2009-2010 NHL Attendance

[schulzte 18]

This talk about the Red Wings only being at 97% capacity is kind of silly. We're talking about less than 500 unsold tickets a game. When the Joe was opened, it had 19,250 seats. So we're still over the original capacity of the building each game (not that everyone shows). I also don't like this argument about the sun belt teams failing. Expansion in the NHL has always been hit and miss. The North Stars, Whalers, and Rockies moved, Cleveland folded, Pittsburgh has clung to life over time. Tampa Bay still has the all-time record for attendance at a playoff game. It isn't just a Southern thing when it comes to attendance; the bigger problems with those teams is that the do not draw well on TV. Give some props to San Jose and Dallas, which have been very successful in non-traditional markets. And 15,000 in attendance for crappy teams such as Carolina and Anaheim isn't bad either. Remember when the Whalers moved to Greensboro and were averaging 8,000 a game? They've actually come a long way.

Attached is a good resource for NHL attendance over the past 40 years. It's interesting to see trends, which teams have done well and which haven't over time. The authors are listed, I had nothing to do with it.

New Olympia Stadium

NHL Attendance Figures1.pdf

Edited June 4, 2010 by schulzte

[Travis 576]

Colorado's attendance has been dropping since the lockout. They were right up there with the Wings in amount of game sellouts, waiting lists and what not. Of all the teams, Colorado has been hurt the most since the lockout. They spent a lot before the cap, similar to the Wings...look at what team wasn't effected in the cap era . They were a dominant team in the 90's but just haven't been quite the same since. I guess the fans know this (or got bored) and probably the loss of a few popular players.

See Also: The improvement of the Denver Nuggets.

[Guest zackmorris]

This talk about the Red Wings only being at 97% capacity is kind of silly. We're talking about less than 500 unsold tickets a game. When the Joe was opened, it had 19,250 seats. So we're still over the original capacity of the building each game (not that everyone shows). I also don't like this argument about the sun belt teams failing. Expansion in the NHL has always been hit and miss. The North Stars, Whalers, and Rockies moved, Cleveland folded, Pittsburgh has clung to life over time. Tampa Bay still has the all-time record for attendance at a playoff game. It isn't just a Southern thing when it comes to attendance; the bigger problems with those teams is that the do not draw well on TV. Give some props to San Jose and Dallas, which have been very successful in non-traditional markets. And 15,000 in attendance for crappy teams such as Carolina and Anaheim isn't bad either. Remember when the Whalers moved to Greensboro and were averaging 8,000 a game? They've actually come a long way.

Attached is a good resource for NHL attendance over the past 40 years. It's interesting to see trends, which teams have done well and which haven't over time. The authors are listed, I had nothing to do with it.

New Olympia Stadium

I don't think expansion in those areas will work. But not for the reasons most people think.

When someone says Ohio is a football town and will never accept hockey, or say something similar about Georgia or Florida, I always tell them it could've worked. It still can, but the management of the situation has to be better. 10X better than it is now.

The reason I don't believe those teams will succeed is because of the clowns we have in charge. They just simply don't get it.

Hockey can thrive anywhere there's an arena, and enough sports fans. Because we're lucky, in the way that we're the fastest, most exciting major sport on the planet. Most Americans who claim to dislike hockey, do it because they're following herd mentality, or think it's cool not to like it. They're sheeple, and are morons anyway. But sit someone down in front of a good playoff game with speed, hitting, goals, saves, Ovechkin celebrations, Datsyuk dangles, and they'll love that s***. Teach who the players are, the context of each game and the storylines currently unfolding within the entire league and they'll be hooked.

It's not like we're trying to sell baseball or basketball here, which are sports that move at a painfully glacial pace compared to the NHL. We're selling hockey, and all the non-viewer needs is a spark.

It ain't the trap. We all hate it and I do too, and for good reason but hockey, to Joe Casual, is still higher paced and more exciting even with the trap around than basketball, football or baseball. It's not about certain teams winning all the time, because Americans love basketball in spite of the fact that over 60 years, the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls have won the NBA championship 64% of the time. The NFL covers it's players faces most of the time, though they cleverly market a vast group of stars, as opposed to our "NOTHING BUT CROSBY *******" marketing extravaganza. People just need a reason to invest their time. It's like a good TV show you're not watching. It doesn't become good the minute you start, so something needs to trigger your interest.

The longer the NHL waits and half asses their marketing approach, the more people will view hockey as something to never take seriously, and once that snowball keeps rolling down the hill, and getting bigger, it'll be almost impossible to change their minds.