rickc rickc:
Its time to put an end to this myth that hockey can only thrive in cold winter environments. Take a look at this attendance chart from last year:
http://www.hockeyattendance.com/league/ ... rt=avg_attTampa Bay Lightning is ranked #8 in attendance with an average of 18,626 people per game, and a capacity of 97%. #8 out of 30 teams with an average of 18.626 people per game, and you are going to tell me with a straight face that hockey cannot thrive in an area where ice never forms?
Meanwhile, the Panthers just down the road are consistently one of the least attended games in the league.
rickc rickc:
Lets take a look at some of those "traditional" hockey areas that underperform Tampa. How about the Buffalo Sabers? They have been around since 1970. They have a lower attendance rate with the same capacity rate.
Not quite. Buffalo had a slightly higher capacity rate while playing two fewer home games than TB last season.
rickc rickc:
Particularly embarrassing would be the Ottawa Senators coming in at #14 with 18,109 people per game and a capacity of 94.5%. Hell they aren't even selling out the games! This is Canada, the birthplace of the game, and they can't sell out every home game? Ice never forms in L.A. They managed a better showing than Ottawa with 18,147 people per game, and a capacity of 100.2%.
Go back before the strike of the 2012-13 season and you'll see Ottawa selling more tickets and filling more capacity than LA. It also helps to keep in mind that LA has had a club for decades while Ottawa is a fairly recent entry by comparison.
rickc rickc:
No ice in San Hose, yet they sell out every game.
No other pro-sports teams in the city either, as far as I can tell.
rickc rickc:
The Nashville Predators come in at #20 with 16,600 people per game and 97% capacity. These sun belt teams are outperforming such "traditional" markets as the New Jersey Devils with a capacity of 85.2 per cent. Hell weren't they in a cup series a few years back?
NJ isn't a "traditional" hockey market. They's just the old Colorado Rockies.
rickc rickc:
How about #29 the New York Islanders? 13.858 people per game with a capacity of 85.7% Didn't these guys win four back to back cups in the 80"s? What happened? I'll tell you what happened, the game evolved. It moved on.
No, take a look at the NY-NJ region. There are 3 NHL teams within 50 miles of each other. On top of that there's at least 6 other professional sports teams all vying for the fan dollar, and those teams play the more "traditional" American sports like baseball, football and basketball all of which share at least part of their seasons with the NHL.
Nashville was a pleasant surprise. I didn't think the game would catch on as fast as it did there.
Then there's Phoenix. Despite being able to put a decent product on the ice, there's only one year that Phoenix ranked higher than 25th in attendance, and that was the 2006-07 season where they ranked 24th. Even with a good run to the Western Conference finals recently, they have consistently been #29 or #30 in attendance since then.
Looking at the attendance list you provided, the 5 least attended hockey teams last year were Dallas(despite previously winning a cup), Carolina(despite previously winning a cup), Columbus, Phoenix and Florida. The best of them was Dallas with an 84% filled capacity while Florida barely managed 75%.
In fact, only 16 teams last year were able to fill their seats to 100% capacity or higher for home games.
But comparing attendance and capacity between teams can be a mugs game as well. As you said earlier TB ranked 8th last season in attendance, but when capacity is taken into account, they drop to 19th. Yet Winnipeg is ranked 26th in attendance while managing a 100% capacity rate.
There are also variations in the number of home games played. Some teams had 43 home games while others only had 40.
The other number that you didn't take into account is total attendance. Take Pittsburg for example; ranked 9th in average attendance, ranked 6th in capacity sold, yet they had the 5th highest total seats sold for the season.
Moving back to LA, or more precisely the California teams, one has to remember that California has a surprisingly long hockey history with the Seals being part of the NHL until 1976 and LA having an NHL franchise since 1967. In fact, league hockey has been played in California since at least the 1930s with the Pacific Coast Hockey League and the Western Hockey League. The PCHL had the LA Monarchs in the 1930s and the WHL had the LA blades in the 60s.
So while LA and the rest of California might not be a "traditional" hockey market, there is a long history of the sport being played in the state. Of course that history was partly the result of the number of ex-pats from Canada and the Northeastern US living in the LA area at the time.
As for that disaster called Phoenix/Glendale, it's a shame the powers that be didn't put even half the effort in keeping the team in Winnipeg in the first place as they have in trying to keep it afloat in the Arizona desert.
I say move Phoenix to Seattle and have the Panthers take a crack at playing in Milwaukee. Milwaukee would be great because there's already pre-existing rivalries between it and Minneapolis and Chicago, and with an NHL club, a potential future rivalry with Winnipeg.
CKA Uber 
Forum Addict 
