Jump to content



UAlbany Athletics- America East-
SOCIAL MEDIA: UAlbany Facebook- UAlbany Instagram- UAlbany Twitter- UAlbany Blog-
MEDIA: Albany Student Press- America East TV- ESPN3- Schenectady Gazette- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio Archive interviews- Times Union College Sports- Times Union Sports- WCDB- WOFX 980-
FALL SPORTS LINKS: CAA Football-
WINTER SPORTS LINKS: College Insider- Pomeroy Ratings- Real TimeRPI-
SPRING SPORTS LINKS: Inside Lacrosse- Lax Power Backup Stick-
OTHER FORUMS: America East Forum- Any Given Saturday Forum- Championship Subdivision forum(1-AA Discussion) The Hen House - Siena Forum- Stony Brook Forum- Vermont Forum

MAAC switches to Albany in '09


Recommended Posts

correct me if I'm wrong here, but last I checked....hockey was a dying sport in the U.S.

 

Our resources for the foreseeable future (next 100 years) should be put towards elevating our already successful programs, not adding more.

 

I surely agree that we should put money into the sports that need it now, as opposed to starting a new sports team (i.e., hockey).

 

That said, I absolutely do not agree with you that "hockey s a dying sport in the U.S." If anything, hockey is dead in NYS because the Rangers perptually suck (a/k/a NY Knicks), as do teams from the other big-city markets (i.e., Chicago, LA, Florida, Boston -- shall I keep going?).

 

I do, however, concede that television ratings for the NHL Finals have consistenly declined since 1995, but I feel confident that this is also a function of the major city markets' teams sucking over the past decade (Boston, LA, Rangers, Chicago, etc.)

 

Nonetheless, the NHL still competes, and often outshines, the NBA in attendance and viewing. (Just recently, the Red Wings gained more TV viewers than did the Pistons in the playoffs (Michigan)).

 

I found these statistics on the Internet at several webpages, though I have not yet confirmed them:

*NHL average attendance per game in 2007-2008: 17,147

*NBA average attendance per game in 2007-2008: 17,141

*NBA has 6 teams under 14,000 in attendance per game, while NHL only has 1.

(Of course, one could also argue that the NHL figures are ever so slightly skewed because of the Winter Classic -- i.e., the game played outside with 70-80K people in attendance).

 

Perhaps the NHL is a dying sport; but if that is the case, then so is the NBA (MLS is already dead).

Edited by UA_MA_2000
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry my friend. I AM A HUGE HOCKEY FAN...and played at a travel level up junior year of high school. HOCKEY IS A DYING SPORT. And no way in heck did the NBA have less attendance than Hockey...you absolutely have to dump that 80k number. In addition, you have to look at total capacity rates, which tell the true story.

 

Honestly, Gary Bettman has been a HORROR SHOW. He has ruined the NHL. Right now, the NHL is in danger of being the fifth sport in about 10 years (MLS will outshine them in my opinion). The expense of hockey and the cheapness of lax and soccer has led to a lot of kids dumping hockey for both those sports. MLS attendance is holding steady with the trend expected to go upward as Seattle already having 16k season ticket holders before playing a game. The few teams that are sucking in attendance are either teams that are going to move...or getting a new stadium (see: KC and NY, respectively). When Montreal is added...that will be another 20k average attendence. When Philly is added...same thing.

 

And btw, the RANGERS SUCKING? The Rangers, as I liked to chide my father everyday, were abysmal during the NHL's height. Upstate NY'ers, for the most part, do not relate to the Islanders or Rangers...they relate to the Sabres or Bruins.

Edited by Dane96
Link to post
Share on other sites
Slob87, your penis envy for the MAAC is growing tiresome.

 

 

 

 

Aint73

You continue to out do your self in the stupidity category with each of your comments. Still can't tell the difference between someone thinking something is lame and "envy".

I wonder if President Bush has the same kind of thoughts with his approval rating being down as low as it is. In other words he can't being doing a bad job, the voters must have "penis envy" like you seem to be implying the maac can't be a poor league.

 

BTW, you have already been told many times there are other sites you can go to if you don't want to hear criticism of your lame maac.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry my friend. I AM A HUGE HOCKEY FAN...and played at a travel level up junior year of high school. HOCKEY IS A DYING SPORT. And no way in heck did the NBA have less attendance than Hockey...you absolutely have to dump that 80k number. In addition, you have to look at total capacity rates, which tell the true story.

 

 

 

For the 2007-08 season, the NBA actually had a slightly higher average attendance (17,394 vs 17,308). However, that is solely due to the average capacity being significantly higher for the NBA, which is not surprising since a hockey rink is much larger than a basketball court - hence less room for seats. The NHL drew a significantly higher percentage of seating capacity than did the NBA (93.9% vs 90.5%). The NHL is still significantly ahead in this category if the outdoor game (attendance of 71,217) is excluded.

 

 

Average capacity of an NHL rink = 18,442. Average capacity of an NBA court = 19,213. (Note: some NHL rinks seem to allow more SRO sales)

 

 

Number of NBA teams with average attendance below 80% of seating capacity = 7

Number of NHL teams with average attendance below 80% of seating capacity = 0.

 

 

Number of NBA teams with average attendance of at least 100% of seating capacity = 8.

Number of NHL teams with average attendance of at least 100% of seating capacity = 14.

 

(Note: the above implies that if all arenas were larger that the NHL would likely improve their average attendance by more than the NBA.)

 

 

Where the NBA is WAY ahead is not in attendance but in TV audience/revenue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
and back on topic - I agree with McGuire. The AEast should be trying to work with the MAAC to make both tournaments a success. Basketball town for a week or so. It has marketing potential all over it.

 

But I do sort of agree with the MAAC posters (on here and at LCC forum) there is no real incentive for the MAAC to reach out and associate itself with the AEast. It has to be Nero that reaches out I think.

 

 

 

Why would you think it would matter to the AE to work with a league like the maac. What value do you see the maac adding to the AE. When has the maac shown themselves to be a model or even competent in anything? I mean we are not talking about the big east here and Trenton basically told them to go away.

 

Why wouldn't the AE just worry about working with the league teams, TV contacts if possible, sponsors, hotels, etc and try to get as many ticket holders of the 9 teams as possible to come to the tournament.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I vehemently disagree with the assessment that hockey is a dying sport. The ratings for the Detroit/Pens finals were back to pre-lockout levels. It doesn't help that the majority of NHL TV games are on VERSUS......:( and I agree Betman has been bad for the sport. But the NHL is far from a dying sport.

 

This is just my own opinion but the sport of Hockey if it was played on ESPN or TNT or some readily available TV channel would actually be doing very very well. The game is much more wide open and exciting then it's been in the past. The rules were altered to make the game more high paced etc. If one was to actually watch the NHL playoffs I think most would agree it's a far superior product to the NBA playoffs. I can't barely stomach the NBA, with the constant cloud of crooked officials, players flopping (which lead to the flopping rule being implemented next season; THANK GOD) etc. It's unwatchable in my opinion! The NBA and David Stern has some serious problems on the horizon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
correct me if I'm wrong here, but last I checked....hockey was a dying sport in the U.S.

 

Our resources for the foreseeable future (next 100 years) should be put towards elevating our already successful programs, not adding more.

 

I surely agree that we should put money into the sports that need it now, as opposed to starting a new sports team (i.e., hockey).

 

That said, I absolutely do not agree with you that "hockey s a dying sport in the U.S." If anything, hockey is dead in NYS because the Rangers perptually suck (a/k/a NY Knicks), as do teams from the other big-city markets (i.e., Chicago, LA, Florida, Boston -- shall I keep going?).

 

I do, however, concede that television ratings for the NHL Finals have consistenly declined since 1995, but I feel confident that this is also a function of the major city markets' teams sucking over the past decade (Boston, LA, Rangers, Chicago, etc.)

 

Nonetheless, the NHL still competes, and often outshines, the NBA in attendance and viewing. (Just recently, the Red Wings gained more TV viewers than did the Pistons in the playoffs (Michigan)).

 

I found these statistics on the Internet at several webpages, though I have not yet confirmed them:

*NHL average attendance per game in 2007-2008: 17,147

*NBA average attendance per game in 2007-2008: 17,141

*NBA has 6 teams under 14,000 in attendance per game, while NHL only has 1.

(Of course, one could also argue that the NHL figures are ever so slightly skewed because of the Winter Classic -- i.e., the game played outside with 70-80K people in attendance).

 

Perhaps the NHL is a dying sport; but if that is the case, then so is the NBA (MLS is already dead).

 

I totally agree! NHL Finals ratings were actually up from last year and up significantly.....they DOUBLED from 1.6 to 3.2. Granted when you come from a 1.6 any move up is a huge move but the product is real good and people will come.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3.2...is terrible. If ESPN or anyone else bids for the regular season...you know they are back. Until then...3.2 is shyte.

 

No DOUBT......! I can't disagree, but it's a sizable improvement from 1.6. Did you see any of the playoff games? I'm telling you, it was good shyte!

 

P.S. As you know I moved here from Ukraine and as in much of Europe and the rest of the world Football (Soccer) is GOD! Having said that, I'd MUCH rather watch hockey then the MLS. The MLS is a very poor product IMO, they are trying but we've been down this road before in the '70 if I'm not mistaken. The good players all end up somewhere other then US, and bringing an over the hill Beckhem here isn't going to get it done.

 

P.S.S. MLS ratings were 0.6 last season.

Edited by bosiydid
Link to post
Share on other sites
Becks has been playing great though for the record lol

 

He's been good but I don't know about GREAT, last year he was derailed by a number of injuries. Landon is the one kicking ass and taking names on that team.

Edited by bosiydid
Link to post
Share on other sites
3.2...is terrible. If ESPN or anyone else bids for the regular season...you know they are back. Until then...3.2 is shyte.

 

No DOUBT......! I can't disagree, but it's a sizable improvement from 1.6. Did you see any of the playoff games? I'm telling you, it was good shyte!

 

P.S. As you know I moved here from Ukraine and as in much of Europe and the rest of the world Football (Soccer) is GOD! Having said that, I'd MUCH rather watch hockey then the MLS. The MLS is a very poor product IMO, they are trying but we've been down this road before in the '70 if I'm not mistaken. The good players all end up somewhere other then US, and bringing an over the hill Beckhem here isn't going to get it done.

 

P.S.S. MLS ratings were 0.6 last season.

 

Yeah...I saw them all...and of course, I had to give a congrats to the sis' beau. He's a Wings fan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Test of a sport's national popularity in my mind is youth participation.

 

Hockey - down

Lacrosse - through the roof

 

For every one ameteur hockey team that shuts down a lax team pops us.

To make a name for ourselves as a university we need to dump money into: basketball, lacrosse and football and in that order.

 

Basketball - march madness

Lacrosse - one of the largest attendance draws for NCAA championships (over 40,000 in Boston this year - a town not a Lax hotbed).

Football - it builds alumni relations. Homecoming will always be a football game. See Ivy league dorks who never stepped foot on a field but love their football teams and because of it dump money into the athletic department.

Edited by danefan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the last dozen most recent posts wandered from the original topic of this thread?

 

Here I was salivating for some salient observations on the original theme, and I'm reading now more about hockey. In summer conditions, no less!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, I am NOT advocating for UA to add hockey. We appear to be spread thin as it is, adding a new sport especially one as costly as hockey makes no sense. As danefan said, we need to pump money into the other three sports.

 

One last observation on hockey. Hockey is much more of a global sport then lacrosse is. Russia, Chech, Scandinavian country's and Canada are huge in hockey and I don't think they are going away. They constantly feed players into the NHL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...