HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Att:n People that live in Boston, Chicago, or Philly

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-23-2013, 02:36 PM
  #26
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicky Santoro View Post
Hawks > Bulls and Cubs


Am i far off??
Very much so.

The will never be in the same converstaion as the Bulls and Cubs.


Really? Bigger then the Cubs?

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 02:37 PM
  #27
Glacial
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergyMeister View Post
Living in NE Vermont I would say I have the same experience. Neither team has many people wearing their gear up in my neck of the woods. It's pretty much Red Sox, Pats,and then the Celts/B's depending on who is winning. There is also a significant % of Hab/Yankee/NY Giants fans.
OT: How much of Vermont was Expos territory back before their relocation or how much did the Expos split the area with the Red Sox?

Glacial is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 02:40 PM
  #28
Sarava
Moderator
 
Sarava's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Naperville, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 9,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicky Santoro View Post
hi guys, i am just curious. i'd love to know.

Boston- Would you say Bruins are more popular than the Celtics in boston? Do people like Celtics or Bruins more and who gets better tv ratings?

Philly- I know the flyers get a lot of attention now in philly, but would you say they are now more popular than the Sixers?

Chicago- this one interests me alot. Reason- i read last yr that no team in all 4 major sports have grown so much than the Hawks. there are 6x as many hawks fans than the last 3 yrs, and tv ratings are off the roof. but are the Hawks now more popular than the Bulls? and if not, is it close??

I hope you guys can help...Thanks so much guys
It's hard to say for sure because all 3 teams pretty much sell every seat they have for sale.

As popular as the Hawks are now - it would be hard to reach the same level of popularity as the Bulls. There's a large % of the population that the Hawks will rarely be able to touch. It is what it is.

And the Cubs are on a whole nother level with their national following, being a tourist destination - and probably 2/3 of the baseball fans in town being Cub fans. Personally I'm a Sox fan, but we're in the minority.

Sarava is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 02:52 PM
  #29
Nicky Santoro
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 318
vCash: 500
of course i too never thought they can touch the CUBS, but if you open up the sports TRIBUNE, on top they have the sports in order of importance and it reads bears, bulls, hawks, cubs, sox. you can check to see, and in every paper in the US, they are all 100% accurate. maybe it's because it's not summer, OR the cubs i figured were doing so bad each yr, that people now followed the hawks more..

but 1 guy here said hawks are not in the same world as bulls, however a few guys from chicago in this thread have already said they were more popular, and if you look at this years bulls vs hawks in tv ratings, hawks are killing them. even though it's only 3 games into the season. maybe it's because D Rose is out and are not 1st overall like last yr. also, don't forget, chicago has a lot of blacks and hispanics and we all know they don't really connect with hockey, ever. what if we only counted white chicagoans ONLY.. i think hawks beat bulls easily... NO??? so it's a bit confusing to me. btw, i appreciate all the responses.

Nicky Santoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 02:57 PM
  #30
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,856
vCash: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicky Santoro View Post
of course i too never thought they can touch the CUBS, but if you open up the sports TRIBUNE, on top they have the sports in order of importance and it reads bears, bulls, hawks, cubs, sox. you can check to see, and in every paper in the US, they are all 100% accurate. maybe it's because it's not summer, OR the cubs i figured were doing so bad each yr, that people now followed the hawks more..
Or it's merely recognizing that baseball's in the offseason and there's less to report about. That's not at all indicative of what's more popular, merely what's making more news at a particular moment.

Quote:
but 1 guy here said hawks are not in the same world as bulls, however a few guys from chicago in this thread have already said they were more popular, and if you look at this years bulls vs hawks in tv ratings, hawks are killing them. even though it's only 3 games into the season. maybe it's because D Rose is out and are not 1st overall like last yr. also, don't forget, chicago has a lot of blacks and hispanics and we all know they don't really connect with hockey, ever. what if we only counted white chicagoans ONLY.. i think hawks beat bulls easily... NO??? so it's a bit confusing to me. btw, i appreciate all the responses.
And the other people are wrong, that's all there is to it. And no, can't compare just TV ratings when the Bulls have been meh for a while without their star and the Hawks have had only three games. Plus, in the long run, Bulls TV ratings crush Hawks TV ratings.

Amongst white Chicagoans only, maybe the Hawks are more popular, but at least half the city's non-white, so that's a fool's errand anyway. Even then, probably still close.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:01 PM
  #31
rfournier103
Registered User
 
rfournier103's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicky Santoro View Post
hi guys, i am just curious. i'd love to know.

Boston- Would you say Bruins are more popular than the Celtics in boston? Do people like Celtics or Bruins more and who gets better tv ratings?

Philly- I know the flyers get a lot of attention now in philly, but would you say they are now more popular than the Sixers?

Chicago- this one interests me alot. Reason- i read last yr that no team in all 4 major sports have grown so much than the Hawks. there are 6x as many hawks fans than the last 3 yrs, and tv ratings are off the roof. but are the Hawks now more popular than the Bulls? and if not, is it close??

I hope you guys can help...Thanks so much guys
Bruins definately more popular than the Celtics. If they're both good at the same time, the Bruins get more press (locally), buzz, and you see more people wearing Bruins gear. Even though Boston is a VERY Irish city.

A sportswriter from the 1980s once said this about the Celtics, Red Sox, and Bruins in regards to their attitudes and their fans:

~The Celtics WON'T let you cheat off their homework.
~The Red Sox WILL let you cheat off your homework.
~The Bruins will just TAKE your homework.

You tell me who Boston fans would relate to the most? Definately the Red Sox and Bruins.

Ed Snider (founder of the Philadelphia Flyers) once went to a Celtics playoff game (NBA Finals) and bought his ticket the same day of the game, and saw people waiting in line to buy Bruins tickets (they were in LAST PLACE). That inspired him to found the Flyers.

The Celtics had a huge surge in popularity in the 1980s during the Larry Bird era, but that has totally worn off. Except for the 1980s, the Bruins have ruled Causeway Street with an iron fist. No doubt about that.

rfournier103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:15 PM
  #32
Hawkscap
Registered User
 
Hawkscap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,718
vCash: 500
Hawks just pulled a 5.4 rating last night. Someone might want to rethink their rankings

Hawkscap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:22 PM
  #33
Nicky Santoro
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfournier103 View Post
Bruins definately more popular than the Celtics. If they're both good at the same time, the Bruins get more press (locally), buzz, and you see more people wearing Bruins gear. Even though Boston is a VERY Irish city.

A sportswriter from the 1980s once said this about the Celtics, Red Sox, and Bruins in regards to their attitudes and their fans:

~The Celtics WON'T let you cheat off their homework.
~The Red Sox WILL let you cheat off your homework.
~The Bruins will just TAKE your homework.

You tell me who Boston fans would relate to the most? Definately the Red Sox and Bruins.

Ed Snider (founder of the Philadelphia Flyers) once went to a Celtics playoff game (NBA Finals) and bought his ticket the same day of the game, and saw people waiting in line to buy Bruins tickets (they were in LAST PLACE). That inspired him to found the Flyers.

The Celtics had a huge surge in popularity in the 1980s during the Larry Bird era, but that has totally worn off. Except for the 1980s, the Bruins have ruled Causeway Street with an iron fist. No doubt about that.
that was a funny post man. especially the part about the homework. thanks.

i've always wondered how the bruins can't be even more popular than now. lets look at this. Boston has cold winters. Alot play hockey in Mass..They have an incredible history.. ORR, ESPO, NEELY, BOURQUE, etc.. especially ORR and ESPO. It's mostly white and white's love hockey. It's a place where they love to drink and party and hockey offers hard hitting, lots of fights, which attracts that certain demo. PLUS, boston has won the cup recently.. they are so damn good and tough and fight often.. and they have CHARA, who's a monster.

With all that..how can they not beat the Celtics??

Nicky Santoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:23 PM
  #34
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,856
vCash: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by topher42 View Post
Hawks just pulled a 5.4 rating last night. Someone might want to rethink their rankings
And the movie Mama made more money at the box office than The Hobbit this past week. Clearly, that means it's more popular than that film!

Same logic. You can't compare a snapshot with a long-standing trend.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:27 PM
  #35
Glacial
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Link? There is absolutely zero chance that the Cubs are less popular than the Bulls and Hawks, and that's probably still the case even if you combined all Hawks fans with all Bulls fans and assumed there was no crossover, too.

And the number of Sox fans is actually comparatively small, despite what Sox fans may like to believe (which is why I rank the Bulls ahead of them), but they still outnumber Hawks fans. Downstate? Sure, the Sox have zero presence, so just about anything's more popular than them. In the city or the metro area as a whole, though? No way.

Yeah, Cubs probably control the most territory (Iowa [thanks to the AAA Iowa Cubs], about half of Illinois [downstate is Cardinals territory], part of Indiana) though in terms of value, the Bears seem to have more and more intense fan support in Chicago and around Illinois. Cubs also have a fair number of fans scattered across the country due to an expansive radio network & WGN America.

The Bears are treated as the #1 team in Chicago when they're playing, regardless of how good/bad they are. Not sure about who Iowa roots for. Downstate IL is split between the Colts & Rams. An often overlooked fact is there is a contingent of Green Bay Packers fans in the Chicago area. Not sure how many of all football fans (5%? 10%?) but it's enough to baffle Bears fans that some choose to root for the arch-rival and enough to be a visible presence.

The Bulls seem to be #3. I think they may have been #1 during their 6 championship-winning seasons in the 1990s. They seem to have indisputed control of Illinois and word is from some in Wisconsin that people there see more Bulls apparel than Bucks apparel. The Bucks do seem to lack much pull.

The White Sox are much smaller than the Cubs because of geography & demographics. The White Sox made several bad media decisions over the decades (UHF at a time when UHF wasn't big, pay-per-view, putting more games on RSNs while Cubs were still very present on local tv & WGN America nationwide). As the suburbs grew, they grew in the north & west more than the south and Cubs were easier to pick up on the tv and Cubs loyalties were carried from the North Side. The south & southwest suburbs only really started growing in the '90s. It doesn't seem like their 2005 World Series victory expanded their fanbase much. Past the Chicago area, White Sox wanes off pretty quickly. Not sure why. Maybe the White Sox radio network back decades ago sucked? It kind of seemed like fan support was entrenched, kind of like with hockey. As the White Sox were successful in the '00s, the Cubs 3 runs (all of which fell short. 2003 infamously with the Bartman ball incident in the NLCS, 2007 & 2008 being first-round sweeps despite 2008 having a hysteria due to the 2008 Cubs being the strongest since 1945, the last time they were in the World Series, and it being the 100th anniversary of the last time they won a World Series), which seems to have let the steam out of any effort to win over casual/new fans. It's kind of sad. They have a recent World Series trophy, 2 perfect games, a few pending HOFers (Frank Thomas) and they weren't able to expand their support much. The Cubs lack any of those (well, no HOF players recently besides the posthumuously inducted Ron Santo). White Sox support isn't weak in their core territory; the issue is their core territory isn't very big (something like 3 counties?).

The Blackhawks were virtually invisible til sometime around 2008. Their previous owner was an absolute moron. Not televising home games in the age of television was a support killer. Because 19,000 in an arena > hundreds of thousands of viewers outside an arena . Even the son admitted his father was a stubborn fool. Getting back on tv + the Stanley Cup run won them many fans. From being a very distant 5th they are now probably in 4th place. White Sox games might get higher ratings and they have more attendance due to more games/more seating capacity. Blackhawks seem to control much of their section of the Midwest (Wisconsin, except for IL transplants, root for the Wild or Redwings from what I've read) though I'm not sure how popular the Blackhawks or the Blues are downstate.

The Blackhawks will never, ever trump the Bears or Cubs. The Bulls... maybe if the Blackhawks continue to field a strong team with recognisable stars (e.g. Toews, Kane) and the Bulls crumble, the Blackhawks can become #3, but due to the nature of the sports (basketball very cheap, very easy to play anywhere, hockey being the opposite, though street hockey is a passable substitute) and demographics (large African-American, hispanic populations and hockey having near-zero appeal to them), the Blackhawks might have a tough time taking the Bulls' spot though. The Bulls also have a little lingering afterglow from the two Three-Peats. A second Stanley Cup might build some momentum though...


Oh, and the Tribune probably shuffles the order depending on the season. Since this is winter, thus the winter sports being pushed to the front and the 2 spring/summer teams being pushed to the back. I've seen sports sites do that. In fact, look around and you might see tennis start appearing (Australian Open). Then, in a few weeks, it will disappear off the bar.

Glacial is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:27 PM
  #36
Hawkscap
Registered User
 
Hawkscap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,718
vCash: 500
http://www.shermanreport.com/white-s...ting-163-2008/

‘The Sox have had a 2.0 rating recently on CSN,’’ said Jeff Nuich, senior director of communications for Comcast SportsNet Chicago.

‘‘That’s up over 10 percent from last year.’’

That 2.0 equals about 70,000 households, with, obviously, more than one viewer per household. Unless every household is like the one from ‘‘Psycho.’’ Two-point-oh is a decent, if not great, number. But here’s the kicker — it’s higher than the Cubs.

‘‘The Cubs are at a 1.9 rating,’’ Nuich said. ‘‘That’s down about 11 percent from last year.’’




http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...t-without-rose

Bulls ratings on Comcast SportsNet Chicago are down 49 percent from last season's final regular season average, to a 2.96 average household rating, or just more than 100,000 households watching in the Chicago market.

Hawkscap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:32 PM
  #37
SpokedLightning
Overpaid 4th Liner
 
SpokedLightning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Tampa
Country: United States
Posts: 6,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacial View Post
OT: How much of Vermont was Expos territory back before their relocation or how much did the Expos split the area with the Red Sox?
I wouldn't say they ever really had a territory,maybe up in the NW part of the state? If I were to pull percentages out of my *** I would say 60% Sox ,38% yanks and 2% other teams including the Expos. There really was never any tv/radio coverage of the team. They did become a little more popular when the single A team in Burlington was an Expos affiliate though.

SpokedLightning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:41 PM
  #38
Nicky Santoro
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topher42 View Post
Hawks just pulled a 5.4 rating last night. Someone might want to rethink their rankings
actually, i am not happy with that 5.4.. i expected at least a 7.0.. they got 6.6 for the 1st game vs kings when they were 0-0.. plus, they were 2-0 yesterday vs another 2-0 team, home opener, against a team they hate. so only 5.4 is not good at all. PLUS there were no bulls game to compete with too..

i wish you would've said 8.4.. i would have been much happier. but i guess i'll take the 5.4. better than 1.4.

Nicky Santoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:46 PM
  #39
Hawkscap
Registered User
 
Hawkscap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,718
vCash: 500
It was the number 1 tv program in Chicago in the key demo adults 25-54. Can't ask for more than that.

Hawkscap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 03:55 PM
  #40
Glacial
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergyMeister View Post
I wouldn't say they ever really had a territory,maybe up in the NW part of the state? If I were to pull percentages out of my *** I would say 60% Sox ,38% yanks and 2% other teams including the Expos. There really was never any tv/radio coverage of the team. They did become a little more popular when the single A team in Burlington was an Expos affiliate though.
Interesting. I had thought the Expos had some territory south of the border, unless it's all in far upstate NY? I would of thought Vermont would of had more given they were closer to Montreal. Could Burlington pick up Montreal tv stations? I figured VT might of had some because northern VT seems more populated than northern NH or western ME.

Glacial is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 04:01 PM
  #41
IceAce
HEY BUD, LETS PARTY!
 
IceAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 3,097
vCash: 178
I've never understood the Cubs popularity. Yeah I know the game experience is second to none, but that franchise is like baseball's version of the Leafs...without the 1960's.

IceAce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 04:03 PM
  #42
scotchex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicky Santoro View Post
actually, i am not happy with that 5.4.. i expected at least a 7.0.. they got 6.6 for the 1st game vs kings when they were 0-0.. plus, they were 2-0 yesterday vs another 2-0 team, home opener, against a team they hate. so only 5.4 is not good at all. PLUS there were no bulls game to compete with too..

i wish you would've said 8.4.. i would have been much happier. but i guess i'll take the 5.4. better than 1.4.
You don't seem to want to hear actual facts, just anecdotal data that supports your wishcasting that the NHL is becoming super popular, crushing all other sports on its path to dominance.

So here, to help your wish-casting. I know a guy in LA that says the Kings are super popular now and nobody cares about the Lakers now that they suck. At this rate I estimate the entire west coast will be hockey dominated by 2014. I expect the NBA will be forced to contract and shut down all the west coast teams. Kobe Bryant is rumored to be trying out for an AHL team next year, he sees the writing on the wall.

Also, if you want to hear how lacrosse is taking over the world I suggest you go to a lacrosse message board and ask for anecdotal data about how people who spend their free time on lacrosse message boards know a lot of people who are really into lacrosse and how they went to a sold-out Toronto Rock game and nobody even mentioned the Leafs and hockey is pretty much dying in Toronto.

scotchex is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 04:03 PM
  #43
Greyhounds
Registered User
 
Greyhounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nashua
Country: United States
Posts: 11,064
vCash: 500
From a personal point of view, it's never really mattered. I follow the NHL. I follow no other sport. In fact, I see the other sports as extremely dull, from the point of view of spectator sport. I wouldn't be caught dead watching basketball. Baseball and football, I've had an occasional interest, but that doesn't last long.

That doesn't mean that I haven't played the other sports, but playing and watching are two different things.

Greyhounds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 04:11 PM
  #44
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,856
vCash: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by topher42 View Post
http://www.shermanreport.com/white-s...ting-163-2008/

‘The Sox have had a 2.0 rating recently on CSN,’’ said Jeff Nuich, senior director of communications for Comcast SportsNet Chicago.

‘‘That’s up over 10 percent from last year.’’

That 2.0 equals about 70,000 households, with, obviously, more than one viewer per household. Unless every household is like the one from ‘‘Psycho.’’ Two-point-oh is a decent, if not great, number. But here’s the kicker — it’s higher than the Cubs.

‘‘The Cubs are at a 1.9 rating,’’ Nuich said. ‘‘That’s down about 11 percent from last year.’’




http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...t-without-rose

Bulls ratings on Comcast SportsNet Chicago are down 49 percent from last season's final regular season average, to a 2.96 average household rating, or just more than 100,000 households watching in the Chicago market.
Comparing ratings to a 162 game schedule to an 82 game schedule, eh?

But still, Cubs ratings are down because they're atrocious and Sox ratings are meh always, but even with that in mind they still generate far more revenue and media attention than the Hawks ever do. If the Hawks were on the same level as even the White Sox, we'd hear a lot more about them.

As for the Bulls, ratings are down due to their superstar being out of the picture, and it's hard to compare that to a couple games back Blackhawks. Season-wide, the Bulls destroy the Hawks in the ratings, and that's a fact that's already been posted in the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAce View Post
I've never understood the Cubs popularity. Yeah I know the game experience is second to none, but that franchise is like baseball's version of the Leafs...without the 1960's.
Because the Cubs were actually run by brilliant marketers for decades. They had a massive market footprint with WGN TV and radio and, as a result, they effectively have fans all over the place, especially in Northern and Central Illinois, Northern Indiana, Iowa, and parts of Southern Wisconsin and Western Michigan. As a result, they get a lot of outside support of people coming to individual games, and it's been that way for a couple generations now.

During this time, the Sox focused on the South Side only. That's why, once you leave Chicagoland, you find almost no White Sox fans. Just look at Champaign, IL, within driving distance from the end of a traditional working day to be able to catch a night baseball game in Chicago. The White Sox presence is miniscule, compared to the battleground status that it really is between the Cubs and Cardinals.

That's basically why the Cubs are much more popular than the Sox, despite often fielding teams that weren't as good. Being able to reliably watch a team season-long dozens to hundreds of miles away from the stadium has majorly positive benefits, something that makes Dollar Bill's tactics all the more confusing and the Sox's until-recent unwillingness to look outside Chicago all the more hilarious.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 04:24 PM
  #45
scotchex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 562
vCash: 500
Yep, lived in Florida as a kid and ... watched the Cubs games on WGN. Cubs had really wide coverage for decades when nobody else did. Seemingly every day after school the Cubs would be on TV playing a day game at Wrigley.

scotchex is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 04:26 PM
  #46
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,856
vCash: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotchex View Post
Yep, lived in Florida as a kid and ... watched the Cubs games on WGN. Cubs had really wide coverage for decades when nobody else did. Seemingly every day after school the Cubs would be on TV playing a day game at Wrigley.
This, too. Plus, with a fairly substantial Chicago diaspora all over the place, you see Cubs enclaves essentially nationwide, especially in Florida and Arizona. Main reason why Cubs (and Bears and now Hawks) fans travel so well, there are a lot of fans of the team(s) already living in those areas more than happy to catch a game when they come to town.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 04:30 PM
  #47
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 19,603
vCash: 50
The Sox are far and away the most poorly marketed team in sports history. Put games on UHF when everyone only had VHF. Put games on cable before anyone got cable. Didn't establish a true lasting brand in their uniforms until 1990. Win a World Series and price half your fan base out of the park. The list goes on...

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 04:34 PM
  #48
SpokedLightning
Overpaid 4th Liner
 
SpokedLightning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Tampa
Country: United States
Posts: 6,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacial View Post
Interesting. I had thought the Expos had some territory south of the border, unless it's all in far upstate NY? I would of thought Vermont would of had more given they were closer to Montreal. Could Burlington pick up Montreal tv stations? I figured VT might of had some because northern VT seems more populated than northern NH or western ME.
Yes we could, however the Expos were never on those channels that I remember anyways.

SpokedLightning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 08:23 PM
  #49
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 19,603
vCash: 50
Thought this was funny and on topic, so I'll stick it here

My cousin just took this, crowd at the start of the Bulls game tonight.


So yeah, you can draw conclusions however you want, but in the end, the Bulls are more popular than the Hawks despite no one who attends their games caring enough to show up near on time.

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 09:16 PM
  #50
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,753
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicky Santoro View Post
actually, i am not happy with that 5.4.. i expected at least a 7.0.. they got 6.6 for the 1st game vs kings when they were 0-0.. plus, they were 2-0 yesterday vs another 2-0 team, home opener, against a team they hate. so only 5.4 is not good at all. PLUS there were no bulls game to compete with too..

i wish you would've said 8.4.. i would have been much happier. but i guess i'll take the 5.4. better than 1.4.
Game vs Kings was on NBC ,, Game vs Blues was on CSN (Cable)

There are still many people who dont have cable + Game vs Kings was an afternoon on a Saturday so the game probably picked up some casual viewers who settled on hockey game since there was no NFL to watch on Saturday

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.