In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thoughts from Montreal : "Am probably done", I'll bet on the "probably"... Funny how I say things and you twist them around, and convince yourself that "being impolite" has something to do with your self proclaimed winning arguments. Bringing into the discussion aspects that you have a hard time understanding doesn't necessarily make these aspects irrelevant, or "left field". You're incredible... and kind of funny and entertaining to read, for I wouldn't be replying so frequently if it wasn't somewhat amusing. You ask me to back up things I say... and you seem to be pretty resistant to the idea that profits are linked to violence... Here, I made an effort... Variations in NHL attendance: the impact of violence, scoring, and regional rivalries - Discrimination and The NHL American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The , April, 2003 by Rodney J. Paul (Parts of the article) The scoring variables reveal an interesting result. To win games, teams obviously need to score, which means that the team record and goals are correlated figures. It appears, however; that within this sample higher scoring teams tend to have lower attendance. This is true for both the U.S. and Canadian teams. This could arise from fans preferring to see a more physical style of game (see the violence effect below) rather than a more wide-open contest. The previous season's goal total was found to be significant and negative for both U.S. and Canadian teams, while the coefficient on the goals per game variable was negative, but only significant in the U.S. sample. The fights per game for the home team, the proxy for violence, is found to be highly significant and positive across the sample. For teams in the United States it is more pronounced than for the Canadian teams, but both coefficients are large and positive. This is slightly different than the findings of Jones, Stewart, and Sunderman (1996), who studied violence a decade earlier. They found a negative impact on attendance for Canadian teams who tend to fight. Despite the NHL's efforts to minimize fighting and violence, it appears to be a very strong determinant of attendance across cities within the league. ... Conclusions The empirical results revealed that teams that fight more often tend to draw more fans. This was consistent across countries in terms of a positive influence, although the size of the coefficients reveals that this effect is magnified in the United States . Even though the NHL has tried to crack down on violence through rule changes and the league has been criticized in the media for incidents such as the Marty McSorley trial, violence still tends to draw fans to the arena . The scoring side was more surprising. It appears that for teams that have the same level of regular season and playoff success, more scoring actually decreases attendance . The coefficients on past scoring and the goals per game average were both found to be negative and significant. Although the NHL has made rule changes in recent years to increase scoring, the impact may not help team revenues. It appears that fans prefer teams that win and have tendencies toward fighting and violence, as opposed to high-scoring, low-violence teams. ____________________ So yeah... you're intellectually limited... So that's it for what you considered being me throwing you ammunitions... If you "vehemently disagree" with what I said, and backed up with evidence (which honestly, I don't think was needed), you probably didn't get what your father meant when he told you "Do as I say, not as I do.." Yeah... so you better have a solid counter-argument to disrespectfully dismiss economic factors in the league decisions to erradicate violence... If it's too hard for you to expand the discussion from the Chara-stanchion-Pachio-hysteria blah blah, keep on yappin' BS.
Posted by Wedgy-Dunlop[/QUOTE]
That's good Wedgy. You brought an independant source to your argument, and I appreciate that. However, it really refers to something different than what we've been talking about. The Rodney Paul paper is really talking about "fighting", and it's 8 years old. Up to now, we haven't gone there, and I don't wish to debate the merits of fighting in the NHL, cuz I don't see any.
Let me update Paul's stuff.
Following are the top 16 teams in league attendance in 03.(in order)
5. St Louis
9. NY Rangers
12. Los Angeles
13. San Jose
16. Tampa Bay
In 2011, which I assumed we were talking about, 6 out of 16 are no longer in the top group of 16 in attendance. Guess who leads the NHL in attendance in 2011? The Chicago Blackhawks. Seems to me they were the most recent Stanley Cup winner. and...guess what their attendance rank in 03 was? How about a dismal 24th !
I may be going out on an academic limb here Wedgy, but I think attendance went up in Chicago cuz the team got better.
Pittsburgh was an attendance power house in the hay days of Lemieux and Jagr, and plumeted to 25th in 03. Along come Crosby and Malkin and they're up to 5th, and currently attendance is taking a hit because both are injured.
How about the Buffalo Sabres? They were a laughable 27th in league attendance in 2003, your preferred high water reference point. Now they're 11th.
In 03 the poorest attendance was in Nashville. This year, fighting for a playoff spot...they're much better(21). Phoenix and Atlanta have always had poor attendance records, regardless of the violence, or the score.
The worst attendance in the NHL now belongs to the New York Islanders. When they were dominating the league winning Cups, you couldn't buy a ticket. Too bad their owners weren't sharp enough to figure out all they needed to do was introduce a little more violence...and sales would go through the roof.
Now lets look at the Canadian teams. It doesn't matter if the team is violent, passive, talented, or otherwise, people buy tickets, they always have...it's religion here. Edmonton usually is around the midway point in the league, but only because of the size of it's market.
So in review, we've covered basically every teams attndance, as around 24 teams have taken their turn in the top 16, and we have perrenial bottom dwellers, and those that visit there every once in a while if they're not competitive. It's shifted a lot since 03.
Are you beginning to see a trend here Wedgy? If the Canadian teams always draw well, no matter what style they play(cuz that changes as often as the line up changes), we can draw no conclusions that violence sells. In fact it's pretty much proven that all you need to do is turn on the lights, unlock the doors, and away you go.
Some American teams are perrenial attendance winners. The Rangers, Detroit, Minnesota, Boston, but there are other issues Rodney Paul may have missed. You must consider the size of the rink. When Boston had the NHL's smallest rink, it would distort the numbers. Capacity is a huge issue in this excercise.
Maybe Rodney Paul was looking at data from 1970-93. I don't know. From 03 to now though, you can check the data, and it confirms 2 things.
1. Some teams historically draw well regardless of how physical or violent their game is.
2. In the years 2003-present, the competitivness of an NHL team seems to dictate attendance more than anything.
Looks like you just shot another wooden duck Wedgy