|
Post by The Hockey Hitman on Dec 16, 2008 18:16:20 GMT -5
Inspired by the the [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duLds-TZMGw ]incident[/url] that has now attracted internaitonal attention, which player, coach or person associated with the NHL would you most like to throw your shoes at?
Feel free to pick a runner-up too.
|
|
|
Post by Zipper14 on Dec 16, 2008 18:28:06 GMT -5
I think Gary Bettman would be the #1 choice of all NHL fans . "Expansion into Canada is not in the NHL's immediate plans." **SHOE TO THE HEAD**
|
|
|
Post by Zoom Waffles on Dec 16, 2008 18:32:06 GMT -5
i disagree. taking franchises from the US and bringing them to Canada would sink hockey in the US, and would fail to make hockey any more popular internationally.
So i'll catch that shoe from right in front of gary's face, and I'll throw it at Phil Bourque for throwing the stanley cup in a pool. what an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by The Hockey Hitman on Dec 16, 2008 19:09:27 GMT -5
My choice at this point is Barry Melrose...the way he talked trash about the Lightning organization after they let him go was just very unprofessional. Hes an absolute jerk.
runner-up: Mats Sundin. Who cares anymore?
|
|
|
Post by Dethrij on Dec 16, 2008 19:09:44 GMT -5
I'd like to throw a whole Shoe Carnival worth of Shoes at Alexander Radulov....But i guess thats not NHL associated is it.
runner-up would be Ron wilson, but we don't have to put up with him now that he is in Toronto.
|
|
|
Post by Dethrij on Dec 16, 2008 19:18:53 GMT -5
I'd like to throw a whole Shoe Carnival worth of Shoes at Alexander Radulov....But i guess thats not NHL associated is it.
runner-up would be Ron wilson, but we don't have to put up with him now that he is in Toronto.
|
|
|
Post by Dethrij on Dec 16, 2008 19:19:35 GMT -5
I'd like to throw a whole Shoe Carnival worth of Shoes at Alexander Radulov....But i guess thats not NHL associated is it.
runner-up would be Ron wilson, but we don't have to put up with him now that he is in Toronto.
|
|
|
Post by Zipper14 on Dec 17, 2008 17:37:24 GMT -5
i disagree. taking franchises from the US and bringing them to Canada would sink hockey in the US, and would fail to make hockey any more popular internationally. So i'll catch that shoe from right in front of gary's face, and I'll throw it at Phil Bourque for throwing the stanley cup in a pool. what an idiot. IMO hockey has been tried in non-traditional hockey markets and it has failed. Most Americans don't like hockey and that's fine with me, it's their loss. If people in Atlanta or Florida don't wanna pay ridiculously low prices to see a hockey game then ship those franchises to Hamilton or Manitoba, where people will pay top dollar, even in these financially trying times.
|
|
|
Post by Zoom Waffles on Dec 17, 2008 18:05:24 GMT -5
this is a discussion for elsewhere... maybe i'll write a little article on it... but to summarize my opinion:
the problem with hockey in the US isn't attracting fans to the games themselves. Yes, it's true that the worst-attended franchises in the NHL are American franchises in non-traditional markets. But those games are still selling 15,000 tickets (Phoenix, Columbus, Nashville). In fact, when you look at who's not attracting people, it's highly-established franchises who just aren't very good: Islanders, Bruins. Attendance is significantly on the decline this year, presumably a result of the economic crisis, and the fact that interest will be piqued as the playoffs get nearer.
No, the problem isn't getting people to the arena, the problem is just that aside from those 15,000 people who are there, very few people pay attention to the team. For example, Nashville sells an average of 13,803 seats per night. Those nearly 14,000 people are really into hockey, but they're the only 14,000 people in the greater Nashville area who give a damn at all. In Montreal, you get 21,000 people a night in the stands, but you also have hundreds of thousands of devoted followers across the province.
But when you think about it, what would moving the Predators to Hamilton accomplish? First, you'd lose those 14,000 hockey fans from Nashville. Then what? Sure, you'd probably sell 20,000 tickets a night in Hamilton, but those people are watching hockey anyway! The purpose of the expansion into non-traditional markets was not to sell more tickets, it was to spread the reach of hockey geographically, and it has succeeded in doing such, in my opinion.
BUT, back to the topic at hand. Hopefully no one is throwing shoes at me...
|
|
|
Post by The Hockey Hitman on Dec 17, 2008 19:44:45 GMT -5
Man, that Zoom Waffles guy...lets throw shoes at him...
|
|
|
Post by Dethrij on Dec 17, 2008 19:58:02 GMT -5
14, 000 hockey fans in Nashville.......Yeah, that sounds about right.
|
|
|
Post by Zipper14 on Dec 18, 2008 19:24:07 GMT -5
this is a discussion for elsewhere... maybe i'll write a little article on it... but to summarize my opinion: the problem with hockey in the US isn't attracting fans to the games themselves. Yes, it's true that the worst-attended franchises in the NHL are American franchises in non-traditional markets. But those games are still selling 15,000 tickets (Phoenix, Columbus, Nashville). In fact, when you look at who's not attracting people, it's highly-established franchises who just aren't very good: Islanders, Bruins. Attendance is significantly on the decline this year, presumably a result of the economic crisis, and the fact that interest will be piqued as the playoffs get nearer. No, the problem isn't getting people to the arena, the problem is just that aside from those 15,000 people who are there, very few people pay attention to the team. For example, Nashville sells an average of 13,803 seats per night. Those nearly 14,000 people are really into hockey, but they're the only 14,000 people in the greater Nashville area who give a damn at all. In Montreal, you get 21,000 people a night in the stands, but you also have hundreds of thousands of devoted followers across the province. But when you think about it, what would moving the Predators to Hamilton accomplish? First, you'd lose those 14,000 hockey fans from Nashville. Then what? Sure, you'd probably sell 20,000 tickets a night in Hamilton, but those people are watching hockey anyway! The purpose of the expansion into non-traditional markets was not to sell more tickets, it was to spread the reach of hockey geographically, and it has succeeded in doing such, in my opinion. BUT, back to the topic at hand. Hopefully no one is throwing shoes at me... One more off topic post here . First off, I'll just say I don't wanna throw a shoe at you, I think there is definitely two sides to the debate, and you make some great points. Like that allot of the lowest attendance teams are those who just aren't playing well, but hopefully the teams like the Islanders can get some new and exciting draft picks and turn things around. Chicago has turned things around, and I don't think it's just because they are now showing games on TV. Have Boston's attendance figures picked up this year? With their exciting team, it will be interesting to see if the fans come back. One major point here is that the NHL gets most of it's revenues from ticket sales, not from TV revenues. So, if you move Nashville to Hamilton you get 20 000 butts in seats instead of 14 000 butts in seats, and you are selling tickets in Hamilton at allot more then you are in Nashville. The lowest price for a Canuck ticket is $66, while the lowest price for a Predator ticket is $25 (Phoenix is $11). Now the price difference is not so great for the most expensive tickets, but it gives you an idea of how much more Canadian fans are willing to pay. I've heard stories of a waiting 10 years to get season tickets to the leafs, as many season tickets are willed down to younger generations. That leaves thousands of people willing to pay top dollar for season tickets out of luck. Sure they can watch it on TV, but they would gladly pay the big bucks to watch NHL 41 home games worth of live hockey. As I said before I think hockey has failed in the non-traditional markets. There's so much competition in NFL, NBA, NASCAR, College and High School sports, and all of these things rank in front of hockey. The Lightening/Flames game seven a few years back had worse ratings than a Cosby Show rerun. I'm happy that the NHL picked up a few thousand loyal fans in Nashville and Tampa, but the loyal Canadian fans in places like Winnipeg deserve to be able to watch their favorite players.
|
|
|
Post by Zoom Waffles on Dec 18, 2008 19:33:46 GMT -5
Yeah, ticket sales is the most obvious source of revenue, but when you think about the general product licensing and sales that happens... jerseys, banners, flags, all those stupid things in the NHL store... people in Hamilton already have all of that stuff for their favorite team. Nobody in Nashville even went to NHL.com before the Preds were in town. That's my point.
But I do think I'll write an article about this soon. I also want to revisit the Lemieux vs. Gretzky debate. Should be a good weekend of writing...
|
|
|
Post by Zipper14 on Dec 18, 2008 19:44:56 GMT -5
Sounds good. I'm excited to read them!
|
|
|
Post by fukufuji on Dec 22, 2008 17:24:27 GMT -5
At Pascal LaClaire. Size 14 steel toe.
|
|
|
Post by bu11durm on Dec 24, 2008 23:21:30 GMT -5
I want to throw a shoe at the guy who devised this "some games are 2 points, while some are 3" system. That guy needs to be shot.
Try to explain hockey's math to any other sports fan or anyone who passed third grade and you just get blank stares.
|
|
|
Post by Zoom Waffles on Dec 29, 2008 13:09:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 4diving on Jan 4, 2009 17:22:34 GMT -5
Love to shove a shoe down Pierre McGuire's throat. Can't stand listening to that freakin elf. Was the only bad part of the Winter Classic.
|
|
|
Post by Zoom Waffles on Jan 4, 2009 21:01:29 GMT -5
except bob costas....
|
|
|
Post by fukufuji on Jan 6, 2009 16:10:41 GMT -5
The Financial Industry
|
|