NHL Attendance - What makes a good hockey town?

[Ravenseye]

I missed the previous conversation late last week about Tampa Bay and their 'fan base'. I thought I'd do a little bit of digging and look at the actual numbers around the league.

What is a good hockey town? I always hated that term honestly, because it's just not that black and white. It's hard to distinguish sometimes because of changes in economy, team fortune, management and ownership affect the numbers. For the last four years of played hockey Detroit was either the top in attendance, or second. Yet in those four years they won made the playoffs each time, making it to the second round once, and winning the cup in 2002. I don't know how their attendance would have been if say, their records had been switched with Pittsburgh's. Fans can bluster all they want, but these sorts of hypotheticals are just unknowable.

What we can tell from the numbers of the last four seasons is that Montreal is probably the best 'good hockey town'. While they made the playoff's twice, they also missed them twice, once ending last in their division. The years they missed the playoffs they were ranked the highest in the league for attendance. The years they made the playoffs they were number 2 and 3 respectively. Montreal unquestionably is the best hockey town in the NHL when considering the question by the attendance figures matched with their records.

What are other 'good hockey towns'? Toronto, Philadelphia, St.Louis, Vancouver, and Dallas are all high on attendance figures, but they also made the playoffs each year, aside from one miss by Dallas. Good attendance, but also good teams. While I believe that most of these cities would retain high attendance even in the bad times, it's too hard to be able to tell that.

Minnesota and the Rangers on the other hand show quite well. Minnesota consistently ranks 6th or 7th in attendance for the past four years while fininshing dead last in their division and missing the playoffs three times, and making a great run to the third round in 2003. The Rangers on the other hand rank fairly consistently between 7th and 9th in attendance but haven't made the playoffs in any of those years.

After that things get tricky. There are some fairly consistent teams eeking out a living in the middle teens, but on the whole once you leave the top ten teams things fluctuate wildly. Pittsburgh ranked at 16th in 2001 dropped to dead last after tanking season after season. In fact the team that finishes dead last in the standings tends to finish last in attendance. The Islanders in 2001, and Pittsburgh in 2004 both finished last in attendance, while the hurricanes were bolstered by their cup run the previous year, sliding down to dead last and a 19th rank in 2003. The following year they had dropped to 29th. Most of these teams fluctuate with their success or failure. I would categorize these towns as neither good nor bad hockey towns. They are in that middle category. Towns that are, or could be, good hockey towns, but also one where they don't like to pay money to watch teams lose. Television ratings would be an interesting insertion here, but I couldn't find them. I know that last year the Pittsburgh Penguins may have been last in attendance but were in the top ten for television ratings. People wanted to watch the games, but didn't want to fork over 80 bucks to watch the junior varsity play the big boys. When they showed a run at the end of the season they were rewarded with higher ticket sales.

So we have towns that pay no matter what, towns that pay if they're good, and then what? Towns that just don't care.

I don't want to pick on too many teams here but some immediatley spring out to me. New Jersey. Ranked 19th but slipped to 23rd over the four seasons. During them they made the playoffs all four years, the cup finals twice, winning it once. If they don't have enough fans to pack the arena during those four years, perhaps the New York market is saturated. During that same time as I noted, the Rangers didn't make the playoffs once, yet were always top 10 in attendance. Carolina went from making the playoffs two years in a row, and the finals once, to missing twice. In their cup run year they ranked 24th. They sold well as noted in the beginning of the next year but that slipped away immediately. Last year they were ranked 29th, and not about the aforementioned Devils as posted in the previous thread. Perhaps they didn't have a chance to really jump start the market. Maybe if they made the playoffs the next year as well things would have firmed up there. They didn't though.

I'll attach the figures and let you all decide for yourselves. I think though that to look at one year is deceptive. How a team performs that year, the year before, and more affect attendance.

[etherealtruth]

1. All I can say is that I have consistently had trouble ...

getting GOOD tickets to Red wing games.

For the years you provided data for ... Detroit's attendance numbers are "statistically" equivalent.

[MostlyLurks]

2. Raw attendance is misleading

I'll never doubt the fact that Montreal is tops in terms of being a good hockey town by any measurement.

However, looking at raw attendance numbers is misleading because it does not factor in the actual capacity of a team's building. For example, the Montreal average is in the 20K range for three of the four listed years. But Columbus doesn't even hold 20K. So when you look at those numbers side by side, it looks like Columbus has 2K empty seats on average, when in fact it does not. So I think another metric needs to be considered, and that's attendance ratio to capacity. Otherwise, you're really comparing apples and oranges, I think.

Mostly.

On Edit: managed to find out that Nationwide Arena (BlueJackets home arena) seats 18,500 at max. So for 01-02, the Blue Jackets averaged nearly a sell out, and yet only placed 6th in per game attendance because their arena is in the small-to-mid-size range.

[getmeouttahere]

5. So the question becomes....

if Columbus' arena held 20k seats, would they fill it? I seriously doubt that. But they are still new to their market, and given their lack of success, it may still be too early to judge. But then again, Atlanta has had their team approx the same amount of time and their attendance is brutal in comparison to Columbus, by any measure. Personally, I would rank Columbus in the top 12 of NHL cities.

[MostlyLurks]

15. I don't know...

As another piece of this thread mentioned, most lower level/primo seats anymore are held by corporations or bigwigs through season tickets - those seats are "occupied" even when empty because money's in the bank. I know I've been at CBJ games that were announced sellouts and I could clearly see runs of 3,4,5 seats that were empty here and there. That's probably true in most, if not all, arenas anymore.

I think another way you could guage a hockey town is by its hockey infrastructure beyond the NHL itself. For example, 10 years ago in Columbus, there wasn't one public, year-round ice rink. I don't even recall there being a rink during winter months, but I could be wrong. Now, we have three in the metro area, plus at least one in an exurb. All three rinks are always crowded. That's an indication that there's a desire not just to watch, but to participate in, hockey - something that I believe will build the fanbase for the future.

Then you can get into other measurements: at those rinks, how many players are there in hockey leagues? How many mite leagues/teams/participants are there? How many "learn to skate" sessions are there? How well attended are they? How many high schools in the surrounding area field hockey teams?

Of course, all this is well beyond anybody's ability to measure because those sorts of numbers aren't readily available. And I think that's crucial because being a "Hockey Town" is partially about vibe, or psyche or just the "feel" of a town, how deeply hockey runs into the pavement of the culture. And by that measurement, I think you'd have to say Montreal, Minnesota/Twin Cities area, Toronto and Detroit are the biggest hockey cities in the NHL. Then again, I've never spent any time in Ottawa, Edmonton, Boston, Chicago, etc. so who the hell am I to say?

Also, a final note as to the attendance issue: that's also dicey because it can be dramatically affected by outside conditions, such as the economy. I'd love to go to my usualy 4 CBJ games this year, but I won't be able to afford even 1. That doesn't mean I'm any less passionate about the team or the game.

Peace.

Mostly

[Ravenseye]

19. There definately are alternate indicators

Attendance is just one. Television ratings are another big one.

Then the little things. From my house I can walk to two city parks here in Pittsburgh. One has a nice baseball diamond, and a large enough area for football or soccer. The second has a baseball diamond and a floor hockey rink.

What does it mean? I dont know, but it's definately more of a hockey town than a basketball town.

[MostlyLurks]

22. As for Pittsburgh:

I'll take the words of my old roommate: "The pecking order is Steelers, Beer, Penguins, God, everything else, then basketball."

Mostly

[Ravenseye]

24. lol pretty much

Steelers Fandom is the largest local religion.

[getmeouttahere]

26. Geez, what about the Pirates???

[Ravenseye]

29. Who?

Actually they have transcended that list but otherwise they're below the penguins on that list. Great attendance when theyr'e good, worse attendance when they're bad, but high television ratings.

Steelers, Beer, Steelers, Penguins, Beer, Pirates, Steelers, Religion, Beer, Everything else.

[getmeouttahere]

28. The best point you make here is...

how deeply hockey runs into the pavement of the culture. I think Columbus is well on its way to becoming a true hockey town in that regard. Any idea what the TV ratings look like? One thing the Jackets have going for them is lack of Pro Sports competition in town. But I do know that OSU football is a religion there.

[MostlyLurks]

32. Again, I dunno...

I'm not sure about the TV ratings. They're carried on FSN Ohio, so they reach a decent audience, I think. As to whether anybody is watching, I couldn't say.

The Buckeyes might as well be pro (and several ongoing investigations indicate they may be closer that previously thought). Yeah, the Buckeyes are religion here and a constant source of aggravation.

I doubt hockey will ever overtake them, if only because of institutional influence.

The local sports radio station (1460) pre-empts CBJ GAMES for the "Jim Tressel Call-In Show" (however, the Jackets are also available on an FM station that never pre-empts them). There's only one hockey show on the station, and that I think is a once-a-week half-hour thing.

The Columbus Dispatch is thoroughly hunkered down on the OSU teat, with OSU stories on page 1 (I mean actual page 1, not Sports page 1) routinely and minor OSU stories above-the-fold in the Sports section. Meanwhile, the CBJ and NHL are often relegated to page 3, 4, 5 or 6.

I'd never presume to say Columbus is a hockey town at this point, but I think we're making crucial inroads that, with luck, will pay off in 10 or 15 years.

Matt

[Ravenseye]

18. That's a good point

It is something I considered, taking the arena numbers and figuring out some sort of attendance ratio. Needless to say that was a bit too daunting for me to do on a whim, but It's a good point. Pittsburgh's Mellon Arena holds only just over 17,000 which means that in 2000-2001 they were approaching capacity. Meanwhile the Joe holds over 20,000. So yes that does need to be accounted for.

I definately think though, by looking at the numbers that Columbus is, at least, a decent hockey town.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Boston and Chicago are strong hockey towns.

The problem lies with their respective owners being total shitbags.

[getmeouttahere]

6. I've never bought into that...

you either support your team or you don't. It's not like there is much you can do about who owns the team. And they aren't the only crappy owners in the league. Plus, they are original 6, for crissakes! I'd be willing to bet that Boston, in particular, has excellent TV ratings for hockey, like Pittsburgh.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Support through non-support.

As a Bruins fan, I made the decision to boycott my team, as a lot of other Bruins fans I know have. We will not give ownership more money just to stuff back into their own pockets. The Bruins have been consistently one of the most profitable franchises in sports, and yet they never once made the effort to get that one extra player needed to put them over the top for a Stanley Cup, not even during the Neely/Bourque days. Since the only thing that sinks in with these people is money, we've decided to hit them where it hurts. It's tough love, really.

[getmeouttahere]

11. Would you say that TV ratings are high for the Bruins?

despite the "tough love" few would argue that Boston is not a top hockey town. If nothing else, there are too many NHL players that hail from the area, and things like the Beantown Classic are good examples of the hunger for hockey in New England.

As for the tough love, there are no guarantees that acquiring one more free agent would do the trick. Look at the Rangers. And I thought they made a pretty good effort when they acquired Gonchar at the end of the last season, for the playoffs. It didn't pan out, but the effort was there.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Gonchar was a good move.

And if they tried to keep him following the season, I would've ended my boycott then. Of course, "things" happened...

I'm supposing my boycott should end in the new era of hockey, being that no one can really spend that much anymore anyway.

And yes, hockey ratings are pretty high in the Boston area.

[getmeouttahere]

14. Yes, this is going to be an exciting season!

maybe you could start by attending just a few games, then work your way up. But I truly believe that this is going to be the most exciting season since the early 90's, when there was still a carry over from the run and gun 80's, not to mention that is when the nets/goal-lines were still back where they should be. Two extra feet in each offensive zone AND a smaller nuetral zone ALONE will open up the game, IMO. Then you add the opportunity for longer passes, and BOOM!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. I'm unfortunately in DC now.

I'll probably go to a few Caps games as the budget will allow. I can't wait for hockey to come back though!! It's going to be weird though - this is the closest we'll ever see to an established league having a fantasy draft!

[getmeouttahere]

25. Hee hee, fantasy draft...it's so true!

I suppose you'll have the Bruins circle on the Caps home schedule?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. If I can afford tickets when they come into town, absolutely

Hopefully I can get a new job some time this century and stop being so fucking poor.

[getmeouttahere]

31. Well, the job is definitely more important...

and I wish you all the best with that. Have you checked out craigslist.org?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. Naw, it's a very specialized industry.

You can't just monster.com or even look at your local newspaper. It's all trade journals and insider info. Thanks though!!

[getmeouttahere]

34. All the good karma, prayers, whatever your preference...

for good luck wishes to you!

[getmeouttahere]

4. Excellent analysis, particularly for attendance...

as far as TV rankings go, I can tell you that here in L.A., with 2 NHL teams in the market, hockey often ranks below NASCAR, out-of-market college basketball, golf & MLS soccer in the local TV ratings. The ONLY time that changes is when one of the teams makes a playoff run. This is as much, if not more, an indicator of a truly good hockey market. When you consider that most of the lower level seats at ANY hockey rink in this day and age are owned by corporations/businesses, in most towns that means that people who don't care about hockey at all are using most of those tickets, most of the time. Also, I think you should take into account the percentage of tickets sold versus arena capacity. This would make a town like Edmonton looke even better, because they have a smaller arena capacity.

I would be willing to be that if Dallas had two non-playoff seasons in a row, the attendance there would drop significantly. The same for Colorado. These are football-first towns, that have had nothing but success since their teams arrived from other cities. I don't think the interest would hold up if they had a period of unsuccessful seasons.

[Ravenseye]

21. TV Rankings are a big one

It's something I couldn't get my fingers on exact data, just bits and pieces. I think though that it would be interesting to view market shares of the hockey games in respective towns. Market shares of espn...center ice packages...

If I could go back and do this again I'd definately get the capacity of every arena because as I posted in a prior post, it definately makes a difference that, for instance, Joe Lewis Arena has more than 3,000 additional seats than Mellon arena. Even if the Penguins had sold out every game and were at full capacity they would only rank 15th in 2003-2004. Percent of capacity is definately a better key.

[getmeouttahere]

38. speaking of Center Ice....

have you decided you're going to get it after all? It is a fantastic way to keep up with the whole league.

[Ravenseye]

39. Nah

Our budget is tight and while I want it, the extra aggrivation of not just watching hockey constantly, but breaking our agreed upon budget numbers would probably insure that my wife decapitates me in my sleep.

[getmeouttahere]

42. Ouch! Thankfully, with the "internets"....

you can keep up with everything!

[Ganja Ninja]

7. I think all the griping about Tampa's attendance/fan base is ...

just so much sour grapes.
For so long the management of this franchise was the worst in all of professional sports. Nobody cared how many fans they had when they were losing. They enjoyed the easy wins their teams chalked up. But now that they hold the cup hockey fans from the great white north want to argue there's no support for a team down here. Lord Stanley's Cup is in Tampa Bay and it will be for awhile. Time to get over it and get use to it.

[getmeouttahere]

9. First, the Cup will NOT be in Tampa for "awhile"

let's get that out of the way first. The goaltending change alone doesn't portend well for them. Next, I once again point to the fact that their were more people at Calgary's Cup runner-up celebration than attended the Cup-winning parade in Tampa. If they slip even a little bit this year, I'm talking THIS year, attendance will drop significantly. And I do have a little bit of experience here. I was traveling there on business twice a year in my previous career. In the 2003 playoffs I attended a playoff game in Tampa, and not only was the game noticeably NOT sold out, but the people around me only cheered when someone hit somebody. The majority of them were obviously there because they received theirs or somebody's corporate seats. I have the ticket and some inflatable noisemaker to prove I was there, BTW.

Now I'm not saying all this because I think Tampa is a bad hockey town - I can think of several that are worse, Carolina being at the top of the list. But you can't tell me that hockey is ranking high in the TV ratings in Tampa, not with the popularity of NASCAR, college football, etc.

Let's just keep some perspective here, that's all.

[Ganja Ninja]

16. Tampa Bay Lightning 2004 Stanley Cup Champs!

You keep spouting this crap about the turnout for parades and celebrations. Where do you get your figures and who the hell cares anyway? I really don't know or care what your point is. Tampa has supported this team. That's why they're still here after 12 years and the cup is here today with them.

[getmeouttahere]

20. Oh, I'd be very happy to find the newspaper accounts....

for that time period, think I saw it in the Hockey News as well. That's a challenge I gladly accept. My point, particularly as it relates to Tampa, would be this - Any town can "support" a Cup winner! It's how they support them when things aren't going so well that is a much better measure. Not to mention the factors mentioned elsewhere in this thread, such as local youth hockey participation, TV ratings, how the lockout affected local business.

[Ravenseye]

23. I wasn't griping about Tampa Bay

The other post did and I referenced it. Just want to get that out of the way.

I think that Tampa has shown consistent improvement in the previous four years.

2000-2001 14,907 (25th in overall attendance) losing the division
2001-2002 15,366 (23rd overall)
2002-2003 16,545 (16th overall) lost in second round of playoffs
2003-2004 17,820 (12th overall) won Stanley Cup

That doesn't look like a slumping franchise with no support. I think the key thing will be to see what happens the next few years. If they can maintain those numbers when the Lighting suck again (and be assured it will happen sooner or later) then they'll prove they're a good hockey town. I doubt it'll happen though, becuase it happens so infrequently.

And that's ok. Many places people consider 'good hockey towns' are like that.

Still the thing to consider that I should go back and do is consider percentage of capacity as a better key indicator, as well as local television ratings for the team, and hockey in genera.

Oh, and I think Lord Stanley's cup will stay in Tampa Bay awhile too, as long as we define 'awhile' as being until next spring. No way they repeat without the Bulin Wall.

[1gobluedem]

10. Detriot has always been among the top hockey towns

1. One of the original teams in the league
2. Across the river from Canada
3. Gordie Howe
4. Strong fan base in metro area from every socio-economic group
5. Strong support from businesses in the area
6. Strong minor and youth leagues

I know the hotels, bars, and cafes took a hit from no season last year because even though every game a sellout at Joe Louis, fans would come downtown anyway and watch on TV in the Hockeytown Cafe or other restaurants and bars in the area.

There are generations of hockey fans in the Detroite area, it's passed from generation to generation. In a place like Tampa Bay you don't have 80-year old Grandpas talking about the old Olympia Arena or watching hockey in the 1930s. Current hockey fans have had the love for the team passed down throughout many years; when you grow up with it, it becomes part of you and of your life.

[getmeouttahere]

12. You make a great case for the argument that it's not just attendance

between 2001 and 2003, I attended 3-4 Canadiens games a season, as I was traveling there on business regularly (I scheduled the business trips around the hockey schedule LOL). The place would be full to the gills, and there were tons of people milling around outside, looking for tickets. I stayed in the hotel where the visiting team stays, and I stepped off the elevator one morning to flashing lightbulbs and a gaggle of about 15 reporters. It turned out I was on the same lift with Glen Wesley and another Carolina player, I thought I recognized Wesley, but I didn't want to bother him, but it was amazing the activity around one visiting player. Anyway, these are the kinds of things that happen in true hockey towns like Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, Boston. Now, I think that places like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Edmonton, Calgary simply don't have enough people that can afford to attend games on a regular basis. Does that make them bad hockey towns? Definitely NOT. They are great hockey towns, IMO.

[Ravenseye]

27. I don't know

I don't think it's about affording the tickets. There are enough people around here that can afford tickets. The question is about the product.

I can't speak for any region, even my own, but from what I see in Pittsburgh the televisoin ratings are high. The numbers I saw indicated that Pittsburgh has the 5th highest television ratings for hockey in the league. That either makes this a very big hockey town, or just really really lazy and will put on sports to watch rather than a rerun of Cagney and Lacey.

The thing with Pittsburgh to consider though is the arena, it's location, and the product. People in Pittsburgh tend to be....cheap. We might have money but one of the reasons the cost of living is lower here is that people are just cheap bastards here. Paying 80 bucks for decent seats to see a Mario, Francis, Jagr line is something many here would do. You can't say the same for a Malone, Fata, Koltsov line. They tried to market the kids the past couple of years but it was like advertising "hey come watch our team get absolutely pummeled into submission". For much of the year it wasn't hockey at all. It was flagelation. People watched it on the television. They knew it was bad. People here just don't like paying that much money to groan for 2 hours.

The second thing is the arena location. It's very isolated. It's between downtown and the Hill, which means while there are some restaurants and hotels around, in general there isn't much nightlife. It's not like say the Fleet Banknorth Boston Garden where there are tons of clubs, restaurants and bars right by the arena. In pittsburgh the vast majority drive to the game, park in the lot and drive off when it's done. It might as well be located in the middle of nowhere. That is another aspect I think that can affect attendance. People going to make a night of it, rather than 'just a game'.

The third thing is the arena itself. I love the place immensely. It's so unique and gorgeous climbing up to F level thorugh all the exposed black iron and the dome above. Yet it's so freaking uncomfortable in most of the seats. In alot my knees are in my face because my legs are too long. I'm only 5'11. That's a problem.

:)

[getmeouttahere]

36. Well, putting on Cagney & Lacey is far lazier than....

watching a sporting event, IMO. But that's very subjective. I'm not surprised that Pitt ranks high in TV ratings, what with Mike Lang at the mike and all. And you make some interesting points/observations about your market. Interesting, fun stuff. I'm also not surprised that some of the seating at the Igloo is uncomfortable. Back in the day, they wanted to cram as many people in these old barns as possible. If you ever had the chance to go to Maple Leaf Gardens, you know what I mean.

I was in Pittsburgh on business a few years ago (unfortunately the Pens were out of town) and had dinner at a place I believe called Tambellini's. Someone in there said that it was a place often frequented by hockey fans. Is that true?

[Ravenseye]

40. Hmm I've never heard that

As far as a restaurant being frequented by hockey fans I would be more inclined to think about certain bars on the south side (on the other side of the tunnel separating Tambellini's and the city). It quite well could be though, I just rarely make it to that part of town.

[akarnitz]

43. Two words: Mike Ilitch

I'll explain later tonight. I gotta get to work.

[getmeouttahere]

44. Look forward to it....fill us in!

[akarnitz]

54. Mr. Ilitch(cotinued)

Despite of LisaM's statement in #46 in this thread, the Wings attendance had been steadily declining throughout the '70's. It was known as "the Darkness Under Harkness", for coach and GM Ned Harkness, the scapegoat for this entire period. The blame should lay at the feet of the Norris family, who were operating the franchise on the cheap.

The three key things- IMHO-that happened in this era were these:
1)prematurely phased out Gordie Howe(who played productively for 5(?)more years in the WHA).
2)traded Marcel Dionne after his outstanding rookie season for Rogie Vachon(there had to be another goalie out there who didn't command such a steep price-tag).
3)allowed the Olympia to get so run down.(OK, I don't know if the Norrises owned the building, and can't blame them for the shape of the neighborhood after the '68 riots, but John Fetzer found ways to keep Tiger Stadium well attended and refurbished in the same era.)

Mr. I. came in and gave a car away at EVERY home game at The Joe(the old ownership had the luxury of the new arena for the first couple of years it was open. There was rarely a sellout. Hell, it was rarely 2/3 capacity).
Then he hired Jimmy Devellano from the Islanders(to show he was serious, Mr. I. shelled out big bucks for Jimmy D.)

And ,
after Stevie Y. showed his stuff, Mr. I. shelled out more bucks to keep the kid around. Wings fans fell in love with (soon to be)"The Captain" from the get go. Had he ever found his way out of a Wings uniform, I'm certain attendance would have dropped off.

At each sign of crisis, Mr. I. addressed the pertinent issues. After 15 years of hard work came the big payoff. And in that entire 15 years, attendance at each home game was 19,875(that's an SRO sellout at The Joe). IMHO, the latter doesn't happen w/out Mr. I..

[getmeouttahere]

58. This is great...fun to get the inside history!

I'll bet you shudder to think what the Wings franchise would be without Stevie Y. What a class act. He's the biggest reason why I root for Detroit against anybody but the Canadian-based teams. I wish I could have seen the Olympia. Maple Leaf Gardens was fabulous - the steep pitch to the seating, especially the end blues, the way you could see inside the rink as soon as you entered the lobby at Carlton Street, all the idiosyncracies.

I sure enjoyed watching Marcel Dionne over the years. Another what-if, Dionne stays in Detroit. But would there have been a supporting cast?

[LisaM]

45. Detroit always had good attendance, even during the "Dead Wing" years

There are numerous explanations, beyond the original six glamour. First, there are two TV markets, since Detroit gets Canadian television. Second, there are two premier college hockey programs within two hours of Detroit, and numerous more around the state. Third, youth hockey has always big and it's getting bigger all around the state. Fourth, Detroit, despite all its other woes, has always been able to sustain its teams and is also a great venue for music - Detroiters are enthusiastic types.... you know,

THERE AIN'T NO PARTY LIKE A DETROIT PARTY 'CAUSE A DETROIT PARTY DON'T STOP!

Party on, Wings!

[getmeouttahere]

46. It's true, no problem selling tickets in Motown!

There's just a lot of hockey being played, watched and talked about there. And as a person whose #1 sport is hockey, I applaud them.

The ONLY reason I would not rank Detroit as the number one hockey city is because the other 3 sports garner some of the attention, especially with the Pistons doing so well.

My Top 10 Best hockey cities:

Montreal - Attendance, non-stop media coverage, other variables are a slam dunk

Toronto - See above, you could easily argue for Toronto to be #1, except some attention is given to the Raptors and Jays

Detroit - Hockeytown USA lives up to its name in every way

Vancouver - see Montreal and Toronto, and now no basketball to garner attention, not that it did before

Boston - Lots of hockey played there, rich tradition, fans knowledgeable

New York - Rangers are extremely popular despite their recent lack of success, fans are knowledgeable

Minneapolis-St. Paul - Ordinarily a hockey hot-bed like this would rank higher, but they lost their first NHL team due in part to poor attendance...making up for it now!

Ottawa - Considering the size of the market, they have done quite well

Philadelphia - Flyers are consistently near the top in attendance, good winning tradition, minor league Phantoms draw well too

Edmonton - Another small-market success, have done well attendance-wise and you can feel the hockey atmosphere when you're there

[akarnitz]

55. Chicago should be on that list

but Bill-effin'-Wirtz won't put them on tv, spreading the word, so to speak.

[getmeouttahere]

59. I have to disagree....

Every other sports franchise in Chicago is more popular than the Hawks, even when they are winning. I'm afraid somebody will have to prove otherwise. Do they get good media coverage? I've heard they don't, whether TV, newspaper or radio.

[WilliamPitt]

35. Two words.

Original.

Six.



:)

[getmeouttahere]

37. That's beautiful!

Original 6, in all its splendor!

[UrbScotty]

41. Woohoo! GO RED WINGS!

:D

[getmeouttahere]

47. BTW, Montreal avg attendance is higher than Detroit's

according to this chart, in '03-'04

[Ravenseye]

48. Yeah I noticed that

I have some errors. Meh.

Trying to track down the arena attendance figures and the television ratings stuff to redo it.

[getmeouttahere]

49. Pretty ambitious of you...

I await those findings!

[Ravenseye]

50. Just curious

I mean everyone always likes to spout off but I prefer to look at the actual numbers, and examine the actual situations.

The television numbers though might be out of my reach. The only place i've found them would be to buy them from Nielsen media and I ain't doing that to satisfy my curiosity.

I have the arena numbers. Now to do the math.

[Ravenseye]

51. Ok. here they are

Here's the top teams by attendance ratio compared with arena capacity.

1 Edmonton Oilers 101%
2 Detroit Red Wings 100%
3 Philadelphia Flyers 99%
4 Minnesota Wild 99%
5 Dallas Stars 99%
6 NY Rangers 99%
7 Colorado Avalanche 99%
8 LA Kings (!?!?) 99%
9 Toronto Maple Leafs 98%
10 Vancouver Canucks 98%
11 Montreal Canadiens 97%

Dinner time. I'll attach the full graph later if you like. What do you think about the Kings placement?

[getmeouttahere]

52. Now is this based just on '03-'04...

or an aggregate of the last 4 seasons?

I'm actually amazed at the Kings placement. I knew they were doing pretty well the last few years. Somebody figured out how to market. If this is based on one year ('03-'04) it seems 20,555 against 21,273 for Montreal would be more than 97%, but I'm not the one with a calculator here, either LOL.

Also, I expected to see Toronto with 100% or 101%, but again that would be for just that last season maybe.

[Ravenseye]

53. yeah these are for last season.

I put them in excel. I'll make a chart.

[akarnitz]

56. Montreal has a bigger crib

I'm convinced the Wings would sell out every game in a 25k seat house.

BTW, getmeouttahere, how'd I know I'd find ya here?:hi:

[getmeouttahere]

57. Yeah, you caught me!

Big stretch for me to be part of this conversation, right?

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Detroit were to fill a 25k house. I think Toronto and Montreal could do it, too. They used to sell a lot of standing room seats at the old Forum.

[KitchenWitch]

60. Cold winters

Hockey should not be played in climates that do not get below 45 degrees.

[Ravenseye]

61. See I disagree with this kind of blanket statement

no pun intended...blanket...get it...*sigh*

Seriously though I don't agree. I spent time growing up in a few different locations. One of them was Buffalo and another was Dallas, amongst other places. This was when the North Stars were in Minnesota.

Buffalo had cold winters, and people did play hockey. Sure some ponds would freeze over, we even had a neighbor who would ice down their backyard to make a rink, and people would skate, and occasionally play really bad hockey. Most, however, didn't play in any kind of organized league. The organized leagues didn't play on ponds, they played in ice centers and the like, of which there were a few in Buffalo at the time. Still. It's an expensive sport, and it's one that is rare to actually play well in your backyard so to speak (the guy with the backyard rink notwithstanding).

What was interesting about Dallas is that while it could get below 45 degrees, it rarely did. I lived there for four years and I think it snowed once the whole time we were there. Even then it was a dusting. Of course it shut the whole city down and there were hundreds of wrecks on the highways because people kept driving their normal 80mph. People there couldn't walk down to a pond and play hockey, but they did...in the malls. Not only were a number of ice/skating devoted locations but in the major malls the centerpieces were skating rinks. Year round those places were packed. They'd have public skates, hockey games, figure skating practices and competitions, etc. It almost seemed like more people in Dallas could skate than in Buffalo.

Later on my parents moved back there and I visited around the time they got the Stars. It was pretty amazing how excited people were there to get the hockey team. Sure you can say it's a Cowboys town, but it's no different than Buffalo is a Bills town, or Boston is a Red Sox town, etc. They still were excited about hockey.

In 1990-1991 the North Stars average attendance was 7,838. They more than doubled that when they moved to Dallas and went from around 85% attendance of capacity to near sellouts of 92%, 95%, 100%, and 99% of capacity in the past four years.

Hockey might be an easier sell in colder climates, but there is no logic in your statement. Cold climates, and even Canadian cities, have abandoned hockey teams with a bad product on the ice, causing owners to relocate. Warm climates may hold people who play just as much hockey as they do in northern ones.

[getmeouttahere]

62. You were doing fine, until....

Winnipeg and Quebec city did NOT lose their teams due to lack of support. Those cities simply couldn't compete with cities who were willing to publicly fund new arenas, which is never good policy. Particularly in Quebec, the government was unwilling to spend taxpayer dollars on a sports facility that simply wasn't necessary. There are more important things to take care of, like public health and education. But make no mistake, both those cities supported their teams fiercely to the end.

The biggest reason Los Angeles doesn't (and may never) have another NFL franchise is because the city is unwilling to publicly fund a new stadium. And I applaud that. There are far more important concerns. Plus, we have perfectly fine existing facilities, albeit older ones.

[Ravenseye]

64. See you're contradicting yourself

You say that Winnipeg didn't lose their teams due to lack of support but because they couldn't build bigger arenas. Then you say that Los Angeles won't get a new team because it wont build an arena.

I don't argue those points. Public support includes support for arenas. I don't fault Quebec which was a more complicated situation...well really any situation involving a team moving to another city tends to be chaotic...but with Winnipeg the fact that they were unwilling to build a larger arena speaks volumes. I include that with public support. In addition, while Winnipeg had a smaller building they were often running under 70% capacity at the time. Just look at the numbers. Of course they couldn't compete. Same thing with Minnesota. Don't even try and argue that just because it's in the U.S. that's not a hockey hotbed.

Anyway I don't blame the fans in Winnipeg, but crowds of 13k just won't cut it. Barry Shenkarow made sure the team was shitty. Their local landlord bilked them constantly and didn't allow them to share any extra revenue like from parking, and the government did jack squat. In fact they threw money at other BS items, including the Pan Am Taxpayer games. They had plenty of time to save the team but did nothing. The fans had their meaningless grassroots organizations, but the fact is that they should have done something sooner, and forced government to do so.

If the Penguins leave Pittsburgh it will be for a similar reason and I'm very much aware of it. When the team has good years it sells out, when it has bad years it runs around where Winnipeg did, still good attendance, when it sucks for years on end and tanks, it does poorly (just like Winnipeg for a stretch I should add). The fact is though that they can't afford to buy a new arena all for themselves. The governemnt, local and state, need to help. If they don't and the team moves people will label Pittsburgh as losing the team from lack of support. It won't mean there aren't a ton of great hockey fans here.

It's all how you define it.

*on edit* Looking back I just want to say that I didn't say the Winnipeg fans abandoned their teams...I said Canadian Cities did...which I feel is an accurate comment and I stand by it. *end edit*

[getmeouttahere]

66. How am I contradicting myself?

You said yourself that "it won't mean there aren't a ton of great hockey fans there." I stated that those cities supported their teams to the very bitter end. How would they be any different than Pittsburgh? Big crowds when they win, smaller crowds when they lose, but tremendous support in the community regardless.

What Canadian cities abandoned their teams? Nothing in what you've said demonstrates an "abandoning" of the teams. And I'm sure the city of Winnipeg doesn't regret the Pan Am games. I haven't seen a negative article about it in the dozens I've checked out on the subject. Here is one example:

http://www.focussports.net/pan_am_games.htm

[Ravenseye]

70. Talk to some Jets fans

There is some blame on the Pan Am games for losing the Jets. The city, and Susan Thompson, chose to spend money on the games than on a new arena. Three weeks of games which were great for Winnipeg, but which would the average person there now have? Those games or a new arena which could have helped keep the team in town?

I doubt you'd find a negative thing said about the Pan Am games, in context. I've talked with and red things from a few Jets fans that throw blame in lots of places, and one of them is Susan Thompson and the Pan Am games.

Winnipeg, the city, abandoned the Jets. They knew for years that a larger and better arena was needed, but they did nothing. Worse than that, they had the money and chose to put it towards other focuses rather than a hockey arena. Not to mention that in addition to the grassroots groups trying to support the Jets and an arena at the time, there was a large contra group that was against government funding of the proposed arena.

If Pittsburgh loses the Penguins from lack of a new arena it will be from almost exactly the same circumstances. Not because there arent hockey fans here, but because government won't help out the team. There are groups here who were opposed to helping pay for the STEELERS stadium. That's like a catholic refusing to help contribute to building a new church when the current one is falling apart. There were organized groups against that, and PNC Park for the Pirates..and there are for the Penguins.

Look I respect people who don't believe in public funding for stadiums, but I disagree with them. Particularly for Arenas. Arenas are used more than just for hockey, but concerts, and plenty of other events from political conventions to tractor pulls. The Igloo is a great place full of history, but if the Penguins will leave without a new Arena, I say give em one and don't question it.

Just like tens of thousands of Jets fans did fifteen years ago. To no avail. Because the city abandoned the team.

[getmeouttahere]

72. But you were talking about "fans"

again, you said "it won't be for lack of fan support."

What's really missing from this conversation is why the governments won't support building new arenas. Aside from infinitely more important matters, the teams simply don't generate enough revenue, whether through taxes or any other stream, to make the investment worthwhile. Exhibit A is my beloved Oakland Raiders. Of course it's a matter of civic pride and all, but the return of the Raiders to Oakland has been a financial disaster for the city and county. Now, obviously a city like Pittsburgh has a deep connection with its sports franchises and made the decision to fund these stadiums, evidently because public support was strong for it. I hope it works out for everyone in the long run. And isn't it only fair that the Pens get the same consideration? Probably. But other cities, despite strong fan support, overall feel that there are more important fiscal responsibilities.

You're argument that the arena is used for other things doesn't wash for me - it's not as if these activities are put on for free, like using a public swimming facility or recreation park that benefits all citizens, not just those that can afford to attend sporting events or tractor pulls. That's where the disconnect comes for me. What percentage of the whole population of a community actually attend these events? In most communities, the vast majority of citizens don't attend or can't afford to attend. Why should they pay for a public facility that they will not use?

[Ravenseye]

75. It's a generator

You're right about the Raiders and pretty much any Football stadium and Baseball park in the country. They generally don't pay off. Arenas are different though because they are much more highly used. Some football stadiums in this country are used less than 10 times all year. Many have about 20 dates when you throw in some concerts or other events. Many Arenas have hundreds, some over 300 days of events. Each one of those bringing people to spend money, generate taxes, hopefuly go to dinner before or after and generate more, etc.

it's not just about that money though. It's about quality of life. Why should someone pay for an arena when they might never go? Because they still reap the benefits. Whether we like it or not sports teams provide validity to being a city in this country. Look at Columbus. It's the largest city in Ohio. When asked most people would probably say Cincinnati, or Cleveland is. Hell there are probably people in Ohio who would read this and disagree with me. Yet it is. The City of Columbus has 711,470, making it the largest city in Ohio and the 15th largest city in the nation.

Do you think people give it the same credence as cities with NFL teams? When businesses consider relcating and creating jobs? It sucks but it's a demonstrable fact that people recognize locations from their teams.

so to have teams will improve the overall economy of many areas simply by existing, and it's hard to connect the dots on these. Many of the cities that have lost teams either had other teams, were already very small market, or were already established. My point is that it's a very complex set of economic issues that are effected and it's hard to draw accurate conclusions with hard numbers, but polls indicate that respect for a city is tied to the sports teams asosciated with it, in addition the lack of sports teams for many people means it's not really a city. ON top of that it adds to the quality of life issue.

Even if someone never attends one of the hundreds of arena events doesn't mean it wont' affect his life. It will improve the quality of life for thousands of people, and if that person has as better qulaity of life they're happier, and they interact better with that guy on the street.

Maybe you might say that's not worth your tax dollars, and I can respect that, but I think that there are a number of things a city has to do to be liveable and providing venues for entertainment has been one of those for thousands of years since the Roman emperors built the colleseum and the hypodrome.

Did you know that chariot racing was the biggest sport the world has ever known? For over 1500 years it was in continuous operation on a circuit throughout Europe and the Middle East, with massive fan support. Like an ancient Nascar. Hundreds of racing locations were constructed all with "public money".

The fact is that someone somewhere will build a new stadium every single year for a new team, meaning that the cities that don't have teams recognize how important it is to have them. NObody expects a city to build a new arena or park every few years or so, but when it's almost 45 years old, overcrowded, and almost non-functional, it's time for a new one.

[akarnitz]

77. Chariot racing! Yeah!

I'm with the Blues. Nika!

[getmeouttahere]

63. In fact, check this out!

http://beerforbreakfast.org/Jets/newsindex.html

Winnipeg has a new, NHL quality arena, has potential owners and is shopping for a franchise. Go Jets Go!!!

[Ravenseye]

65. Yeah i've emailed with that guy

He made comments about taking the Penguins and we had some back and forth, all pleasant. Mostly surrounding his lack of understanding of the Penguins financial situation.

He would go on and on about how the Penguins went bankrupt and equated that with Pittsburgh being unable to support a hockey team, when in fact it had to do with the horrid managment of Howard Baldwin.

In fact just last week I think the Penguins announced that they had reached 100% payout to all their creditors. They've emerged from bankruptcy. Very few businesses that go bankrupt pay back 100% of their debts. It just goes to show how strong the franchise is here.

I have no problem with Winnipeg getting a team again. If I had to say which I'd probably go with Atlanta or Carolina. Atlanta just hasn't established a decent enough fan base, and they've proven once bfeore they couldn't hold onto a team which went north, and Carolina had their chance to grow substantially after their cup run but botched it and the fandom never really grew. It looks like it was more of a fad down there than anything.

[getmeouttahere]

67. That's great news for the Pens!

And this will be the year that Pittsburgh sinks or swims with the team. From the news of hot advance ticket sales to the acquisition of top flight players, things look positive. If they can't support this team NOW, they never will. History tells us that they probably will.

Atlanta and Carolina are indeed ripe for the plucking. If the owners go "on the cheap" with the payrolls, attendance will sink even farther without wins. You could put Nashville, Florida and even Anaheim in that category. Until they showed they were going to make the playoffs in '03-'04, Nashville wasn't exactly burning it up at the gate, especially since it's still a relatively new franchise.

[Ravenseye]

68. And you know

Even one of the New York franchises. The Rangers are the only ones who sell out consistently. The Islanders go from crap attendance to mediocre when they're good. Even the Devils who have a strong following can't consistenly fill their building, even in their Cup years. I think it's not out of line to say that New York doesn't need three teams.

Atlanta seems to be making good moves. If they can put a decent product on the Ice we'll see. Carolina though I think has proved they don't have enough support. I have relatives down there who were all Hurricane talk during the Cup run year. All of a sudden thinking they were hockey experts. Haven't heard a peep since then. I think it was a fad for many.

As for Pittsburgh they actually stopped selling 10 game packages because they weren't sure they'd have enough room to sell all the 20game and season packages they were getting in. Single tickets go on sale in a couple weeks. We'll see then how much is available.

Yet it might be a mixed blessing. If they sell out the arena, and maybe even make a profit, the city here might say something like "SEe you're doing fine without a new arena" and that might just force the team out of town.

[getmeouttahere]

69. That's just it....

With a new economic landscape in the NHL, technically Pittsburgh doesn't need a new arena. And just like the Kings owners, they may just have to build it themselves if they want it. But given the current political and fiscal landscape in this country, I think you'll see more and more cities saying no to sports teams.

[Ravenseye]

71. Which is good and bad

The problem is that Mellon Arena is the oldest major arena in the country now, built in 1961. Hell it wasn't even built for sports, but for the Pittsburgh Civic Light Opera. It's famous retractable dome doesn't retract anymore. Adding seats from 12,000 to 17,000 made the place hopelessly cramped. It's beautiful and I love it, but it's got to go. I don't want some generic box arena, the Igloo deserves a worthy replacement, one that's as beautiful and striking, inside and out.

They need more seats, they need more luxury boxes (there are hardly any decent ones), and they need a modern facility. It's just that simple.

They could sell out all their games, maybe eek out a profit, but they'd still move without a new arena. I don't blame them. In the time they've been there the Pirates and Steeler have each had multiple homes.

Pitt Stadium - > Three Rivers - > Heinz Field
Forbes Field - > Three Rivers - > PNC Park
Mellon Arena

The most used of those over that time span? Mellon Arena.

Bah.

[getmeouttahere]

73. My question is...what was wrong with Three Rivers???

besides astroturf, which is an abomination in the sporting world IMO. This building was only 30-35 years old, and was built in the "modern era" unlike something like Forbes Field. Again, the people of Pittsburgh obviously thought it was necessary to replace it, but I don't see the need myself. And I am happy to see attempts to tear down Dodger Stadium and build a new park are being thwarted here. Dodger Stadium is a perfectly fine facility and was built nearly 10 years BEFORE Three Rivers Stadium.

[Ravenseye]

74. Well a few things

Three Rivers was in the same generic mold as Riverfront, Busch, Veterans, etc. Huge concrete monolithic bland structures made to house football and baseball, yet neither adequately.

For baseball it could hold nearly 48,000 fans, really it could hold more, but they would close off whole sections of upper decking because of the distance from the game. Occasionally they'd open them up for buck nights and things like that when I was a kid, but usually they were just so empty they'd close them off completely. PNC Park has brought that capacity down to 38,365 about 10,000 less seats. It's such a better place to watch Baseball. Watching games at Three Rivers could be seriously bad.

For football, it was the reverse. It only held 59,000 for football, Heinz field upped that to 65,000 plus a ton of standing room.

Three Rivers hadn't started to literally fall apart like the Vet, but it would have sooner or later. That plus a variety of infrastructure problems surrounding the stadium created some serious traffic problems around game time. A number of things could have been addressed but the fact that the Pirates needed a baseball park and the Steelers needed a football field were key. Three Rivers and it's brethern multi-purpose stadiums tried to cater to two very different sports, and essentially failed.

There were many people who opposed the new stadiums, and the destruction of three rivers because it wasn't that old, etc. Now most of the people are sold on the new stadiums. It's just no contest.

As an aside about new stadiums and parks I just want to mention something I heard once about Fenway. They did a poll for Red Sox fans on whether they should replace fenway or not. People who never went to games overwhealmingly wanted to keep Fenway because of it's history. People who owned season tickets or went to more than 20 games a year overwhealmingly wanted a better park, because they were sick of the tight seats, the dank interior, etc. No point with this, just an interesting new park/old park thing.

[getmeouttahere]

78. The Oakland Coliseum is now one of the oldest....

and one of the few multi-purpose stadiums left. Like Dodger Stadium, it was built BEFORE Three Rivers and the other monoliths from that era. Yet the Coliseum is still very viable, and is certainly comfortable, at least as far as I'm concerned. There is talk about building a new ballpark in Oakland, but the A's owners are looking for very minimal help from the local government. As for the season ticket holders at Fenway, if they want more comfortable seating, they should pay for it, perhaps by funding a new ballpark via the sale of PSL's. Apparently the PSL programs in various cities have worked, except in Oakland

http://www.sportsbusinesssims.com/raiders.psl.ticket.problem.htm

I am proud that I am a Raiders PSL holder, and helped finance the renovation of the Colisem, because if it weren't for the PSL holders, the taxpayers of the City of Oakland and County of Alameda would be in even worse shape. An excerpt from the article mentioned above:

"The $20 million yearly debt payment is the contractual responsibility of the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda, and is split evenly. Thus, what was advertised as a "privately-financed deal" has turned into a kind of general obligation bond issue, where the municipality pays for the bond directly from the same revenues used to pay for services.

At a time where both Oakland and Alameda County have to cut back on service provisions because of record deficits, it's hard to justify payments for other matters that are not directly service-related. This is one of them. "

For me, the "potential" indirect benefits of having a pro sports franchise in your city and having the taxpayers foot the bill for an arena is not in the same "ballpark" (pun intended) as taxpayers funding public education, services, etc. The benefits are debatable, and even if its a "demonstrable fact" that cities are identified by their sports franchises that isn't a good reason to have taxpayers foot the bill for an arena that some will never use simply because they can't afford it.

[Ravenseye]

80. Schools or Stadiums

It's not really an option is it? Schools of course. The thing is the city, state, and federal government have money to spend on other things besides Schools and other basics like infrastructure.

How bout parks? Should the city pay for parks? What if I never go to the park? Why should my money go to anything I don't use? How does it improve my life? Why not just sell off the land and make money. Some of those city parks are in pretty good location, you could make some massive tax dollars to develop on them.

Fireworks on the Fourth of July? I never go. Why should I pay for it? They spend millions on fireworks every year but I never go.

Parks increase the quality of life in a city. Fireworks on the Fourth also do. Just because I might not take advantage of everything my tax dollars pay for doesn't mean they don't increase everyones quality of life. Same with Arenas. People need things to do. They don't like places with nothing to do. They like arenas and theaters and operas and parks and boardwalks. They like to be able to do things, even if they never take advantage of them.

As far as the Fenway story, my point is that the people who attend the games want a nice new place because they see the advantage of it. The people that don't attend enough games like the place for it's historical value. I had no real point, but to say that people like the new parks. People like more comfortable seating, and unobstructed views, and open air areas.

[akarnitz]

82. I like what Ilitch did

w/CoMerica Park. He paid for the park. City, county and state paid for
the infrastructure- which was also part of the Ford Field project across the street. Is that the way it worked out in Pittsburgh, Ravenseye?

A couple of other venue thoughts:
1)I miss Tiger Stadium. I have childhood memories of old guys in fedoras, smoking cigars, helping me attempt to keep a scorecard. The overhang in right field was a great seat if you hoped for a home-run
ball. The thing I miss the most is , well, an idea- when you took a seat, you saw, with one exception, nothing but the park and all the things happening in the park. You saw no city-scapes, no advertising(here's that exception. You could see the rooftop sign of an old bakery. The building it sat on was 1/2 mile away from the stadium, beyond center field). So you went to Tiger Stadium for escape.

But you sat behind posts if attendance was high(Robert Fick almost cleared the roof in the last game at the Stadium- I followed the trajectory on a well placed monitor). The mezzanine was cramped, concession lines long and restroom lines longer. All tolled, the Tigs needed a new home.

2)Mr. Ilitch should think about a new home for the Wings. 25k capacity, minimum. Somewhere up Woodward, near his other properties(CoPa, Fox Theater, Hockeytown Cafe, etc.). Cool balconies(a la Boston Garden), all the bells and whistles. The Joe was built by the city in the late '70's and is rather short on the modern amenities.

I apologize if I go on too long. I've got two styles: long and boring or short and sweet.

BTW, getme & Raven, I think we scared off the normals here. ;)

[getmeouttahere]

83. I'm so glad I had the opportunity to see Tiger Stadium!

It was 1992. They were playing the Brewers. Had good seats, field level just beyond 3rd base. Tigers won. One of my best memories was the girl selling soft drinks - "Ice Cold Cokes, no lines, no waiting, COKES!!!"

With these new parks, why can't they duplicate the look of the old park, but with more comfortable seating and improvements on whatever else was objectionable. These new parks and arenas are so boring. Personally, I would rather be uncomfortable for 3 hours and have all that history, just the feeling I had sitting in the end blues at Maple Leaf Gardens, the pitch of the seats so steep you felt like you were hanging from the wall, and they had those bars in front of you to keep you from falling forward onto the person in front of you.
Ah, the memories.

[Ravenseye]

87. hmm 25k capacity

That'd definatley be the largest arena. I don't doubt the red wings could sell it out, but would the cheap seats start to be too far away from the game at that point? Essentially how many rows do you think that would add?

Some of the newer arenas look just massive with their multiple decks yet have only 18,000 capacity or so which is hardly more than Mellon arena which looks a lot smaller both in person and on screen.

[getmeouttahere]

89. You could probably fit the Igloo inside of the Staples Center

but the same could be said for the Bell Centre in Montreal, and here's why - the pitch to the seating.

For some reason, I've noticed that in Canadian arenas the pitch to the seating is steeper than in the U.S., which not only allows for a better view of the game, but probably explains why the Bell Centre can seat 21K in the same or smaller space as the Staples Center, which seats 18k for hockey. Now why can't they do that in the U.S.?

[Ravenseye]

90. Yeah the pitch at the igloo is pretty crazy

Sitting in the front row of F level you feel like you could spit on the back of the goalie. I remember going to my first game at the Fleet Center in Boston and sitting in the upper deck and feeling that I was just so far away from teh game. it looked so small. Yet it barely holds more people than Mellon Arena...yet I could sit in the back row of the top level there and feel closer to the game.

I guess it's the pitch.

[getmeouttahere]

92. Now that indicates to me that they designed the Igloo

or at least designed the additional seating for hockey, with the other old barns in mind. Boston, Chicago, even Buffalo not only had that good pitch like the Canadian arenas, but had the smaller ice surface, which gave them a definite home-ice advantage.

[Ravenseye]

94. Well....yes and no

Like I said, it was originally for the Civic Light Opera and other things like that. The steep pitch was from the second(? might have been third) rennovation when they added in 7,000 additional seats. It's more proabbly to do with just cramming them in there than specific design. There isn't much space to do anything but go up. In the upper seats you can practically touch the dome.

[akarnitz]

97. Cheap seats???!!!

:rofl:

[getmeouttahere]

84. Do you pay to watch the fireworks? Do you pay to picnic at the park?

Even many museums don't charge admission, just ask for donations, no one is turned away for inability to pay. I don't mind my tax dollars paying for things that I don't use, when I know that others can benefit from it. Now, one could argue that there are lots of things that we don't use that our tax dollars pay for, but those things aren't owned by the mega-rich either, they are owned by the public. Admittedly, Los Angeles doesn't need the name recognition like Pittsburgh does. And Oakland wouldn't be on the map if it weren't for the A's and Raiders. Heck, the Coliseum was built with public funds. But it was built when Oakland was still growing, and circumstances are far different now. No one who owns a team in Oakland would expect a fully publicly-funded arena or stadium today.
Also, these politicians here in Los Angeles must know something about the cost-benefit relationship of these things. Inspires me to do some research on that.

In summation, my thing is, if there's an existing venue, and it's not falling apart, why not use it or renovate it, like they did in Oakland.

[Ravenseye]

86. I respect your point

I just disagree with it. :)

I understand your point. Tax payer dollars pay for parks, fireworks, and arenas...yet you still have to pay extra to go to most events at the arena. I look at it though as that many of the events at the arena would either never occur at all in the town, or would take place so far outside of town as to be essentially meaningless to many city dwellers. Circuses almost solely take place in arenas now. Ringling Brothers isn't even equipped with actual tents anymore to my knowledge. It's all arena shows. Modern arenas are built specifically to accomodate this, such as long ramps for the elephants, and so on. Without a decent Arena many non-summer concerts would not take place at all in the town, not to mention the more obvious things like Ice Capades and crap like that. Wrestling matches. Lots of stuff I dont' go to, but other people apparently like. I get hockey out of it. I consider it fair.

Without an arena many of these shows, and events would simply not take place at all. The presence of an arena is the city providing a venue for these acts to come to town. In Pittsburgh the city also provides lots of free entertainment, concerts in the parks, outdoor films during the summer, etc. There are just some things that you need an arena for. That's what the tax dollars provide.

Now the thing with the existing venue that's not falling apart. I hear you. There was talk about rennovating Mellon Arena once more. Remember this started as a venue for concerts in 1961 and was rennovated to handle hockey and basketball, then rennovated a number of more times expanding the seating from 10,000 to over 17,000. Now the seats are piled high to the dome, cramped together, and uncomfortable. The dome itself hasnt' been able to retract in years. I remmeber going to games and they'd retract the dome at the end of the night after a hockey game and have fireworks. How cool is that?

Not anymore though. The new scoreboard hanging from the roof won't allow it, among other structural problems.

It's just an old old building. I love it dearly and wish we could just build a brand new one slightly biggger and more comfortable just like it. It's just not capable of going much longer. There comes a time and a place to replace a building. Many of the recent buildings replaced were 20-25 years old. Mellon arena was designed 50 years ago, and built 45 years ago. It's not impossible for sporting venues to last that long, but obviously it's rare, as it's the oldest in the NHL. If they could renovate it again I'd be for that, but the cost of renovations at this point are only slightly less than building a new building entirely.

[getmeouttahere]

88. Hey, agree to disagree is always ok...

one sad example of a perfectly good existing arena that is underused and replacement wasn't necessary (except for the economics of sport, which shouldn't be a taxpayer concern) would be the Forum here in L.A. I really miss watching hockey at that place - the Staples Center is just too big, and where you're sitting in the upper reaches, hockey is a rumor - I can't imagine what it must be like to watch basketball from up there. They still use the Forum for some concerts, but talk about a waste of a perfectly good facility.

IF they are going to replace the Igloo (can't bring myself to refer to that corporate name) why can't they simply replicate the old building, but with all the modern amenities? That would be so much more fun. I think they should have done that with all the old parks and arenas. Maybe Boston and Chicago and Montreal and Toronto would still have more of a home-ice advantage if the nuances of their old buildings had been incorporated into the design of the new ones, but with more comfort.

[Ravenseye]

91. I wish they could

The only two designs to replace the Igloo I've seen publicly shown were the one that was simliar to the standard new bulidings..blah...and the underground one, which was definately interesting, but probably a serious danger situation.

I'd love it if they were to replicate the building but with modern ammenities...that'd be so awesome.

Yeah and replaceing the forum is just one of many examples of unnecessary replacements. There have been a ton.

[getmeouttahere]

93. Especially now that I know about the seating...

at the Igloo, I hope they do try to replicate that type of design. In fact, you should start a campaign asking for it! It seems to me that in most U.S. cities in particular, 17k to 18k is plenty of seating for hockey, especially when you factor in the obligatory suites.

[Ravenseye]

95. That's the main issue, the suites

There are hardly any at the Igloo. That's the teams major sticking point...the loss of revenue from very few luxury boxes. That and the cost of renovating the place again is practically the cost to build a new building.

[bumblebee1]

99. I remember when the Stars won the Stanley Cup

I was working in an order taking call center at the time. A gentleman from Dallas called to place an order. After the order was finished, I mentioned to him about the Dallas Stars winning their first Stanley Cup. He then told me the Stars would help everyone forget about the Cowboys. I had to chuckle at that one.

[getmeouttahere]

100. Hell, that guy's probably forgotten about the STARS!

since they aren't doing as well as before. Those bandwagons empty pretty quick in the non-traditional markets, with lots of football and NASCAR fans. I wonder how well Dallas' hockey team would draw if they hadn't been successful from the first season they were there.

[akarnitz]

76. Every NHL city averages temps below 45 degrees

celsius!:evilgrin:

[getmeouttahere]

79. Good one!

in hockey, they would call you a "shit-disturber"

[akarnitz]

81. Like Claude LeMieux?

Makes me feel kinda dirty.

[getmeouttahere]

85. Well, he was one of the guys that you hated, but....

wanted him on your team, especially at playoff time. I've got a tape of a Montreal-Quebec game from the 80's where Lemieux completely loses it, actually puts up his dukes and everything. It was freakin' hilarious!

[akarnitz]

96. "Chippy"

was the first description both Paul Woods(Wings radio color) and Mickey Redmond(tv) would always use w/the Turtle(Jocelyn, too). That changed after the Draper Incident. Legal or not, it was a foul act.

Before that hit, I agree, he's the kind of guy I wanted on my team, but afterwards...

Had he played longer, Konstantinov would have inherited Claude's throne as King of the Chip. But, then, he might have pulled a Mikita and started winning Lady Byng trophies.

[getmeouttahere]

98. Thanks for reminding me about the Draper incident...

Drapes is one of my fave players in the league. I saw him after a Wings-Leafs game at MLG back in '97, and the kids were all screaming "Drapes, Drapes!!!" and he went over and spent a good half-hour with the kids. After that, he became one of my faves.