Which franchises wouldn't suffer attendance issues under these conditions?

[MoreOrr]

How many NHL franchises do you think there are that could withstand more or less a decade of poorly competitive teams and not end up suffering noticeably in attendance figures?

This is not meant to be a thread attacking any franchise, in fact the exact opposite. Of course we all know that there perhaps a couple of franchises that could endure such circumstances with little or no side-effects with respect to fan support, but it seems that the finger is always being pointed at a select few of franchises for having weak fanbases, regardless of the fact that some of those fanbases also haven't had a team which is in any way consistantly competitive. I'm wondering if there are only a few teams in the League that would suffer in fanbase support, under such conditions of having a team that really wasn't competitive for a lengthy period of time, or if this would be true for a great many franchises.

Looking for opinions on this, and any data that could back up such opinions.

Not sure if this topic is one with a long life, but I think it has some value with respect to getting some answers to the question I put forth.

ADD IN: You can look at it from the flipside as well, what evidence is there that almost any franchise would suffer fanbase support from having a prolonged streak of teams which have been poorly competitive?

Click to read more...

 

[Kebekoi]

Montreal Canadiens of late 90 to a couple years ago.

 

[Alan Jackson]

I think there's absolutely no question that a poorly managed franchise is going to attract less fans than a well-run franchise, as a general rule, but to a varying degree.

The Edmonton Oilers, outside of one playoff run, haven't done a whole lot to energize the fanbase there, yet fan support seems pretty strong. Would that support be as strong in some other markets?

I think another thing that is constantly ignored is that attendance figures, while important, are not the sole measure of whether or not a team has a strong fanbase. Things like local TV ratings, for example, are a pretty good guage of whether or not a team has a lot of support.

To answer your question, yes - every franchise (perhaps with the exception of one), is going to suffer if it's poorly run over a long period. It's a matter of degree.

Also, we could examine the flipside. What is the ceiling for fan support when things are going well? I think you'd find that can vary market to market, too.

 

[DaleCooper]

Possibly Montreal and Toronto. That's about it IMO.

 

[Telfo]

Habs, Leafs and Rangers IMO. the rest would look very much the same as ATL does right now

 

[y2kcanucks]

Habs, Leafs, Oilers, Sens, Flames, Canucks, Jets, Nords, Hamilton,

 

[Telfo]

Habs, Leafs, Oilers, Sens, Flames, Canucks, Jets, Nords, Hamilton,

 

[tarheelhockey]

Those with:

- Several generations of fans
- An extremely large population base
- Ingrained cultural identity
- Owners who AT LEAST stay out of the way and don't inspire revolution

 

[Retail1LO*]

Those with:

- Several generations of fans
- An extremely large population base
- Ingrained cultural identity
- Owners who AT LEAST stay out of the way and don't inspire revolution

That's not a whole lot of teams. It can't even be applied to a great number of O6 teams.

My guess is that the places with the best chances to maintain optimal attendance despite sub-par performance would have a combination of the following elements working in their favor:

1) Traditional hockey market
2) Market where hockey is the biggest draw
3) Market NHL hockey is the ONLY draw
4) Market where the resident NHL team is consistently the most competitive in town.
5) Market where the team has had a long history of post season success, even if
it dates back some time ago.

Hockey is SUCH a niche sport, that there aren't too many markets out there where fans will religiously support a team despite prolonged floundering.

Honestly, the best way for any team to survive under the conditions of which you speak, is to have an owner with deep pockets as a result of a primary business that makes such an enormous amount of cash, as to render their ownership of an NHL franchise more of an expensive hobby.

However, that can be bad too. Bill Wirtz was filthy rich...and because he didn't need money made by the Hawks in order to wipe his arse with 100 dollar bills every morning, he didn't put any effort or money into ensuring the franchises success.

 

[headsigh]

Habs, Leafs, Rangers, Flyers, Minnesota.

Anything else can and have been run into the ground.

 

[Jamin]

Minus a fluke cup run in 2006 its been 20 years since the Oilers have has a good team, the last 6 being especially bad

 

[tarheelhockey]

That's not a whole lot of teams. It can't even be applied to a great number of O6 teams.

Exactly. There are only maybe 4 or 5 places in the league which seem to be "automatic" when it comes to attendance. Toronto, Montreal, NYR, Philly, Minneosta. Maybe Edmonton, though they showed in the early/mid 1990s that they aren't a given.

 

[Cooperalls]

Minus a fluke cup run in 2006 its been 20 years since the Oilers have has a good team, the last 6 being especially bad

Us Oiler fans are almost bordering on insanity to still support them. It's my theory that because of the success of the 80's, it's like a crack addiction high that we're always chasing every year. I don't think the team would have survived some of those lean years had it not been for the past success.

 

[MoreOrr]

Minus a fluke cup run in 2006 its been 20 years since the Oilers have has a good team, the last 6 being especially bad

I know they lost all of those series, but the Oilers had a rather wild Playoff rivalry with the Stars from 1998 - 2003. And the Oilers only missed the Playoffs twice from 1997 - 2006.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Exactly. There are only maybe 4 or 5 places in the league which seem to be "automatic" when it comes to attendance. Toronto, Montreal, NYR, Philly, Minneosta. Maybe Edmonton, though they showed in the early/mid 1990s that they aren't a given.

What about a team like Carolina who's won a cup and still can't get their average attendance above the 90% barrier?

 

[tarheelhockey]

What about a team like Carolina who's won a cup and still can't get their average attendance above the 90% barrier?

What about them?

Was that just a flagrant troll out of nowhere?

 

[headsigh]

What about a team like Carolina who's won a cup and still can't get their average attendance above the 90% barrier?

The RBC Centre only holds 18k, they're filling out 8/10ths of the arena nightly. I'm too lazy to pull out statistics, but they should be hovering around their 80-90 attendance barrier considering the size of their arena.

 

[Retail1LO*]

What about a team like Carolina who's won a cup and still can't get their average attendance above the 90% barrier?

Over the last several years, Tampa Bay, Carolina, and Dallas have won Stanley Cups. Florida made the Cup final against Colorado.

Despite that, Tampa (18th), Carolina (20th), Dallas (23rd), and Florida (22nd), all fall in the bottom half or third of league attendance.

Every Canadian team is in the top 11, save for the Oilers at #19...and that's despite the fact none of them have won a Cup in almost 20 years (Candiens last winning in 92-93, 18 years ago).

What's really troubling is that teams that have relocated south, or have come through expansion (Coyotes, Thrashers, Jackets, Stars, Panthers, Predators, Hurricanes, and Lightning) are no higher than 18th, or in the bottom 1/3 of the league, in average attendance.

Note: As has been mentioned in a previous post, it's probably a bit misleading to go by attendance alone, rather than looking at attendance relative to building capacity.

Note 2: LOL Clicking on percent capacity for most of these attendance figures actually makes most of these teams worse, with the exception of Edmonton.

 

[headsigh]

Over the last several years, Tampa Bay, Carolina, and Dallas have won Stanley Cups. Florida made the Cup final against Colorado.

Despite that, Tampa (18th), Carolina (20th), Dallas (23rd), and Florida (22nd), all fall in the bottom half or third of league attendance.

Every Canadian team is in the top 11, save for the Oilers at #19...and that's despite the fact none of them have won a Cup in almost 20 years (Candiens last winning in 92-93, 18 years ago).

What's really troubling is that teams that have relocated south, or have come through expansion (Coyotes, Thrashers, Jackets, Stars, Panthers, Predators, Hurricanes, and Lightning) are no higher than 18th, or in the bottom 1/3 of the league, in average attendance.

Bridgestone Arena only holds 17k so Nashville will probably never be in the top half of anything.

As for the Yotes, Thrashers, Jackets, their on-ice struggles have been well documented which I'm pretty sure correlates to the OP's proposition that a majority of the teams would have a similar attendance issues given their suckitude.

The Stars play in play in an arena that holds 18k, and this is the first year in a decade plus that they've drawn on an average less than 17000 per game. Several years they were selling out the arena on average and were in the top quarter in the league, so I don't think they're in dire straits.

I don't feel like talking about the Lightning because I hate that team.

 

[Retail1LO*]

The RBC Centre only holds 18k, they're filling out 8/10ths of the arena nightly. I'm too lazy to pull out statistics, but they should be hovering around their 80-90 attendance barrier considering the size of their arena.

From % of capacity, the RBC center averages an 87.9% draw, ranking them 22nd out of 30 teams. So regardless of the size of their arena, and disregarding the actual attendance figures, the number of people the draw relative to what the building is capable of supporting....they're still on the bottom third league-wide from a capacity stand point.

I''m not saying it's not bad considering it's hockey in North Carolina...but it's not overly strong relative to the remainder of the league. The same holds true for most of the southern locations.

For reference....

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/sort/allPct

 

[y2kcanucks]

Over the last several years, Tampa Bay, Carolina, and Dallas have won Stanley Cups. Florida made the Cup final against Colorado.

Despite that, Tampa (18th), Carolina (20th), Dallas (23rd), and Florida (22nd), all fall in the bottom half or third of league attendance.

Every Canadian team is in the top 11, save for the Oilers at #19...and that's despite the fact none of them have won a Cup in almost 20 years (Candiens last winning in 92-93, 18 years ago).

What's really troubling is that teams that have relocated south, or have come through expansion (Coyotes, Thrashers, Jackets, Stars, Panthers, Predators, Hurricanes, and Lightning) are no higher than 18th, or in the bottom 1/3 of the league, in average attendance.

Note: As has been mentioned in a previous post, it's probably a bit misleading to go by attendance alone, rather than looking at attendance relative to building capacity.

Note 2: LOL Clicking on percent capacity for most of these attendance figures actually makes most of these teams worse, with the exception of Edmonton.

Exactly my point. There are several teams that, despite having successes, are not drawing sellout crowds.

 

[Retail1LO*]

Bridgestone Arena only holds 17k so Nashville will probably never be in the top half of anything.

As for the Yotes, Thrashers, Jackets, their on-ice struggles have been well documented which I'm pretty sure correlates to the OP's proposition that a majority of the teams would have a similar attendance issues given their suckitude.

The Stars play in play in an arena that holds 18k, and this is the first year in a decade plus that they've drawn on an average less than 17000 per game. Several years they were selling out the arena on average and were in the top quarter in the league, so I don't think they're in dire straits.

I don't feel like talking about the Lightning because I hate that team.

Yeah....I'm aware of the discrepancy of seating capacity amongst different arenas in the league, which is why in my last post I opted to use statistics based on % of average seating capacity attained. I also know that on ice success directly ties to attendance. But it's interesting that someone has to win the division in the Southeast every year, guaranteeing that one of Atlanta, TB, Florida, Carolina, or Washington achieves some level of success...and they're still relatively light draws.

 

[Retail1LO*]

Exactly my point. There are several teams that, despite having successes, are not drawing sellout crowds.

Do you see any correlation between the teams that have high success/low draw, and geography? It's interesting. Seems like in some areas, success and attendance are more closely related than others. Tying to the idea behind the original post, it seems like hockey up north is much more capable of sustaining higher attendance levels through prolonged periods of less than stellar success.

 

[Duke749]

I thought this thread was about which teams wouldn't suffer attendence issues with on-ice failure???

 

[headsigh]

Exactly my point. There are several teams that, despite having successes, are not drawing sellout crowds.

But you're looking at it in a vacuum.

The Panthers last made the playoffs at the turn of the decade and haven't one a playoff game in years. The one year they did contend for the playoffs (and didn't make it because Montreal got in on tiebreakers), they finally drew 15k in an arena that for a long time only held 17k.

I've mentioned Carolina, Nashville's and the Stars' woes already.