|
|
Post by dogpound on Sept 26, 2007 18:50:09 GMT -4
Great post, dogpound....the system is definitely not the best. Brec7 also made a good point that we keep seeing the same teams over and over again. I realize the reason for not seeing the Quebec teams as much is because of travel expenses but it gets really boring to see the same teams all the time. I felt it was way more exciting when the Quebec teams were here more often Indeed it was more interesting when we saw the Québec teams more than once, but I can understand why they changed it - it was related to the cost of travel, no doubt, so that's OK.....I don't think that seeing certain teams 4 times over the course of a 6-month season is excessive. Letting 16 teams into the playoffs has nothing to do with making money.....it has to do with stupidity, and not understanding that the regular season has to mean SOMETHING for people to remain interested over the entire winter. Not complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Sept 26, 2007 20:33:58 GMT -4
Great post, dogpound....the system is definitely not the best. Brec7 also made a good point that we keep seeing the same teams over and over again. I realize the reason for not seeing the Quebec teams as much is because of travel expenses but it gets really boring to see the same teams all the time. I felt it was way more exciting when the Quebec teams were here more often Indeed it was more interesting when we saw the Québec teams more than once, but I can understand why they changed it - it was related to the cost of travel, no doubt, so that's OK.....I don't think that seeing certain teams 4 times over the course of a 6-month season is excessive. Letting 16 teams into the playoffs has nothing to do with making money.....it has to do with stupidity, and not understanding that the regular season has to mean SOMETHING for people to remain interested over the entire winter. Not complicated. It sort of is though... because you think more would be interested, yet you probably have what, 4-5-6? teams virtually out of the playoffs heading into the last month or so... if less teams get into the playoffs, a bunch of teams and their fans will know they have no shot at playoffs much earlier than they do now. Plus, even as a bottom feeder, playoffs can be exciting, the CHANCE of an upset or even making things hard on a heavy favorite. An exciting playoff effort can go along way to bringing fans back next season, vs. a team playing out the schedule from mid-February onwards... |
|
|
|
Post by dogpound on Sept 26, 2007 21:57:09 GMT -4
Doesn't make sense.
By your reasoning, every league in every sport would have as many teams as possible in the playoffs.
Think about it - what effect would it have on regular season interest if the NHL had 26 teams out of 30 in the playoffs, instead of the actual 16?
That last-month scramble involving the Canadiens, the Leafs, the Islanders and Rangers would never have happened....instead, you would have had, I dunno, Chicago and Columbus fighting for 26th place, or something.....not quite the same, is it?
Regular season has to mean SOMETHING!
|
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Sept 26, 2007 22:06:04 GMT -4
Before the expansion of the 90's in the NHL, 16 teams out of 21 made the playoffs and the playoff races were pretty good. In '87-'88 where the Devils needed to win in overtime in the last game of the season to make the playoffs and there was another one that involved the Blackhawks and the Leafs where one of the teams needed to win in OT in the last game of the season to make the playoffs. Those are 2 examples just off the top of my head that happened when 16 out of 21 teams made the playoffs and I am sure there are others too. Actually when the Devils had to win that last game of the season, if they had lost one game out of their last 8 they wouldn't have made the playoffs that year. Instead they went 7-0-1 and believe me those games had lots of meaning and lots of excitement
|
|
|
|
Post by dogpound on Sept 26, 2007 22:25:52 GMT -4
Before the expansion of the 90's in the NHL, 16 teams out of 21 made the playoffs and the playoff races were pretty good. In '87-'88 where the Devils needed to win in overtime in the last game of the season to make the playoffs and there was another one that involved the Blackhawks and the Leafs where one of the teams needed to win in OT in the last game of the season to make the playoffs. Those are 2 examples just off the top of my head that happened when 16 out of 21 teams made the playoffs and I am sure there are others too. Actually when the Devils had to win that last game of the season, if they had lost one game out of their last 8 they wouldn't have made the playoffs that year. Instead they went 7-0-1 and believe me those games had lots of meaning and lots of excitement Yeah, I remember that, it's true. Still, 16 out of 21 is nowhere as bad as 16 out of 18 - you just can't defend 16 out of 18, it makes no sense at all....it's 89% of the teams getting a pass to the post-season, the highest in any league in any sport....and it cheapens the game. The better the teams involved in the playoff race, and the more teams involved in that playoff race, the more exciting it is. Quickly, now, do you remember a playoff race in the Q last season? The season before? When did the Rocket clinch - late January? There has to be some tension during the season.......it's January, your team is mid-pack, 9th or 10th, and never more than 5 or 6 points into a playoff spot.....a losing streak, and they could plummet to 12th or 13th, and risk missing the playoffs....and 6 or 7 other teams are in a similar position. THAT'S the kind of situation that creates interest in the seemingly endless regular season......put 16 out of 18 teams in the playoffs, and you're left with nothing, except maybe 2 or 3 teams trying NOT to be the worst in the league, just so they can then go up against some powerhouse and get swept........hardly exciting. ....and then people wonder why attendance is down.......GIVE US A REASON TO GO TO THAT MANY GAMES, DAMMIT! |
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Sept 26, 2007 22:52:40 GMT -4
What you are saying is if there were less teams make the playoffs then the games in January would have more meaning, but what about the games before January? Less playoff teams is not going to change the level of play or tension in those games so you likely would still have the attendance problems for those games, would you not?
I agree that coming onto the end of the season the regular season would have more meaningful games with the possibility of playoff races. This is one way to get attendance higher, but what do you do for the games to attract more fans early on in the season that are not part of playoff races?
|
|
|
|
Post by brec7 on Sept 27, 2007 1:51:00 GMT -4
Dogpound, you make some good points and I agree with you 100% that the LEAGUE would be more interesting to follow if less teams made the playoffs. BUT....
Having less teams in the league wouldn't help attendance. CrazyJoeDavola has it right- if you have 12 teams in the playoffs, you have MORE teams getting eliminated earlier, and fans have NO reason to go to games anymore. Races for positioning aren't as exciting as races for playoff spots, but at least it's something. And you can't say it doesn't mean anything- ask CB & Lewiston fans about how important Lewiston's first place finish was last year.
So the question dogpound asks if, "it's all about money, why does the NHL not have more teams in the playoffs?" Well I'd say there are two reasons it doesn't.
The first being practicality. Both the Q and the NHL have the same number of teams in the playoffs, and therefore it's equally practical. It just looks worse in the Q because only 2 teams miss. But if the NHL wanted to have a 28 team playoff, the season would take even longer then it does now and it wouldn't be very practical.
The second reason, and the bigger one, is because the NHL, being the top professional hockey league, has to cater to fans of the LEAGUE and not fans of the team. There are people all across North America who watch the NHL on TV and follow on the internet that don't live in league cities, don't go to games, but are still important to the success of the league. These fans give the NHL website hits, they increase tv ratings, and they buy merchandise. There are millions of North Americans who see teams other than their favourite team on a regular basis. I'm a Habs fan- do I inherently see the Habs more than the Leafs or the Senators? No. That's the difference between hockey at the junior level and the pro level- you don't have many "fans of the league" at the junior level. Us on these boards are in the minority. And you certainly have next to no fans in non-league cities. That's why it's important for the NHL to have a playoff system that's more interesting to the average fan.
Finally, the point that bois was making is that attendance has decreased in RECENT years. Therefore the point about too many teams in the playoffs decreasing attendance is irrelevant, because the Q has ALWAYS had a playoff structure like this.
It should be noted too that the drop in attendance is MUCH more so the case in the East then in Quebec. When you break it down, that's not surprising. Looking at the teams individually:
- Moncton hosted the Memorial Cup in 05-06, which meant increased season ticket holders for that season, plus the guarentee of a strong team. With neither of those factors in play in 06-07, obviously attendance was going to go down.
- Saint John & St. John's did not have the "first year novelty" last year, and neither team improved, so obviously their attendance would go down.
- I don't know if Bathurst's attendance went down last season, but it would be logical if it did on the basis of the town still trying to recover from the mill closing.
- CB had its strongest team in years, and attendance went up here.
- Halifax I believe is the victim of "over marketing" to a degree. They had pushed their product everywhere to the point where there's not really room for growth and when the casual fans start dying off, there's no one to replace them.
I don't know about the specifics in Lewiston & PEI. But let's remember that the expansion and divisional alignment hurt the East teams more then the west teams. In the west, they play 27 home games a year against 9 established divisional opponents- not really that much overexposure there. In the east, our teams play 25 home games a year against five established opponents, and two expansion teams who at this point haven't proven anything in the league. It's no wonder that attendance went further down in the east then in Quebec last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Sept 27, 2007 7:56:23 GMT -4
- Halifax I believe is the victim of "over marketing" to a degree. They had pushed their product everywhere to the point where there's not really room for growth and when the casual fans start dying off, there's no one to replace them. Something interesting about Halifax though... we just had our highest attendance ever for a home opener in our entire 14 years. I wonder where the season ticket # is at this year? While pre-December might be average attendance, I expect after Xmas Halifax will pass last years attendance. Another "attendance" issue is the internet broadcasting games, ESPECIALLY this season with Telus showing EVERY game. Will be interesting to see if there are any major drops. I see attendance being pitiful on some nights where there is a storm or something in some maritime rinks, if people can stay home and watch. |
|
|
|
Post by North Shore on Sept 27, 2007 8:06:30 GMT -4
There's another obvious reason for league-wide decrease in attendance. Too many teams in the playoffs, resulting in a virtually meaningless regular season, and near-total absence of real playoff races. I agree, too many teams make the playoffs. If the number of teams which made the playoffs was dropped it would certainly add meaning to the regular season and heighten rivalries for those frequent inter-division match-ups. Another "attendance" issue is the internet broadcasting games, ESPECIALLY this season with Telus showing EVERY game. Will be interesting to see if there are any major drops. I see attendance being pitiful on some nights where there is a storm or something in some maritime rinks, if people can stay home and watch. I think online games will increase attendance. The internet can be a great marketing tool to get people into the rink. If you can get pepole to follow the team on line then they must be interested and hopefully will go to the rink where they can get a better view of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Sept 27, 2007 8:36:08 GMT -4
There's another obvious reason for league-wide decrease in attendance. Too many teams in the playoffs, resulting in a virtually meaningless regular season, and near-total absence of real playoff races. I agree, too many teams make the playoffs. If the number of teams which made the playoffs was dropped it would certainly add meaning to the regular season and heighten rivalries for those frequent inter-division match-ups. Another "attendance" issue is the internet broadcasting games, ESPECIALLY this season with Telus showing EVERY game. Will be interesting to see if there are any major drops. I see attendance being pitiful on some nights where there is a storm or something in some maritime rinks, if people can stay home and watch. I think online games will increase attendance. The internet can be a great marketing tool to get people into the rink. If you can get pepole to follow the team on line then they must be interested and hopefully will go to the rink where they can get a better view of the game. Yeah free games is good promotion of the league... then again, how many people who never go to a Rocket game would sit around on a computer and watch? It takes a pretty big fan of this product to sit at a computer and watch a small (or large grainy) picture. I still dont see how if the Rocket are sitting 6th place (and 3 times are below them as well), and basically out of the playoffs in February, how attendance would increase in those markets. If the Rocket are playing for playoff positioning, or trying to hold off the teams under them, then all those markets gain the interest of the fans. I'm not against cutting out a couple more teams from playoffs if a decent playoff schedule can be developed, but I dont really see how league attendance would go up when more teams have no playoff hopes. |
|
|
|
Post by North Shore on Sept 27, 2007 9:01:45 GMT -4
Hadn't really considered the "no playoff hopes" angle. In a developmental league there always seems to be boom-bust cycles for top teams who build a contender then all their talent moves up.
To get fans in the door and keep them coming back the team has to be entertaining. If they're out of the playoff race but can be a spoiler for a rival it creates some interest, but maybe only for the die hard fan who is going to go anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by bois on Sept 27, 2007 9:47:05 GMT -4
Frank we all know you dislike the playoff format.. and while I agree it certainly isn't ideal.. it has minimal effect on attendance IMO
How the hell do you blame a playoff format for declining season ticket sales? People buying season tickets are inherently expected to attend most of the games no matter whether their team has a realistic shot at making playoffs or not.
My opinion on declining attendance in the maritimes is threefold
1) Mass exodus to alberta ... poo poo it all you wish.. economy has sent many men out west to work during winters .. many young men as well.... it's effected attendance more than people think
2) diluted product... return of NHL... i think the quality of game you're seeing has for the most part gone downhill since year one and the return of the NHl after it's lockout and opening the game a bit has hurt attendance
3) the schedule.. too many games against the same team when those games aren't very entertaining is not a good thing
I don't think offering the games on TV or the Internet has much effect on attendance
oh and for PEI specifically... (can't speak for other markets) the games are probably overpriced, the hassle with dealing with the front office or CCC box office, the poor public relations and almost complete lack of martketing of the team/product has definitely hurt.. moreso because this is such a small he said/she said place. Once you get a bad name.. it takes alot to change it
|
|
|
|
Post by dogpound on Sept 27, 2007 9:50:28 GMT -4
Sure, the team has to be entertaining.
But for many fans, including myself, having an interesting playoff race would really be huge.
A playoff race for a mid-pack team makes for a lot of "big games" late in the season - i.e. the games when two playoff contenders go head-to-head.
As things stand now, the chances of having an interesting playoff race are virtually nil - having two awful teams battle for 16th place, the way it was last year, just doesn't cut it.
Having 6 or 7 DECENT teams battle for the last 3 or 4 playoff positions over the last few weeks of the season, however, would give a major boost to fan interest in the league, and a great lead-up to the playoffs.
I really don't understand why/how this is so difficult to grasp, and why the league persists with this foolishness, especially knowing what kind of 1-vs-16 and 2-vs-15 embarrassing matchups it has ended up with in recent years.
|
|
|
|
Post by bois on Sept 27, 2007 9:53:07 GMT -4
I agree for late season matchups with teams involved in playoff races it would boost attendance
That doesn't boost season ticket sales or early season attendance tho
and you also don't adress the counterpoint of teams with no chance of making the playoffs... they would be playing in empty arenas from February on.. as no matter what someone has to suck every year
|
|
|
|
Post by dogpound on Sept 27, 2007 10:07:42 GMT -4
I agree for late season matchups with teams involved in playoff races it would boost attendance That doesn't boost season ticket sales or early season attendance tho and you also don't adress the counterpoint of teams with no chance of making the playoffs... they would be playing in empty arenas from February on.. as no matter what someone has to suck every year Bois, fans of 17th or 18th-place hockey teams don't even think of playoffs - they KNOW their team is lousy, but they go anyway, because they're true fans. When I'm talking about season-long interest, I'm not talking about rabid fans or season-ticket holders who go to games regardless - I'm talking about casual or semi-casual fans, who go to anywhere from 5 to 20 games a year. Those people might need a reason to go watch the Rocket play Bathurst on a cold Wednesday night in February, and playoff race would be an added incentive....it would for me, anyway, and believe it or not, fans like me matter. Now having said that, are you coming to the game in Moncton? If not, why not? State your reasons and explain, in 200 words or more. If you need a drive, bus leaves Cornwall at 12:30 tomorrow; same for you, Krang. |
|
