This helps my case - a discussion about hockey is quickly changed to one about football :)
Lizard, were you ever a KC Scouts fan? (For the few years they were around.) Appropriately, are you now a Devils fan?
Haxor, I’m not bashing you in the least - nor am I bashing your preference - but just waiting for baseball season to start, and having never been to a Caps game, also helps my case! :) I’m going to be a Nationals fan … mostly because they were the Expos :( (Montreal’s loss is Washington’s gain, eh?) It helps that they chose a good name for the team (as oppose to something silly like “Rage” or “Power” or otherwise XFL-ish)
Anyway, back to the damned NHL (who are now apparently changing their logo - which, to my knowledge, has remained the same since 1917 - presumably in order to attract non-traditional fans).
Dezrt -
Well I get there and I had to take my jacket off because we were so far from the Ice.
Is it colder at ice level? (this isn’t supposed to sound sarcastic; I’m just curious)
Now, Yanny … ;)
The most expensive door-price ticket to a Flames game is $183.50 (including taxes; Canadian dollars). Using the current exchange rate of about 0.80Cdn = 1.00US, that works out to about $146.80 American. And I’ve heard many times that Calgary had the lowest prices in the League.
These prices were much higher during the playoffs - tickets were being sold on ebay for upwards of $500 Canadian (and that’s a very conservative estimate) - and the Saddledome STILL sold out. This wasn’t just as the playoffs went on - this was during Round 1, too. I doubt the Coyotes would have huge lineups (with more people in them than can fit in the arena) for tickets for their first playoff home game.
In Ottawa, the highest game-day ticket price is $190 Canadian.
So the argument that attendance is low just because prices are high doesn’t hold water.
The MTS center seats 15,000 if I remember correctly. That would give Winnipeg the worst Arena in hockey, by a margin of over 3,000 seats. I’m not entirely sure if the Arena has luxery boxes, but I would be surprised if they had any of the high priced ones.
Up until '99, the Leafs played in Maple Leaf Gardens, which had no luxury boxes and did not hold much more than 15,000.
When the Senators entered the NHL back in '92, they played in Ottawa’s Civic Centre (the current home of the 67’s). The capacity of that building is about 10,000 - and I’m pretty sure it didn’t have luxury boxes (but the Sens may have installed some prior to their first game).
That leads me to point #3 … RENOVATIONS ARE POSSIBLE! And they DON’T have to be done before the team plays!
A 15,000 seat arena is not bad at all. The old Winnipeg Arena was not much bigger (if at all) - and that’s NOT the reason the Jets were forced to leave (escalating salaries and a desire to appease the Americans were).
Down in the South, a smaller arena could be bought for less - and it still wouldn’t fill up. A new Winnipeg team would fill that arena every night, and there would be a high demand for tickets (leading to high prices, which people will pay).
Another thing - Canadians WILL pay those prices in order to watch hockey (I’m not saying they’re reasonable - they ARE exorbitantly high - but still, they’re bought). In general, it appears Americans won’t. Tampa Bay’s cheapest seats for the Stanley Cup finals were $8 - and they still didn’t fill up. Calgary’s were at least $30.
Oh yeah, good time for another beef. Calgary’s “Sea of Red” was done without ANY prompting from the media, and without handing out ANY red clothing. The fans did it completely of their own initiative; they went out and found something red to wear (generally, a jersey). Tampa’s “Bay of White” was made by handing out white t-shirts to everyone who walked through the doors. Whose fans are more passionate?
If immediate interest were required for those franchises to survive, the franchises would have folded long ago. They are there for the long term for many reasons, mostly to grow the sport that you and I love. More on this later.
How long is “immediate”? The Panthers have been around since 1993, and still can’t draw flies - even after having made it to the Stanley Cup Final. Phoenix has been around since '96. Anaheim, also since '93. Nashville, since '98. Tampa, since '92 (and trust me, they do NOT get good crowds unless the team is DOMINANT - and I suspect there won’t be good crowds in the future, either). Carolina, since '97. Islanders since '72, Devils since ‘82 (btw, apparently Devils’ Stanley Cup parades are held in a parking lot before a scattering of people). Washington, since '74. To say nothing of the fact that a team in Atlanta has failed BEFORE - lasting only 8 years.
They are ATTEMPTING to grow the sport you and I love. They are failing miserably. They are expanding past their support. To use a military analogy, they are expanding in such a sense that an enemy would be able to walk right through them.
I highly doubt the intention of all these teams in all these silly places is to “grow the sport”. I expect it is to “grow their profit”.
Bobby Hull Jr., Brett Hull’s brother, has been quoted as saying “Nobody gives a crap about hockey down here – nobody. I coach kids’ hockey down here and you can start to see the disinterest in the game here with the kids.” (http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050110_152323_5056)
Learn a little about hockey for a second here.
I’m offended.
The Devils Arena looks more empty than it really is for two reasons.
The fact of the matter is, it’s still awfully empty.
38 million watched the game.
OK - point taken. Still, 38M/350M (at least) is MUCH less than 10M/30M. 10% vs 33% … And, it was the most watched show in Canadian TV history.
Canada cannot pay anything close to what the United States can.
As I’ve said many times before - I know. However, the US cannot come close to the fan support in Canada.
This is from a Nashville newspaper:
http://tennessean.com/sports/predators/archives/04/09/57715843.shtml?Element_ID=57715843
Players have admitted how difficult it is to play for southern teams. Perhaps this is why the average points per division show that the two northern divisions have, on average, more points.
Your math presumes player salaries are at where they are now … $5M for Martin Lapointe, $9M for Bobby Holik sort-of-thing. Thing is, those are WAY too high (in general) and WAAAAAAY too high for the sort of money the NHL brings in.
The CFL is loved up here, but the NHL is loved even more. Do you think that’s because there are 24 American teams? Do you think it’s because American teams are “worth more” than Canadian teams? Do you think it’s because players make about $6M more than they should? Do you think it’s because the NHL has a PATHETIC US TV deal? Do you think it’s because that, even though the CBC can’t compete with ABC, ESPN, etc in terms of money, but still HNiC is more popular?
Fact is, a Canadian Pro Hockey League would not only survive up here, it would thrive. If the Stanley Cup was the goal, and if the existing NHL teams were to remain, Canadian fans would not abandon the League simply because it wasn’t called the NHL. In fact, ignoring the difference in fundraising ability, the Canadian League would likely do better than the NHL (less teams = better talent; less crappy teams = better average attendance; less warm weather = better hockey and more interest).
I’m not denying Canada can’t pay as much as the States. And yes, US corporate sponsership (or what there is of it) would be cut off. But I think you underestimate Canada’s love for hockey. Perhaps the amount of dollars would be different - but relatively, it would be much more. And, if player salaries were reasonable, the League would be fine. The salaries could easily be higher than Euro salaries. An american counterpart may try and out-bid Canada … but how long would that endeavour last with little fan support, low TV contracts (not to mention NO national deal since there’s no team in Florida - and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing), low corporate interest, and no Stanley Cup to play for?
The Stanley Cup may be “owned” by the NHL BoG, but its original intent was not for the Cup to be “owned” by any League - and as a matter of fact, the Cup is for the hockey champion of the Dominion (ie, Canada). This website says all I need to say:
http://www.freestanley.com/release1.html
“Lord Stanley is quoted as stating: “I am willing to give a cup that shall be annually held by the winning club of the Dominion.”” (ie, not any league, including the NHL).
If the NHL were to disband, and two new major pro leagues were to spring up (one in Canada and one in the States), it would be an incredibly huge travesty for the Cup to be awared to the winner of the American League.
Not many Canadians are interested in watching American teams play each other (especially if it’s something like Carolina vs Florida).
tasteless advertising
This is what the NHL is attempting, with a new logo …
I hope the Pro Bowling Tour was a joke.
Only somewhat.
These programs (and most American media) talk about four different sports: Baseball, Basketball, Football, and Hockey.
Really? How sure are you of this? Is it possible that you may get a different sampling of radio, being that you live in the New York area, and not in the South? And where does hockey come in on that spectrum? 4th? I thought so.
Fact is, you live in one of the areas in the States where hockey is appreciated, and where teams are (for the most part) deserved. New York has had an NHL team since 1925; New York has had the same NHL team since 1926 (the Americans were around before the Rangers).
Even so, it is only the Rangers that enjoy any significant support. It doesn’t hurt that the Rangers are an original six team, back from when the NHL was a very respectable league. The Islanders and Devils enjoy moderate admiration, at best.
The NE US and Minnesota area are relative “hockey hotbeds” in the States (still, when I was stopped over in a Minnesota airport, the sports store there had Vikings, T-Wolves and Twins merchandise - no hockey. And this was during the winter).
South of Colorado or Washington (and that’s pushing it), I would be VERY surprised to find much talk of hockey (anywhere).
Hockey doesn’t get good rating on National TV. Great. Hockey still gets excellent local ratings
Perhaps - in the markets mentioned above. However, as playoffs go on, more and more games are shown nationally. Still, ratings are pathetic. When the Stanley Cup rolls around, other than the two cities involved, who’s interested? If one of the cities is Canadian (eg, Calgary), well, then, all of Canada is interested. If both are Canadian, Canada is going nuts. The American ratings for this year’s Stanley Cup paled in comparison to the Canadian ratings. Last year’s Stanley Cup wasn’t much better (and the Devils won that time … )
Here’s a REALLY good article (out of Detroit). Granted it’s a bit old, but it’s not far from the truth:
http://www.detnews.com/2002/sports/0206/03/a01-505146.htm
And here:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/martzke/2003-06-03-martzke_x.htm
The new NHL national US TV deal is half of what it used to be:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2004-05-19-martzke-nbc_x.htm
This mentions the Game 7 rating for the 2003 Final - yes, Devils vs Ducks. New York vs LA. The rating is 4.6. That’s about the rating for your average Frasier episode - ranked 32nd in the nation at the time. Games 1 and 2 drew 1.4 and 1.1 - some show called “Push, Nevada” got a 1.4 average.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/jon_dolezar/news/2003/06/10/hockey_ontv/
Here’s one with reference to Boston:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4695614/
I’m sure I’ve made my point; but I can come up with more if you like (in particular, numbers from this past Stanley Cup).
I’m very passionate about hockey … and I hope this isn’t offensive ;)