Philly not as big a hockey town as it is thought to be?

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

That might have been true 10 years ago, but I think that the new arena fiasco and the recent surgings of the Pens will do wonders for the hometown fanbase. Nothing makes fans like winners or contenders, and the way the NHL playoffs are set up, it's much easier to get into the post-season than MLB. You might end up seeing a generation gap between people who remember the Pirates post-season and those who can't in the next few years (it's already been 15 years).

Why wouldn't the statement made by the poster to whom you responded be true today, instead of having to go back ten years? The poster began his statement with "If the Pirates" (became contenders again). Why is that unreasonable? In fact, going back as recently as 2002, there's evidence that fully supports that poster's position. Consider that in the spring of 2002, the Penguins had just missed the playoffs for the first time in twelve years. They had also been within a whisker of the Stanely Cup Finals just twelve months earlier. Meanwhile, the Pirates had been nothing short of miserable for about a decade, and were coming off of a last-place 62-100 (!) season. Yet the Pirates were pulling in TV ratings in the high 5's that spring, while the Penguins had just averaged a 2.5 for that season.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_70170.html

The Pirates’ ratings are up on Fox Sports Net. The team drew a 5.73 average in April, compared to 4.76 in April of last season.
...

With Mario Lemieux missing most of the season with a hip injury and the team missing the playoffs for the first time in 12 years, the Penguins finished with a 2.5 average rating.

They didn't have the full-year number for the Pirates, but considering the horrible product, that alone is remarkably high. And the point here isn't to knock Pittsburgh, because it is a good US hockey market. The point is that the other poster's statement about the Pirates' place in the hierarchy if they were to be contenders is not out of line at all, considering their relative popularity even at a time when their past decade had been horrific while the Penguins had been very successful over the same period.

 

[trenton1]

It may seem hard to believe, but there is no question that hockey as a sport (and with that, the Bruins) was more popular than football and the Patriots (at least in Eastern Mass.) until at least 1994 when Kraft, Bledsoe and Parcells rescued the moribund Patriots franchise. The Patriots first Super Bowl attempt in 1985-86 gave them a brief advantage but that was a cinderella story (as you saw them get dismantled 46-10) and the team crashed hard within a year or two to the point where certain games weren't even locally televised circa 1988-90...which is when the Bruins took flight again with Neely/Bourque.

 

[Lou's Koolaid]

This is a joke right? You see no difference between the Flyers and the Devils fan base? How long, may I ask, have you been following hockey? I've been to Devils games, within the last decade, where there were about 4,000 people in attendance. The Flyers have a rabid fan base, whereas very few people care about the Devils. Do know, I say this as someone who lives less than 3 miles from CAA. The Devils win the cup, it's front page news in the Bergen Co. papers the next day, then it's over and done with. There will be more articles on the Flyers in the Philly papers than there will be articles on the Devils in the NJ papers--and only one of our teams is in the playoffs. As I type, there are currently discounted tickets offered for the Devils first round playoff games, do you think the same thing happens in Philly? Sorry, as Lou said below, you are most definitely barking up the wrong tree on this one.Your way off base here Im not comparing the
Flyers popularity to that of the Devils that would be stupid. Im just not sure if Philly lives up the ranking by the hockey news, and were in any post did I say that the Devils were more or as popular than the Flyers. If their was any comparison it was the New York market which includes the Rangers Isles and Devils.

Heres a senerio this years final is Buffalo v.s Nashville is there better T.V ratings in Philly of the NYC metro area. Flyers fans and most other U.S fans pretty much all don't watch the playoff other than their team.
Thank you.

 

[GKJ]

A lot of fans in Philly who call themselves Flyers fans but they're really ignorant Eagles fans are completely ignorant to the rest of hockey outside of the Devils, Rangers, Penguins, Leon Stickle, the Oilers of the '80s, Kevin Collins, Tie Domi and Rod Brind'Amour.


After Peter Forsberg was traded, were calling the sports talk radio station whining.


Not because the Flyers traded Peter Forsberg, but because they didn't even know an NHL team existed in Nashville (and then it was why is there a team in Nashville and how could Bobby Clarke possibly let a team from Nashville be better than ours). A franchise that's been around almost 10 years. Anyone who follows hockey on an even semi-regular basis could come across the Nashville Predators by accident.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

It may seem hard to believe, but there is no question that hockey as a sport (and with that, the Bruins) was more popular than football and the Patriots (at least in Eastern Mass.) until at least 1994 when Kraft, Bledsoe and Parcells rescued the moribund Patriots franchise.

It seems hard to believe because it isn't true. The Patriots have been more popular than the Bruins for some time now.

 

[trenton1]

It seems hard to believe because it isn't true. The Patriots have been more popular than the Bruins for some time now.

Yeah, like I said, since 1994.

 

[Muttley*]

This is a joke right? You see no difference between the Flyers and the Devils fan base? How long, may I ask, have you been following hockey? I've been to Devils games, within the last decade, where there were about 4,000 people in attendance. The Flyers have a rabid fan base, whereas very few people care about the Devils. Do know, I say this as someone who lives less than 3 miles from CAA. The Devils win the cup, it's front page news in the Bergen Co. papers the next day, then it's over and done with. There will be more articles on the Flyers in the Philly papers than there will be articles on the Devils in the NJ papers--and only one of our teams is in the playoffs. As I type, there are currently discounted tickets offered for the Devils first round playoff games, do you think the same thing happens in Philly? Sorry, as Lou said below, you are most definitely barking up the wrong tree on this one.



Thank you.

Oh come on already. We know the Flyers have more fans than the Devils. It's one thing to say that they have more fans and outdraw the Devils, but it's totally ludicrous to say "The Devils win the cup, it's front page news in the Bergen Co. papers the next day, then it's over and done with."

That's just not true. The Record & Star Ledger have plenty of Devils coverage, comparable to what you see in other NHL cities. And they cover the team all your round. I find your comments hard to believe esepcially when most Devils fans read those two papers. Considering there is coverage of 9 professional sports teams in those papers, compared to just 4 in Philadelphia, they do a perfectly fine job in covering the Devils.

And it's also an outright lie to say you were at games with 4,000 people in attendence.

Go pat yourself on the back for being a Flyers fan.

 

[DickSmehlik]

Not even close. The Bills RULE Western New York.

In America, Football is a much, much more popular sport than hockey. Easily. That doesn't mean those fans aren't hockey fans, and that they don't support the team. It just means that hockey isn't #1.

Football = #1 in America. More than baseball. More than basketball. And certainly much mroe than hockey. That will never change.

Well I don't dispute that the NFL is king. But I've often said they certainly have the scales tipped in their favor.

The football season is 16 games. They play on Sunday afternoons were they have virtually no competition on TV. Hockey (along with the baseball and basketball) mean while plays an 82 game schedule and has to compete with prime time television.

If the two played the same number of games and in the same TV slots, I think there would be at least a few American cities where hockey would be more popular.

 

[Lou's Koolaid]

A lot of fans in Philly who call themselves Flyers fans but they're really ignorant Eagles fans are completely ignorant to the rest of hockey outside of the Devils, Rangers, Penguins, Leon Stickle, the Oilers of the '80s, Kevin Collins, Tie Domi and Rod Brind'Amour.


After Peter Forsberg was traded, were calling the sports talk radio station whining.


Not because the Flyers traded Peter Forsberg, but because they didn't even know an NHL team existed in Nashville (and then it was why is there a team in Nashville and how could Bobby Clarke possibly let a team from Nashville be better than ours). A franchise that's been around almost 10 years. Anyone who follows hockey on an even semi-regular basis could come across the Nashville Predators by accident.

Thanks for backing me up on this.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Yeah, like I said, since 1994.

Sorry I wasn't more clear.

When I said that what you said wasn't true, I guess that I should have specifically stated that the Patriotes were more popular than the Bruins for some time PRIOR TO 1994.

Sheesh.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Thanks for backing me up on this.

Right, because people who call sports talk radio are a representative sample of the sports fan population.

 

[Rich Nixon]

Ignore GKJ...I dunno why you wanna downplay the Flyers in Philly, but they're very popular here. As a kid growing up you could go to my school and ask all the other kids who the captain of the Flyers was-they'd know Eric Lindros. Most had no clue who the QB of the Eagles was (even though they were awful). Every day in the 90's we'd play street hockey. I saw as many Flyers jerseys on the first day of the NHL season as I saw Phils caps on opening day last week. I have no clue what your agenda is, GKJ, but I've never had any reason to believe that the Flyers were anything but second in the town, third if the Phillies were to win the World Series. The Sixers in the finals in '01 drew far less attention than the Flyers playoff runs in '97 and '04.

 

[GKJ]

Ignore GKJ...I dunno why you wanna downplay the Flyers in Philly, but they're very popular here. As a kid growing up you could go to my school and ask all the other kids who the captain of the Flyers was-they'd know Eric Lindros. Most had no clue who the QB of the Eagles was (even though they were awful). Every day in the 90's we'd play street hockey. I saw as many Flyers jerseys on the first day of the NHL season as I saw Phils caps on opening day last week. I have no clue what your agenda is, GKJ, but I've never had any reason to believe that the Flyers were anything but second in the town, third if the Phillies were to win the World Series. The Sixers in the finals in '01 drew far less attention than the Flyers playoff runs in '97 and '04.

Kids are different. Kids don't really know any better. We're not talking about kids in this thread.

The Flyers are virtually ignored other than the times I mentioned, unless there is a big free agent signing. You'll hear things here and there. We have our share of fans who treat the Flyers as the #1 team, a lot of them hate the Eagles. Some of them are, most of us (at least the people I know) resent the people who walk into the building, get drunk and are completely clueless.

I'm not downplaying Flyers fans, I'm downplaying Eagles fans who pretend they're Flyers fans. Basically 90% of the Delaware Valley. They're very ignorant, and they think they invented football (and hockey - when Eagles fans talk about the Flyers, they act like they know everything about the sport as if they watch more than 4 games between October and February)

 

[Rich Nixon]

Kids are different. Kids don't really know any better. We're not talking about kids in this thread.

Because most kids take the action by themselves to watch sports that their parents have no interest in. Right, I get it, the NHL is like rock and roll and Pokemon.

You continued your post by describing sports fans in general, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[GKJ]

Because most kids take the action by themselves to watch sports that their parents have no interest in. Right, I get it, the NHL is like rock and roll and Pokemon.

Some kids have their own mind that they will watch what they will. I am the ONLY person in my family where hockey is my favorite sport, and who even watches horse racing among football and that's how I grew up.


Hockey is not as big in Philly as people think.

 

[flyersfan97]

Oh come on already. We know the Flyers have more fans than the Devils. It's one thing to say that they have more fans and outdraw the Devils, but it's totally ludicrous to say "The Devils win the cup, it's front page news in the Bergen Co. papers the next day, then it's over and done with."

That's just not true. The Record & Star Ledger have plenty of Devils coverage, comparable to what you see in other NHL cities. And they cover the team all your round. I find your comments hard to believe esepcially when most Devils fans read those two papers. Considering there is coverage of 9 professional sports teams in those papers, compared to just 4 in Philadelphia, they do a perfectly fine job in covering the Devils.

And it's also an outright lie to say you were at games with 4,000 people in attendence.

Go pat yourself on the back for being a Flyers fan.

Lou's original post referred to less media coverage-but admits to living in Central Jersey. He/she is no where near the true fan base of the Flyers which is more south-western Jersey and into Pennsylvania (obviously). I readily admit that Detroit may beat us, but do we know the exact criteria the Hockey News used? I don't recall, I just remember Philly being voted "#1 hockey city." Was it the number of sell-outs? Because I just read that Detroit is also having difficulty selling out their first round games. I can absolutely assure you that short of a nuclear holocaust, that would never happen in Philly.

Now to your other points, yes, the Devils are covered daily, but on an average day, what page are news of their games located on? I am a daily subscriber to the Record, and unless something really awesome happens, the Devils (and all of hockey) are usually regulated to page 4 or 6. They win the Cup, there is an awesome color pull-out in that weekend's edition and that's all folks. You can't compare a parking lot 'celebration' to a trip down the Canon of Heros in NYC. I haven't gone through my papers this week, but my guess would be that the Rutgers women's b-ball team and Imus got more coverage than the Devils winning the Atlantic. Am I wrong, I doubt it.

Next, when I said 4,000 I was being OVERLY generous, so you're right, I probably was out-right lying, but do know that I did so in an effort to throw your team a bone.

As for patting myself on my back, I am a VERY proud Flyers fan. I live in a nation that not only allows free-will, but encourages it, if I wanted to root for another team I would certainly do so. I don't need division titles and Cups to love my team. I'll love 'em when they're winning and love 'em just as much when they're losing.

 

[CapsChemist]

I dunno i think Philly is just as good as New-York and i have been around both fanbase's alot. Flyers are mentioned on the nightly news all the time.

Everywhere you go you see Flyers Bumper-stickers, everywhere. I think everyone living between Harrisburg and the Delaware owned a Lindros jersey at some point.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Sorry I wasn't more clear.

When I said that what you said wasn't true, I guess that I should have specifically stated that the Patriotes were more popular than the Bruins for some time PRIOR TO 1994.

Sheesh.

No they weren't. My family is from New England, and the Bruins always were far more popular than the Patriots until the mid-to-late1990's, when the two franchises switched roles (Winners became mediocre, and losers became winners).

The Patriots were terrible to mediocre for most of the 1980's, with ownership problems, until Robert Kraft took them over in the early 1990's. The Neely and Bourque-led Bruins were consistently one of the top teams in the league, and were extremely popular in Boston, second only to the uber-popular Red Sox.

The Bruins BY FAR were more popular than the Patriots until the football team started to win, and when that happened, as in most American cities, the football team became more popular than the mediocre hockey team.

 

[trenton1]

Sorry I wasn't more clear.

When I said that what you said wasn't true, I guess that I should have specifically stated that the Patriotes were more popular than the Bruins for some time PRIOR TO 1994.

Sheesh.

By all means explain. Please talk about how, outside of the 1985-86 super bowl fever, the Patriots were ever, from 1967-1994, the favored team in Boston over the Bruins. The Patriots were about 6 years old in 1967 when Orr showed up...the Bruins had already been here for 40 years and though they stunk in the early to mid 60's they had a solid home here.
But anyway...please address the latter Sullivan years and the Kiam/Orthwein years of the Pats and the dearth of TV coverage in the late 80's and early 90's (which would cause a full scale riot now but was little more than a "that sucks but so do the Pats" type of stir) at the time. I'd love to hear it from a different angle. The Pats were ALWAYS well liked, that's not even a question, and they probably never got as low as the Bruins are now--even with Rod Rust and the near move to St. Louis.
But the Bruins were always a bit more prominent in the years I can speak to (1967-94). They were not like the Sox or Bird's Celtics but generally, always ahead of the Pats until the Krafts took over. It should be noted that the the Bruins were about as big here in the early 70's with Orr as the Red Sox are nowadays. This is not hyperbole. Plenty of actual natives who were there and are on this board can attest as well.
Sure, yeah, it's possible I missed something but I'm not listening to someone unless they were here or are completely familiar with the entire Boston sports scene for several years before the Kraft's showed up and the Garden closed. You'll have to give me examples and tell me something I didn't see as a fan of both teams all those years.

 

[hockeydadx2*]

I think that everybody should accept the fact that in the U.S., if the NFL team or the MLB is a good team that is playing well, it will almost a certainty that those teams will be much much more popular than the NHL team. That is just the way it is, and it will never change in this country. Philly is no different than any other city in this regard, and in fact it is probably better than most. In Chicago, even if the Cubs were in last place and the Hawks in first, the Cubs would be far more popular, for example. Same in New York.

I don't know why everybody can't accept the fact that in this country hockey is clearly more of a niche sport than a national pasttime, and that it is unlikely hockey will ever come close to baseball and football. It doesn't bother me one bit that this is true.

 

[Muttley*]

I am a daily subscriber to the Record, and unless something really awesome happens, the Devils (and all of hockey) are usually regulated to page 4 or 6.

You can't compare a parking lot 'celebration' to a trip down the Canon of Heros in NYC.

I haven't gone through my papers this week, but my guess would be that the Rutgers women's b-ball team and Imus got more coverage than the Devils winning the Atlantic. Am I wrong, I doubt it.

As for patting myself on my back, I am a VERY proud Flyers fan. I live in a nation that not only allows free-will, but encourages it, if I wanted to root for another team I would certainly do so. I don't need division titles and Cups to love my team. I'll love 'em when they're winning and love 'em just as much when they're losing.

Sorry, I've been following the Devils on the Record since the 1980's. That's a completely false statement to say they are "usaully relegated to page 4 or 6". Perhaps if it was a late Western Conference game that came after the printing deadline, and they ended up printing the AP article after midnight, and were forced to put it in the back pages. But like today and since September training camp, they are on page 1.

As far as Rutgers women's basketball and the Imus incident, that got more coverage in the New York papers as he's on a NY radio show. Besides, it's a national story.

And ticker tape parades are a New York City thing. Why should every city have a stupid "ticker tape" parade? That's just copying New York City. Besides, ticker tape parades were originally intended for real heros like Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhardt, astronauts, etc. Not rich, athletes. What difference does it make if you have a ticker tape parade, rally in a dowtown of a city, or rally at the arena you play in? Geez, only women should complain about such trivial things like that.

And nobody is questioning your free will over which team you should and shouldn't like. But your tirade against the Devils gives you away in dealing with the same, broken-record issues of attendance, parade locations, media coverage, blah, blah, blah, etc.

Face it, it just makes you feel better to rationalize-away 32 years of not winning a Championship and your former GM's inability to understand the importance of goaltending, by criticising & marginalizng a rival team's accomplishments. You know it.

 

[alrusso]

Boston

If the Lions, Red Wings, Pistons and Tigers were all equally good ... the Pistons would be 4th .. and the Tigers & Lions battling for the top spot.

If the teams were all competing for the title, it would be the same in Boston. Red Sox, Pats, and the Bruins and Celtics would be fighting for 3rd place. Still popular, but fighting for 3rd place.

 

[alrusso]

Equal

No they weren't. My family is from New England, and the Bruins always were far more popular than the Patriots until the mid-to-late1990's, when the two franchises switched roles (Winners became mediocre, and losers became winners).

The Patriots were terrible to mediocre for most of the 1980's, with ownership problems, until Robert Kraft took them over in the early 1990's. The Neely and Bourque-led Bruins were consistently one of the top teams in the league, and were extremely popular in Boston, second only to the uber-popular Red Sox.

The Bruins BY FAR were more popular than the Patriots until the football team started to win, and when that happened, as in most American cities, the football team became more popular than the mediocre hockey team.

I agree with what your saying, but all things being equal the Bruins are third. Unless another Bobby Orr comes along...........

 

[Bear of Bad News]

By all means explain. Please talk about how, outside of the 1985-86 super bowl fever, the Patriots were ever, from 1967-1994, the favored team in Boston over the Bruins. The Patriots were about 6 years old in 1967 when Orr showed up...the Bruins had already been here for 40 years and though they stunk in the early to mid 60's they had a solid home here.
But anyway...please address the latter Sullivan years and the Kiam/Orthwein years of the Pats and the dearth of TV coverage in the late 80's and early 90's (which would cause a full scale riot now but was little more than a "that sucks but so do the Pats" type of stir) at the time. I'd love to hear it from a different angle. The Pats were ALWAYS well liked, that's not even a question, and they probably never got as low as the Bruins are now--even with Rod Rust and the near move to St. Louis.
But the Bruins were always a bit more prominent in the years I can speak to (1967-94). They were not like the Sox or Bird's Celtics but generally, always ahead of the Pats until the Krafts took over. It should be noted that the the Bruins were about as big here in the early 70's with Orr as the Red Sox are nowadays. This is not hyperbole. Plenty of actual natives who were there and are on this board can attest as well.
Sure, yeah, it's possible I missed something but I'm not listening to someone unless they were here or are completely familiar with the entire Boston sports scene for several years before the Kraft's showed up and the Garden closed. You'll have to give me examples and tell me something I didn't see as a fan of both teams all those years.

So let's see some statistics instead of just "trust me, it's true and all of my friends agree".

 

[Realm]

Minnesota:
Vikings
Twins
Gopher hockey
Wild
Timberwolves
high school hockey
Gopher basketball/football

thats the order I see it in Minnesota right now.