Comments on: Predators and Contraction

By: rojoke

rojoke — Fri, 09 Jan 2004 21:18:07 +0000

The motive behind many of the expansion franchises was two-fold. First, it was to place hockey in the largest American TV markets. By getting into these cities, it would hopefully get more attention in the US in general. Which brings us to the second reason. By getting in these larger US cities, it would lead to bigger TV audiences, and hopefully a national TV contract in the US. However, the NHL did one thing. Actually, it did nothing. It didn’t market the game enough. It had a pretty good deal with Fox, but some of their experimentation back-fired on them, and the went to ABC/ESPN. Unfortunately, ABC didn’t start airing games until after the All-Star break, and then they got the NBA, so they dropped further down the priority list. They could have picked better cities to locate teams i.e the US Northwest, the Midwest, but they felt that the cities they chose would get them better media exposure. The only problem is it isn’t working right now, and they won’t even try to fix it until they get the new CBA finished. Only time will tell if their strategy will pay off or kick them in the butts.

By: Fuhr4ever

Fuhr4ever — Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:46:14 +0000

Ok put it in a city that might support it… strikes me the cities that want their teams back lost them for that very reason. As blasphemous as it sounds perhaps a team in houston would be profitable. All in all I still blame the greedy athletes who destroy the team’s finances and lead to higher ticket prices, fewer fans and ultimately relocations. There’s very few athletes in the NHL dedicated to an organization beyond their paycheck nowadays and that’s a noticable symptom of this whole issue.

By: Fuhr4ever

Fuhr4ever — Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:05:42 +0000

If the basis of the arguement is that the only fans that count are those buying season tickets then the arguement that canadian cities are better choices for teams is completely mute. Had the money and revenue been there the teams wouldn't have moved to begin with. I suspect that more people care now that they're gone than did when they were there.

My point is by bringing in people to the sport who are otherwise oblivious to it you begin to alleviate problems. If there's more of a demand for games in the states to be broadcast on TV then TV contracts go up (basic supply vs. demand here folks) which means more money. If more people even take in a few games a year then revenue goes up (it's not that impressive a thought on the individual level but figure in an 18000 seat arena that's putting 10000 asses in the seats that for every 5 regulars you bring in one person a game extra all of a sudden you've got 12000 asses in the seats, a 20% increase. It goes on from there, you get the picture...

The bottom line is fans need to realize that the health of organizations and the league in general is reflected by our actions. Since the greedy ass players certainly aren't going to take more reasonable salaries and the owners aren't going to lose their bottom line by lowering ticket prices it inevitably falls on us to do what we can. Since money doesn't grow on trees and most current fans are probably at their budget for hockey, the best way to rejeuvinate the sport becomes increasing our numbers and holding management responsible for making dumb decisions that lands teams in destitution.

By: DG

DG — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 15:10:40 +0000

The thing is, how can the National Hockey League get new markets if it doesn't expand to them? Isn't that why they call it "expansion"? Yeah, it might be a better idea to put a franchise in a city that might actually support it, but if a franchise can eventually be supported when "all looked lost" (see: Carolina, Tampa Bay), then what's the problem?

-DG

By: Habfanforever

Habfanforever — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:47:42 +0000

I can bring a Mexican to a hockey game knowing he’ll love it, and he probably will. That doesn’t make me want to start an NHL franchise in Mexico. We have to take into consideration that the general population in any given area does not just CONSUME the same things. Food, clothes, cars even entertainment such as sporting events. I’ll go to a soccer event or even a rodeo, doesn’t mean I’ll instantly buy season tickets. What I don’t understand is why does say, Florida, need two teams with fluctuating attendances when up here in Canada we have minor league, small market teams that record full capacity arenas game in and game out? What’s wrong with this picture? Take Pittsburgh for example. Once one of the biggest hockey cities in the NHL, bigger than Carolina, Nashville or Phoenix will ever be and now they’re about fold and probably move away to a place like New Mexico and still average under 10 000 people per game.

By: Fuhr4ever

Fuhr4ever — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:00:23 +0000

1. The ESPN commercial never said that hockey was made in the US, it said that thursday night hockey, their program is. If you haven't figured that out by now you're just not intelligent enough that you ever will.

2. As is evident by people like CW and so on, there are fans for these franchises. The majority of which are just not consumed enough by the game to be on here everyday or watch WJC. That may not just be limited to those markets, there's a lot of teams not represented by fans on here.

3. Some places that are "meant for hockey" apparently aren't meant for the NHL. Someone with alot more foresight and background than you or I have decided that Nashville was a better spot for a team than any of the canadian markets who had lost a team over the years.

4. Marketing hockey is hard on many fronts particularly due to the time of year it's played. Quite frankly you can see by the proportion of airtime ESPN gives on sportscenter to hockey as opposed to basket ball. Even college baksetball gets more time on Sportscenter than hockey. Using that as a barometer, it's easy to see why companies are apprehensive to market it aggressively.

Hockey was always a very community sport which in my eyes never centered around the BS that makes Football and Basketball successful. The best marketing strategy remains energetic fans drawing people in to it, that's always been hockey's strong hold. Case in point, a friend of mine I met in the military is probably the largest Isles fan in Oklahoma... why? Because while visiting me in Alabama last year I took him to the Isles Thrashers game and he had the time of his life. He's been hooked ever since, now if only everyone could bring one person into the fanbase... money isn't such an issue anymore is it?

By: distance7

distance7 — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 10:59:29 +0000

The Penguins are only in good shape if Fleury turns out to be another Patrick Roy. They have alot of young, talented players. But, here’s the deal, if they don’t get a new arena, you WILL be talking about the Houston Penguins or the Winnipeg Penguins. I HOPE they stay in Pittsburgh, I think they’re getting screwed on an arena deal. Pittsburgh is a great sports city and it’d be terrible to see them shafted out of a team they’ve had for so long.

By: distance7

distance7 — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 10:57:16 +0000

The Panthers actually do a pretty good job of supporting their team. Everytime I check it’s between 15 and 18 thousand people at the games..but I could just be checking on special nights..

By: PantherPaw

PantherPaw — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:51:19 +0000

The Panthers have a long contract with National Car Rental Center. I doubt the NHL or any other city will pay for that too. Any relocation or contraction effort will have to involve the NHL or another city paying damages for any arena built mainly for the purpose of playing hockey.

By: IceColdSoda

IceColdSoda — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:44:11 +0000

Well that's relatively easy to justify. The Penguins are a small market team. Large market teams are signing players for very large amounts of money. Pittsburgh, which doesn't have that kind of money, has to trade away their good players who deserve that sort of money in order to actually have money, due to the inflated salaries caused by these big teams. As a result, they can't afford anyone nearly as talented as Kovalev, Straka, and Jagr. Kovalev was traded because he couldn't be afforded, Straka because the team had taken on a youth direction and he can't produce without talented players around him, and Jagr because he was whiny (and still is). Therefore, the large market teams have caused the Penguins to trade their players. Now, once the new CBA comes into play, all of that will change, and the Penguins will be on the upper end due to their preparation.

Having premiere players doesn't necessarily equal a winning team, as can be seen by the Capitals, Rangers, and Stars this year.

Haven't you read ANY hockey articles on any sites by professional writers? ESPN.COM alone has featured a couple articles on how the Penguins are in great shape for the future. These are experts, not the uninformed people who post on these boards.