scaredsensfan said:
So if the Ottawa Senators were to see their plane crash and everyone die you'd stop being an Ottawa Senator's fan?
Will Goodenow go down in sports history as the smartest fool of all time?
- Thread starter eye
- Start date
- Status
So if the Ottawa Senators were to see their plane crash and everyone die you'd stop being an Ottawa Senator's fan?
Sorry I don't watch hockey for any one single team and/or franchise. I cheer for the best players on earth...whether they play in the NHL or not. If the NHL uses replacement players or anything below skill-wise to what the majority of the NHLPA are, then there are other forms of entertainment to enjoy.CalgaryThrasher said:
Coolburn said:
Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya as ya head off to that "other" entertainment venue.
Don't worry there are already plenty of others heading off to the "other" entertainment...and even more when the season gets cancelled. No longer will the NHL be considered part of the big 4 sports, like they can even be compared to the other sports now anyways. :lolThe Iconoclast said:Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya as ya head off to that "other" entertainment venue.
bleedgreen
Registered User
i dont see how its so compicated. the owners own the league, and they want things to be a certain way and are entitled to do it. the players have been doing well and its goodenows job to make this as painful as possible in the name of getting the best deal he can for the players. who doesnt think the owners will win the war of attrition? the onus is on the players because they know sooner or later they will have to accept a cap. doesnt matter if its wrong or right, thats just the way it is. they players wont have it bad in a cap system, its just not the free for all it was. if they accept the cap, im sure they can get concessions to make it more palateable.
Coolburn said:
Then you are in a distinct minority.
Most fans support the team first and foremost.
I'm not suggesting you are wrong to do so, just that you are the exception to the rule and therefore do not prove that the players are the product for the general public.
Coolburn said:
So you are watching hockey because its a "big 4 sport"? Wow. I watch hockey because I love the game and the enjoyment I get out of watching my team. The status of the sport never entered into the equation. But if status is so important to you, feel free to "get into" Nascar. I hear that's the number 4 sport in America right now.
MarkZackKarl
Registered User
bs
So you are admitting that, acting as a consumer, you are being irrational. By saying that the players on the team make no difference to how many games you consume, you are saying that you are indifferent towards the quality of play.
There is a reason why good teams have good attendance and bad teams usually have poor attendance. The produt (the players) are better in some markets and worse than others. The fact that attendance fluctuates with success shows that indeed, the players are the product, and all this high-and-mighty 'i only cheer for the logo' crap is BS.
So you are admitting that, acting as a consumer, you are being irrational. By saying that the players on the team make no difference to how many games you consume, you are saying that you are indifferent towards the quality of play.
There is a reason why good teams have good attendance and bad teams usually have poor attendance. The produt (the players) are better in some markets and worse than others. The fact that attendance fluctuates with success shows that indeed, the players are the product, and all this high-and-mighty 'i only cheer for the logo' crap is BS.
scaredsensfan said:
Answer the question. If the Senators plane went down and all the players were killed would you stop cheering for the Senators and watching hockey in general? Its a simple question. Answer it.
MarkZackKarl
Registered User
.
1. Thats a Pejorative Slured scenario
2. If all the Sens were killed, what Sens would be left for me to cheer for?
3. If Ottawa didnt have an NHL franchise, I would have little interest in the NHL.
4. People support their hometown franchise because they like the product. What is the product? The players on the NHL team.
You act as if an NHL team is a product all on its own, when its impossible for it to exist without players.
1. Thats a Pejorative Slured scenario
2. If all the Sens were killed, what Sens would be left for me to cheer for?
3. If Ottawa didnt have an NHL franchise, I would have little interest in the NHL.
4. People support their hometown franchise because they like the product. What is the product? The players on the NHL team.
You act as if an NHL team is a product all on its own, when its impossible for it to exist without players.
If they strung up a clothesline at center ice and pinned a row of jerseys to it, who would pay to see that?
scaredsensfan said:1. Thats a Pejorative Slured scenario
2. If all the Sens were killed, what Sens would be left for me to cheer for?
3. If Ottawa didnt have an NHL franchise, I would have little interest in the NHL.
4. People support their hometown franchise because they like the product. What is the product? The players on the NHL team.
You act as if an NHL team is a product all on its own, when its impossible for it to exist without players.
I knew you would be honest and answer the question. I knew it wasn't within your makeup to be honest with yourself and tell the truth because it would destroy your theory.
The players are nothing but an ingedient to the product. They are components that can replaced. People will still keep coing back because of the name brand recognition and because of the brand loyalty they have built up. Even if the best ingredient is removed from the mix, people will still keep coming back.
Lets take a soft drink as an example. There are a series of ingredients that go into the mix that make that product. People buy it because it is a good product and because they like it. It may not be the best on the market, but people keep buying it. Sometimes the ingredients change and the product gets better or gets worse compared to its competition. Do people stop buying it? Some do. Most don't. They maintain their brand loyalty even though they may have seen a change to the product that changes it dramatically. The ingredients can change, the mix can change, but the product still remains the same, competing in the same marketplace. What keeps them successful is brand loyalty. People are not loyal to the ingredients (you can buy them all in a grocery or specialty store) but are loyal to the brand (the can or bottle).
Its a simplistic example, but it is the truth the way people view their loyalties in the sports world for the most part. People cheer for the jersey. They cheer for the brand. Its handed down from generation to generation in some regards. The players that are in the jerseys become local heros because of the brand they represent. They brand doesn't develop loyalty because player "X" plays for them. If what you suggested were true, Canada would not have been hockey mad during the spring and hung on everything the Calgary Flames did. The Flames have very few players who were recognizable prior to this spring. But that didn't stop Canada for jumping on the brand and supporting it wildly. No one could tell Chuck Kobasew from chuck steak, but they could identify with the Flames jersey and the fact that it was Canadian and worth cheering for.
The players are but a small part of the product, but the most important thing is brand and brand recognition. The players are nothing without the jersey they wear.
Bicycle Repairman said:
Nobody. But if they but 20 guys in those jerseys and got 20 other guys and put them in other jerseys, then you'll get a crowd. Especially if those jerseys are New York vs. New York or Toronto vs. Montreal or Calgary vs. Edmonton or Colorado vs. Vancouver. The brand matters more than the ingredients.
Did I say I watched hockey because its a big 4 sport?? No I did not!!!The Iconoclast said:
I even said before that I watch for the best players in the world whether thats in the NHL or not (meaning it could be juniors, AHL, CHL, NCAA, Europe, Russia or wherever). I was just commenting that the league as a whole is about to be removed from its status as a big 4...big 4 means big 4 type revenues, big 4 type sponsors, big 4 type TV contracts and big 4 type quality. And while some here would like to blame that on Goodenow...that's going to be a reflection on Bettman when all is said & done.I may be in the minority but when someone says "people cheer for the team..." they're basically saying all hockey fans cheer for the team. I don't as a hockey fan and wanted to point that out that. Just cause I may be in a minority doesn't mean my dollars are worth any less than any other fan. And no it doesn't prove that the players are the product. The game itself is the product however, the key part of the game is the players. To claim to have the best league in the world, you need to have the best game...to have the best game, you need the best players. I can't see how the NHL to claim to be the best hockey league in the world without the best players...defies common sense to me.Thunderstruck said:
People might cheer for the jersey, but they pay for the product. That product is the best league of professional hockey. People would quickly lose interest in an ersatz version.The Iconoclast said:
Bicycle Repairman said:
I disagree. People will make what they want of it. They will find new heros to cheer for and find new villians to dispise. The common folk make these "athletes" stars, so it will again be up to the masses to define the new gods. As long as the product is marketed correctly, there would not be an issue. Once the people know that their "heros" are not coming back they will quickly find new ones to worship. The public has been doing it for over a 100 years. Why should things change because a bunch of self-important swelled heads from the NHLPA say so?
You want to see the stands filled? Put a winner on the ice. It doesn't matter who is in the jersey at that point. It could be a bunch of nobodies, but as long as they win they will get support.
The Iconoclast said:
This is simply not true. The NHL does have a brand and fans do have brand loyalty, but what's that really worth? It's worth a lot less today than before Bettman. It used to be an exciting brand, a major league sport. Today? After the season is cancelled? The NHL is eating its brand.
If this was true, why would Oiler fans care that Doug Weight was traded? They replaced him, didn't they? Somebody was out there wearing the Oiler colours.
Like when Coca-cola decided to change their formula? Sales tanked and within a short time the company rushed out "Coke Classic". If the Coca-cola brand can go down the tubes, so can the NHL brand. That is exactly what the owners are risking on their side of the dispute.
Speak for yourself. I recognized every Flame. The NHL is the NHL because it has the best players in the world. That's what the brand means. Otherwise it is just another hockey league.
Tom
The Iconoclast said:
So all the Manitoba Moose have to do is buy the rights to the Winnipeg Jets name and they should see a spike in attendance? What an idea. Have you emailed that Chipman fella?
The Iconoclast said:
Why do people go see NHL alumni games? To see the ratty old jerseys? Those old dogs still have competitive spunk. They want to win. Is it NHL-level product? Why don't those games sell out?
Last edited:
Oh yeah...what about the New Jersey Devils. I think we can all agree that they put a winner on the ice and they were in the bottom third in league attendance last season. Or how about the Bruins who were 2nd in the East last season and also in the bottom third in attendance last yr. How about the Isles who've made the playoffs the last 3 yrs and were also in the bottom 3rd in attendance last yr? Sounds like the fans don't care if there is a winner or not...and these are markets in the Northeast where you'd think they would support the team regardless who the players are.The Iconoclast said:
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
Hmm, but if there was no NHL, then "the best league of professional hockey" would be... ?Bicycle Repairman said:
The one which has the best replacement players! I would presume the NHL owners are rich enough to lure the "cream of the crop" from the cast of European league castaways and minor pro leagues. Therefore, a replacement-player NHL would once again be "the best league of professional hockey". At least, on this side of the ocean.
The product will still sell. Maybe at a lower ticket price to a reduced audience, but it will sell. I didn't stop watching the Habs when they rolled out those terrible teams of Juha Linds and Patrick Traverses a few years back. I won't stop watching them in the future if they hire Lonny Bohonos and Corey Hirsch.
In fact, I think it's pretty safe to argue that the quality of the NHL product has been going steadily downhill for most of the last decade. Yet this was still a decade of expansion and increasing revenues, wasn't it? And yet, with all of our new 30-team, 4th line grinders of no-previously-fixed-address, did the product stop selling? No. It would be the same with replacement players. Some venues would struggle more than others, but eventually a new equilibrium would be reached.
At any rate, the replacement players solution is scarcely envisioned as a lasting change in the product. It's just there to give one more jolt towards cracking the union's stance and bringing them back into the fold. One way or another, most of them will come back. Either en masse as part of a settlement, or in ones and twos as the stigma of playing in the replacement league fades. So really, it's almost pointless to argue about the quality of the replacement product anyway. That's not what it's there for.
Blind Gardien said:
Exactly. The pro-NHLPA folk love to contradict themselves, saying how they are the greatest players in the world, playing in the best league, yet the quality of the hockey has gone in the crapper. How is that possible? Oh yeah, its the owner's fault, not the clowns on the ice.
The players historically got the shaft under Eagleson. They got everything back and then some under the last CBA. Its time for the game to be fixed for the long term. Its time for the players to become partners in the game. 55% revenues is one helluva partnership offer when you bring no investment other than your labor to the table. The players should be all over it. They are replaceable. Their egos just refuse to acknowledge that fact.
Blind Gardien said:
I really wonder about this.
On another forum, I raised the possibility of players playing the WHA, or perhaps the PA setting up a 12-team league to play 20-30 games or so, to compete with whatever the NHL does next season.
Now, it's a stretch, of course. But what if the NHL players were in the WHA or a new league?
Which would people watch? An NHL full of scrubs?
Or another league filled with the best players on earth.
WHich one would ESPN rather air? Iginla, LeCavallier et al in a new league? Or Rob Ray and Lonny Bohonos for the Ottawa Senators?
I don't buy into those saying The quality of hockey is terrible... that is hogwash, the product has never been better, the players have never been better, the coaching has never been better.
The game is fine.
But back to the topic at hand, People cheer for their franchise. Players come and go, and the fans still stick with their team.. it has NOTHING to do with who is playing in the jerseys.
Bring in some AHL level guys and people WILL watch. The St Johns vs Binghamton game about a month ago was one of the best games i've watched in quite some time.
The only difference is that they won't be overpaid, lazy bums...
The game is fine.
But back to the topic at hand, People cheer for their franchise. Players come and go, and the fans still stick with their team.. it has NOTHING to do with who is playing in the jerseys.
Bring in some AHL level guys and people WILL watch. The St Johns vs Binghamton game about a month ago was one of the best games i've watched in quite some time.
The only difference is that they won't be overpaid, lazy bums...
- Status
