HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

My theory on why attendance is down

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-27-2007, 04:59 PM
  #26
21Gator*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesiFever View Post
I think if the league were to increase size of the nets (which I think is a disastrous idea), that would only go to signify the desparation the league is in right now to put butts in the seats. Like it was mentioned, the game is now as much a business as it is a sport, but to fundamentally alter the history of the game by making a change like this would be a terrible move. The minor changes like touch up offsides are fine, but I think size of the ice/net size (ie. major changes) should be left alone. That is part of history that needs no discussion. Call me nostalgic if you will.

Also, just about what I said before, yes I like how the game is free-wheeling now, but the penalties and constant special teams have taken a lot of the flow and excitement out of the game for me. I find that I am now a lot more bored watching a hockey game with all the stoppages in play than I was 5 years ago, even with the clutching and grabbing. If a Canadian hockey fan is feeling this way, I cant even begin to imagine what those in non-traditional markets are thinking (if they even know hockey exists).

Well I don't think allowing penalties to go uncalled is such a great plan. Fans like skill. And it's not like the game hasn't already been significantly impacted, changes happen every generation depending on external influences. NHL hockey is becomming an American game, that's where all the potential revenue is for this business - American TV markets, and expansion (likely in US markets).

I don't want them to do anything, but I think the likelyhood of them wanting to NOT SELL tickets to be low. They want to improve the games' appeal, and quite frankly that is the only thing I've heard that makes a lick of sense.

21Gator* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 05:05 PM
  #27
Vagabond
Registered User
 
Vagabond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,139
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Vagabond
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21Gator View Post
So what exactly is your plan to raise attendance? Do nothing. I'm suprised you're not the Chaiman of the NHL yourself. Let me admire that you have no postion to pin you to beside fluff.

You're not, I'd be if I was.

Shouldn't you poll fans in non-traditional markets?

if you'd like I'll poll everybody on the HF, only for you though.

Most people that have the time to post on the internet about hockey, will watch the games even if the nets were larger.

Do you have something that can disclose that? I cant say either way because I don't have that info, do you?

You've contributed nothing useful to the dialogue.

..And you have?

Vagabond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 05:15 PM
  #28
21Gator*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
You're not, I'd be if I was.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
if you'd like I'll poll everybody on the HF, only for you though.

Do you have something that can disclose that? I cant say either way because I don't have that info, do you?
It stands to common sense that people who are passionate enough to post on the internet about hockey, that they would stand by hockey if the nets were increased marginally. If you can't see that your IQ is too low for this discussion.

I think you would find general opposition to this idea on HF. So what? Since when has popular opinion amoung die-hard fans been an accurate barometer of what the NHL BoG does? (see Schedule voting).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
..And you have?
Umm, let's see: I've presented a clear position, gave reasons for that position and fully countered the idea of the original post.

Yeah, I'd say I've added something intelligent to the conversation.

21Gator* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 05:32 PM
  #29
Vagabond
Registered User
 
Vagabond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,139
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Vagabond
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21Gator View Post
So what exactly is your plan to raise attendance? Do nothing. I'm suprised you're not the Chaiman of the NHL yourself. Let me admire that you have no postion to pin you to beside fluff.

Shouldn't you poll fans in non-traditional markets?

Most people that have the time to post on the internet about hockey, will watch the games even if the nets were larger.

You've contributed nothing useful to the dialogue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21Gator View Post




It stands to common sense that people who are passionate enough to post on the internet about hockey, that they would stand by hockey if the nets were increased marginally. If you can't see that your IQ is too low for this discussion.

I think you would find general opposition to this idea on HF. So what? Since when has popular opinion amoung die-hard fans been an accurate barometer of what the NHL BoG does? (see Schedule voting).


I'll give you that much, but as well, I think you'd see a few people lose major interest in the game especially in Canada.




Umm, let's see: I've presented a clear position, gave reasons for that position and fully countered the idea of the original post.

Yeah, I'd say I've added something intelligent to the conversation.


I'd have to say, we all have, unless you're some sorta narcissist?

Vagabond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 05:42 PM
  #30
21Gator*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
I'll give you that much, but as well, I think you'd see a few people lose major interest in the game especially in Canada.
The NHL doesn't care about a "few people" losing "major interest." Likely, the majority of Canadians who already watch hockey would still watch hockey if the nets increased by a few inches. And the game would be more appealing to Americans, specifically during the regular season where they need to establish loyalty.

If the idea turns out to be crap the beauty of the system is you can change it again.

21Gator* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 05:52 PM
  #31
Vagabond
Registered User
 
Vagabond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,139
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Vagabond
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21Gator View Post
The NHL doesn't care about a "few people" losing "major interest." Likely, the majority of Canadians who already watch hockey would still watch hockey if the nets increased by a few inches. And the game would be more appealing to Americans, specifically during the regular season where they need to establish loyalty.

If the idea turns out to be crap the beauty of the system is you can change it again.

That's true, but I still say people in the States will dislike the idea entirley as well. I've started a descussion if you'd like to partake. We both obviously have a difference of opinion, and that being said, I respect yours.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=337197

Vagabond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 06:00 PM
  #32
21Gator*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
That's true, but I still say people in the States will dislike the idea entirley as well. I've started a descussion if you'd like to partake. We both obviously have a difference of opinion, and that being said, I respect yours.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=337197
You can have a consolation thread that frames the issue in your context.

If anyone feels the need to challenge my thoughts, in regards to my posts, I will respond.

As I already said I dont think it would be a popular idea. For example the way you framed it eliminates any consideration for attendance. So when some says, "Scoring does not make hockey exciting; flow does," that is from an individual viewers perspective, I'm talking about the business and ticket office results.

EDIT:Further, there are two type of high scoring games, close (relatively) games and blow outs. Blow outs are love or hate for fans. We love to blow teams out but hate to get blown out. Of the close game sI've been to, and seen, even the ones we lose, I say at some point damn this is exicting hockey. Anecdotal but as concrete as anything else provided.

Anyway, my opinion is here.


Last edited by 21Gator*: 01-27-2007 at 06:24 PM.
21Gator* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 06:09 PM
  #33
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,912
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21Gator View Post
So what exactly is your plan to raise attendance? Do nothing. I'm suprised you're not the Chaiman of the NHL yourself. Let me admire that you have no postion to pin you to beside fluff.

Shouldn't you poll fans in non-traditional markets?

Most people that have the time to post on the internet about hockey, will watch the games even if the nets were larger.

You've contributed nothing useful to the dialogue.
either you are a fan of hockey or your not

Here is the problem some non-hockey fans have told me why they do not like hockey

1)Violance: not just the fighting--but the body checking and the stick work. One person suggested that hockey should become a non-contact sport(lol).
**Even if you get rid of fighting--hockey is still a physical game and some people just prefer tennis or chess or cricket(sic).
**It has also been proven that general stick play some people find too offensive(sic)

2)game takes too long.
**One reason why some people want shootouts in the playoffs is the fact that games may take 5h to play. And in regular season a normal game could take 2.5h. Some people want the nhl to get under 2h. One idea was to get rid of face offs after goals--the team that scored goes back to their side of the ice and have to wait for the other team to cross. This reminds me of a rec league rule and not a proleague thing

3)Long periods of play. Sounds silly, but some people just do not have the attention span to watch 5-8 minutes of uninterupted play.

__________________
not sure how--but the fish just jumped in the boat and put the hook in it's mouth
52299/14814
The twenty year rebuild is on!!! Embrace the suck
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 06:32 PM
  #34
21Gator*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by graveyardshift View Post
either you are a fan of hockey or your not
You should be director of marketing. Seriously though I disagree with this. We can and have grown fan bases, the problem is this has not translated to TV.


Quote:
Originally Posted by graveyardshift View Post
Here is the problem some non-hockey fans have told me why they do not like hockey

1)Violance: not just the fighting--but the body checking and the stick work. One person suggested that hockey should become a non-contact sport(lol).
**Even if you get rid of fighting--hockey is still a physical game and some people just prefer tennis or chess or cricket(sic).
**It has also been proven that general stick play some people find too offensive(sic)

2)game takes too long.
**One reason why some people want shootouts in the playoffs is the fact that games may take 5h to play. And in regular season a normal game could take 2.5h. Some people want the nhl to get under 2h. One idea was to get rid of face offs after goals--the team that scored goes back to their side of the ice and have to wait for the other team to cross. This reminds me of a rec league rule and not a proleague thing

3)Long periods of play. Sounds silly, but some people just do not have the attention span to watch 5-8 minutes of uninterupted play.
1. I don't think less violence helps, especially when we are talking about tv. The fast pace of thegame (ice) and the equipment make it inevitable, and I would consider that radical. Lol.

2. i think they've tweaked some things to this affect. Quick face offs are cool. I still think they could shave some time off games. But really many sports take 2.5 to 3 hours.

3. This would seem to support the new rules.

21Gator* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 08:02 PM
  #35
DesiFever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: City of Champs
Country: India
Posts: 145
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21Gator View Post
You can have a consolation thread that frames the issue in your context.

If anyone feels the need to challenge my thoughts, in regards to my posts, I will respond.

As I already said I dont think it would be a popular idea. For example the way you framed it eliminates any consideration for attendance. So when some says, "Scoring does not make hockey exciting; flow does," that is from an individual viewers perspective, I'm talking about the business and ticket office results.

EDIT:Further, there are two type of high scoring games, close (relatively) games and blow outs. Blow outs are love or hate for fans. We love to blow teams out but hate to get blown out. Of the close game sI've been to, and seen, even the ones we lose, I say at some point damn this is exicting hockey. Anecdotal but as concrete as anything else provided.

Anyway, my opinion is here.
I just see bigger nets as a marketing ploy thats bound to fail as true fans will see the disrespect for the game and take offense to it. This would just remind me of another initiative taken by the hockey media a few years a ago with the doomed "glowing puck trail" idea

DesiFever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 08:22 PM
  #36
21Gator*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesiFever View Post
I just see bigger nets as a marketing ploy thats bound to fail as true fans will see the disrespect for the game and take offense to it. This would just remind me of another initiative taken by the hockey media a few years a ago with the doomed "glowing puck trail" idea
I just don't follow this disrespectof the game idea. I think some hold onto an illusion.

Gretz was able to score the way he was because Semenko would destroy anyone who tried to take liberties. You can't do that in today's game.

Watch a game from 30 years ago and you tell me that goalies stats are relevant comparisons to today. I just don't think they are, especially when trying to develop the game broader than it's current economic base.

The game evolves. Did you read any of the article that I posted links for in the poll thread? What did you think of theMiinesota GM's "key" idea?

21Gator* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2007, 12:24 PM
  #37
OntOilFan
Registered User
 
OntOilFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesiFever View Post
After watching some games last night, and the first period of the Boston-Ottawa game, it made me think why league attendance is down (basically why its down in the States). First of all, ya the hype and love affair with the game returning from its hiatus is over. But more importantly, I was watching Bos-Ott game and the way it was being called and it got me thinking to 7-10 years ago where I would watch the players dictate the game and you could watch an exciting game of back and forth hockey. Watching now, it doesnt even seem like hockey to me and the referees have basically taken over the game with all the penalties and stoppages of play. I think that this has reduced the excitement in the game to the extent that it outweighs the NHL's hope that "more goals = more hype = more fans". We are now forced to watch penalties every 2-4 minutes and half the games being played on special teams. To me this is not hockey, just bureaucracy trying to dictate a game instead of letting the players play. I think fans have begun to notice this and become tired of it, as rather than watching hockey, they now watch a couple of exciting rushes and a powerplay/penalty kill practice. This is resulting in the dwindling attendance down South and even in places where hockey was always a sellout (Colorado, Dallas, NYR). What does everyone think?
Agreed.

I'd be willing to bet Gary Bettman is a socialist, based on what he's done to the game. The league has put regulations on every single aspect of the game. Overregulated hockey is bad, just like overregulated anything.

OntOilFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2007, 03:25 PM
  #38
grego
Registered User
 
grego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,293
vCash: 500
I don't like the idea of rounding the nets, I like the current shape. But I am not against the idea of slightly increasing their size.

Look at the average size of a goalie even into the 80s vs that of today. I am not talking just their pads, but many of them are big physical guys.

I remember when Tom Barrasso looked like a monster in the net because he was huge for a goalie, now he would be rather normal as a goaltender for physical size. The guy was 6 3 when most goalies in the league were around 5 10 as an average height for a goalie.

Most goalies could easily cover a few extra inches of the net because the guys are physically bigger and they should have a bit of air showing for the players to shoot at.

grego 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 01:13 AM.

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.