Eh, I went to a game earlier this season with my buddy (his dad has season tickets in the 1st row of the 300) and it was nothing like that. Very quiet.
That really surprises me. It was a lot of fun when I was there.
Um, go take a basic microeconomics class please. Prices are functions of demand. You base current consumption on utility. Fact is supply is equal, but demand is not. Hawks fans are willing to pay 3x as much for a ticket compared to Bulls fans. You just fail to understand basic consumer theory.
His entire point is that supply isn't equal. Which it isn't.
Not quite equal but it is close. The Bulls can cram another thousand or so in there.
Not really, price is key because its the opportunity cost of consuming something else. Doesn't matter if the bulls get 22k people if the tickets are the cost of a meal at arbys.
Um, go take a basic microeconomics class please. Prices are functions of demand.
You take an economics class. Prices are a fucntion of supply and demand, but that's just definitional. "Demand" doesn't mean how many people are interested in a thing, it's a function of how much they're willing
Short handed goal! NOICE!
and able to spend.
Quote:
You base current consumption on utility. Fact is supply is equal, but demand is not. Hawks fans are willing to pay 3x as much for a ticket compared to Bulls fans. You just fail to understand basic consumer theory.
Hawks fans are able to spend more. And once again, even that's not generally the case.
You take an economics class. Prices are a fucntion of supply and demand, but that's just definitional. "Demand" doesn't mean how many people are interested in a thing, it's a function of how much they're willing
Short handed goal! NOICE!
and able to spend.
Hawks fans are able to spend more. And once again, even that's not generally the case.
Hasty assumption. There any data to back up your claim that Hawks fans have higher budget constraints? Also, I'm an economics major at a top 15 program in the country. So I've taken quite a few economics classes. And prices do reflect interest because people pay for utility. If going to hawks games didn't interest them they wouldnt be willing to pay such a premium for tickets.
Hasty assumption. There any data to back up your claim that Hawks fans have higher budget constraints? Also, I'm an economics major at a top 15 program in the country. So I've taken quite a few economics classes. And prices do reflect interest because people pay for utility. If going to hawks games didn't interest them they wouldnt be willing to pay such a premium for tickets.
Are you serious? Again, I point to Derrick Rose. How many games do you think Rose and people in his neighborhood took in?
Hockey fans are basically privileged by definition. You basically didn't play hockey unless you were middle class at worst. Most Chicago citizens don't know the first thing about hockey, because they were never in any position to play it. For someone who claims to understand economics, it's pretty odd that you'd confuse demand with popularity in general terms. Impoverished people in the third world don't spend much for clean water, even though they die without it. Reason? They can't. The Hawks fanbase is white and upper middle class. Even with far fewer fans, they can bid up prices on 19,000 seats.
This idea that Bulls tickets on Stubhub are cheap because Bulls fans are 'poor' and Hawks tickets are very expensive on Stubhub because Hawks fans are 'wealthy' is the most asinine and misinformed thing I've ever read on HF.
Bulls season tickets holders make their tickets very cheap because there isn't any demand for the tickets. It has nothing to do with the amount of money people have. Tickets for the Heat game were very expensive on Stubhub, because demand was very high.
Hawks tickets are very expensive because demand is so high. Season ticket holders know they can make lots of money on them because so many people want to buy them. Again, has nothing to do with demographics and people's wealth.
Are you serious? Again, I point to Derrick Rose. How many games do you think Rose and people in his neighborhood took in?
Hockey fans are basically privileged by definition. You basically didn't play hockey unless you were middle class at worst. Most Chicago citizens don't know the first thing about hockey, because they were never in any position to play it. For someone who claims to understand economics, it's pretty odd that you'd confuse demand with popularity in general terms. Impoverished people in the third world don't spend much for clean water, even though they die without it. Reason? They can't. The Hawks fanbase is white and upper middle class. Even with far fewer fans, they can bid up prices on 19,000 seats.
Popularity -> Demand -> Prices. (Popularity is reflected in demand. Demand is reflected in prices.)
Popularity -> Demand -> Prices. (Popularity is reflected in demand. Demand is reflected in prices.)
Nope. That's simply false. I've referenced several examples, and you just refuse to consider them. There's tons of products which are not very popular in the grand scheme, but nevertheless see tremendous demand because they appeal to people who have lots of money to spend on such things. Hell, dollar-for-dollar Chicago hockey-parents probably outspend Chicago basketball-parents, even though baksetball is indisputably overwhelmingly more popular than hockey. Popularity != demand. It's merely one component of demand.
Speaking of demand, though, who do you figure gets more money for endorsing local products: Rose, or Toews & Kane combined? Who do you think is more recongized by Chicagoans?
One last thing, people have been mentioning TV numbers, so let's have some numbers:
Quote:
NHL TV ratings: Blackhawks' numbers are through the roof
...
But the fact is, plenty of Hawks fans — regulars and new ones — have been glued to their TV sets watching the team play since the short season began. CSNC can surely attest to that.
The first Hawks game on the local sports cable channel aired this season on Jan. 20, and it was watched on average in 109,200 Chicago area households.
Last Tuesday’s (Feb. 19) CSNC telecast of the game against the archrival Vancouver Canucks that put the Hawks on the cusp of making history, was viewed in 259,350 households — a whopping 138 percent increase in viewers for Hawks games on CSNC just since the season began a month ago.
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.
...
Last season also included the three highest-rated Bulls games aired on CSN since the channel launched in 2004, setting an all-time record on Jan. 25, when more than 300,000 Chicago-area households watched the Bulls take on the Indiana Pacers.
So, the Hawks, en route to a history-making streak, didn't muster as many viewers as the Bulls did last year against the Pacers. Finally: these are all cable games, of course, and many households no doubt don't even have Comcast. I myself watch internet streams, for example. I wonder whether Rose had cable, for that matter.
Bulls games are a snooze to me now. My Dad's company had season tix during the Jordan and I realize now I did not appreciate what I saw first hand.
If I'm going to spend my money I'm going to a Hawks game.
They're definitely the better ticket now. And not only that, I think they're generally the better ticket at the UC. You can get a 300 level ticket for a Hawks game and still get a pretty good experience for a Hawks game, whereas with the Bulls, it's like watching ants. On top of that, live hockey is the best. Of all sports, I think the live experience is the best for hockey.
What we said is that the resale market, you know, season ticket holders trying to sell their tickets for profit, is nothing like the Hawks is. There isn't any demand for Bulls tickets. If there was, they wouldn't cost $20-30 on Stubhub.
I also said that Bulls games are filled with corporate people and that the atmosphere is very dull, and many have said they agree with that.
