From the "What's new" category, there's been quite a bit of talk lately regarding the configuration of the schedule. But then again, when hasn't there been active talk on this subject? In the past year, the NHL's board of governors approved a modified version in which each team plays at least one game against every other team with the exception of a single division from the other conference. Interconference games are up and that's a good thing. Unfortunately, the league didn't go far enough.
Let's forget for a second the travel logistics and the costs associated with each franchise playing coast to coast every season. Instead, let's think about the fans.
Earlier today, I was listening to Don and EJ on XM Home Ice. Both brought up a great point about the need for a "league wide" system of scheduling. EJ's point was well taken when he talked about Sidney Crosby's appearances in Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver last season were reminiscent of the Beatles descending on a city during one of their concert tours back in the 1960's.
It was fun....and it was the way it should always be.
With ticket prices at or above $100 a game in some cities, the league and it's players owe the fans a chance to see the likes of Crosby, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk and Lecavalier at least once a season.
So how do you do it? Glad you asked.
My suggestion would be to play four home games and four road games against each opponent within your division, then play one home game and one road game against everyone else. That would equal 82 games.
The lopsided slate of divisional games would help promote geographic rivalries, which I believe would be a highlight to local fans. Four home games against the same opponent still factors to less than a game a month based on a six month schedule. To add spice to these tilts, some could be scheduled as home and homes. As for the remainder of games, fans would be able to see every player in the league at least one time each season in their city. Seriously, do Thrashers fans want to see the Islanders and Buffalo two times a season and vice-versa? Wouldn't they rather see them once and guarantee themselves a chance to see every player and team in the league once a season as a trade-off? There's not a team marketing manager that would turn down the opportunity to build a sales campaign around the Pens coming to town on a Saturday night in December. And how does an Ovechkin appearance in Vancouver for a late January weekend showdown on Hockey Night in Canada sound? I actually floated this idea by Lou Lamouriello and Don Waddell a while back and both thought it had merit.
What do you think? Are 8 conference games (4-home, 4-road) too many per season or is it a fair trade-off to be able to see every team once per season?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
PUCKS AND THE ECONOMY
Good Monday morning to all of you! When I first started this blog, I said I had no idea of what direction it might take. I think today's post is a good indication of that. And while teams across North America gear up for the season, owners across the National Hockey League must be fretting about the status of our economy.
NHL commissioner Gary Bettman addressed this subject last week in Toronto when they met the media for a Q&A. Let's face it. Everything costs more these days. The fan that commutes 60 miles round trip for a game just added another several dollars to his game day experience. The salary cap goes up and, typically, so does the cost of attending a game. More and more teams are offering "deal games" in which tickets are discounted and packaged with meals and/or additional discounts on ancillary products from in and around the arena.
Bettman acknowledged in that conference that there's no way to predict the future of the economy, then added that some positive insights.
"Based on the projections we are seeing, based on data that we're getting with respect to things like season ticket sales, we're actually running ahead of last season," he said.
That's great news. And there's no doubt in my mind that people in places like Toronto and Montreal and Edmonton would likely decide to go without a days worth of food in order to afford a ticket to see the Leafs, Habs or Oil. I'm not so sure that's the case in other places. For example, let's use Atlanta once again.
They play a Tuesday night game in October against Minnesota. Let's say you want to sit in the lower bowl between the goal lines. That ticket will cost you $98. Tell me this; who in Atlanta is going to shell out $98 to watch a Tuesday game in October? In other words, the strength in these sales has to lie within the strength of the corporate ticket base. And in tough times, the entertainment budget of corporations is one of the first to disappear.
Please understand this isn't a shot at the Thrashers and their pricing policy. For that matter, the team has had in place since it's inception a $10 ticket that enables fans to sit between the goal lines, albeit halfway to the moon.
So what do you think? Is the current state of the economy causing you to re-think the use of your entertainment dollars? Will you still attend games, but fewer in numbers? Will you nix the dinner out prior to puck drop?
NHL commissioner Gary Bettman addressed this subject last week in Toronto when they met the media for a Q&A. Let's face it. Everything costs more these days. The fan that commutes 60 miles round trip for a game just added another several dollars to his game day experience. The salary cap goes up and, typically, so does the cost of attending a game. More and more teams are offering "deal games" in which tickets are discounted and packaged with meals and/or additional discounts on ancillary products from in and around the arena.
Bettman acknowledged in that conference that there's no way to predict the future of the economy, then added that some positive insights.
"Based on the projections we are seeing, based on data that we're getting with respect to things like season ticket sales, we're actually running ahead of last season," he said.
That's great news. And there's no doubt in my mind that people in places like Toronto and Montreal and Edmonton would likely decide to go without a days worth of food in order to afford a ticket to see the Leafs, Habs or Oil. I'm not so sure that's the case in other places. For example, let's use Atlanta once again.
They play a Tuesday night game in October against Minnesota. Let's say you want to sit in the lower bowl between the goal lines. That ticket will cost you $98. Tell me this; who in Atlanta is going to shell out $98 to watch a Tuesday game in October? In other words, the strength in these sales has to lie within the strength of the corporate ticket base. And in tough times, the entertainment budget of corporations is one of the first to disappear.
Please understand this isn't a shot at the Thrashers and their pricing policy. For that matter, the team has had in place since it's inception a $10 ticket that enables fans to sit between the goal lines, albeit halfway to the moon.
So what do you think? Is the current state of the economy causing you to re-think the use of your entertainment dollars? Will you still attend games, but fewer in numbers? Will you nix the dinner out prior to puck drop?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)