Is it better for hockey if Anaheim wins?

[Jason Harris 31]

Very interesting analysis, ktang.

DarkStar is right, JR The Rockies were essentially still an expansion team when they came to Denver, whereas the Avs won the first season they arrived. That's a good way to win some newbies to the sport. They won again five years later, but were one of the better teams throughout, so the fans remained loyal.

Another consideration is demographics. The metropolitan area grew by nearly 50% from 1980 to 2000; the work force became the best educated in the nation (although, strangely, we have low HS graduation rates :o ), so the income is good; and I've read we rank highly in fitness. Add it up, and it's a population base that is more willing to support sports than one of 25 years ago.

Here'e the interesting thing, though. Most people have an image of the Rocky Mountains when they think of Denver, but the truth is Denver is flat and sunny, so there is virtually no outdoor skating. The mountain lakes can freeze, but Denver needs to build rinks, which they've been doing almost annually for the past decade. At that point, it becomes a circular argument. Fans watch the local team and decide to play the sport, while people who play the sport become solid fans of their teams.

That's why I think it's best for the game if Anaheim wins and contends in the near future. I've been in Canada during the World Cup, so I know the victory would mean more to Canadians than it would to 99% of the citizens of Anaheim, but I still think the game of hockey (and the NHL) would benefit from Anaheim winning.

[BHSwing_7` 0]

Is that English?

And I don't understand this whole Colorado being a hockey hotbed thing. They had a team before the Avalanche and couldn't support it.

your telling me now that colorado isnt the best hockey hot bed in the west?

i may have misunderstood what u said

[joshy207 15]

What makes MLB, the NFL, and NASCAR so popular? Here is what I think:

With MLB and the NFL, the pace is slow enough that 1 or 2 colour commentators can explain what happened.

With NASCAR and MLB you can focus the cameras on the area of importance (the front of the pack in NASCAR, and the pitcher/batter in MLB). It's there to a lesser degree in the NFL (focus on the backfield and the QB, there is only one pass or handoff). Everything is over in a few seconds, then there is time for the play to be broken down.

Most people drive, so they can relate to the NASCAR skills, and most have played baseball, so they can relate to the baseball players.

Hockey is too fast with too much passing for the colour commentators to explain every turnover, rush, pass, play, and move. Plays happen all over the ice, so it's hard to focus on only one area. It's too expensive for most to participate in growing up, so very few can understand what is going on.

If Anaheim wins or makes a mini-dynasty, there will be more fans and players in SoCal, but I don't think it will help the NHL become major-league.

Great points! This analogy holds true in the way the games are covered on TV, too. NBA, NFL, MLB, even NASCAR... they don't feel like they have to explain what's going on in basic terms, they can get pretty technical. The commentators speak to the educated fan; the rest have to catch up. Hockey's the opposite though. The number one complaint I've heard from non-hockey fans is that the game is too hard to understand, too hard to follow. Network coverage in the US is geared to the casual or brand-new viewer, and the experienced fan just has to watch.

[TBLfan 25]

Apprently you guys have never hear Dave Miskin calling a game, he's amazing with how well he describes the plays. But then again he's on radio so he has to paint a picture, being able to watch the game on tv they really don't need to decribe what you're seeing on every play.

[Jim A 4]

you want to build a game, have an exciting style...getting people "on the ice" only helps so much since they are going to spend $ playing and working on their game as opposed to dropping down $60 for a poor seat...

in Dallas, the stars would be smart to market to the people around where I work in Uptown, close to the rink, lots of disposable income, work out deals with local bars/restaurants for group outings and shuttle them to/from the game...people will go the first time for beer, but may come back for the hockey..

The Lightning were the best in the early 90's at doing whatever it took to get people to the Thunderdome, making it a destination even if it wasn't for the hockey..

I love watching the Ducks play, fast, physical and relentless at times..reminds me a little of NYR in the early 90's...

[D aka speck 0]

I didn't join MSH to hold my opinion back, so here goes...

Hockey, as far as sports in th U.S. are concerned is just slightly above LaCrosse.

Hockey is NOT a past time for the underprivledged, you can't just go out on the street, or the back yard and play with the first inflated object you find. This nation is in a state of panic, half of our society is below middle class. I know people with second jobs just to pay for gas to get to thier first job.

Of all sports in the world, can you think of any other that requires the degree of commitment that hockey does?

So.. hockey takes commitment AND money! Who's got those things?!

Furthermore, there's Nascar. Our nation is wrought with fair weather fans. Most race fans root for the guy in front. I'm a racing fan myself folks! I like road racing, something with twists, turns and the unpredictable.

Most people here do not have the attention span to follow anything that they have to ask or wonder about!

Drive in a circle, we'll get sh*tfaced and pretend we're paying attention.

We also have sloven fat ass guys for sports fans, they're the experts, just ask them.

Hockey in the U.S. will, for many more centuries, continue to be a fair-weather sport. Like it or not.

There's hockey players... then there's the rest.

Hockey fans, deep down, are hockey players, most have just never tried yet. They /we are against the grain. We are not the "norm", we are the "misfit toys"!

[Chadd 916]

Most people here do not have the attention span to follow anything that they have to ask or wonder about!

I've been saying that for years. Without some slobbering Madden-esqe figure explaining what you see in the 10 replays, many people are lost. Hockey will never be a top 4 or 5 sport because they don't stop the play enough for the announcers to explain it all and show the requisite number of replays.

[godiogo 0]

A lot of my friends say they don't like hockey because "you can't see the puck". Some of them who've watched games with me and heard some basic explanations have said that it's much more enjoyable when you understand what's going on.

[Chadd 916]

A lot of my friends say they don't like hockey because "you can't see the puck". Some of them who've watched games with me and heard some basic explanations have said that it's much more enjoyable when you understand what's going on.

#1 If you're watching the puck, you're missing the game.

#2 Everything is more enjoyable when you understand what's going on. That's the problem hockey has in the US, people don't know the game and it's very hard to learn. There just isn't time to explain everything in detail like you can with Football or Baseball.

[godiogo 0]

Hockey, as far as sports in th U.S. are concerned is just slightly above LaCrosse.

It's odd you should say that, because this afternoon I was VERY surprised when I tuned into ESPN "International" here in Brazil, and there was a Lacrosse game on, between the Long Island Lizards and the team from Boston. Apparently this was not a championship game, but I found it odd considering there has not even been a snippet of hockey (or news about the Finals) at all. Basketball is all over ESPN International, though.

A few years back I remember watching some of the playoffs and the finals, but no longer.

[Jason Harris 31]

#2 Everything is more enjoyable when you understand what's going on. That's the problem hockey has in the US, people don't know the game and it's very hard to learn. There just isn't time to explain everything in detail like you can with Football or Baseball.

I don't think it's harder to learn hockey, but I think a lot of newbies might feel that way. Most Americans have learned baseball and football over time, but if we were dealing with true blank slates, I think it would be easier to explain icing and offsides, than downs/yards and field goals/PAT's or balls/strikes/outs and top/bottom and tag up, etc.

Think about it. One reason there's not enough stoppage in play is there aren't a lot of esoteric rules to slow down play. Often, penalties are blatant, so even a newbie would recognize, "They aren't allowed to do that, are they?" So the types of things that would confuse them is, "Why are they dropping the puck there?"

Unfortunately, that still does nothing to convince people to give the game a glance.

[Chadd 916]

In response to the original question, but in a different way; I think it is bad for the NHL that the Ducks will win. They way they (and the senators to a degree) have played during this post season should embarrass the league. I don't want to see Disney on ice but the constant attempts to injure other players has got to stop or the league is going to be in even worse condition in a few years.

#2 Everything is more enjoyable when you understand what's going on. That's the problem hockey has in the US, people don't know the game and it's very hard to learn. There just isn't time to explain everything in detail like you can with Football or Baseball.

I don't think it's harder to learn hockey, but I think a lot of newbies might feel that way. Most Americans have learned baseball and football over time, but if we were dealing with true blank slates, I think it would be easier to explain icing and offsides, than downs/yards and field goals/PAT's or balls/strikes/outs and top/bottom and tag up, etc.

Think about it. One reason there's not enough stoppage in play is there aren't a lot of esoteric rules to slow down play. Often, penalties are blatant, so even a newbie would recognize, "They aren't allowed to do that, are they?" So the types of things that would confuse them is, "Why are they dropping the puck there?"

Unfortunately, that still does nothing to convince people to give the game a glance.

Icing isn't esoteric? You can do it shorthanded but not at even strength. I think the lack of consistent rules enforcement is another roadblock. Just about the time you think you understand the rules, a referee ignores an obvious trip, slash, punch to the head, etc... and confuses the new viewer even more.

In the end, most americans are just too damn lazy to even try.

[DarkStar50 679]

Ducks, Senators, Wings, Sabres, Rangers, Sharks, any playoff team that won the Cup was going to stretch the rules and do some nasty things this playoff season. Since Day 1 of the 2006-2007 season, players have been crossing the line with head shots, checks from behind, late hits, and other assorted mayhem. Its not bad for the NHL if the Ducks win. Whats bad for the NHL is this GM meeting about headshots and the like should have taken place no later than December 1, 2006. A policy could have been put in place immediately and all this bs that took place through the rest of the regular season and into the playoffs would have been penalized.

Where the Cup ends up is truly irrelevant. Tampa Bay lost their opportunity to ride the wave when the lock-out hit. Carolina suffered the traditional post Cup season hangover as well as losing some core guys to free agency and injuries. What happens next season to this season's Cup winner is anybody's guess at the moment.

While the NHL is busy calling penalties on Ryan Getzlaf for shoving a player along the wall(what was that? Interference even though the Senator had played the puck?) and yet letting Volchenkov slash the Duck on his way to the net inside the hash marks(not a penalty? Ok, I know you already missed a dozen others.), they are letting guys smash each other into wall from behind, letting guys extend their forearms and elbows into helmets, and leave their feet to pile drive a player at the end boards. I am not asking the NHL to take the hitting or physicality(new catch-phrase in sports for tough!) out of the game. What I am asking is when are they going to enforce some of the rules that are in place for injury prevention and player protection? There are ways to clean up the game and eliminate most of this crap. Unfortunately, they are too busy calling a penalty for tapping a player with your stick in the defensive zone. Just my 2 cents.......

I know I'm the guy who screams "Old time hockey". Its just that I have seen a lot of hockey over the years and the game is getting away from what it was and what it could be at the NHL level. I don't give a hoot about new fans, casual fans, or bandwagon fans. That ship has sailed out of port a long time ago. I would just like to see some of this potential with the talent in the NHL coming up realize how great it could be. Imagine the best of the 80s, like the 87 Team Canada team from the Canada Cup facing a potential Team NHL from the late 2000s(you pick the players rising now) facing off. Yes, it could never happen but take that 87 Team Canada group as a template for all the greatness the New NHL could harness and you would have an idea of where I'm coming from.

[ag12 0]

The 87 Canada Cup final is some of the best hockey I've ever seen to this day. Imagine both of those teams with today's equipment.....

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

I moved here from Ireland just about 7 years ago, and I am a hockey addict. I was a season ticket holder for the caps, and I play in an adult house league now.

The problem is not the actual product on the ice, and I wish they would stop tweaking it to attract an invisible market, and instead cater to the market they have and grow it that way.

The problem is the price, to both watch it and play it.

When I moved here, the company I was with originally had corporate seats to the MCI center, and at the time Michael Jordan had been introduced as a minorty owner for the Wizards.

Everyone wanted the unused tickets to the Wizards, so I took the often unclaimed Caps tickets.

I went to about 15 games, in good seats (section 202, center ice, great view) for the 00/01 season that I did not have to pay for.

I was a full season ticket holder for the 01/02 season, but way up in section 413 now.

Then with wedding costs (because my wife and my family are all still back in Fermanagh/Donegal, we had the wedding there, paid for it ourselves), and greencard legal fees/extending our current visa fees we cancelled our season tickets.

For the past few years I have been going to 15/20 games in the lower levels rather than paying for the full season ticket in the uppers.

If management/ownership could reduce the prices so an ordinary person could go see it, it would increase interest.

I done a comparison of playoff ticket prices in detroit a few weeks ago. The cheapest wings ticket was $99 compared to $18 for the bulls.

The wings did not sell out any home games in the first 2 playoff rounds.

Here are the pricing guides....

Pistons pricing

$18

$30

$40

$80

$135

then it jumps up to the big money level

And a quick look on ticketbastard shows tickets available for tonights game

Detroit red wings playoff pricing schedule

$99

$108

$135

If games are affordable to attend, and affordable to occasionally get a good lower level seat (through special promotion a couple of times a year etc), the game will grow.

Sorry about the long reply, but as someone who moved here, with no exposure to hockey before the move, hockey can become a favorite sport (well, apart from gaelic football) for anyone, but they have to be able to actually see the game in person (and not only from the nosebleeds)

[DarkStar50 679]

I agree Smokey that the price of NHL tickets is outrageous. I'll go to a game on a freebie but out-of-pocket, I don't think the value for the dollar is there. Hard to say but just how I feel myself. The Devils will open a new building and raise ticket prices. Good luck!!

[WingsVK97 0]

I have to agree tickets are way too steep. I'll try to make one or maybe two games a year depending on the Caps and Canes weekend schedules, but I don't drop a lot of coin on a ticket. Plus a $45 dollar ticket suddenly turns into a $60 dollar ticket by the time "Ticketbasterd" (good one Smoke) finishes helping themselves.

I did a quick dive over to compare the price of a ticket to see Manchester United. The most expensive ticket was 42 pounds!! Rounds out to about $84. We should be so lucky. Plus they chop all their prices in half if you're under 16. Grow the fans young.

Of course, keeping prices down is important to the clubs. No so with other professional leagues.

[mattopiela 0]

Yeah worst ratings for the final yet, whoo hoo.

You people are blind and only kidding your self if you think that a team from Anaheim that won the cup will do good for the league, I bet the average folk in Anaheim doesn't even know that they won. Yes the odd member on this board will say thats total bs, but you only say that because you like hockey.

1/3 of NHL's revenue comes from the Canadian based teams, that is 6 teams account for 33 % of the revenue out of 30 teams, and I would put money on it that about 10 teams account for at least 50 % of the revenue (teams such as Colorado, Detroit (even they had trouble selling out)). Its simple stats and simple indication that hockey belongs in Canada. Bettman better be hoping another team from Canada makes the finals because then seriously no one will watch.

No Kansas City doesn't need a team and neither does Vegas.

Teams need to be moved and some simply canceled out. So with that being said I will leave you with a good read. They say great minds think alike :P.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=Aq7R...o&type=lgns

[JR Boucicaut 3801]

Detroit sold out all of their games, they just had no-shows. They have the longest streak of sellouts in the league.

[mattopiela 0]

Detroit sold out all of their games, they just had no-shows. They have the longest streak of sellouts in the league.

Oh oka, sorry didn't know just seemed that way, and I believe I heard about it too that Detroit had some troubles with ticket sales.

[Fury of One 6]

No Kansas City doesn't need a team and neither does Vegas.

Teams need to be moved and some simply canceled out. So with that being said I will leave you with a good read. They say great minds think alike :P.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=Aq7R...o&type=lgns

I totally agree with all that. A start would be cutting the league down by 4 maybe even 6 teams.

[ag12 0]

Detroit sold out all of their games, they just had no-shows. They have the longest streak of sellouts in the league.

It's too bad the seats weren't filled, that doesn't help the perception of what people think about the NHL. Even with Detroit's success in recent years, with the money in the owners pockets, fewer people are watching.

That article also forgot to mention the debacle that was the all-star game in Dallas. What a disaster that was......

[Chadd 916]

Detroit sold out all of their games, they just had no-shows. They have the longest streak of sellouts in the league.

It's too bad the seats weren't filled, that doesn't help the perception of what people think about the NHL. Even with Detroit's success in recent years, with the money in the owners pockets, fewer people are watching.

That article also forgot to mention the debacle that was the all-star game in Dallas. What a disaster that was......

Fans in Detroit have been spoiled by the success of the team. Pens sold out 30 games last year, Carolina sold out most (if not all) of their home games, there are only a few markets lagging and some of them are traditional markets with bad owners.

I know there have been reports that Nashville missed attendance goals but their reported per game attendance is much higher. http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

Fun fact of the day:

Bulls outdrew the Blackhawks by nearly 10k fans PER GAME.

22,160 - 12,727

[TBLfan 25]

Yeah worst ratings for the final yet, whoo hoo.

You people are blind and only kidding your self if you think that a team from Anaheim that won the cup will do good for the league, I bet the average folk in Anaheim doesn't even know that they won. Yes the odd member on this board will say thats total bs, but you only say that because you like hockey.

1/3 of NHL's revenue comes from the Canadian based teams, that is 6 teams account for 33 % of the revenue out of 30 teams, and I would put money on it that about 10 teams account for at least 50 % of the revenue (teams such as Colorado, Detroit (even they had trouble selling out)). Its simple stats and simple indication that hockey belongs in Canada. Bettman better be hoping another team from Canada makes the finals because then seriously no one will watch.

No Kansas City doesn't need a team and neither does Vegas.

Teams need to be moved and some simply canceled out. So with that being said I will leave you with a good read. They say great minds think alike :P.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=Aq7R...o&type=lgns

That's not true. People respond to winning, Tampa and the Lightning are prime examples of this. When the Lightning weren't winning the place was empty and tickets could be had for cheap, for the past 3 years I think there's been maybe 10 games(all near the mid to end of this season) that haven't been sellouts(with varying amounts of no shows). For game 7 of the finals there was just about as many people outside on the plaza as inside watching the game, it was incredible. The area sees more and more hockey players each year as the leagues keep getting bigger and bigger, the interest in the sport is growing although support for the Lightning seems to have leveld out again... If you aren't in an area and don't know what a championship can bring to an area then don't make assumptions. I've first hand seen the changes over the past few years, so I know.

Now I'm not saying that it will be the same for anahiem, but if I was to make an educated guess I would have to say it probably will effect the area. It probably won't effect the area as much as it did here since we had the lockout and a lot of people just trying to find a way to get into hockey but it will have a positive effect.

[mattopiela 0]

I'll believe that once I see some numbers. Another thing you have to look at is if the arena/team is selling out is it making enough money to sustain it self ? Yes I know Tampa/Carolina have good attendance numbers but I also know for a fact ticket prices are much cheaper there. Attendance is important but it goes far beyond that. How are the tickets sold ? Are a lot of them giveaways etc? . Yes people will show up for the finals, but they show up because its the finals. For example I think in Ottawa for the team to be profitable it needed to advance into the second round to do so and yet 99% of the regular season games have been sold out. Compared to other Canadian cities with NHL teams Ottawa is a fairly small market, but things are getting better each year and are really looking up, because its a good hockey market. The team is young and competitive and the organization is run very well. They support the community and the community supports it, I mean would you get 1000's of fans welcoming home a losing team if Ottawa won ? well that was the case here. I remember it wasn't too long ago the team almost went bankrop (that had more to do with politics and taxes tho) and seeing the support the sens have right now is just amazing. I think this year they had to stop selling season tickets for next year to have room for general admission as the demand is overwhelming. In Toronto you might have to wait a couple decades to get your hands on some season tickets. Season tickets is where the money is for teams.

But you see what I am saying, good attendance is a start but it goes far beyond that, you have to look at the overall market and commitment the community is willing to make to the team.