Opinions on attendance

[Mils]

I want to know what other hockey folks make of the information in this article:

In brief, the article says, citing specific statistics, that attendance for the month of march will increase something on the order of about 500 fans per game. According to the article -- which I'm not taking as gospel, but granting a certain presumption of truth -- this will set a new all-time record for attendance in the month of March. My first reaction was, "Yeah, but there are more teams now than ever, so what do you expect?" But upon closer review, the numbers are "per game," which controls for number of teams. So, here is the question: What does this mean? I have a few ideas.

1.) The uber-optimist: "This obviously means that, despite Gary Bettman's best efforts, the sport is beginning to grow again. TV ratings are getting better (See: Winter Classic pulling biggest audience since mid-1990s), people are identifying with the super-stars like Crosby, Malkin, and Ovechkin, and people are attending games in larger numbers. This means that hockey is headed back into "big four" status in the U.S. This opens the door for the final expansion to 32 teams, and a solid alignment of 8 divisions of 4 teams each, and a slight tweak of the current playoff format. Hockey is moving into the 21st century, starting now. Hockey should be back on ESPN in no time."

2.) The tempered optimist: "This is a good sign that the first step back towards respectability in American markets has been taken. Hockey is a game best enjoyed live, and does not televise well. With that said, it is good to see that people across the U.S. are taking notice again. However, this is just a small step forward, and the league cannot get carried away with what almost destroyed it: expansion. Continuing with the game as it is now and continuing to market the game and the players aggresively and trying to return to ESPN would all be good things to do. The worst thing possible would be to see the league go back to the crazy expansion, run-away salaries, and constant rule tinkering that cost us the 2004-2005 season. Good to see the positive numbers though, slow and steady wins the race."

3.) Neutral: "That's nice and all, but those numbers are probably a little bit inflated. It's good to see more people going to games, since the best way to watch a hockey game is from the stands. But, on the same note, the NHL claimed to be setting attendance records left and right last season too, so we have to wonder where the numbers are coming from."

4.) Pessimist: "Those numbers are inflated by ticket giveaways and promotions going on all over the league to try o get people in the U.S. to go see hockey games again. They'll keep claiming attendance records until they can't anymore. The numbers are also too big because of all of the playoff races. People want to see the exciting games, and there's no reason to believe that this will translate into better attendance or TV numbers long term. Plus, the owners have to get tickets out the door to pay players. It would be a lot more impressive to see these kinds of numbers in November and December."

5.) Pierre The Great: "Gary bettman and his cronies are inventing these numbers to try to get violence-obsessed, blood thirsty Americans to rip themselves away from a car race and a 40 of Mickey's long enough to watch a hockey game. Bettman continues to ruin the NHL by trying to cater to American markets, and the only way to make it seem like it's working is to convince lemming-like American consumers that all their friends are doing it. If the NHL was reduced to 4 teams, all in Canada, the attendance numbers would be 116.73%. Season tickets to the 4 teams would sell out in 19 minutes and 38 seconds, and ech time would have a roster of solid all-stars. Nobody deserves a team south of the Mason-Dixon line or west of the Mississippi river, so they could go, and nobody would miss them, and they wouldn't miss their teams. These non-hockey markets are killing hockey. The attendance would be way over 100% if all of the non-hockey markets got out of MY sport. If Gary Bettman expands the NHL, I will personally find him and kick his dog."

So, where do you all fall on this? Are these numbers legit? How excited should we get?

PTG: All in good fun.

[Fanpuck33]

I don't think there is any way to deny that attendance is up this year unless you ignore the numbers. Looking over the last 7 years, the trend is clear. Pre-lockout, no more than 7 teams averaged a sellout over the course of a season. Since the lockout, that number has risen to 10 per year, with this season having a good shot at 11. Sure, tight playoff races are a big factor in attendance this year, but that isn't the only reason. Great young talent is also a huge factor, just look at Chicago. Toews and Kane helped them jump nearly 20% in attendance from last year. People are starting to pay to see all the young talent in this league, they need to take advantage of that and start marketing guys like Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Toews, etc.

[RobRock]

Is that announced attendance or actual butts in seats? We've all seen games where the announced attendance doesn't even remotely resemble the physical number of bodies in the arena on a given night. Some teams report the actual tickets redeemed, others report tickets sold, including or excluding giveaways and comps. Stats can be twisted every which way, and the fact that the league likes to trot out these March attendance numbers every year serves their purpose, but where's the numbers for October through February? Are there corresponding dips in attendance for those months? They don't seem to be as forthcoming with those.

[Habsfan84]

I say get rid of those south teams and bring em over to Canada.

[Mils]

Is that announced attendance or actual butts in seats? We've all seen games where the announced attendance doesn't even remotely resemble the physical number of bodies in the arena on a given night. Some teams report the actual tickets redeemed, others report tickets sold, including or excluding giveaways and comps. Stats can be twisted every which way, and the fact that the league likes to trot out these March attendance numbers every year serves their purpose, but where's the numbers for October through February? Are there corresponding dips in attendance for those months? They don't seem to be as forthcoming with those.

I don't know. I suppose that's the crux of my question. I imagine that it is number of tickets sold, but that's just a guess. If the methodology has remained the same with the NHL, then that really shouldn't matter, because, in theory, the embellishment would probably remain roughly the same. Perhaps the pessimist would say, "They used to count butts in seats, but now they're going off ticket sales, just so they can say they're setting records. They know that nobody has the knowledge or resources to refute their claims."

I say get rid of those south teams and bring em over to Canada.

"Great story... compelling and rich."

-Anchorman

For the sake of consideration, according to ESPN.com, the only teams who have sold out every game this season (100.0%+ home attendance) are:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?s...t&year=2008

Calgary

Toronto

Ottawa

Buffalo

Minnesota

Anaheim

Vancouver

Pittsburgh

Philadelphia

Montreal

New York Rangers

I am not sure how the "winter classic" affected PIT and/or BUF. Depends on the methodology, to which we do not have access.

3 Original sixers, 5 out of the 6 Canadian teams (Edm. is 13), 4 out of 6 "expansion 6" cities (no Kings or Blues, but Minnesota is there), only 1 90s expansion team, and 0 teams in the "South," although Anaheim is only at 33 degrees N. Latitute, it's not in the traditional "south" like ATL, FLA, TB, DAL, NAS, or CAR.

The bottom 5 are:

Boston

Washington

Columbus

Chicago

Florida

Very interesting. 2 original 6 teams (both American), 2 90s expansion teams, and the Capitals. Not to mention 3/4 teams that have been/still are right in the thick of a playoff race.

The three traditional american sellout teams in the western conference (DET, DAL, COL) are 16, 14, 17 respectively. All above 93% capacity.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Mils

[jetsniper]

Wow, Calgary leads the league in attendance yet for most of the game you would be able to hear a pin drop.

[simonus]

I know that for each of the last 3 years in Indiana I have had more and more people eager to talk hockey with me. This year people who had not followed their teams in years are coming up asking me to give an evaluation of their team's chances this season. People seem to be coming back to the game.

[RobRock]

Wow, Calgary leads the league in attendance yet for most of the game you would be able to hear a pin drop.

Calgary doesn't lead the league in attendance, but in per game capacity, at 112.4%. 9 of the 11 teams on the list have sold in excess of 100% of their "official" capacity, which is a telling statistic in and of itself. I wonder if the local fire marshalls have anything to say about it, or if arenas are deliberately short-listing their building capacity in order to push tickets. I know that Toronto has been over 100% every year since the ACC was opened, as has Minnesota. In fact, the number of teams that are over-selling their building has gone up every year since the lockout, and doubled since 2001. It's all part of the marketing plan.

[House11]

The bottom 5 are:

Boston

Washington

Columbus

Chicago

Florida

All of those teams have had crap management and terrible teams to watch for years ... unless fans feel like wasting money I'm not suprised they're at the bottom of the list.

[jetsniper]

Calgary doesn't lead the league in attendance, but in per game capacity, at 112.4%. 9 of the 11 teams on the list have sold in excess of 100% of their "official" capacity, which is a telling statistic in and of itself. I wonder if the local fire marshalls have anything to say about it, or if arenas are deliberately short-listing their building capacity in order to push tickets. I know that Toronto has been over 100% every year since the ACC was opened, as has Minnesota. In fact, the number of teams that are over-selling their building has gone up every year since the lockout, and doubled since 2001. It's all part of the marketing plan.

Whatever, you still get my point. A lot of people are there making absolutely no noise. Actual attendance is a poor statistic anyway because it depends on how big the building is.

[Neech]

Hockey's slowly coming out of obscurity, and a great generation of young talent is helping that. It's a long way from being a 'big 4' sport in the States, and it likely won't return there. But teams have developed their loyal followings. Like San Jose, for instance, in a non-hockey market has some traction (from being good for a while). Same with Anaheim. The future looks bright for Chicago, and hopefully that market will start to care a bit more. Same with LA, that team might start to get a bit more attention.

I hope there won't be expansion, we don't need more teams thinning out the talent in the league. I like having 30 teams for the playoff format - making the playoffs is a challenge - but this is more than enough considering the spectator demand and the amount of top-tier hockey talent. If anything they should relocate a few franchises to places like Winnipeg, Hamliton or Quebec.

[simonus]

The future looks bright for Chicago, and hopefully that market will start to care a bit more.

With the influx of great talent and finally having home games on TV, the Chicago market is really on the upswing. The Hawks are definitely getting talked about more now.

[RobRock]

Whatever, you still get my point. A lot of people are there making absolutely no noise. Actual attendance is a poor statistic anyway because it depends on how big the building is.

That's why you compare teams using percentages and not actual numbers.

There's another thing to consider when it comes to crowd noise, and that's the broadcasters. Often times, to avoid having to compete with the crowd, they'll fade out the crowd noise so that the broadcast team can be heard, and then pump them up when the need arises. There were no complaints about a lack of crowd noise that I recall when the Flames made their run to the Finals. If you basing your argument from being in the building yourself, then I can't argue that point.

[Pierre the Great]

haha Mils that's awesome

A. Show me tv numbers that are actually above 2.0 rating share nationally first before you can say that everything has been a success

I was completely for the hockey game on new years. I thought it was the greatest idea ever, it turned hockey into an event and it made some noise. This is good.

talking locally for me anyway, the st. louis blue fan is back, even with the shitty team. Also they're back on KMOX which means people in Chicago if they wanted to could pick up the game. (super strong radio signal) Anyway that's the Blues, but a lot of fans were pissed off at the lock out.

Theoretically the game might not be growing, instead it could be the old fans coming back from the lock out.

just a thought.

Still I think its cruel that we have 6 Canadian teams, 3 in each conference and they all are in the same division. Collusion against Canada!

[Neech]

Still I think its cruel that we have 6 Canadian teams, 3 in each conference and they all are in the same division. Collusion against Canada!

It makes sense geographically, and those are big rivalry games. I don't mind it.

[Pierre the Great]

so if we add more canadian teams then, they'll all be in the same division? that's not really fair.

Anyway if I was running the league I'd promote the game more in Canada and in the traditional hockey markets in the states. I would come out and say Bettman's idea of taking over the land of the U.S. with hockey hasn't worked. Bettman's idea of bringing hockey to the masses while an honourable task, its gone too much bush's war of terror in the middle east and less south korea and japan.

NHL needs to go back to its roots. People aren't going to watch teams in the desert play a hockey game on tv. You have to assume that the casual person who might turn on the hockey game, is stupid. Therefore you don't want a Florida vs. Phoenix game on tv. You want Boston-NYR MTL vs. TO Detroit vs. Chicago. Teams that people know about, you have to be under a rock to not know the hockey teams in the northeast and midwest. 95% of the American public would laugh if you said Phoenix had a hockey team.

So Bettman has to realize that his dream has failed. Instead he's over flooded the market. He didn't do smart growth. No matter how good the non traditional markets are, they are not going to attract viewers.

Focus on Canada

Focus on the Midwest, Upper Midwest, Rust Belt, and Northeast/New England.

solidify the base.

[House11]

Ok why would the NHL ( to it's core is a buisness ) want to go to a market where people already buy the product they sell ? Canada loves hockey .. everyone knows that. If you get people that normally don't buy your product to buy it .. your buisness grows

I don't think people realize that it's going to take a long long time for hockey to really grow in the "non" traditional markets. You can't expect for a team to pop up and all of a sudden have a million new fans ... it takes generations to grow ... Fans in traditional markets like montreal can almost to a T say that there father/mother/grandparents/great grandparents etc loved the canadiens ... there hasn't been enough time for that to happen in places like Florida, Atlanta, etc.

[Habsfan84]

Calgary doesn't lead the league in attendance, but in per game capacity, at 112.4%. 9 of the 11 teams on the list have sold in excess of 100% of their "official" capacity, which is a telling statistic in and of itself. I wonder if the local fire marshalls have anything to say about it, or if arenas are deliberately short-listing their building capacity in order to push tickets. I know that Toronto has been over 100% every year since the ACC was opened, as has Minnesota. In fact, the number of teams that are over-selling their building has gone up every year since the lockout, and doubled since 2001. It's all part of the marketing plan.

The thing is Montreal goes over their reported attendence, but we just dont report it. Thats what CBC said a bit back.