I will never forgive the NHL for moving the Nordiques to Denver. Patrick, what were their attendance stats?
The Hockey Hijack
- Thread starter jamesdeluxe
- Start date
Patrick
Well-known member
jamesdeluxe":1sznb70g said:
And the Jets to Phoenix!!! Hockey made a bit more sense in Denver, even if they too (like Atlanta), lost NHL one franchise (The Rockies) prior to the Nordiques move.
They had good attendance in Quebec and Winnipeg even in the years they were at bottom of the standings and Winnipeg never really have much sucess being in the same division of the powerful Edmonton Oliers. It was all about corporate money, increasing player salaries, television rights, etc. The Colisée and Winnipeg Arena had something like 15,000 seats.
The Last 6 and 7 years of the Nordiques and the Jets (1989-90 to 1995-96)
NHL: 14,975 14,695 14,510 14,045 14,748 14,797 15,986
QC: 15,080 14,188 13,666 14,981 14,614 14,395
WPG: 13,106 12,931 12,931 13,550 13,297 13,013 11,316
Last 8 seasons for Atlanta and Phoenix (with a bunch of promotions to get people in the stands):
NHL: 16,486 16,591 16,534 16,955 16,486 17,309 17,475 17,072
ATL: 13,368 13,476 15,121 15,550 16,229 15,824 14,626 13,607
PHO: 13,161 13,229 15,469 15,582 14,988 14,820 14,875 11,989
Sources: HockeyResearch.com/ESPN
Compiled by: http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/index.p ... 18-2008-09
Mike Bernstein
New member
Patrick":2j205vkr said:
Not to get way OT, but attendance is really only a small part of the equation. What really matters for the NHL is two things:
1) Having a modern arena in place where you can generate significant revenues from luxury boxes and premium seating. This generally requires a large corporate base in town b/c most hockey fans can't afford those tickets.
2) The size of the TV market. Sad to say that even a poorly attended team in ATL, PHO and DEN is MUCH more attractive to TV networks than a rabidly attended team in Winniped, Quebec or (tragically) Hartford.
I'm still bitter about the Whalers leaving town. Don't get me started.
Patrick
Well-known member
Mike Bernstein":2slwosx6 said:
That's what I said..lost in those numbers. However there is a effect related to the fact that the NHL is getting pocket change from US network and viewership is the same in those market. There isn't much a rivalry between Montreal and Denver, but a Quebec-Montreal would generate huge audiences. The same, to a smaller extent I imagine, between Hartford-Boston. Winnipeg and strong rivalries against the other Western based Canadian teams and Toronto (The Leafs were in the West at that time). No one in Canada really care or around the league about Nashville against Phoenix.
Oh yeah, Hamilton had a new arena in the late 80s...build it, there will come never happened. Plus there is more corporate money (especially now) and hockey population base than in most Sun Belt teams. Winnipeg has a new arena, Quebec is building a new one (not that I agree without the promise of a team).
Mike Bernstein":2slwosx6 said:
I totally agree. That was another stupid move.
Everything was done in hope to bring hockey at the level of the big three, but it's failed. Someway like the Canadian Football League expansion to the US, but at least, they recognized their error. The current NHL commissioner doesnt. Too bad, Canadians are being turned off hockey more and more and hockey is no longer Canada biggest participation sport among youth, Soccer is. After the last few years, with headshots and concessions (you have the league star player out with a concussion with no return in sight) being sidelined with injuries and the league doing nothing. (ie. Matt Cooke is a prime example). The last few weeks has seen some ugly incidences which makes the NHL looks more like Roller-Derby or a throw back to the Dark Ages (mid 70s). A joke.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/n ... le1910654/
But hockey TV ratings in the U.S. are so abysmal, can't be many $ there. Otherwise why did it end up on networks like Versus? I agree that arena revenue is the key.Mike Bernstein":1agq7u1e said:
Geoff
New member
Tony Crocker":2bk4km8a said:
That's regional just like major league baseball. In Boston, the Bruins are on NECN just like the Red Sox. They don't get the same number of eyeballs as the Red Sox so they can't command the same advertising dollars.
Participation in skiing is also regional. If you can't drive to it, very few people participate other than nut cases like Admin when he lived in Sarasota.
Yes, and in a place like Phoenix hockey will get squat in TV advertising dollars.Geoff":1dk03uj4 said:
Geoff
New member
Tony Crocker":3w2wil0v said:
Yep. I'm not a pro hockey person. I didn't go see the Bruins when I had free luxury box tickets. The regular season is like an extended exhibition since pretty much all the teams make it to the playoffs. It's way more fun to watch your college hockey team play. The skill level is lower but the players are going 100% instead of skating around calculating how many dollars per minute they're being paid while they're on the ice.
riverc0il
New member
Pffft, whatev. I can say that easy enough because I didn't get into hockey until about 96. Avalanche did at least one great thing and that was putting Bourque in a position to hoist the cup! I remember routing for them that year or two he played for Colorado.jamesdeluxe":gsvx0wqc said:
:stir:
berkshireskier
Member
The same could be said for pro basketball versus college basketball, IMHO.Geoff":hn179i92 said:
96 was about the time when I bailed on hockey. The Nordiques were the last straw.riverc0il":2vcpoxl0 said: