I have two unrelated posts today before the weekend. The first is inquisitive in nature and totally benign. The second is an angry rant at a guy on the Yankees that just can't keep his mouth shut.
* * * * *
I’m throwing this out as a question because I have my own opinion and am curious to hear what others have to say about this…
With the new hockey collective bargaining agreement, all 30 teams have to abide by the $21.5-$39M team payroll guidelines. This means that the days of Rangers/Flyers overspending is over and that struggling teams like the Hurricanes and Flames can now compete against the big-market clubs for the top players. As a result, all 2004 player contracts were shredded and the player pool became a giant free agent frenzy. Obviously this development has a built-in excitement because all fans are curious to know where the good players will end up but it also leads to the breakup of some formerly great teams (Colorado, for one). Which leads me to my question – given the fact that hockey was failing in many of the non-traditional southeastern and southwestern markets (Atlanta, Nashville, Carolina, Phoenix and Anaheim, among others) will the free agent frenzy change that or will it only result in a diminishing interest in strong markets like the aforementioned Colorado?
My feeling is that the non-traditional hockey markets that were part of the expansion boom of the late 1990s never embraced hockey for a variety of reasons, least of which was the quality of play. I won’t get into the myriad reasons why hockey is failing outside of the Canadian or Original 6 markets because it would be a huge digression on my point but suffice to say, most people don’t find hockey well-paced or entertaining, aren’t well-versed in its rules or its history and tradition and simply have other interests are were firmly entrenched well before hockey came to their market. A good example of is the Anaheim Mighty Ducks franchise. They had one strong Stanley Cup run where attendance was good and fan interest was high (2002-03) but interest and profitability were unsustainable and receded to pre-2002 levels. Should they be able to acquire a handful of “name” players, will fan interest spike? I predict that it won’t in the long-run, because the interest in the sport just isn’t there. A good season or two might make casual fans come to the rink but a bad season will leave the Duck Pond with empty seats.
The counterpoint to all this is what will happen to the traditional hockey markets. Of course, fan interest in places like Colorado, Detroit, New York, Boston and Canada won’t completely dry up but given hockey’s fragile economic model (gate-driven revenue, no TV deal), how long will fans in those markets really be happy seeing “their” players playing elsewhere. What if the Avs suck for five years with all their marquee guys gone? Will Colorado fans still sell out every game? It seems to me that the NHL is taking a big risk trying to grow non-core markets when the last 10 years should’ve told them that the best strategy would be to build up the great markets and cut losses. Hockey did its best business before it went to the Sun Belt. Now, by stripping its marquee teams, it might further dilute its own product.
Any thoughts?
With the new hockey collective bargaining agreement, all 30 teams have to abide by the $21.5-$39M team payroll guidelines. This means that the days of Rangers/Flyers overspending is over and that struggling teams like the Hurricanes and Flames can now compete against the big-market clubs for the top players. As a result, all 2004 player contracts were shredded and the player pool became a giant free agent frenzy. Obviously this development has a built-in excitement because all fans are curious to know where the good players will end up but it also leads to the breakup of some formerly great teams (Colorado, for one). Which leads me to my question – given the fact that hockey was failing in many of the non-traditional southeastern and southwestern markets (Atlanta, Nashville, Carolina, Phoenix and Anaheim, among others) will the free agent frenzy change that or will it only result in a diminishing interest in strong markets like the aforementioned Colorado?
My feeling is that the non-traditional hockey markets that were part of the expansion boom of the late 1990s never embraced hockey for a variety of reasons, least of which was the quality of play. I won’t get into the myriad reasons why hockey is failing outside of the Canadian or Original 6 markets because it would be a huge digression on my point but suffice to say, most people don’t find hockey well-paced or entertaining, aren’t well-versed in its rules or its history and tradition and simply have other interests are were firmly entrenched well before hockey came to their market. A good example of is the Anaheim Mighty Ducks franchise. They had one strong Stanley Cup run where attendance was good and fan interest was high (2002-03) but interest and profitability were unsustainable and receded to pre-2002 levels. Should they be able to acquire a handful of “name” players, will fan interest spike? I predict that it won’t in the long-run, because the interest in the sport just isn’t there. A good season or two might make casual fans come to the rink but a bad season will leave the Duck Pond with empty seats.
The counterpoint to all this is what will happen to the traditional hockey markets. Of course, fan interest in places like Colorado, Detroit, New York, Boston and Canada won’t completely dry up but given hockey’s fragile economic model (gate-driven revenue, no TV deal), how long will fans in those markets really be happy seeing “their” players playing elsewhere. What if the Avs suck for five years with all their marquee guys gone? Will Colorado fans still sell out every game? It seems to me that the NHL is taking a big risk trying to grow non-core markets when the last 10 years should’ve told them that the best strategy would be to build up the great markets and cut losses. Hockey did its best business before it went to the Sun Belt. Now, by stripping its marquee teams, it might further dilute its own product.
Any thoughts?
6 comments:
Its an interesting question. I think the test is probably the Red Wings or Avs if they will still go out and support their team if they dont dominate. My guess is probably yes in those select cities. The bigger problem I think is those cities that used to have big fan bases (see Pittsburgh) if they show up. The southern towns should be folded.
I think an interesting question is what would happen to baseball if a similiar proposition was implemented. Now theres a counterfactual....
The reason why baseball doesn't have to worry as much is because outside of a few markets (mainly Tampa and Miami) baseball is firmly entrenched as the primary thing to do on a summer afternoon/evening.
Cities like NY and Boston wouldn't abandon ship if talent were redistributed (we wouldn't like it but we'd still be baseball fans) and places like KC and Colorado still fundamentally like baseball enough even though they're currently not competitive such that new "name" players would re-infuse those markets with enthusiasm.
I think one of the positive things for those teams that are able to get a Peter Forsberg or a Jarome Iginla is that certain people in those cities might want to see just these players that they could have only seen once a season. The draw for seeing a player who will play great during the season will bring people out I think. One of the main problems with hockey is the fact that it is way too expensive to bring out fans. Traditionally, hockey fans have been blue collared folks who generally can not afford spending 200 bucks for a family of four for a night of hockey. I just got an email for Avs tickets and the cheapest seats at the Avs games are 20 bucks. Whereas at the Nuggets games (who play the same amount of games) it is around 10 bucks for the cheap seats. Until they drastically lower prices for the seats I don't think the draw will be that great
For starters, I agree, hockey has grossly overpriced its product relative to its fans demographic earning power.
My view on this is transparent but I honestly don't think that, long-term, fans will care that much if Forsberg or Iginla play in their town. These people weren't hockey fans to begin with. There might be a short-term spike in interest (especially if the team is competitive) but overall, I think people will go back to being apathetic about hockey like they've always been.
Logically speaking, I think this course of action may be the NHL's best bet. They are assuming though, that Detroit, Colorado, Toronto fans will still come to the game, and as Mike says, it depends on if that holds true. i tend to think that those fans will still buy tickets. By having a rigid cap, there will actually be better players for smaller teams to advertise to their fans.
Of course, i would have still been in favor of retracting 4 teams, and still having the cap, but that's just me! of course, as bill simmons and colonel sanders have pointed out, the NHL is completely overpriced, and tickets should be reduced drastically.
and i think the same cap principle will work for baseball, in terms of increasing interest in small market teams.
Baseball's next labor agreement is coming up in (5?) years. The MLBPA is so strong and the ownership is so divided that I don't see a salary cap coming anytime soon. I could be wrong but based on past history and, more importantly, based on how the Yanks, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, Angels and Cards dominate the marketplace, I don't see the rich owners bending on this. There might be steeper penalties for overspending in place but in the end, the big market clubs will side with the player's union and dominate the discussion.
Post a Comment