The NHL set an all-time attendance record for the month of October

[Timmy]

Well some may say these are not real attendance figures but here is what I found from the NHL.com site.

[/font][/color]
According to these figures the average attendance for October in 1999 was 16,397.

Well, you can believe your "statistics" over a phone call any day. I'm sure your "statistics" are all you've got, whereas other folks have actually had a secretary from the NHL told them that the record was not set. I don't know what year the record was set, but it sure wasn't this October's.

Your "statistics" lied, sir. I'll take the secretary's interpretation of the question any day, thank you very much.

The NHL are simply con artists. I have inside information that not ONE FAN attended last night's Vancouver - Calgary tilt, and that the NHL simply inserted fans using computers and whatnot, so that the three people at home watching on TV thought the stadium was full.

Once again, we've been bamboozled.

Bamboozled!

 

[Captain Ron]

Well, you can believe your "statistics" over a phone call any day. I'm sure your "statistics" are all you've got, whereas other folks have actually had a secretary from the NHL told them that the record was not set. I don't know what year the record was set, but it sure wasn't this October's.

Your "statistics" lied, sir. I'll take the secretary's interpretation of the question any day, thank you very much.

The NHL are simply con artists. I have inside information that not ONE FAN attended last night's Vancouver - Calgary tilt, and that the NHL simply inserted fans using computers and whatnot, so that the three people at home watching on TV thought the stadium was full.

Once again, we've been bamboozled.

Bamboozled!

I feel so used........

 

[hockeytown9321]

Did you ask them if the NHL set the average attendance record? Or did you ask them if the NHL set the average attendance record for October? There is a difference you know.

I was told the only record set was total attendance. There's no confusion.

 

[Captain Ron]

I was told the only record set was total attendance. There's no confusion.

How do you explain the statistics in my earlier post then?

 

[Timmy]

I was told the only record set was total attendance. There's no confusion.

So there is absolutely no doubt that, if some poster investigates the average attendance figures for all the Octobers the NHL has played, that there is at least one October that is higher than this one's.

This person you spoke with, I'm assuming, was able to tell you the years or era in which average attendance for the month of October was higher?

I know I can phone Amex helpline about some features of my card, and if the person on the other end doesn't answer all my questions properly, then I can phone again, get a different person, and get the questions answered completely differently. In other words, one of the two people I was speaking with didn't know what they were talking about, or were just making stuff up to get me off the phone.

So, next question that needs to be answered then is, which Octobers' average attendance beat this one's?

Anyone?

 

[Timmy]

How do you explain the statistics in my earlier post then?

I think I have already done a good job of that, thank you.

Now, good day, sir.



I said good day, sir!

 

[Captain Ron]

I think I have already done a good job of that, thank you.

Now, good day, sir.



I said good day, sir!

(Spongebob hangs head in shame)

 

[Sp5618]

Well some may say these are not real attendance figures but here is what I found from the NHL.com site.

http://www.nhl.com/news/2005/11/241380.html

NHL ATTENDANCE FOR OCTOBER SINCE 1987
(Regular Season)

Year GP Avg. % Increase *

2005 174 16,820 -------
2003 146 16,205 +3.8%
2002 150 16,226 +3.7%
2001 182 16,289 +3.3%
2000 167 16,212 +3.8%
1999 165 16,397 +2.6%
1998 126 15,694 +7.2%
1997 170 15,833 +6.2%
1996 148 16,008 +5.1%
1995 136 15,170 +10.9%
1993 154 15,436 +9.0%
1992 139 14,570 +15.4%
1991 134 14,811 +13.6%
1990 134 15,099 +11.4%
1989 131 15,083 +11.5%
1988 118 15,018 +12.0%
1987 111 14,092 +19.4%

According to these figures the average attendance for October in 1999 was 16,397.

Whoo hoo. Thanks, spongebob. The old noggin' remembered the year, and I guess I was off by 103. Not bad methinks.

 

[Timmy]

Whoo hoo. Thanks, spongebob. The old noggin' remembered the year, and I guess I was off by 103. Not bad methinks.

Hmm,

Still doesn't answer the question of what year(s) the average October attendance beat 16,820.

Can we go back further than 1987?

 

[Captain Ron]

Hmm,

Still doesn't answer the question of what year(s) the average October attendance beat 16,820.

Can we go back further than 1987?

I believe it was 1967. When the league first expanded. Hockey popularity was at an all-time high. The average attendance per game was something like 20,000 if I remember correctly.

 

[Timmy]

I believe it was 1967. When the league first expanded. Hockey popularity was at an all-time high. The average attendance per game was something like 20,000 if I remember correctly.

What about the year they held all the games in football stadiums? 1965, I think? The attendance must have been around 40,000 that year.

 

[Captain Ron]

What about the year they held all the games in football stadiums? 1965, I think? The attendance must have been around 40,000 that year.

I forgot about that year. The years have not been kind to my long-term memory.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

With all these people "lying" to hockeytown how long can it be before he brings JFK into his conspiracy?

I know I put all my faith in what a phone secretary knows!

 

[Troy McClure]

With all these people "lying" to hockeytown how long can it be before he brings JFK into his conspiracy?

I know I put all my faith in what a phone secretary knows!

You know, Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln, and Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.

 

[Platapie]

This board needs a rickshaw, and this thread deserves to be its poster boy. Let me offer a little summary of the pure hilarity that is contained within these pages.

#1 -- Initial poster posts a press release that is, arguably, unclear.

Unnamed conspiracy theorist is certain that the league is in fact lying, and as such, assumes that attendence only went up because the league scheduled more games in October then prior years.

An astute poster mentions that it is, in fact, average attendence, not total. Here's where it gets fun. Conspiracyboy then argues

You didn't read the article closely enough. It does not say the average of 16,820 is a record, just that a record was set, and that was the average. Trust me, if the average was a record too, the NHL would let you know.

Much trite arguing followings, finally put to the rest by another astute poster who showed that the NHL release itself quite clearly mentioned that it was an average in the title IN BIG BOLD LETTERS LIKE THIS.

Conspiracyboy (who will be called CB from here on out), continues to maintain that..

this was a press release written by the NHL. No reporter uncovered this information. The NHL was purposefully ambigous

Despite.. once again, it being in IN BIG BOLD LETTERS LIKE THIS.

CB then asks where one finds that information.

Once again, people remind him that it is in the fricken title in IN BIG BOLD LETTERS LIKE THIS.

CB, realizing he's really screwed, changes gears.

OK, you can believe the headline, and I'll believe the text. Works for me.

Now, noone is quite sure *** this is supposed to mean, but CB gives us a glimpse of his brilliance further on.

Here's something the journalism experts here forgot to mention: headlines are not written by the same person who wrote an article.

Also CB still ignores the bolded words, opting instead to state that.

I could pretend the release says something it doesn't

The real crowning moment. Apparently CB calls the NHL and gets some secretary to state that it is, in fact, total attendence and not average. He then states the following.

Again, I did read what was presented, and I drew my own conclusion.

Here is what he read.

NHL sets record average attendance in October

He then developed his "own" conclusion. The NHL meant total not average! Read the text!

I thank all of those involved, but CB in particular deserves a medal.

 

[AdmiralPred]

I think your conspiracyBoy drew his own conclusions based upon a first sentance that, arguably, could be taken as a misleading statement about what record the NHL may have broken, not the title of the article.

I don't think conspiracyBoy actually made a statement about the NHL scheduling more games in October, he agreed with another posters analisys of the questioning of the stats (see post #29).

Apparently there was some sort of record set, by the NHL, in 2005, during the month of October and it had something to do with attendance.

This article seems to fly well under the radar of anything that would be considered journalism, save for the fact it was a rah-rah-rah "were doing pretty good" release to the press.

I would excersise professional skepticism when analyzing the stats that were posted as they came from the same source that the article in question came from. NHL managment has made an assertion that their stats are present fairly in all material respects yada, yada, yada and then reported on their own stats. Perhaps an independent auditor could be hired to provide us, the users, with assurance that the stats are indeed presented fairly. Arthur Levitt is available.

Finally, I picked up and read this thread over the past three days, start to finish, and found it to be one of the more entertaining threads currently on these boards.

Thank you to all who contributed, and I hope I beat the lock.

 

[Troy McClure]

I think your conspiracyBoy drew his own conclusions based upon a first sentance that, arguably, could be taken as a misleading statement about what record the NHL may have broken, not the title of the article.

Sure, if you read only that sentance and ignored the headline and also ignored the rest of the release, you might misunderstand the point.

This like any reading is all about context. The headline provides context, large and bolded for the reader to see. If you saunter on down to the next line following the "misleading" comment, you will see how the average attendance numbers for this October were higher than three previous years. If you then read the rest of it, it is very clear that average attendance was the point.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Once again, we've been bamboozled.

Bamboozled!

Preach on, brotha Timmah!

You are an everlasting beacon to lead us through the NHL's endlessly heinous shenanigans and chicanery! If not for you, the evil NHL's shocking misdeeds would continue unchecked.

I bow to you, sir.

 

[Timmy]

Preach on, brotha Timmah!

You are an everlasting beacon to lead us through the NHL's endlessly heinous shenanigans and chicanery! If not for you, the evil NHL's shocking misdeeds would continue unchecked.

I bow to you, sir.

Well, let me tell you, I check my back seat before getting into my car in the morning (which I have my wife start for me - she doesn't know why) and hear clicking sounds whenever I'm on the phone.

I'm scared, GS. I'm a scared little bunny right now, and if you don't hear from me again, I think you'll know why.

They got to me.

I just hope that, before I go, I can put a chink in the armour of the Machine, and pass the torch to the rest of you to uncover and unravel the greater conspiracy that is the NHL.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I think your conspiracyBoy drew his own conclusions based upon a first sentance that, arguably, could be taken as a misleading statement about what record the NHL may have broken, not the title of the article.

Yes, that's what I did. That conclusion was confirmed by the NHL. But people can believe whatever they want.

 

[Timmy]

Yes, that's what I did. That conclusion was confirmed by the NHL. But people can believe whatever they want.

So which October's average attendance record beat this one's?

 

[hockeytown9321]

So which October's average attendance record beat this one's?

Call the NHL and ask them.

 

[Timmy]

Call the NHL and ask them.

I prefer that a point be proven by a linked source, as opposed to hearsay.

If I did in fact call the NHL and was told they do not know of any previous October that beat the average attendance, that would be nice for my own knowledge, but I wouldn't post it any more than I would quote a blog as a source.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I prefer that a point be proven by a linked source, as opposed to hearsay.

If I did in fact call the NHL and was told they do not know of any previous October that beat the average attendance, that would be nice for my own knowledge, but I wouldn't post it any more than I would quote a blog as a source.

If you think I'm lying about what the NHL told me, call them. I posted the number earlier in the thread.

 

[Timmy]

If you think I'm lying about what the NHL told me, call them. I posted the number earlier in the thread.

MSNBC

Last month's attendance eclipsed the previous record of 16,397 set during October in the 1999-2000 campaign.

That number?