Poor-Potential NHL Markets, plain and simple, or victims of the recession, etc.?

[tarheelhockey]

It is an interesting premise - short of being an outright dynasty, is it better to have "off" seasons interspersed with mostly winning, rather than simply winning all the time?

In short, yes. It goes against our instincts as fans, but hey... people are irrational. Good marriages break up because they get too predictable.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

NBA fans are just as bad. I know because I am one. I hear them trash Minnesota Toronto Milwaukee Memphis et al all the time.

Toronto? They were a top ten revenue team last year. They draw more revenue than most American cities. Are they being trashed because of the team's lack of success?

 

[Melrose Munch]

Toronto? They were a top ten revenue team last year. They draw more revenue than most American cities. Are they being trashed because of the team's lack of success?

Most likely.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Didn't attendance woes due to winning too much also affect the Oilers during their dynasty?

I also like how we have shifted to a discussion on Baseball attendance.

Can Baseball work in the south?!?!?

The point being made is this. The Atlanta fan says if they win people will start come out and watch. Other people point out that the Braves have won and can't keep the interest of the local people. The statement of they win too much and we get bored with that is ridiculous. Then it's because of Bobby Cox and it's the superstar went away but through all of that they continued to win!

 

[Duke749]

The point being made is this. The Atlanta fan says if they win people will start come out and watch. Other people point out that the Braves have won and can't keep the interest of the local people. The statement of they win too much and we get bored with that is ridiculous. Then it's because of Bobby Cox and it's the superstar went away but through all of that they continued to win!

It's like you purposely ignore any post regarding this, and if you don't you just nitpick and change your question so it favors you.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Here's the attendance since the ownership have reportedly been trying to sell the team. It's also the time they've spent in court.

05-06 - 15,550
06-07 - 16,240
07-08 - 15,831
08-09 - 14,626
09-10 - 13,607
10-11 - 12,995

In my opinion, this easily points to an ownership problem and not a market problem.

 

[Viqsi]

It's like you purposely ignore any post regarding this, and if you don't you just nitpick and change your question so it favors you.

Some people have simply already made up their minds as to whether or not a city is good for hockey, and simply won't listen to any suggestions otherwise, in full defiance of logic, reason, sanity, and/or basic common sense.

I recommend ignoring them.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

It's like you purposely ignore any post regarding this, and if you don't you just nitpick and change your question so it favors you.

So help me quantify this? It's not just winning because that's boring? It's win in the post season? Doesn't that seem very demanding from a fanbase considering evey year there are 22 teams that don't make the playoffs? This excuse is a stretch at best.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Actually, you are getting into a well researched area, intermittent reinforcement. It's the basis for gambling and also for the video game industry. Many studies have shown that if people are rewarded regularly, they become bored and interest declines. When the reward is intermittent, interest increases, and this increase can be quite large.

Here are some papers on this:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcfin003/psych.pdf

http://mentalhealthce.com/courses/contentGS/secGS08.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u77236t7l328072l/

I'm sure we've all seen fans of teams who win very regularly, they become almost impossible to please. In Ohio, we call them Buckeye fans!

The point being made is this. The Atlanta fan says if they win people will start come out and watch. Other people point out that the Braves have won and can't keep the interest of the local people. The statement of they win too much and we get bored with that is ridiculous. Then it's because of Bobby Cox and it's the superstar went away but through all of that they continued to win!

So help me quantify this? It's not just winning because that's boring? It's win in the post season? Doesn't that seem very demanding from a fanbase considering every year there are 22 teams that don't make the playoffs? This excuse is a stretch at best.

You need to read these studies. The short answer is yes. Without post season success, being a foregone conclusion to make the playoffs in a weak division basically leaves little interest in going to games since they don't really matter. Secondly what is the benefit of things like season tickets so you can get playoff tickets without the prospect of being able to profit from scalping world series tickets?

Again, read the studies.

 

[Boxscore]

Seriously? Drawing over 15,000 fans per year for three years in a row and over 16,000 one of those years is failure? The only failure is the owners squabbling and keeping Don Waddell, who was asked to step down but instead promoted himself.

Keeping with your logic, hockey in Pittsburgh is a failure and they should, and will, need to move the team. Hockey in Chicago was a failure and they should, and will, need to move that team. The only team that is not a failure is the Leafs (the Cubs of hockey), since they sell out every single games yet can field basically a minor league team.

I sense your anger and see what you're getting at. The fact remains, if the Thrashers were selling out and/or were an economically viable option, the ownership would not be out $130 million and other groups would be lining up to purchase the club and keep them in Atlanta.

There is a lot more than meets the eye in terms of attendance. How many of those tickets were sold at face value? How many tickets were given away as promotions to help boost attendance? What are the prices fans in Atlanta are willing to pay for an NHL ticket? What type of season ticket commitments and corporate sponsorships do the Thrashers have? I don't know all of these answers, but unless you do, I think you should realize these are all things to consider. The bottom line is, the NHL in Atlanta is an economically failing proposition at this time.

As for the other teams you mentioned, like I said, bodies in seats do not tell the entire story. Those franchises were able to make it work financially by whichever means possible. I'm not sure the Thrashers will. This article is more than a cry for help. They are pretty much declaring they are stuck and have been looking to unload their loses for over five years now with no avail.

I'm sure if NHL hockey could survive in Atlanta, there will be a savvy ownership group to come along and keep the Thrashers in Atlanta. And if it happens, so be it, I will be happy for the fans there. But the mess in Atlanta, Phoenix and Florida (among other places) just needs to be addresses properly instead of the NHL brushing everything under the carpet to support their perceived reality.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Some people have simply already made up their minds as to whether or not a city is good for hockey, and simply won't listen to any suggestions otherwise, in full defiance of logic, reason, sanity, and/or basic common sense.

I recommend ignoring them.

Great post Lady!

So help me quantify this? It's not just winning because that's boring? It's win in the post season? Doesn't that seem very demanding from a fanbase considering evey year there are 22 teams that don't make the playoffs? This excuse is a stretch at best.

You need to read these:

Actually, you are getting into a well researched area, intermittent reinforcement. It's the basis for gambling and also for the video game industry. Many studies have shown that if people are rewarded regularly, they become bored and interest declines. When the reward is intermittent, interest increases, and this increase can be quite large.

Here are some papers on this:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcfin003/psych.pdf

http://mentalhealthce.com/courses/contentGS/secGS08.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u77236t7l328072l/

I'm sure we've all seen fans of teams who win very regularly, they become almost impossible to please. In Ohio, we call them Buckeye fans!

Then come back and tell us what you think and how those studies modified your view.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Seriously? Drawing over 15,000 fans per year for three years in a row and over 16,000 one of those years is failure? The only failure is the owners squabbling and keeping Don Waddell, who was asked to step down but instead promoted himself.

Keeping with your logic, hockey in Pittsburgh is a failure and they should, and will, need to move the team. Hockey in Chicago was a failure and they should, and will, need to move that team. The only team that is not a failure is the Leafs (the Cubs of hockey), since they sell out every single games yet can field basically a minor league team.

Completely agree with this post.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

You need to read these studies. The short answer is yes. Without post season success, being a foregone conclusion to make the playoffs in a weak division basically leaves little interest in going to games since they don't really matter. Secondly what is the benefit of things like season tickets so you can get playoff tickets without the prospect of being able to profit from scalping world series tickets?

Again, read the studies.

I will read the studies tonight when I get home. Point is it strikes me as odd when a fans says put a winning product on the ice and the next breathe says too much winning is boring. Folks you can't have it both ways.

 

[headsigh]

I will read the studies tonight when I get home. Point is it strikes me as odd when a fans says put a winning product on the ice and the next breathe says too much winning is boring. Folks you can't have it both ways.

It could be that people don't watch baseball because they find it boring?

 

[OthmarAmmann]

I've generally stayed out of these pissing matches but I thought I'd add my two cents. I think what we're seeing is a cultural difference, which is why one side can't understand what the other is saying.

I grew up in Canada and I've lived in the States for several years. I will say that winning is just a lot more important in the States than it is in Canada. Simple as that.

 

[Dado]

Didn't attendance woes due to winning too much also affect the Oilers during their dynasty?

It appears the Oilers were 100% attendance until the '90 season, which is two seasons after Gretzky left and their last Stanley Cup season. During that last championship season, (official) attendance dropped by about 3%. Two years later it was down by about 8%, and one season after that they were running at 85%(!) capacity.

Interesting.

 

[Viqsi]

I've generally stayed out of these pissing matches but I thought I'd add my two cents. I think what we're seeing is a cultural difference, which is why one side can't understand what the other is saying.

I grew up in Canada and I've lived in the States for several years. I will say that winning is just a lot more important in the States than it is in Canada. Simple as that.

Damn. More proof that I'm some sort of self-unaware Canadian sleeper agent.

 

[Aaronxxx]

So help me quantify this? It's not just winning because that's boring? It's win in the post season? Doesn't that seem very demanding from a fanbase considering evey year there are 22 teams that don't make the playoffs? This excuse is a stretch at best.

dude, you have to comprehend the extent of the braves' dynasty. i was born in 1987. the braves started their playoff streak in 1991. i graduated high school in 2005, the same year the streak ended. the braves went to the post season my entire childhood. you really don't think a post season streak of that length with only one championship win (and only four other championship appearances, two before and two after the win) can become unexciting?

anyways, the team's attendance has been in line with the league average since the streak ended so how did we even get on this topic?

 

[tarheelhockey]

So help me quantify this? It's not just winning because that's boring? It's win in the post season?

The key element is drama. People follow sports because they want to see dramatic contests, thrill of victory, agony of defeat, etc.

In the case of the Braves there wasn't much drama despite their record of regular-season success. The regular season wins came easy, so easy that there wasn't much contest in the division most years. By September they were just playing out the schedule instead of clawing for wins. Then in October it ended so abruptly, there was nothing to really get excited about. After 15 years, the division pennant alone just isn't enough to maintain a high level of excitement.

The funny thing is, their attendance actually went up several thousand in 2007 when they were a third-place team, as compared to 2004 when they were coming off consecutive 100-win seasons. I can't say I've ever seen that phenomenon occur elsewhere, it seems to have been unique to that particular set of circumstances. Perhaps the same thing would have happened if the Sharks had been a decade-long dynasty with only 1 Cup to show for it.

 

[Fidel Astro]

I've generally stayed out of these pissing matches but I thought I'd add my two cents. I think what we're seeing is a cultural difference, which is why one side can't understand what the other is saying.

I grew up in Canada and I've lived in the States for several years. I will say that winning is just a lot more important in the States than it is in Canada. Simple as that.

I think this is probably true. We're more of a "good job out there, guys. Better luck next time, eh?" kind of culture. Americans seem (note: I said seem, so I don't want anyone complaining that I'm being "racist" [besides, "American" isn't even a race] or painting all Americans with the same brush) to have more of a win-at-all-costs/prove 'superiority' kind of attitude, so I can see why, if their teams aren't the best, they won't be bothered to show up.

 

[None Shall Pass]

I will read the studies tonight when I get home. Point is it strikes me as odd when a fans says put a winning product on the ice and the next breathe says too much winning is boring. Folks you can't have it both ways.

Saying "the next breathe" kind of dilutes the point. Generally speaking this change would occur over a longer period of time. For example, growing up a Yankees fan, my interest was piqued in 1996 when they won their first World Series in years. Then they started winning a bunch more and it kind of just became...redundant might be the best word.

And no fan is going to come out and say, "Winning is boring" because they take a lot of pride in their team's success. But knowing your team is just going to steamroll (or oppositely, get steamrolled) makes a game much less interesting to watch than a game where it could go either way in the end, or if you're fighting for a playoff position.

I imagine it's a Charles Murray-esque bell curve.

 

[Moobles]

I'd seriously caution "None Shall Pass" and you in looking too much into partial reinforcement in the sports model. Skinner's original tests were done on lab rats in a very carefully controlled experimental environment. Partial reinforcement in sports will have dozens if not hundreds of potential confounds, and operates on many other areas of psychology simultaneously. There are most certainly many other things that could contribute to explaining the Brave's attendance figures. It's an intriguing possible contribution, but I wouldn't sleep comfortably thinking we've discovered the oddities in some of these attendance figures.

Many studies have shown that if people are rewarded regularly, they become bored and interest declines. When the reward is intermittent, interest increases, and this increase can be quite large.