Page 64 of 70
Re: 2013-2014 Blues (Hockey) Season
Posted: June 4 14, 9:29 am
by StL Dan
Sutter'sBeard wrote:
Year......Hawks Attendance..... Pts.....Blues Attendance...Pts
2000......... 14996.................. 71.........18590...............103
2001........ 15568...................96.........19519............... 98
2002..........14794...................79.........18960............... 99
2003..........13253...................59.........18530............... 91
2005..........13318...................65.........14213................57
2006..........12727...................71.........12520................81
2007..........16814...................88.........17610................79
2008..........22247...................104....... 18554...............92
2009..........21356...................112........18883...............90
2010..........21423...................97..........19150...............87
2011..........21534...................101.........18810..............109
2012..........21776...................77..........17901...............60
2013..........22623...................107.........17498...............111
Blues attendance has been very consistent, with the exception of a 2 year blip in 2005 and 2006.
Re: 2013-2014 Blues (Hockey) Season
Posted: June 4 14, 2:12 pm
by lukethedrifter
Is that average attendance? No way that those were actual people in the building.
Re: 2013-2014 Blues (Hockey) Season
Posted: June 4 14, 2:49 pm
by jim
pioneer98 wrote:OK, maybe “fairweather” is a better description than “bandwagon”. Not showing when the team sucks is pretty normal behavior. But look at Canada. They still draw for hockey even when their teams suck. There are junior teams there that play in NHL arenas and draw 9,000 fans/game. To certain fans, a hockey arena is like Wrigley Field. There are fewer fans like that in the USA, but they exist.
One of the reason that hockey attendance is as high as it is is because their fans can afford it. Of the 4 major sports, the NHL has a fanbase with the highest family income.
According to league data, the average household income (HHI) for NHL fans is $104,000, highest of the four major sports with Major League Baseball ($96,200), the NBA ($96,000), and the NFL ($94,500).
I don't think there are as many hockey fans as basketball fans by a long shot, it's just that the rich young white dudes who make up their fan base can afford the price of a ticket more than say the NBA.
Re: 2013-2014 Blues (Hockey) Season
Posted: June 5 14, 2:10 am
by MrCrowesGarden
Re: 2013-2014 Blues (Hockey) Season
Posted: June 6 14, 2:21 pm
by Secret Weapon
jim wrote:pioneer98 wrote:OK, maybe “fairweather” is a better description than “bandwagon”. Not showing when the team sucks is pretty normal behavior. But look at Canada. They still draw for hockey even when their teams suck. There are junior teams there that play in NHL arenas and draw 9,000 fans/game. To certain fans, a hockey arena is like Wrigley Field. There are fewer fans like that in the USA, but they exist.
One of the reason that hockey attendance is as high as it is is because their fans can afford it. Of the 4 major sports, the NHL has a fanbase with the highest family income.
According to league data, the average household income (HHI) for NHL fans is $104,000, highest of the four major sports with Major League Baseball ($96,200), the NBA ($96,000), and the NFL ($94,500).
I don't think there are as many hockey fans as basketball fans by a long shot, it's just that the rich young white dudes who make up their fan base can afford the price of a ticket more than say the NBA.
I would not classify hockey fans as rich young white dudes, maybe the players growing up, but not the general fan. I would guess most hockey fans make a lot less money than the other sports, but they don't have a large poor segment of fans that bring down the overall average.
Re: 2013-2014 Blues (Hockey) Season
Posted: June 13 14, 10:28 pm
by Radbird
Congrats to the Kings
Re: 2013-2014 Blues (Hockey) Season
Posted: June 13 14, 10:31 pm
by Secret Weapon
stupid kings
maybe it makes sense to hold back a little bit until the playoffs. they were 6th in the conference this year and won the cup, they were 8th in the conference a couple years ago when they won the cup.
Re: 2013-2014 Blues (Hockey) Season
Posted: June 15 14, 7:51 am
by pioneer98
Secret Weapon wrote:stupid kings
maybe it makes sense to hold back a little bit until the playoffs. they were 6th in the conference this year and won the cup, they were 8th in the conference a couple years ago when they won the cup.
The team that won our league in the minors had 2 of their top players simply sit out the first 50 games of the season (which is 66 games). They came back and played the last 15 games or so of the season, nice and rested. They got the 5 seed and won the playoffs for the 2nd year in a row. Rules are you only need to appear in 3 regular season games to be on the playoff roster, so it was legit. Now, whether or not they violated the salary cap is a whole different question...
Back to NHL...I was rooting for the Kings even though I hate Darryl Sutter with a passion. LA is a very important market for hockey to grow in. No offense to New York or Chicago, but hockey is pretty established in those places.
Re: 2013-2014 Blues (Hockey) Season
Posted: June 16 14, 7:03 am
by Sutter'sBeard
Stupid Kings. I went from talking about a Hawks dynasty to coming to the realization that they are only the 2nd best regime in recent years.
Re: 2013-2014 Blues (Hockey) Season
Posted: June 26 14, 10:06 am
by TheoSqua
TheoSqua wrote:Would really depend on the cost. He's not a great defensive player, his offense is about on the downswing because of age, and he was brittle in his younger years...that has a great chance of getting worse as he gets older.
If he could be had for a 1 year 4m deal like Derrek Roy or someone like that, he'd be a great addition. But he's likely going to command 5-6m for 5-6 years.
Vincent Lecavalier is a good comparison. He was 33, was on a downward trend offensively. He got 5 years at 4.5m. Some desperate team is going to give Gaborik a 3-4 year deal, and paying a 37 year old Gaborik 6% of our salary cap seems like a really bad idea.
Annnnd Gaborik got a 7 year deal...
