserve a team.

That was my first post in this thread and I did not say anything about nashville. Just defending Hartfords interest in getting the NHL back.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

That was my first post in this thread and I did not say anything about nashville. Just defending Hartfords interest in getting the NHL back.

I don't think he was talking about your post.