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)

thurmas Jan 12, 2020 3:25 AM

Hockey is a niche sport like tennis golf or nascar in the U.S. Hockey was actually a bigger deal in the U.S. in the 70's when Bobby Orr was king playing the Blackhawks Flyers and Rangers hockey was a bigger deal than basketball as the NBA finals were broadcast on tape delay. Had it stayed in northern U.S. markets and expanded into markets that made more sense be it Milwaukee or Seattle instead of the southern strategy folly I think the NHL would be more popular today with better rivalries and markets with more rabid fan bases than a Florida or Carolina that only moderately watches hockey if the team has a deep playoff run to the cup finals.

megadude Jan 12, 2020 6:14 AM

I said pretty much this exact thing for formula one racing. Bernie ecclestone and the stakeholders that enabled him mortgaged the future of the sport by abandoning traditional racing hot spots for races in far flung locales that have no tradition whatsoever all because those countries bent over backwards to his ridiculous money demands.

Canadian GP was missed one year and French GP for nine years! Ya the place that invented the automobile and Grand Prix.

Thank god that tool is gone but the damage is done.

EpicPonyTime Jan 13, 2020 5:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister F (Post 8796999)
It's been a success by absolute numbers, but every league has grown just as much and in many cases more in the same timespan. All the NHL has done kept pace with the trends that have affected the entire professional sports industry. It hasn't gained any ground on leagues like the NBA and NFL, if anything it's lost ground. So the growing the game initiative has been a flop relative to other leagues.

But those leagues have grown by entering new markets themselves. The NBA spent most of the 90s expanding into new untapped markets like Toronto, and the result is an NBA Champion franchise. Other times, they took a chance on cities like New Orleans or Oklahoma City, which were both underserved in pro sports. Overall the NBA has had more success in expanding its brand, but basketball is a bigger sport so it makes sense. That doesn't mean the NHL hasn't had its successes, such as Tampa, Nashville, Vegas, Colorado, and Dallas.

The growing the game initiative may have been a flop relative to other leagues, but I fail to see how opting not to grow the game would have resulted in a better outcome? Quebec City is watching hockey regardless of whether the Nordiques exist or not. The same can't be said of fans elsewhere.

Mister F Jan 13, 2020 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime (Post 8797658)
But those leagues have grown by entering new markets themselves. The NBA spent most of the 90s expanding into new untapped markets like Toronto, and the result is an NBA Champion franchise. Other times, they took a chance on cities like New Orleans or Oklahoma City, which were both underserved in pro sports. Overall the NBA has had more success in expanding its brand, but basketball is a bigger sport so it makes sense. That doesn't mean the NHL hasn't had its successes, such as Tampa, Nashville, Vegas, Colorado, and Dallas.

That doesn't change the fact that of the 5 biggest money losing teams in the NHL, four of them are American sunbelt teams. Those are losses that the rest of the league has to subsidize. As for Vegas, only time will tell how long the honeymoon lasts. Maybe it will be a long term success but that's far from certain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime (Post 8797658)
The growing the game initiative may have been a flop relative to other leagues, but I fail to see how opting not to grow the game would have resulted in a better outcome? Quebec City is watching hockey regardless of whether the Nordiques exist or not. The same can't be said of fans elsewhere.

There's zero evidence that the North American franchise model is better for growing the game than the Euro tiered model. The Bundesliga, for example, is just as big as the NFL accounting for population.

LakeLocker Jan 13, 2020 1:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister F (Post 8797751)
That doesn't change the fact that of the 5 biggest money losing teams in the NHL, four of them are American sunbelt teams. Those are losses that the rest of the league has to subsidize. As for Vegas, only time will tell how long the honeymoon lasts. Maybe it will be a long term success but that's far from certain.


There's zero evidence that the North American franchise model is better for growing the game than the Euro tiered model. The Bundesliga, for example, is just as big as the NFL accounting for population.

Newer teams are more likely to loose money.

Large cities are able to pull in far more television viewers.

The US has 3/4ths of the teams and an even higher ratio of new teams. It makes sense that they possess the majority of the weak teams.

Acajack Jan 13, 2020 2:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LakeLocker (Post 8797756)
Newer teams are more likely to loose money.

.

The money-losing Panthers, Coyotes and Hurricanes are not new teams.

The Predators are relatively new and they are profitable.

JHikka Jan 13, 2020 3:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megadude (Post 8797151)
Thank god that tool is gone but the damage is done.

I don't think F1 has ever been as strong as it is today thanks to the leadership that Liberty has exhibited since Bernie left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister F
I'm not sure why you're resisting what I'm saying so much. This information is common knowledge and easy to find online. Why so down on your own country having more than a measly 7 teams?

I'm not down on Canada having more teams but it's just not a realistic venture if you're looking to grow your sport internationally. Basing your league in the US and pinning growth on the US is a safer option, as the NHL has demonstrated, than relying on a Canadian- led league. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that an NHL with three or five more Canadian teams would be smaller than its current iteration.

To support my point, the salary cap has reached the point that if the Winnipeg Jets spend at the cap they have to make a deep run in the playoffs to break even. They lost money last year for the first time since their move from Atlanta, and that pressure will only persist as the cap increases in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime
The growing the game initiative may have been a flop relative to other leagues, but I fail to see how opting not to grow the game would have resulted in a better outcome? Quebec City is watching hockey regardless of whether the Nordiques exist or not. The same can't be said of fans elsewhere.

This is the crux of my argument. People in QC like hockey regardless of whether or not there's an NHL team there. Placing a team there now is not new money, comparatively, as you'd be carving up pieces of Montreal's market and already serving currently existing hockey fans. You expand to Vegas or Seattle to get new people into the door, new people into the sport, and expand your base that way.

I don't actually think the NHL's initiative was a failure relative to other leagues at all. Hockey is pretty strong in a few markets right now, in particular Nashville, Dallas, and Tampa, among others. Los Angeles churns out a surprising number of hockey players right now and Arizona is very much on the up. I don't get why people don't see the value in growing this sport for the betterment of its long term interests.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack
The money-losing Panthers, Coyotes and Hurricanes are not new teams.

The Hurricanes made money last year.

Acajack Jan 13, 2020 3:19 PM

With 13000 average attendance in Sunrise there is obviously some creative accounting at work. No one would call that a healthy franchise.

JHikka Jan 13, 2020 3:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8797843)
With 13000 average attendance in Sunrise there is obviously some creative accounting at work. No one would call that a healthy franchise.

Viola (worth $2.4B) bought the team for $160M in 2013 and today it's worth $310M, so losing a few million a year isn't really the end of the world for the owner. Obviously there are issues in Florida but if you include the concerts that the arena hosts they're likely breaking even on an annual basis.

The thing about a few of the southern teams that Canadians love to deride is that the "problem" franchises have never been good for any sustained amount of time. Carolina has had blips of success (I don't consider them an issue) but aside from a single run neither Florida or Arizona have had any lick of success in twenty years. Certainly that plays a role in penetrating local markets. Nashville's success has done wonders for that market, as did Pittsburgh's run of success for Western Pennsylvania as a non-southern example.

Acajack Jan 13, 2020 3:29 PM

People in Canada would bitch about and finger point the sucky Sunbelt teams a million times less if only Quebec City and maybe Hamilton had teams, and perhaps if we'd won a Stanley Cup more recently than 1993.

esquire Jan 13, 2020 3:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8797835)
To support my point, the salary cap has reached the point that if the Winnipeg Jets spend at the cap they have to make a deep run in the playoffs to break even. They lost money last year for the first time since their move from Atlanta, and that pressure will only persist as the cap increases in the future.

There were 7 teams that lost money and Buffalo is barely in the black. How bleak would you say the future is for other money-losing teams like Arizona, Florida, Anaheim and Nashville? Does it make sense to keep jacking up the cap when so many markets are either losing money, barely breaking even or struggling to draw fans?

Quote:

I don't actually think the NHL's initiative was a failure relative to other leagues at all. Hockey is pretty strong in a few markets right now, in particular Nashville, Dallas, and Tampa, among others. Los Angeles churns out a surprising number of hockey players right now and Arizona is very much on the up. I don't get why people don't see the value in growing this sport for the betterment of its long term interests.
There is zero value to me in "growing the sport" in the southern United States. I understand that Bettman's job is to get people to #Pleaselikemysport but it's not a priority at all for me and I am baffled as to why you think anyone not on the NHL's payroll should care. I say this as someone who already spends a considerable sum of money each year on hockey tickets and merchandise, as well as equipment and registration fees on youth hockey.

JHikka Jan 13, 2020 3:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8797884)
There were 7 teams that lost money and Buffalo is barely in the black. How bleak would you say the future is for other money-losing teams like Arizona, Florida, Anaheim and Nashville?

I don't know - Florida's been losing money for nearly thirty years and they're still there. Surely there must be more at play here than operational losses :hmmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8797884)
There is zero value to me in "growing the sport" in the southern United States. I understand that Bettman's job is to get people to #Pleaselikemysport but it's not a priority at all for me and I am baffled as to why you think anyone not on the NHL's payroll should care. I say this as someone who already spends a considerable sum of money each year on hockey tickets and merchandise, as well as equipment and registration fees on youth hockey.

Growing the sport is pivotal, though, because without it the NHL remains as a very regional, very niche, and very low-rung sport; more-so than it currently is today. At least with the NHL increasing its footprint you can look at participation throughout the US increasing (and remaining relatively stable in Canada) as a good thing for the sport of ice hockey as a whole. I don't see the NHL being on the upward trajectory it is today without some of the expansion markets that have been added.

You guys do realize that if the NHL stays in the US Northeast and Canada that it remains a very small sport akin to lacrosse or curling, right? Were people this salty in 1967 when LA and Oakland came online or were they actually excited that more people got to experience and enjoy the sport they love so much?

esquire Jan 13, 2020 4:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8797894)
You guys do realize that if the NHL stays in the US Northeast and Canada that it remains a very small sport akin to lacrosse or curling, right? Were people this salty in 1967 when LA and Oakland came online or were they actually excited that more people got to experience and enjoy the sport they love so much?

Even if true - who cares? It is enough for me to love hockey on its own terms and pass down that enjoyment to my kids. Hockey isn't going anywhere regardless of whether or not it ever succeeds in Austin, Orlando or wherever. It doesn't matter to me if it remains a regional sport. Why do you feel so invested in its growth? I mean, it's one thing if you are literally a financial investor or it's your job, then I get it. But if not...

OldDartmouthMark Jan 13, 2020 4:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8797894)
Were people this salty in 1967 when LA and Oakland came online or were they actually excited that more people got to experience and enjoy the sport they love so much?

I think so...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_N...ion#Opposition

Quote:

Opposition

Canadian fans, including Prime Minister Lester Pearson, were irate that no Canadian teams were added, particularly since Vancouver had been generally considered a lock for a team.[2] Internal considerations took a hand in that since as Montreal and Toronto were not interested in sharing CBC television revenues with another Canadian club, and Chicago owner Arthur Wirtz's support was reputedly contingent on the creation of a St. Louis team, although that city had not submitted a formal bid, to purchase the decrepit St. Louis Arena, which the Black Hawks ownership then also owned.[2][3] Buffalo also nearly got a team over nearby Pittsburgh until Pittsburgh Steelers owner Art Rooney, who would serve as a minority investor in the Penguins early years, persuaded the Norris brothers, whom he knew through their common interest in horse racing, to vote for Pittsburgh in the expansion process.[8] Vancouver and Buffalo would both subsequently receive teams for the NHL's next expansion in 1970.

On a more general note, many traditionalists resisted expansion, claiming it would dilute the talent in the league.[6] Even some proponents of expansion were worried at the idea of immediately doubling the NHL's size and wanted to ease teams in gradually, as Major League Baseball was doing.[9]

The expansion fee was US$ 2 million, and players taken in the very strict expansion draft came at a cost of $50,000 each. Experts tended to see that as high, and most expansion teams were seen as having no hope of competing successfully with the established teams in the near future.[2]

Because of the inherent competitive imbalance, there was some support for the idea of placing the new teams in a completely separate division or conference, with a separate schedule for the first few seasons and then gradually integrating the new teams into the established NHL, much like the then-progressing AFL-NFL merger was being carried out. Ultimately, the league partly implemented the idea by placing all six of the new teams in the new West Division. Alternative proposals included putting Detroit and Chicago in the West with Pittsburgh and Philadelphia going to the East. In a surprising concession, the league also agreed to implement a strictly divisional playoff bracket, meaning that four expansion teams would make the playoffs, and an expansion team was guaranteed a slot in the Stanley Cup Finals.

Acajack Jan 13, 2020 4:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8797899)
Even if true - who cares? It is enough for me to love hockey on its own terms and pass down that enjoyment to my kids. Hockey isn't going anywhere regardless of whether or not it ever succeeds in Austin, Orlando or wherever. It doesn't matter to me if it remains a regional sport. Why do you feel so invested in its growth? I mean, it's one thing if you are literally a financial investor or it's your job, then I get it. But if not...

Same for me.

I recall in the early 90s Canadians were not especially salty as there was not yet a perception the NHL was robbing Peter to pay Paul. Then the Jets and Nords left the country and the rest is history. Winnipeg got back in by being lucky and playing their cards perfectly.

But the lingering impression is of a league that doesn't give a damn about its roots and history.

esquire Jan 13, 2020 4:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8797915)
Same for me.

I recall in the early 90s Canadians were not especially salty as there was not yet a perception the NHL was robbing Peter to pay Paul. Then the Jets and Nords left the country and the rest is history. Winnipeg got back in by being lucky and playing their cards perfectly.

But the lingering impression is of a league that doesn't give a damn about its roots and history.

Exactly.

The curling comparison was mentioned... I mean, could you imagine if the curling powers that be just said 'screw you' to the likes of Sudbury, Edmonton and Red Deer and just started giving the big events to Tucson and Bakersfield instead? And then quadrupled the price of tickets of events in Prince Albert and London in the name of "growing the game"? It's absurd.

Acajack Jan 13, 2020 4:28 PM

As a result I long ago pledged to give the NHL as little as possible of my direct sports entertaiment dollars.

Over the past couple of decades I have violated this pledge on occasion but not that often really.

OldDartmouthMark Jan 13, 2020 4:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8797899)
Even if true - who cares? It is enough for me to love hockey on its own terms and pass down that enjoyment to my kids. Hockey isn't going anywhere regardless of whether or not it ever succeeds in Austin, Orlando or wherever. It doesn't matter to me if it remains a regional sport. Why do you feel so invested in its growth? I mean, it's one thing if you are literally a financial investor or it's your job, then I get it. But if not...

I have to agree. I don't see continual growth as improving the league. I have to say after the league accumulated two dozen teams, I found the level of hockey in general to be less interesting to the point that I have lost much of my interest in the NHL brand of hockey. Too many teams, the play has become too standardized and less interesting (I know there will be opposition to this statement, but that's how it looks from my point of view) to the point that I don't even watch the playoffs now until it gets down to the semis.

Now that we are up to 31 teams, I'm not sure I could even name all of the teams if I were put on the spot, and I really do wonder how somebody who lives in Florida or California relates to the game - I'm sure they do on some level, but I would hesitate a guess to say not nearly to the extent as somebody in the northern areas, who has spent their childhood playing pickup games on their local frozen pond or lake...

Just my opinion, of course...

Acajack Jan 13, 2020 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8795785)

And the Panda Game is less 25K gridiron fans and more 25K rowdy university students looking to drink and yell. You go to any other USports gridiron game in Ottawa and there's much less of a crowd. Hell, Ottawa has two of the best USports basketball teams in Canada and nobody goes to those games, either.

Correct. I've been to a number of Panda games and the vast majority of spectators are only paying passing attention to the action on the field - if at all.

For their other games Carleton and UOttawa probably draw 800-1500 people. Even playoff games may not even break 2000 fans.

It's not really equivalent to quasi-big-time NCAA sports which is where I'd place Syracuse in football and basketball. They sometimes play teams like Clemson, West Virginia, Penn State, etc. in football and made the March Madness Final Four in basketball 2-3 years ago.

If you're there when there is a game happening there is a very tangible buzz in the city (hotels, restaurants, etc.). And this is a reasonably large metro (600,000?) and not a college-only small town.

Acajack Jan 13, 2020 6:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8795785)
I've never heard of anyone heading down to Syracuse from Ottawa for NCAA.

.


I've known people who have. Both basketball and football.

Actually, I've known two people - unrelated and from two different periods of my life - from Ottawa who had SU football season tickets. One was about 20-25 years ago and one was 5-10 years ago. Neither had any family link to a player on the team. They just liked football a heck of a lot.

IIRC these people were Rough Riders or Renegades or Redblacks season ticket holders as well.

If you are into that thing it's not that big a commitment in terms of time and travel since SU football only plays 5-6 home games a season.

JHikka Jan 13, 2020 6:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8797899)
Even if true - who cares? It is enough for me to love hockey on its own terms and pass down that enjoyment to my kids. Hockey isn't going anywhere regardless of whether or not it ever succeeds in Austin, Orlando or wherever. It doesn't matter to me if it remains a regional sport. Why do you feel so invested in its growth? I mean, it's one thing if you are literally a financial investor or it's your job, then I get it. But if not...

More growth = more people playing = more hockey, whether at the NHL level or wherever.

The crux of my argument is that an NHL with more Canadian teams is a weaker, poorer NHL, and it would be more likely that more Canadian players would have to look elsewhere to make a living playing hockey. Fin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark (Post 8797900)

Good to know nothing's changed in 50+ years.

In other news.....

----------

OneSoccer to air exclusive coverage in Canada of 2021 and 2023 Concacaf Gold Cups

MEDIAPRO Canada has secured exclusive broadcast rights in Canada to all national team tournaments organized by Concacaf, the continental confederation encompassing the 41 soccer associations in North and Central America and the Caribbean, from 2020 to 2023.

The Concacaf package of national team tournaments includes the prestigious Concacaf Gold Cup, the men’s national team competition, in 2021 and 2023, and the women’s equivalent, the 2022 Concacaf Women’s Championship.


https://us6.campaign-archive.com/?u=...&id=977c00884d

elly63 Jan 13, 2020 7:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8798112)
OneSoccer to air exclusive coverage in Canada of 2021 and 2023 Concacaf Gold Cups

MEDIAPRO Canada has secured exclusive broadcast rights in Canada to all national team tournaments organized by Concacaf, the continental confederation encompassing the 41 soccer associations in North and Central America and the Caribbean, from 2020 to 2023.

The Concacaf package of national team tournaments includes the prestigious Concacaf Gold Cup, the men’s national team competition, in 2021 and 2023, and the women’s equivalent, the 2022 Concacaf Women’s Championship.


https://us6.campaign-archive.com/?u=...&id=977c00884d

Too bad no one will see it. Maybe they'll get flicked to CBC streaming as some CPL games have.

Denscity Jan 13, 2020 7:17 PM

New 3 on 3 summer hockey league?

Acajack Jan 13, 2020 7:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8798093)
I've known people who have. Both basketball and football.

Actually, I've known two people - unrelated and from two different periods of my life - from Ottawa who had SU football season tickets. One was about 20-25 years ago and one was 5-10 years ago. Neither had any family link to a player on the team. They just liked football a heck of a lot.

IIRC these people were Rough Riders or Renegades or Redblacks season ticket holders as well.

If you are into that thing it's not that big a commitment in terms of time and travel since SU football only plays 5-6 home games a season.

And if crowds are a big part of the atmosphere then Syracuse isn't a bad option at all. They average around 40,000 for football, sometimes drawing over 50,000 though they may also get 33,000 for some games.

They average around 20,000 for basketball.

megadude Jan 13, 2020 9:07 PM

I see the benefits of both models. Expanding into the unconventional markets or expanding into traditional hockey markets. From my perspective I could have done without the Sunbelt teams. There's just this element of sentiment I like in my sports. I don't lose sleep over these things but I know I'd enjoy the sport more if it were not in far flung exotic locations. But I know the reasons why they do it.

The Spanish Cup (Copa del Rey) was just held in its new format. Instead of league champ vs cup champ to kickoff the season, they just took the top 4 finishers from last year and had them do a mini tournament in Saudi Arabia. Only 300 Barca fans bought their team's allotment to travel and go watch. If I were to watch, I don't think I'd like the experience live or on TV. Sometimes you can just tell the game is not being held in a soccer hotbed, even if it were in a full stadium as weird as that sounds.

For instance, the best WCs I can remember are Italy '90 and and France '98. Germany and then Brazil I'd rank after that ahead of Japan/Korea, Russia, South Africa and USA, which felt very similar to me.

CFB and F1 along with soccer are the three sports I've been the most passionate about. CFB and F1 went way downhill for me. A big part of both declines for me is the geography.

The conferences re-aligned for the sake of the almighty dollar. The Big Ten is supposed to be traditional midwestern football. Now Rutgers and Maryland have been in the for the past few years. Two places close to the ocean. Sure, they are just another team like the other members, but you just know when you're watching or following the games and the season that they just don't feel right. Especially Maryland which was in the aptly named Atlantic Coast Conference and played against schools that just felt more appropriate like the four NC schools including Duke and UNC.

When Nebraska moved from the Big 12 North to the Big Ten West it did not feel off at all because Nebraska fits both geographic profiles. They can be viewed as Heartland or Midwest.

Texas A&M left the Big 12 South for the SEC. That didn't feel as bad because College Station actual has that Gulf coast vibe like in Houston and SEC has tonnes of teams in states bordering the Gulf. Mizzou, in a midwestern state, also made the same conf. move but that it doesn't fit as perfectly. It's not too bad since Missouri does border the South and the SEC is the Southeastern Conference.

Many, many more examples in college. One that almost happened that seemed illogical was Boise State going to the Big East, which started out as NE schools.

For F1, Europe is their base. Then you have some traditional hotspots in various locales around the world we were used to and had some kind of motorsport culture like Brazil, Japan, Australia, USA and Canada for example. Then Bernie started to take some of these races away, especially in Europe because they couldn't pay what non-traditional Motorsport countries would pay for hosting fees.

Azerbaijian, Qatar, Bahrain, Korea, Russia, India, China, Malaysia, Singapore is what I can name off the top of my head. This isn't as bad now that there are 22 races instead of the 16 like when I grew up, but too many of these races has just brought the good feels I had about the sport way down.

I had a more sentimental connection to the NHL before the Sunbelt teams came in. It's not just because I grew up watching that NHL and now I'm an adult. I feel the exact same way about the NBA now as when I grew up watching it. If these leagues start putting teams in London or even crazier, Tokyo, I am pretty sure I'd start to feel differently about them. Doesn't have to be logical, but that's just how it is for me and that's part of the human condition.

JHikka Jan 13, 2020 9:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megadude (Post 8798280)
For F1, Europe is their base. Then you have some traditional hotspots in various locales around the world we were used to and had some kind of motorsport culture like Brazil, Japan, Australia, USA and Canada for example. Then Bernie started to take some of these races away, especially in Europe because they couldn't pay what non-traditional Motorsport countries would pay for hosting fees.

Azerbaijian, Qatar, Bahrain, Korea, Russia, India, China, Malaysia, Singapore is what I can name off the top of my head. This isn't as bad now that there are 22 races instead of the 16 like when I grew up, but too many of these races has just brought the good feels I had about the sport way down.

Since Liberty came on as owners they cut Malaysia and brought back France...Vietnam is on the calendar this year which should be interesting and also Holland is back for the first time since 1985, so there's definitely some Euro-centrism coming back. Thing is most agreements are signed long-term so a lot of these races in places like Azerbaijan and Bahrain still have agreements in place and can't really be removed until they expire. Qatar has never hosted F1 but they do have a great track which hosts MotoGP and a few others.

Thing is, Bernie kept chasing TV money and hosting fees. He kept accepting millions from increasingly sketchy countries and hoped for increased international TV broadcasting fees as a result. India was a really good attempt but ultimately flopped, but a success in that country would have of course provided more eyeballs.

Conversely, Liberty came in, opened F1 to social media and the 21st century, introduced F1TV, increased streaming and video playback and connectivity, and as a result F1 has generally just became a better product since their ownership began. Near the end of the Bernie days stands were worringly empty at a lot of major circuits but now they're jam-packed just about everywhere they go.

Acajack Jan 13, 2020 9:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megadude (Post 8798280)

The Spanish Cup (Copa del Rey) was just held in its new format. Instead of league champ vs cup champ to kickoff the season, they just took the top 4 finishers from last year and had them do a mini tournament in Saudi Arabia. Only 300 Barca fans bought their team's allotment to travel and go watch. .

And the Spaniards were right pissed about it and bitched during the entire tournament.

The turmoil in the (general) vicinity of the tournament, though unrelated and largely inconsequential, conveniently added even more fuel to the fire.

Acajack Jan 13, 2020 9:23 PM

The Dakar rally (originally known as the Paris-Dakar and still referred to as such by many) was held entirely in Saudia Arabia this year.

Though they've been moving it around quite a bit (including South America), and I think it's been decades since they actually ran it on the Sahara Desert route from Paris to Dakar, Sénégal.

It's a pretty big deal to Europeans.

Acajack Jan 13, 2020 9:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megadude (Post 8798280)
I see the benefits of both models. Expanding into the unconventional markets or expanding into traditional hockey markets. From my perspective I could have done without the Sunbelt teams. There's just this element of sentiment I like in my sports. I don't lose sleep over these things but I know I'd enjoy the sport more if it were not in far flung exotic locations. But I know the reasons why they do it.

The Spanish Cup (Copa del Rey) was just held in its new format. Instead of league champ vs cup champ to kickoff the season, they just took the top 4 finishers from last year and had them do a mini tournament in Saudi Arabia. Only 300 Barca fans bought their team's allotment to travel and go watch. If I were to watch, I don't think I'd like the experience live or on TV. Sometimes you can just tell the game is not being held in a soccer hotbed, even if it were in a full stadium as weird as that sounds.

For instance, the best WCs I can remember are Italy '90 and and France '98. Germany and then Brazil I'd rank after that ahead of Japan/Korea, Russia, South Africa and USA, which felt very similar to me.

CFB and F1 along with soccer are the three sports I've been the most passionate about. CFB and F1 went way downhill for me. A big part of both declines for me is the geography.

The conferences re-aligned for the sake of the almighty dollar. The Big Ten is supposed to be traditional midwestern football. Now Rutgers and Maryland have been in the for the past few years. Two places close to the ocean. Sure, they are just another team like the other members, but you just know when you're watching or following the games and the season that they just don't feel right. Especially Maryland which was in the aptly named Atlantic Coast Conference and played against schools that just felt more appropriate like the four NC schools including Duke and UNC.

When Nebraska moved from the Big 12 North to the Big Ten West it did not feel off at all because Nebraska fits both geographic profiles. They can be viewed as Heartland or Midwest.

Texas A&M left the Big 12 South for the SEC. That didn't feel as bad because College Station actual has that Gulf coast vibe like in Houston and SEC has tonnes of teams in states bordering the Gulf. Mizzou, in a midwestern state, also made the same conf. move but that it doesn't fit as perfectly. It's not too bad since Missouri does border the South and the SEC is the Southeastern Conference.

Many, many more examples in college. One that almost happened that seemed illogical was Boise State going to the Big East, which started out as NE schools.

For F1, Europe is their base. Then you have some traditional hotspots in various locales around the world we were used to and had some kind of motorsport culture like Brazil, Japan, Australia, USA and Canada for example. Then Bernie started to take some of these races away, especially in Europe because they couldn't pay what non-traditional Motorsport countries would pay for hosting fees.

Azerbaijian, Qatar, Bahrain, Korea, Russia, India, China, Malaysia, Singapore is what I can name off the top of my head. This isn't as bad now that there are 22 races instead of the 16 like when I grew up, but too many of these races has just brought the good feels I had about the sport way down.

I had a more sentimental connection to the NHL before the Sunbelt teams came in. It's not just because I grew up watching that NHL and now I'm an adult. I feel the exact same way about the NBA now as when I grew up watching it. If these leagues start putting teams in London or even crazier, Tokyo, I am pretty sure I'd start to feel differently about them. Doesn't have to be logical, but that's just how it is for me and that's part of the human condition.

I am much the same. Legacy and prestige are pretty important to me.

I'd go see a run-of-the-mill Bears or Packers team before I'd go see the first-place Jacksonville Jaguars.

And seeing Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea play Nouméa, New Caledonia in Aussie rules football is going to turn my crank a lot less than seeing two historic Melbourne clubs battle it out.

No matter how good the Indian Wells tournament gets it won't outshine the four grand slam tennis events.

megadude Jan 13, 2020 9:50 PM

My bad, LOL, I meant Abu Dhabi instead of Qatar.

Liberty from the get go said they were trying to make F1 better, which was a thinly veiled shot at Bernie. They kept Bernie on a for a while as consultant or something but then told him to go away.

I'm not enthused about the Miami race idea but yes, Liberty has definitely pointed F1 in the right direction. Now for me to actually start watching races again and not just highlights, and to go back to Montreal for first time since 2012 (have been to 9 races), they need to bring the engine noise back. The pitch I grew up hearing and to me is the best sound in the world.

This is where the atmosphere part comes in for me. The atmosphere I discuss so often, probably ad nauseum! The ear blistering sound was orgasmic and added a visceral component that is sorely missing for me now. God I loved stepping out from Jean Drapeau station and hearing those cars during practice off in the distance.

See Canadian GP from 2006:
Video Link


See Aussie GP pre and post engine regulation change:
Video Link

Mister F Jan 13, 2020 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8797835)
I don't think F1 has ever been as strong as it is today thanks to the leadership that Liberty has exhibited since Bernie left.


I'm not down on Canada having more teams but it's just not a realistic venture if you're looking to grow your sport internationally. Basing your league in the US and pinning growth on the US is a safer option, as the NHL has demonstrated, than relying on a Canadian- led league. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that an NHL with three or five more Canadian teams would be smaller than its current iteration.

I do think it's unreasonable because you're not supporting your point with any evidence.

Meanwhile, the big European soccer leagues all put teams where the demand is and not in non-traditional locations in the hopes of "growing the game". They're just as big as the NFL per capita, so I don't buy the argument that the NHL's model is the only or best way to grow the game. Most of the NHL's biggest money losers are sunbelt teams. And the NHL hasn't grown at all relative to its competitors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8797835)
To support my point, the salary cap has reached the point that if the Winnipeg Jets spend at the cap they have to make a deep run in the playoffs to break even. They lost money last year for the first time since their move from Atlanta, and that pressure will only persist as the cap increases in the future.

That's bad for Winnipeg, but it's even worse for the teams that are already losing money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LakeLocker (Post 8797756)
Newer teams are more likely to loose money.

Lose. Sorry, pet peeve.

Some of the sunbelt teams are approaching 30 years old. They're not new.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LakeLocker (Post 8797756)
Large cities are able to pull in far more television viewers.

And yet the Rogers tv deal dwarfs the NBC one. Not just per capita, but in absolute numbers. Large cities can pull in more viewers in theory, but the size of the city doesn't matter if people don't care about the sport.

elly63 Jan 13, 2020 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister F (Post 8798417)
Lose. Sorry, pet peeve.

Mine too, WTH happened that 95% of people can't get that right. You never saw that when I was a kid, is it some sort of Internet thing?

suburbanite Jan 13, 2020 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister F (Post 8798417)
I do think it's unreasonable because you're not supporting your point with any evidence.

You want proof of success? The expansion fee for an NHL team is currently $650 million. Precedent based on the successful entrance of the Vegas Golden Knights and now the Seattle ownership group. The least valuable Canadian teams are currently the Jets at ~$415 million and the Senators at $435 million. It's typically not good business to invest in something immediately worth 50% less than what you paid for. Quebec City and Saskatoon aren't exactly massive corporate cities with a few billionaires lining up to own a team regardless of profitability. They would likely be large diversified ownership groups or corporately run, and both would likely be asking for an expansion fee at least half of what the NHL currently commands based on their successful expansion into new markets.

Gary Bettman's job is to make the current owners richer. I fail to see how a league with a few more Canadian teams valued at less than $400 million accomplishes that. We can talk about what someone personally feels is right for the league regarding legacy or whatnot, but the simple fact is that Bettman's expansion has created the most valuable league to date.

Acajack Jan 13, 2020 11:42 PM

Nordiques 2.0 would be owned by Quebecor who have about 10 billion.

The head of Quebecor PKP himself has a personal net worth around 2 billion.

They're good.

isaidso Jan 14, 2020 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbanite (Post 8798433)

Gary Bettman's job is to make the current owners richer. I fail to see how a league with a few more Canadian teams valued at less than $400 million accomplishes that. We can talk about what someone personally feels is right for the league regarding legacy or whatnot, but the simple fact is that Bettman's expansion has created the most valuable league to date.

Which is what's wrong with the North American pro sports model. It's not going to change so we'll have to make do with complaining about it the next 100 years. :yes:

Acajack Jan 14, 2020 1:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister F (Post 8798417)


That's bad for Winnipeg, but it's even worse for the teams that are already losing money.

.

And in any event, the fact that Canadian clubs like the Jets (and I assume the Senators too) are losing money isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the current NHL model.

JHikka Jan 14, 2020 2:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister F (Post 8798417)
That's bad for Winnipeg, but it's even worse for the teams that are already losing money.

The other teams losing money aren't being pinned down by a deflated currency, a smaller market, and a smaller arena. Winnipeg's more or less hit its ceiling under its current financials, hasn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by elly63
Mine too, WTH happened that 95% of people can't get that right. You never saw that when I was a kid, is it some sort of Internet thing?

If this isn't the most "okay, boomer" post to make I don't know what is. :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack
Nordiques 2.0 would be owned by Quebecor who have about 10 billion.

The head of Quebecor PKP himself has a personal net worth around 2 billion.

They're good.

Quebec doesn't provide growth for the NHL, see: current limitations of Winnipeg and times them by two due to Francophone-only market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack
And in any event, the fact that Canadian clubs like the Jets (and I assume the Senators too) are losing money isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the current NHL model.

The Sens don't lose money, though.

Acajack Jan 14, 2020 2:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8798914)


The Sens don't lose money, though.

And neither do the Panthers apparently. It pays to have good accountants and PR people.

Acajack Jan 14, 2020 3:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8798914)


Quebec doesn't provide growth for the NHL, see: current limitations of Winnipeg and times them by two due to Francophone-only market.
.

In terms of attracting free agents this would likely be true, but for the rest?

If the hypothetical Nordiques 2.0 limited themselves to simply repeating what the Nordiques 1.0 did in terms of market impact, they'll become the go-to team for between a quarter and a third of hockey fans in the province. They certainly wouldn't be limited to the Greater Quebec City metro.

That means a market of 2 to 2.5 million or maybe a bit more even, easily twice the size of the absolutely maxed out market potential for the Jets.

Another thing they'd have that the Jets don't is for all intents and purposes their "own" sports network. The Jets compete for coverage in higher order sports media with the Leafs, Oilers, Flames, Canucks and Habs.

If the Nords ever came back, one network out of RDS or TVA Sports would put the Habs front and centre, and the other would put the Nords front and centre. Having a mainline TV sports network (and associated magazines, newspapers and media platforms) talking up your team 24/7 is a huge asset. The Nordiques 1.0 succeeded in developing a fan base all across the province due to the media and marketing tools of the day - and they didn't even have the powerhouse Quebecor (likely owner) behind them back then.

They'll also do well in terms of corporate sponsorships. As it stands now there can only be one official beer associated with an NHL team in Quebec, one official bank, one official restaurant chain, one official dépanneur chain, one official snack food, one official insurer, etc.

Tons of potential sponsors shut out by exclusivity deals the Habs have with their competitors would support the Nordiques 2.0. You can be sure of it. Source: what things were like when the Nordiques 1.0 were there. These sponsors don't even have to be based in Quebec City. Nothing prevents or prevented the Nordiques from getting sponsors based in Montreal as most of them operate across the province.

Acajack Jan 14, 2020 3:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8798914)


If this isn't the most "okay, boomer" post to make I don't know what is. :P

Proper spelling isn't an "OK boomer" thing. Or at least, it shouldn't be.

JHikka Jan 14, 2020 5:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8798966)
In terms of attracting free agents this would likely be true, but for the rest?

Teams like Winnipeg and Edmonton already have a tremendously difficult time attracting free agents because of a number of factors - combine that with a city that is very Francophone and you end up with an even more dire situation than what we currently have in other markets. Nobody of any reasonable quality would want to sign in QC as a free agent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8798966)
If the hypothetical Nordiques 2.0 limited themselves to simply repeating what the Nordiques 1.0 did in terms of market impact, they'll become the go-to team for between a quarter and a third of hockey fans in the province. They certainly wouldn't be limited to the Greater Quebec City metro.

Why would the Molsons and Canadiens ok their expansion under these circumstances?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8798966)
Another thing they'd have that the Jets don't is for all intents and purposes their "own" sports network. The Jets compete for coverage in higher order sports media with the Leafs, Oilers, Flames, Canucks and Habs.

Again, why do the Canadiens support the Nordiques taking a very large piece of their current pie?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8798966)
If the Nords ever came back, one network out of RDS or TVA Sports would put the Habs front and centre, and the other would put the Nords front and centre.

Or one would just carry both because I would never assume anything with the state of Canada's sports networks. :haha:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8798966)
They'll also do well in terms of corporate sponsorships. As it stands now there can only be one official beer associated with an NHL team in Quebec, one official bank, one official restaurant chain, one official dépanneur chain, one official snack food, one official insurer, etc.

All the more reason for the Canadiens to turn down this idea as it would be siphoning from their current corporate support base.

This is only one hurdle but I see it as a pretty big one honestly. That, combined with the lack of potential growth in the fanbase in QC as opposed to other markets, simply makes it less tenable moving forward. The league will continue to use QC and Quebecor as a bargaining chip to raise expansion fees on other hopeful cities.

Other issues with Quebec include its poor growth and the fact that its median age is quite a bit higher than the other NHL cities in Canada, on top of the fact that the NHL does not need another franchise pinned to the weaker Canadian dollar.

Acajack Jan 14, 2020 5:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8799100)
Teams like Winnipeg and Edmonton already have a tremendously difficult time attracting free agents because of a number of factors - combine that with a city that is very Francophone and you end up with an even more dire situation than what we currently have in other markets. Nobody of any reasonable quality would want to sign in QC as a free agent.


Why would the Molsons and Canadiens ok their expansion under these circumstances?


Again, why do the Canadiens support the Nordiques taking a very large piece of their current pie?


Or one would just carry both because I would never assume anything with the state of Canada's sports networks. :haha:


All the more reason for the Canadiens to turn down this idea as it would be siphoning from their current corporate support base.

This is only one hurdle but I see it as a pretty big one honestly. That, combined with the lack of potential growth in the fanbase in QC as opposed to other markets, simply makes it less tenable moving forward. The league will continue to use QC and Quebecor as a bargaining chip to raise expansion fees on other hopeful cities.

Other issues with Quebec include its poor growth and the fact that its median age is quite a bit higher than the other NHL cities in Canada, on top of the fact that the NHL does not need another franchise pinned to the weaker Canadian dollar.

It's certainly plausible that there are some backroom tactics being played by Geoff Molson with his NHL buddies and that this is one of the main reasons the plan to bring the Nordiques back is spinning its wheels. Though some rumblings about his opposition have filtered out, Geoff Molson is also very cautious about portraying himself as a "good guy" in public on this one as he knows it's a dangerous game for him to play if people perceive him as the one who's actually torpedoing Quebec City's expansion bid.

Habs fans are virtually unanimous in their desire to see the Nords return to the league. If only to have a rival that they will hate even more than the Bruins.

As for interest in hockey in Quebec overall I have to say it remains higher than any other sport by far though it has nonetheless clearly declined quite a bit from its heyday in the 80s and early 90s where it seemed most everyone (certainly all young males) took a side in the Battle of Quebec and was paying attention.

Not saying it's dead among young males but I know a lot of them and the percentage who don't follow hockey at all is higher than I ever thought possible. And I am not just talking about immigrant origin kids BTW.

So at this point in 2020 hockey in Quebec is definitely not maxed out in terms of its fan base and support. It could be on the level of the NFL in the US or European soccer but it isn't. And it's moving slowly downward away from that. Not upwards.

Passion for the NHL in Quebec (especially Habs-Nords) was once on the level of soccer in some of the big European countries or the NFL in the US, and the return of the Nordiques would probably pave the way for a return to that level of interest, all of which would actually greatly benefit the Habs financially as well. Though it's unclear if that team's braintrust actually realizes that.

JHikka Jan 14, 2020 5:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8799130)
Habs fans are virtually unanimous in their desire to see the Nords return to the league. If only to have a rival that they will hate even more than the Bruins.

I'll need some sourcing on that one. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8799130)
As for interest in hockey in Quebec overall I have to say it remains higher than any other sport though it has nonetheless clearly declined quite a bit from its heyday in the 80s and early 90s where it seemed most everyone (certainly all young males) took a side in the Battle of Quebec and was paying attention.

Hockey in Quebec has definitely declined, both in terms of the number of NHLers Quebec produces and the number of players currently registered to play hockey in the province. Do we think hockey has any sort of growth trajectory in the province or will it continue to secede space to basketball and soccer, because my next note is below...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8799130)
Not saying it's dead among young males but I know a lot of them and the percentage who don't follow hockey at all is higher than I ever thought possible. And I am not just talking about immigrant origin kids BTW.

Younger people in general are less likely to follow sports these days, not just in Quebec but everywhere.

https://media.limelight.com/images/SOOV2017_fig18.jpg
Figure 18: How much of your online video viewing time is spent watching the following types of content?(Scale 0-4) Males

https://www.limelight.com/resources/...ne-video-2017/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8799130)
Passion for the NHL in Quebec (especially Habs-Nords) was once on the level of soccer in some of the big European countries, and the return of the Nordiques would probably pave the way for a return to that level of interest, all of which would actually greatly benefit the Habs financially as well. Though it's unclear if that team's braintrust actually realizes that.

Nostalgia is a very powerful tool and I don't think it's enough to get Quebec another NHL team.

Acajack Jan 14, 2020 5:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8799137)
I'll need some sourcing on that one. :)


Hockey in Quebec has definitely declined, both in terms of the number of NHLers Quebec produces and the number of players currently registered to play hockey in the province. Do we think hockey has any sort of growth trajectory in the province or will it continue to secede space to basketball and soccer, because my next note is below...


Younger people in general are less likely to follow sports these days, not just in Quebec but everywhere.

https://media.limelight.com/images/SOOV2017_fig18.jpg
Figure 18: How much of your online video viewing time is spent watching the following types of content?(Scale 0-4) Males

https://www.limelight.com/resources/...ne-video-2017/



Nostalgia is a very powerful tool and I don't think it's enough to get Quebec another NHL team.

My hypothesis that a Nordiques 2.0 club would almost certainly be a business success is not just a nostalgic hunch, but I can't disagree with you that the NHL braintrust wants no part of adding another club in Canada.

Acajack Jan 14, 2020 5:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8799137)
I'll need some sourcing on that one. :)

.

You're just gonna have to trust me.

JHikka Jan 14, 2020 5:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8799162)
My hypothesis that a Nordiques 2.0 club would almost certainly be a business success is not just a nostalgic hunch, but I can't disagree with you that the NHL braintrust wants no part of adding another club in Canada.

Another team in Toronto could make some sense if done under the right circumstances but there are expansion options in the US that are more appealing at the moment. I've seen theories that imply the best case for an 8th Canadian NHL team is to simply give MLSE another team to run as a counter brand against the Leafs, to basically be everything the Leafs aren't. It's an interesting idea, and one that i'm sure everyone west of Ontario will absolutely loathe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8799165)
You're just gonna have to trust me.

:hmmm:

Acajack Jan 14, 2020 7:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8799169)


:hmmm:

Why wouldn't Hab fans want the Nordiques back? For all of us old enough to remember the 80s and early 90s were where our best sports fan memories were made. And for those Hab fans too young to remember they've been hearing forever from older people how great it was - and have had little glory and passion to savour since the mid 90s.

Fans don't care about the team's relative bottom line - at least not if the team isn't having any financial difficulty and is not threatening to fold or move. Which the Habs aren't at all.

esquire Jan 14, 2020 7:29 PM

^ You mean the predominant concern of Habs fans isn't evangelizing the game in Utah and Puerto Rico? :hmmm:

To me, Montreal/Quebec was a regional rivalry on par with Edmonton/Calgary. Even in seasons where the latter teams are so bad as to be irrelevant (clearly not the case this season for Edmonton/Calgary, but still), those rivalry games are still special to fans and players. We certainly saw that this past Saturday.

FWIW there are probably a good many people in Quebec who are tuned out of the NHL right now. I can tell you I was pretty well worthless to the NHL as a fan from 1996-2011... I'm not sure I watched one entire NHL game on television from start to finish during that period, and attended maybe half a dozen games in person while on vacation. These days I have half-season tickets for the Jets and I regularly watch games on TV or listen on the radio if I'm in the car while they're playing, and I have a pile of team merchandise. I'm certainly not alone in that regard. So even with a team in Winnipeg, the game has grown.

JHikka Jan 14, 2020 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8799259)
Why wouldn't Hab fans want the Nordiques back?

I have no difficulty with this point but I did have difficulty with your assertion that it was virtual unanimity amongst the fanbase. I'm going to assume a big chunk of the fanbase don't care one way or the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8799297)
^ You mean the predominant concern of Habs fans isn't evangelizing the game in Utah and Puerto Rico? :hmmm:

:hmmm:

elly63 Jan 14, 2020 9:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8799421)
I have no difficulty with this point but I did have difficulty with your assertion that it was virtual unanimity amongst the fanbase. I'm going to assume a big chunk of the fanbase don't care one way or the other.

Like Canada Russia 72, I find it difficult to accept proclamations from those who weren't even alive to know what they missed.


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.