SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Canada (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   The Great Canadian Sports Attendance, Marketing and TV Ratings Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=228928)

Berklon Jan 7, 2020 9:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8793108)
I'm sorry, but the idea that the NFL is intrigued by the idea of a team in Toronto specifically to attract non-white fans seems utterly laughable.

As laughable as playing games in Mexico to attract the Hispanic fanbase, or in England to attract fans in Europe? It's about growing the game, and the NFL is pretty much maxed out within the US.

In any case, it doesn't mean a team in Toronto will happen. It may never come to fruition - but it's certainly something that's being looked at.

Not sure about the Expos happening... Quebec in the NHL is dead... and the CFL in Halifax isn't going to happen.

Back on topic... the wildcard round was very entertaining this past weekend - can't wait for this weekends games of high-powered teams battling it out.

SaskScraper Jan 7, 2020 9:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire
If you had to put money on one of these scenarios to be true as of January 1, 2025, which one would it be?

1. Quebec gets a NHL team
2. Montreal gets a MLB team
3. Halifax gets a CFL team
4. Vancouver gets a NBA team
5. Toronto gets a NFL team

I wouldn't say any of those are likely scenarios, but at the same time I wouldn't say that any of them are totally impossible either. If the dollar were to somehow creep up closer to par, it's possible we could see a couple of those scenarios play out.
All of them seem completely long shot.
Wild card Quebec getting an NHL team only if an American team were to come up for grabs and if & only if no other American city like Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Seattle or Hartford, etc etc, wanted it first.

Montreal was averaging 9,000 people per game for years before Expos folded, MLB coming back seems like a huge risk even if they had a stadium.

Halifax got it's first high-exposure pro sports team to call the city home last year, but they have only been averaging less than 6,000 spectators per game in a league that averages ~10,000 (Saskatoon averaged it's first season twice as many as Halifax). Once the novelty of having a NLL team wears off in Halifax, hard to know how the team will do. I think this would give an idea of how the CFL would look in Halifax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_H...erbirds_season

Vancouver getting a NBA team back seems most plausible, but again there's dozens of American cities that would be given first dibs before NBA tries Vancouver again.

Reason for Toronto never getting an NFL team can be summed up in one word, the Argos. It just looks bad when the city can barely hold onto a pro football team as it is, but for Toronto to build a stadium & be able to have money for a team and attract spectators seems unviable in NFL's eyes.

Had Toronto centric sports media built up the Argos to a highly respectable & well regarded team, even though they play in only the second biggest pro gridiron football league in the World, The Canadian sports media could be making huge profits promoting a Toronto NFL team as "Canada's Only Football Team".

EpicPonyTime Jan 7, 2020 9:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berklon (Post 8793096)
It's not about attracting the current white football fanbase, it's about targeting a city in which is represented by MANY different cultures in high numbers. Some current NFL cities are very diverse as well, but a good chunk are just white AF. Which is why 80%+ of the fanbase is white. Targeting a multicultural city like Toronto kills many birds with one stone. And this growing diverse fanbase isn't just restricted to the city. It's a domino effect.

How are they going to attract diverse fans if they're already unable to do so in cities that are far more enthusiastic about the game? What makes Toronto more special than Miami or Houston?

TorontoDrew Jan 7, 2020 9:50 PM

Canadians who watched the Grey cup in 2019, an average audience of 3.9 million viewers. +10% from previous year.

Canadians who watched the Superbowl in 2019, an average audience of 4.33 million viewers. - 18.7% from previous year.

That's still 400,039 thousand more pathetic Canadian's wanting to be American according to a few people on this site.


These numbers only represent Canadian networks so it could be assumed many more watched the Superbowl on American networks. More pathetic wannabe American's who hate Canada.

JHikka Jan 7, 2020 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8793075)
If you had to put money on one of these scenarios to be true as of January 1, 2025, which one would it be?

1. Quebec gets a NHL team
2. Montreal gets a MLB team
3. Halifax gets a CFL team
4. Vancouver gets a NBA team
5. Toronto gets a NFL team

4.

1) NHL has bigger fish to fry and Quebec is not appealing for NHLPA.
2) MLB has bigger fish to fry, although it's my runner-up here.
3) CFL has more important things to worry about and i'm not convinced on the financing of the stadium/team.
4) Makes a lot of sense once Seattle gets its NHL/NBA teams.
5) London and Mexico City are ahead of Toronto, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew
These numbers only represent Canadian networks so it could be assumed many more watched the Superbowl on American networks. More pathetic wannabe American's who hate Canada.

The Super Bowl in 2015 had 8.26M on CTV when they had American commercials simulcast so...Super Bowl figures are usually north of 7M on Canadian TV if you include those that prefer to watch with American commercials. We're at the point where the Super Bowl audience in Canada is twice that of the Grey Cup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by craneSpotter (Post 8793011)
Minor hockey in Canada saw its highest number of registrations last year (2018-19) - since at least 2007-08. There were ~644,000 Canadian kids officially registered in minor hockey programs last year - compared to 559,000 in 07-08. I believe over that time there was a slight drop in male registration and increase in female registrations.

All of the growth is in female registration. Male registration has declined the past five/six years.

Djeffery Jan 7, 2020 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew (Post 8793159)
Canadians who watched the Grey cup in 2019, an average audience of 3.9 million viewers. +10% from previous year.

Canadians who watched the Superbowl in 2019, an average audience of 4.33 million viewers. - 18.7% from previous year.

That's still 400,039 thousand more pathetic Canadian's wanting to be American according to a few people on this site.


These numbers only represent Canadian networks so it could be assumed many more watched the Superbowl on American networks. More pathetic wannabe American's who hate Canada.

Those numbers also don't count bars packed with people watching the Super Bowl, compared to bars not packed to watch the Grey Cup.

Djeffery Jan 7, 2020 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8793173)
4.

1) NHL has bigger fish to fry and Quebec is not appealing for NHLPA.
2) MLB has bigger fish to fry, although it's my runner-up here.
3) CFL has more important things to worry about and i'm not convinced on the financing of the stadium/team.
4) Makes a lot of sense once Seattle gets its NHL/NBA teams.
5) London and Mexico City are ahead of Toronto, IMO.


I think that Seattle, with it's completely renovated former arena, is ahead of Vancouver and once that happens, Vancouver won't get a team.

Djeffery Jan 7, 2020 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8792632)

My prediction for Toronto's 50K wasn't so much that it could only support that but that building a stadium any larger than that will be foolish. In-game NFL attendance is not trending upwards, so why would you build a 75K seat stadium when it's less likely to be full? Create ticket scarcity off the hop by using a 50K stadium. This would mean that Toronto could charge more for their 50K tickets than Cincinnati or Tampa could. Theoretically, anyway.

In that case, we don't need a new football stadium, it already exists. We need a new baseball stadium for the Jays (they need one anyway) and the Rogers Centre and it's 53,000 football seats becomes the NFL Toronto home.

esquire Jan 7, 2020 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djeffery (Post 8793204)
In that case, we don't need a new football stadium, it already exists. We need a new baseball stadium for the Jays (they need one anyway) and the Rogers Centre and it's 53,000 football seats becomes the NFL Toronto home.

Having a flashy new stadium to sell at step prices is normally part of the NFL's playbook in new markets... Can the 1980s-era Skydome pull that off? Assuming Toronto were to land a team and have it play there, it would be one of the oldest stadiums in the league right on day one.

EpicPonyTime Jan 7, 2020 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djeffery (Post 8793194)
I think that Seattle, with it's completely renovated former arena, is ahead of Vancouver and once that happens, Vancouver won't get a team.

I don't know if that's true. Vancouver got the Grizzlies at a time when the Sonics were still around, although admittedly that was part of the league's big push into an international market and not just a one-off relocation/expansion. Vancouver would definitely be behind Seattle for the next team, but after that I'd say Vancouver has a shot.

MLS certainly has a vibrant three-way rivalry between Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. I think something similar would be attractive to the NBA if they ever did decide to expand. There's enough people and corporate dollars to go around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8793217)
Having a flashy new stadium to sell at step prices is normally part of the NFL's playbook in new markets... Can the 1980s-era Skydome pull that off? Assuming Toronto were to land a team and have it play there, it would be one of the oldest stadiums in the league right on day one.

It would also be the smallest in the league. Once the Raiders move to Vegas, the next smallest would be Soldier Field at 61K. Hard to imagine that ever working, but the NFL faithful in this thread are committed to the dream.

Djeffery Jan 7, 2020 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime (Post 8793226)



It would also be the smallest in the league. Once the Raiders move to Vegas, the next smallest would be Soldier Field at 61K. Hard to imagine that ever working, but the NFL faithful in this thread are committed to the dream.

I'm just going with the suggestion I replied to that they don't need more than 50k or so. Not only do I not think Toronto is even on the radar for a team, but I also think that if they did get one, they would build a new, bigger stadium. But if the idea is they don't need one as big, then they might as well renovate the dome, which already has all the amenities and location, and build a new baseball stadium. Since I also think it would be the same people involved because who else?

Rollerstud98 Jan 8, 2020 1:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaskScraper (Post 8793151)
All of them seem completely long shot.
Wild card Quebec getting an NHL team only if an American team were to come up for grabs and if & only if no other American city like Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Seattle or Hartford, etc etc, wanted it first.

Uhhh, already happened and they payed huge expansion fee for it.

Mister F Jan 8, 2020 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8792726)
I'm not saying that pro/rel is an inherently worse system, because it isn't; i'm saying it's not going to be implemented in North America in our lifetimes.

For the last time, it was a hypothetical situation to make a specific point. Whether it's going to be implemented is irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8792726)
I fully understand the concept of an open system of association clubs. I hope you understand that such a system would inherently hold the NHL back due to Canada's lesser international value and would hold the sport back from growth in the US that it needs to maintain its current level of play.

I'm not sure that you do. Open systems of association clubs have had no problem growing and becoming among the biggest leagues in the world. The closed franchise system is one way of growing but not necessarily the best.

But that's kind of beside the point. The reason I brought it up in the first place is to show that the NHL doesn't put teams where the demand is, it puts teams where it wants demand to be. The former would result in more teams in Canada than it has.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8792726)
I have a difficult time imagining that hypothetical NHL teams in Kingston or Brandon would be valued higher than Colorado or Carolina, or that if the Toronto market was cut four ways that all four teams would persist with that high of a valuation.

Nobody is proposing putting teams in random small towns. Your reliance on flimsy straw men doesn't strengthen your point.

JHikka Jan 8, 2020 4:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djeffery (Post 8793194)
I think that Seattle, with it's completely renovated former arena, is ahead of Vancouver and once that happens, Vancouver won't get a team.

I think Vancouver makes a lot of sense regardless of whether or not Seattle also has a team. Having them both play off of each other is only a benefit, not just in the NBA but in any league (NHL, MLS).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djeffery (Post 8793204)
In that case, we don't need a new football stadium, it already exists. We need a new baseball stadium for the Jays (they need one anyway) and the Rogers Centre and it's 53,000 football seats becomes the NFL Toronto home.

Going to agree with esquire on this one - Rogers Centre won't be hosting an NFL team. If it's not up to par for an MLB team it definitely isn't for an NFL team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister F
But that's kind of beside the point. The reason I brought it up in the first place is to show that the NHL doesn't put teams where the demand is, it puts teams where it wants demand to be. The former would result in more teams in Canada than it has.

The NHL places franchises where it thinks it can maximize growth potential. The NHL doesn't operate any differently than any other franchise sport in this regard, really; they're mostly just looking at market size numbers, income trends, and general demographics, as well as corporate support. Canadian markets typically fall further back in line when compared to American counerparts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister F
I'm not sure that you do. Open systems of association clubs have had no problem growing and becoming among the biggest leagues in the world. The closed franchise system is one way of growing but not necessarily the best.

There's pros and cons to both systems but the association promotion/relegation system is not without its flaws, either. How competitive has France's Ligue 1 been since PSG was injected with Qatari money? A franchise system would tie this in with a salary cap, and although it would limit and hold back PSG it would create a more competitive league on the whole for the rest of France. It would also create a better league on the whole rather than having one big fish in one small pond.

An NHL with promotion/relegation, with potentially more Canadian clubs, would be a smaller, less-internationally reputable league than it is today because it would lack the financing that American growth has brought to it. Franchise model effectively led the NHL to the world-leader status it is today for ice hockey. So yes, pro/rel would lead to a more Canadian NHL, but it would also be a worse quality than it is today.

craneSpotter Jan 8, 2020 8:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8793758)
I think Vancouver makes a lot of sense regardless of whether or not Seattle also has a team. Having them both play off of each other is only a benefit, not just in the NBA but in any league (NHL, MLS).

Vancouver is absolutely on the NBA's radar. However, the cost of a team requires an ownership group with deep pockets. Maybe Northland Properties would be interested, and they likely have the deep pockets - but if they did it they would need to build a brand new ~$500 million arena in metro Vancouver for the team. If AIG did it they already own Rogers Arena/Canucks, but not sure if they have the pockets.

Seattle and Vegas are desired NBA front runners tho - with expansion or team relocation. Vancouver is a solid third to pick up more Canadian market...San Diego just doesn't seem to make things work.

esquire Jan 8, 2020 8:23 PM

^ The best and I daresay only chance at making the NBA work in Vancouver is without having to bear the cost of a new arena on that extremely pricy land.

When a measly little White Spot sells for a quarter of a billion, the only way you can make the budget work on a new arena is if you build it out in Langley.

craneSpotter Jan 8, 2020 8:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8794110)
^ The best and I daresay only chance at making the NBA work in Vancouver is without having to bear the cost of a new arena on that extremely pricy land.

When a measly little White Spot sells for a quarter of a billion, the only way you can make the budget work on a new arena is if you build it out in Langley.

I know, and that is a huge catch with any NBA dreams in Vancouver without AIG doing it. Not sure how much land Northland already owns downtown - several individual lots - but not sure if they would have enough contiguous space.

Djeffery Jan 9, 2020 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8793758)


Going to agree with esquire on this one - Rogers Centre won't be hosting an NFL team. If it's not up to par for an MLB team it definitely isn't for an NFL team.

I already replied that I didn't agree with your earlier assessment about the 50k stadium. I'm just saying if that was what the number was, the Rogers Centre would work. Not throw open the gates tomorrow ready, but after a significant renovation after the Jays had left to another park. Without the need for the rotating seating on the 100 level for the conversion between football to baseball, that entire level could be gutted and refit with permanent football seating. Revamping of the suites and lounges, along with updating the football media area, and converting the baseball media area to suites. It's not about it being up to par for baseball compared to football, it's overbuilt for what baseball is now.

But as I said, the NFL wouldn't even give Toronto a sniff if they talked about 50,000 seats.

spoonman Jan 9, 2020 2:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craneSpotter (Post 8794103)
.San Diego just doesn't seem to make things work.

Boy is this ever true. Now that the Chargers are gone, SD is the largest city and metro in the US (by far) without an NFL team, NHL team, or NBA team (save for Seattle).

MacLac Jan 9, 2020 5:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 8794681)
Boy is this ever true. Now that the Chargers are gone, SD is the largest city and metro in the US (by far) without an NFL team, NHL team, or NBA team (save for Seattle).

Not the city's fault at all....Spanos held the city hostage for a new stadium....they called his bluff. But with the new stadium literally an HOUR up the I-5 - not a huge problem. With only Camp Pendleton as a separation between LA and SD....it's pratically one huge metropolis.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.