Certainly not one of the largest in the League, so based on that you'd think there'd be more potential for sellouts.
Which franchises wouldn't suffer attendance issues under these conditions?
- Thread starter MoreOrr
- Start date
Certainly not one of the largest in the League, so based on that you'd think there'd be more potential for sellouts.
IceAce
Strait Trippin'
C'mon now, The Panthers Cup run was almost 15 years ago and they were still playing in the Miami Arena at the time (< 14k for hockey), not suburban Sunrise (> 17K). .
I thought this thread was about which teams wouldn't suffer attendence issues with on-ice failure???
Or the reverse, how many teams would suffer... going on the assumption that a great many would, which was the opinion of several of the early posters. But now, again unfortunately, it's turned into an attack on certain teams in the League.
headsigh
leave at once!
True, though I wouldn't consider Washington a light draw with something like a 95% compacity. Carolina had a hot streak for a long time and did fill the barn expectedly, and Tampa Bay derped by having to wait through a lockout to cash in on their Stanley Cup hype- and they averaged 20k in 05-06. Attendance did horrifically drop because of poor management but there seems to be an upward trend going. Not that I'm giving them any credit, because **** the lightning.
I think it's a similar case to the Central when Detroit when on that enormous tear with all the other teams just being... there. Carolina was our detroit from 2002-2007, now it seems to be the Caps, but obviously both divisions are strengthening.
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
You mean 08-09 when the Panthers still only averaged 81% capacity?
http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/year/2009/sort/homePct
What about a team like the Lightning? They drew really well when they won the Stanley Cup, but merely 2 years later their attendance was back in the toilet...
Leafs, Habs, Canucks, Oilers, Flames, Sens, Rangers, Red Wings, Bruins, and I don't really know much about attendance figures of other teams, however, I can firmly say that none would be as bad as Atlanta, despite how good that team was in the first half, and the last half of last season.
Also, Jets, Nords, Whalers, Hamilton and Toronto #2 would do great.
Also, Jets, Nords, Whalers, Hamilton and Toronto #2 would do great.
headsigh
leave at once!
After they won the cup they averaged 20k in 05-06, 19k the next (95.7%), 91.5 the one after that at 18k, then finally dropping to 90% in 08-09. It took them multiple years of sucking to lower interest in it, and even in their worst standings-wise year post-lockout they had 90% attendance.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Wow, it didn't take long for people to completely disregard the topic and get right back into the same old tired bash-fest.
headsigh
leave at once!
weren't they 13th in the league in 03-04? ESPN doesn't have pct stats for pre-lockout years though.
I vaguely recall them drawing only around 10391 in like 93-94, but I don't remember much about their arena information. Or if it's accurate. I had to go to a different website for that, which claimed it was really rough in the 90s but disputes the 03-04 rating.
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
No organization can claim that they have had a worse start than the Ottawa Senators, who were the absolute laughing stock of the league for almost a decade since inception, which included an appauling 24 point season (in 82 games) in 1992-93, yet they still had solid crowds and didn't dip to the levels that we're seeing some teams dip to right now.
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
Again, I want to emphasize that there may be too much focus on attendance. We should be examining local TV ratings, too.
I one thing if you don't want to pay money attend the games. It's quite another if you can't even be bothered to turn on the television. Anemic TV ratings are far more telling, IMHO, of a market that's struggling.
I one thing if you don't want to pay money attend the games. It's quite another if you can't even be bothered to turn on the television. Anemic TV ratings are far more telling, IMHO, of a market that's struggling.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Bruins
2006-07 14,764
Flames
1999-00 15,322
Sens
2009-10 18,269 (good, but down over 1.5k from two years ago)
Oilers
1995-96 12,335
2000-01 15,612
Canucks
1999-00 14,642
To varying degrees, all of these teams have shown that their attendance rises and falls in correlatiion with team performance and off-ice issues. Ottawa's numbers are still strong right now but I'm willing to bet that they get down into the 16ks if they have to do a true multi-year rebuild.
There is no reason to believe the Whalers would be immune to attendance slumps. They never were before.
headsigh
leave at once!
That's true, though Atlanta was no chopped liver either.
-It took them half of a decade to place higher than 3rd in the division. The following season they ended up dropping back to 3rd.
-The whole Dany Heatley thing.
And they were still around 8/10ths of the arena filled until 2008-09.
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
I don't have all the stats, but according to Neilsen's ratings, the top 10 US teams in 2010 were as follows:
Pittsburgh
Buffalo
Detroit
Chicago
Boston
St. Louis
Philadelphia
Minnesota
Washington
Colorado
in that order.
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
Funny how you can really only pick out 1 or 2 seasons, none back to back either, where attendance figures were low for these teams.
Mit Yarrum
HoF Turd Shiner
- Apr 1, 2010
- 5,747
- 112
Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but shouldn't you be focusing on the first set of columns instead of the overall which seems to include road games?
http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/sort/homePct
Sort it by home percentage instead of overall.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I picked out a low season for each of them. Seemed fair enough, as I was only pointing out that those markets are not "automatic" and not trying to spell out their entire attendance history.
If you prefer:
Edmonton Oilers
1992-93 14,797
1993-94 13,478
1994-95 13,124
1995-96 12,335
1996-97 16,044
1997-98 16,245
1998-99 16,251
1999-00 15,802
2000-01 15,612
What do you mean by "suffering noticeably"?
Fewer ticket sales?
Fewer actual people in the seats?
Having to lower ticket prices to maintain attendance?
Having to lower ticket prices to get any attendance at all?
Forcing an ownership change?
Forcing an ownership change AND relocation?
Fewer ticket sales?
Fewer actual people in the seats?
Having to lower ticket prices to maintain attendance?
Having to lower ticket prices to get any attendance at all?
Forcing an ownership change?
Forcing an ownership change AND relocation?
Finlandia WOAT
js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
- May 23, 2010
- 24,192
- 23,871
No one is immune.
But some fanbases suffer much less than others. Toronto and the Sens have lost about 1k in actual attendance.
Versus the Thrashers, who have suffered greatly.
Also, it really didn't take long for the blatant trolling to begin.
But some fanbases suffer much less than others. Toronto and the Sens have lost about 1k in actual attendance.
Versus the Thrashers, who have suffered greatly.
Also, it really didn't take long for the blatant trolling to begin.
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
And percent of capacity? The Oilers arena only holds about 16,000 seats, and during 94 or 95 it underwent renovations which could explain the huge dip in 95...
i think ottawa could sustain it.
the senators would lose money, but the SSAE business is set up very well to cusion sustained losses.
one large factor is that when melnyk came in he kicked ticketmaster out of town. Most sporting events, shows, concerts, etc, use capitaltickets now, a ticket distribution company set up by melnyk and owned by SSAE. The premise was to lower costs for local venue-owners, redirect the profits to the venue owners and the senators, put the jobs in ottawa rather than somewhere else.
In addition, SBP is completely owned by melnyk and he has a good tax deal with the city.
If the sens went to being a midpoint team or a cap-floor to midpoint team, the hockey business itself would probably profit in bad on-ice times as well.
attendance would suffer, but bottom line would be fine. Attendance in ottawa has a number of dynamics working against it in bad times. It's a hockey market, but everyone over 25 grew up cheering for the leafs or habs. They're still hockey fans, and have enjoyed getting their fix with the senators as the team got better, but as it gets worse again they will turn back to their old allegiances. 20 years from now, this problem should be gone, and ottawa will be more comparable to vancouver in terms of attendance, just with lower prices.
the senators would lose money, but the SSAE business is set up very well to cusion sustained losses.
one large factor is that when melnyk came in he kicked ticketmaster out of town. Most sporting events, shows, concerts, etc, use capitaltickets now, a ticket distribution company set up by melnyk and owned by SSAE. The premise was to lower costs for local venue-owners, redirect the profits to the venue owners and the senators, put the jobs in ottawa rather than somewhere else.
In addition, SBP is completely owned by melnyk and he has a good tax deal with the city.
If the sens went to being a midpoint team or a cap-floor to midpoint team, the hockey business itself would probably profit in bad on-ice times as well.
attendance would suffer, but bottom line would be fine. Attendance in ottawa has a number of dynamics working against it in bad times. It's a hockey market, but everyone over 25 grew up cheering for the leafs or habs. They're still hockey fans, and have enjoyed getting their fix with the senators as the team got better, but as it gets worse again they will turn back to their old allegiances. 20 years from now, this problem should be gone, and ottawa will be more comparable to vancouver in terms of attendance, just with lower prices.
I thought this thread was about which teams wouldn't suffer attendence issues with on-ice failure???
It is. In determining which teams could withstand on ice failures, it's also to note which ones cannot. Process of elimination.
Thank you for pointing that out. Curious to hear others point of views, do you notice any major changes when sorting the numbers by your method?
Edit: Looking at the 1st set of columns, the Hurricanes are 21st in home attendance averaging 85.9% total capacity. On the road, the Hurricanes are 25th. Overall, they're 22nd. So regardless of where the Canes play, they're not a big draw. They're pretty bad at home, and it appears that people are even less interested in them elsewhere. Not trying to be a jerk. Just observing the numbers. Where most of the southern teams are pretty bad draws at their own arenas, they're all even terrible when they leave home. It doesn't appear as though most fans are interested in seeing their OWN teams play when some of these teams come into town. They drag everyone else's attendance down, and then want you share revenue with them. LOL
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's just look at those four, since the ownership issues can be much more multifaceted.
