You can't assume attendance would improve one of the complaints i do hear is there is to many games now if a team hosting 60 homes games chances are your not going to see a great increase in attendance.
Should NHL Home Game Scheduling Favor "Weak Markets"?
- Thread starter danishh
- Start date
You can't assume attendance would improve one of the complaints i do hear is there is to many games now if a team hosting 60 homes games chances are your not going to see a great increase in attendance.
New User Name
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2008
- 12,913
- 1,769
Then get the owners to take it up with Bettman. I can't see why the league would dictate start times. (7pm or 8pm)
Why not allow the bottom 10 in attendance from the previous year to select dates first, then everyone else.
Maybe the Raptors and the Blue Jays can get preferential dates to help grow baseball and basketball.
I can remember a couple of years ago when it was known that Hockey day in Canada wouldn't have the 6 Canadian teams play each other, the league told HNIC to pound salt.
Oh well, do what you can to grow the game. I'm slowly hating the NHL now anyways.
LadyStanley
Registered User
The CBA outlines that there shall be no three games in three days.
However, there have been situations where a delayed game did end up being a three-in-three, such as when the Sharks were diverted to Colorado Springs when Denver was snowed in and they played the game a day later -- after the players (union members) officially voted to do so -- followed by back-to-back home games.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
A few questions:
1. Do you think that "strong markets" are a constant? A number of the teams on your list have a checkered past with attendance. would they sell out? Would their tickets command the same prices?
2. If the League does dramatically reduce the number of home weekend games for "strong" markets, could it weaken those markets?
3. Is AHL/NCAA/Juniors type scheduling as knorthern knight suggested more beneficial to all teams than your suggestion?
Why not? Everyone could benefit!
1. Of course its not constant. The NHL could reassess who the 'strong' markets are every season. The main thing that will soften those strong markets is bad ownership (chicago) or bad on ice performance (pittsburgh).
2. I dont think that this will weaken those markets. If these markets get weaker, it will be because of on-ice performance or ownership.
3. That really does nothing for the strong markets, as they would be selling out their weekday games anyways. It will probably hurt the arena managers (which in some cases is the nhl team), as it will lead to less favorable scheduling for non-hockey events.
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,085
- 531
TaketheCannoli
RIP
I think we disagree a bit on a few things. I think people overestimate the resilience of a number of markets. Eliminating a large number of weekend games may have a huge effect. I don't expect an angry fan boycott so much as over time, businesses and individuals deciding to stop buying season tickets due to lack of convenience.
I'm just not convinced there are as many markets that will sell out every game regardless of weekend games. It's a popular meme, but I just don't buy it.
I would rather see more effort to market other markets. What if Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto got the same number of games on HNIC's early slot? What if Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary got as much play as Toronto on CBC?
How about rotation of the Heritage and Winter Classics? Want to help the Atlanta's, Phoenix's and Florida's? Put them in the Winter Classic. Let Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa and Montreal host either a Heritage or Winter Classic. Imagine a Canucks/Blackhawks Winter Classic! The exposure will help non-traditional markets sell more tickets when the Canucks come to town!
How about a Winter/Heritage Classic at Ohio Stadium in Columbus? I'd love to see the Blue Jackets vs. the Flames or Oilers in front of 105,000 in the Shoe! At TCF Bank Stadium in Minneapolis? Imagine the Wild vs. the Stars! or what about a Wild vs. Jets game outdoors if a team moves to Winnipeg?
How about something like Sens vs. Buffalo? How about Sens vs. Carolina? Why not Habs vs. Thrashers or Lightning in the Winter/Heritage Classic?
Frankly the thought that the NHL and NHL FANS think in terms countries is damaging and counter-productive. Why not work to make less traditional matchups more compelling?
New User Name
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2008
- 12,913
- 1,769
Excellent question. Easy answers.
As for the winter classic, can't blame anyone but NBC on that one. They seem to want specific American teams and no Canadian teams.
As for CBC and HNIC, please worry about NBC and the control Gary allows them.
Maybe Phoenix making the playoffs this year should be on all NBC stations coast to coast and live.
I guess it's all what NBC thinks the advertisers are willing to pay.
Saturday is also a Bruin game day. The Bruins play every Saturday in Boston unless we play a Canadian team at their building. Off the top of my head, either one time a season a Canuck, Flame or Oiler game on their western Canada trip in early January. And usually one Canadien and one Leaf game, then the rest are in Boston every Saturday.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
Thinking countries instead of the League and it's teams as a whole? HNIC is a sacred cow? CBC = good? NBC= bad?
Puhlease- the sooner the fans stop singing Jingo Bells the sooner all the markets will succeed. I'm for supporting every team in a way that ensures success.
Popularizing teams like Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Anaheim, St. Louis, Columbus, Nashville, Atlanta, Tampa, Carolina and Florida is a win for everyone.
optimus2861
Registered User
"Jingo Bells"?
2525 has a valid point re: NBC & the Winter Classic. NBC says to NHL, "We'll show the Winter Classic but we only want to show it with these teams and/or these star players." If the NHL says "No," what do you think would happen? That NBC would cave, laugh it off and say, "Nah, just jokin' with ya, we'd love to show Nashville!"? Who do you think holds the power in that negotiation?
Ditto CBC & HNIC w.r.t. the Leafs, albeit to a lesser extent.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
As a fan of a team with a 0.0% shot of ever being in the Winter Classic, I don't really have a problem being excluded from that particular event. It wouldn't make sense to host one here, seeing as outdoor ice isn't part of our tradition, and having the Canes as visitors instead of a huge-market team just doesn't make business sense.
We get that, and I can't think of a time I've heard our fans complain about it. It just isn't part of the dynamic for teams south of Washington.
We get that, and I can't think of a time I've heard our fans complain about it. It just isn't part of the dynamic for teams south of Washington.
Buck Aki Berg
Done with this place
This is the sort of thing that can be solved with a simple re-alignment, to ensure that there's a sufficient mix of older and newer teams in each division. It seems to me that the Northeast, Northwest, Atlantic, and Central Divisions have a ton of history among themselves, while the Southeast and Pacific Divisions have just one "anchor team", with four teams each having much less history.
I don't want to turn this into a here's-the-realignment-that-I-like-best thread, but I think re-aligning divisions to maintain a healthy mix of the "original 21" and the nine expansion teams would go a long way in making the less traditional matchups more enticing. At it would be a lot easier to accomplish than negotiating all the variables associated with "favourable scheduling"
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I agree with everything here, especially the point about there being more than one way to skin this particular cat.
The Central Division is a good example of how divisional balance can help newer teams. Nashville and Columbus seem to consider the Wings their top rival. Nashville has sold out every date against Detroit and Chicago, and Columbus sold out their first three in a row (I guess the tank hurt them in the late season).
hockeygoon15
Registered User
- Nov 30, 2006
- 1,719
- 4
I really don't see how this is an issue. From the point of view of the two main parties involved - players and owners (yes, the league is involved as well, but for this example the league can be considered the players and owners combined) - this is a no-brainer. Owners want to make money, players want to make money. With players salaries directly tied to league wide revenue, the shared goal between these groups is to increase that revenue figure.
Speaking from what I've seen locally (NY metro) the league does favor "weak" markets, as it should from a business standpoint. The Rangers have four Friday and zero Saturday home games this regular season. The Islanders have five Friday and 13 Saturday home games, in addition to a couple of Monday afternoon games on school holidays. Reason being there are always going to be people or corporations in midtown Manhattan that will go to a hockey game, but out in suburban Long Island, you will get a natural attendance boost (regardless of on ice product) by having a game on a non work night. Toronto is an anomaly as they can generate huge revenue from national broadcasts if they're home on Saturday.
Is this inconvenient for the family of 4 who wants to go to a Saturday night Rangers game at MSG? Yes, but that's life.
Speaking from what I've seen locally (NY metro) the league does favor "weak" markets, as it should from a business standpoint. The Rangers have four Friday and zero Saturday home games this regular season. The Islanders have five Friday and 13 Saturday home games, in addition to a couple of Monday afternoon games on school holidays. Reason being there are always going to be people or corporations in midtown Manhattan that will go to a hockey game, but out in suburban Long Island, you will get a natural attendance boost (regardless of on ice product) by having a game on a non work night. Toronto is an anomaly as they can generate huge revenue from national broadcasts if they're home on Saturday.
Is this inconvenient for the family of 4 who wants to go to a Saturday night Rangers game at MSG? Yes, but that's life.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
"Jingo Bells"?
2525 has a valid point re: NBC & the Winter Classic. NBC says to NHL, "We'll show the Winter Classic but we only want to show it with these teams and/or these star players." If the NHL says "No," what do you think would happen? That NBC would cave, laugh it off and say, "Nah, just jokin' with ya, we'd love to show Nashville!"? Who do you think holds the power in that negotiation?
Ditto CBC & HNIC w.r.t. the Leafs, albeit to a lesser extent.
As soon as this was written, it became jingoistic:
The entire league will benefit if less attractive teams get some press. The league needs to showcase teams to make them more compelling. This includes teams on both sides of the border. As an example, when Chicago,Toronto,Montreal, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, the Rangers or the Bruins among others visit Columbus, it's a hot ticket. When Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Phoenix, the Panthers, and Ottawa among others visit, it's a big meh.
When Chicago visits Philly once a year, it's a hard ticket to get. When Atlanta or Calgary visit Philadelphia, people can't dump their tickets fast enough.
Duke749
Savannah Ghost Pirates
The Southeast has suffered badly from this. Splitting that division up could do a lot of good.
optimus2861
Registered User
You specifically asked about a Winter Classic between, say, Columbus and Edmonton. From a "getting lesser lights some exposure" POV it sounds great, but you are completely ignoring the fact that NBC would simply refuse to air it, defeating the whole point of the endeavor. It's quite obvious when NBC & NHL signed the contract for the Winter Classic, NBC had it written into the deal that they will only air it with specific teams in specific locales, and that any changes must be approved by NBC.
That's just the way it is. Events like the Winter Classic aren't for the NHL to showcase underexposed teams. They're for broadcast ratings. That means big market teams, rivalries, and/or superstars.
Besides the big showcase starts in a couple weeks.
New User Name
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2008
- 12,913
- 1,769
Oh, so now for all teams to succeed, fans just have to stop singing jingo bells. I love the excuses.
Bottom line is NBC doesn't want certain...errrr let's put it a different way. NBC only wants certain teams. Quite frankly, can you blame them? I'm no expert on TV and advertising but it sure isn't a leap to suggest that advertisers want high profile teams.
And no CBC isn't God to Gary. NBC has that role with all the power he gives them.
If NBC wants afternoon playoff games, fine, let them have them.
Just don't push afternoon games during the playoffs for teams that usually play home games at night (unless they want them)
I've already given my opinion on a scheduling idea. Allow the bottom 10 teams in attendance from the previous year to select dates, then everyone else. Do it like the draft.
If you don't think that's a major concession to help bad attendance teams, well I don't know.
Just curious, does MLB or NBA do anything re attendance for those teams not drawing well?
Last edited:
LadyStanley
Registered User
NBC loves the original six teams (that are US).
The Sharks, when on Versus, have often had boffo ratings (even as the late game), and play some very entertaining hockey, yet they have not been on NBC (regular season) since they stopped regional games.
They've won their division about every season since, won the President's Trophy, and even made the 3rd round of the playoffs; even have a hot Calder trophy candidate this year and a handful of 30+ goal scorers, bunch of 20+ goal scorers.
Sounds like they're missing out. C'est la vie.
The Sharks, when on Versus, have often had boffo ratings (even as the late game), and play some very entertaining hockey, yet they have not been on NBC (regular season) since they stopped regional games.
They've won their division about every season since, won the President's Trophy, and even made the 3rd round of the playoffs; even have a hot Calder trophy candidate this year and a handful of 30+ goal scorers, bunch of 20+ goal scorers.
Sounds like they're missing out. C'est la vie.
New User Name
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2008
- 12,913
- 1,769
Exactly. The Sharks are an entertaining team. As are the Coyotes, the Kings and the Lightning.
I don't know who/what to blame but NBC giving exposure to those teams can only help. But for some reason, they don't.
The Coyotes are about as exciting as the 2003 New Jersey Devils. Good team, but drains the life out of the game.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
Your reply was jingoistic as soon as you said leave CBC and HNIC alone. Frankly, HNIC should be called Hockey Night in Toronto. The treatment of the rest of the Canadian teams by the CBC is ridiculous.
As far as who is in these games, at some point the League needs to dictate its own schedule.
saskganesh
Registered User
The only team that is treated poorly is Ottawa. Yes, Montreal does not get nationally broadcast enough on CBC but it has its own national broadcast deal so I don't think a lot of people real care.
The western teams dominate the second (western) HNIC game of course. If more people want to watch the Oilers, Flames or Canucks, they simply have to stay up later on a Saturday night (!) or they can watch at a time of their own convenience on webstreaming.
Since Ottawa is a poor team this year, and has the smallest national fanbase of the Six, it's not really a big loss for most of us.
not ridiculous.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
To me, it's just crazy that the Sharks aren't pimped on the national broadcasts. There is absolutely nothing else that team could do, short of winning a Cup, to make a case for itself as a nationally-marketed brand.
