Discussion for ALL Things for Brooklyn Bound Islanders: Part V

[Abe Vukota]

You absolutely should include Suffolk, Queens and Nassau together and BK, Queens, Manhattan, etc. together....

and then highlight the NYR effect....the closer to Penn, the lower the probability a person roots for the hated Isles and the closer to Montauk the lower the probability a person roots for the hated Rangers.

And then what of demographics? Not to be racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-Inuit/whatever, but.....what is the likelihood of attracting specific male caucasians vs. female hispanic vs. male asian vs. female African American vs. male hispanic vs. female caucasian.......and what data can we extrapolate from such assertions? Who is likely to root for hockey vs. football vs. soccer vs. baseball and spend money? What of average discretionary income levels? {probably very similar}

So....we have a population and data on consumer purchasing and then weigh the fan sentiment likelihood of an existing pair of fanbases......can we include that with the surrounding counties/boroughs as well?

Oy...I'm being honest here, I'm an engineer, not a sociologist, so while I'd love to do what you've proposed, I'd be way out of my depth. I don't know how to account for mitigating factors, I don't know how team preference influences willingness to buy tickets, and I don't know what scope would be reasonable (square miles included in "support radius" for example).

The other challenge with a project like this is weighing whole numbers vs. percentages. If the LI region we identify has a higher percentage of Caucasians but the Brooklyn region has more Caucasians in real numbers, I would think the Brooklyn region "wins" that category.

I can help with the basic demographics though. Can someone with a more sophisticated background in demographics do the heavy lifting?

 

[OlTimeHockey]

I would love to see a map of our demographic as well. I haven't been able to find any of that on line. I don't believe the Islanders publish that information. I do remember hearing Charles Wang mention in an interview that half the fan base lives in the boroughs as well as Westchester and New Jersey, something I find hard to believe. And since I haven't found a link to that either, it will remain as anecdotal evidence. If anyone can come up with that info, please post it.

And I always assumed when we talked about demographics for the move to Brooklyn, we already included the 5 boroughs and the northern and western suburbs.

I house hunt and have for years hoping to move back. LI realtors and about every player about six or seven years ago removed ANY demographic info from pages. I believe it turned taboo. I think the census is as good as you'll get nowadays.

I don't think there is any way to gauge the NYR/NYI fan sentiment in any region.

Income levels are very easy to find in all neighborhoods, counties, towns, etc.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

Oy...I'm being honest here, I'm an engineer, not a sociologist, so while I'd love to do what you've proposed, I'd be way out of my depth. I don't know how to account for mitigating factors, I don't know how team preference influences willingness to buy tickets, and I don't know what scope would be reasonable (square miles included in "support radius" for example). I also think there are

The other challenge with a project like this is weighing whole numbers vs. percentages. If the LI region we identify has a higher percentage of Caucasians but the Brooklyn region has more Caucasians in real numbers, I would think the Brooklyn region "wins" that category.

I can help with the basic demographics though. Can someone with a more sophisticated background in demographics do the heavy lifting?

I think it'd be easier to understand the female mind, myself.

 

[Abe Vukota]

I would love to see a map of our demographic as well. I haven't been able to find any of that on line. I don't believe the Islanders publish that information. I do remember hearing Charles Wang mention in an interview that half the fan base lives in the boroughs as well as Westchester and New Jersey, something I find hard to believe. And since I haven't found a link to that either, it will remain as anecdotal evidence. If anyone can come up with that info, please post it.

And I always assumed when we talked about demographics for the move to Brooklyn, we already included the 5 boroughs and the northern and western suburbs.

Yeah, I don't believe Wang for one second when he says half the base is urban, or whatever it was. I knew maybe 10-15 Isles fans in Brooklyn. This article from the Post (which is based on Facebook data, but..but...**** it, I'm using it) indicates there are virtually zero Isles fans in the boroughs, aside from Queens: http://nypost.com/2013/02/17/who-do...-giants-over-jets-and-more-facebook-findings/

I've only ever used Brooklyn's 2.5 million people as a starting point for my assumptions. I factor in the value of mass transit, but I tried to keep myself limited to the smallest data set possible to start, because once you get into redlining regions and factoring in uneven population distributions and hidden populations and everything else...

I think it'd be easier to understand the female mind, myself.

That's how I feel about it. I'm good at interpreting the data, but I don't want to help create it.

 

[stranger34]

Your data about Nassau County's population is compelling. Yes, it calls for a 3% decline in population by 2024 and that should set off some red flags as the comptroller has stated. But the Islanders draw from more than just Nassau County. Their ticket buyers have traditionally come from not just Nassau but from as far east as central Suffolk County as well as parts of New York City and its northern and western suburbs to a lesser degree. And while Nassau is forecasting a population decrease, Suffolk County is forecasting a population INCREASE through 2035, particularly in the townships where there is the most population density; Huntington, Babylon, Brookhaven and Smithtown. The areas where I believe the Isles draw most of their Suffolk County fans from.

http://suffolkcountyny.gov/Portals/0/planning/CompPlan/vol1/vol1_chpt2.pdf

I wouldn't be overly concerned about Long Island becoming a ghost town just yet. And the team's following wouldn't suffer had they remained in Nassau.

I've never liked the tenor of these message board debates. It always ends up being about who can slam dunk the guy who is arguing the opposite viewpoint. I'm trying not to play in that sandbox.

To me, the Brooklyn vs. Nassau debate has always come down to ONE thing. The access to public transportation. Brooklyn has it, Nassau really doesn't. And as far as whether the Island has adequately supported the Islanders, well, anyone who feels they haven't and only gives a glancing nod to the fact that they have put a lousy product on the ice for more than 25 years with only some sporadic success is either being myopic or disingenuous to advance their own agenda. The Islanders have been a textbook example during that time of how to chase away your customers and have a difficult time jumpstarting their support.

the thing about the PT is it will most adequately service areas that were not traditionally part of our fan base. the PT offered by barclays does almost nothing for eastern Queens or northern Nassau. It's also going to be quite a haul for anyone in Suffolk who lives more than 10-15 mins from a train station.

The key is going to be their ability to draw new fans and be a hot product... if they were going to stink or be mediocre then I think their draw in barclays was going to be DOA but there might be enough of a perfect storm brewing with the quality of the team that they may have a shot.

 

[stranger34]

the carrying on here has really gotten stupid.

Jay made a good request a few posts back. We should probably wipe the slate clean and going forward people should re-state their positions.

I checked out a few pages back not because I wasn't interested in the topic anymore, but because people here were beginning to play way too loose with with the posts they were referencing, the positions they were attacking/supporting and I really dislike when posters start doing things like declaring victory etc.

this is supposed to be a conversation not a contest.

I find the public transportation item to be an interesting one because it fits in with the larger theme that I find very intriguing in this move, which is: will the development of new fans outpace the disenfranchisement of old fans?

My personal prediction for this move is that the finances of the move will work but the fan interest and attendance is going to be low. The X factor in it is that the team might be really good and that might make a huge difference in both retaining fans and creating new ones.

I also personally think comparing the NY market to other markets is futile. It's too unique and to do it properly you would have to find a market with a similar number of pro sports teams, similar disposable income, similar corporate spending, similar venue locations relative to the population and business centers, and similar sport preferences in order of interest. I' d say good luck with that and would suggest instead focusing the conversation on the pros and cons of the move rather than bickering on about arguing my market is better than your market.

The most intriguing market to market comparison I have seen noted on these boards was OTH comparing Nassau to Orange County... and he backed it up with substantial research. The comparisons can be interesting if researched properly but most of the ones used here are just thrown around loosely.

 

[Thatguystevie]

You believe the data not relevant because it doesn't support your position. However if you took your emotion and want to be right out of the equation, you would see how my comparison could actually help your case after the move.

The last thing my posts have is emotion. Save for the frustration of how some can perceive their position as viable when they are comparing apples and oranges.

You were the one who stated that Chicago drew better than the Isles. My data proved that wrong. Plain and simple. No emotion there just raw data.

What you state as facts are skewed and here is why.

You cannot just go plainly on attendance numbers. Why? Because you are comparing apples to oranges. If the NVMC was the same size arena as Chicago, I use Chicago because you seem to hit on it most, then you are comparing apples to apples, but the fact is they are not. When conducting a comparison when the subjects are not equal you have to go to a common denominator, which in this case is percent of capacity sold. That data, which I presented, shows your theory is incorrect.

You do also realize that moving to Brooklyn will only cause the attendance number, that you so dearly hold on to, to go down right? If you haven't realized that yet, I and I am pretty sure you haven't, then debating with you is moot. NVMC seats 16, 170 for hockey and Barclays will seat 14,500. Even if they sold out that's 1,600 seats less. So after the move the data you are so proud of now will not change, in fact it will go down!!! After the move they will still be the bottom 33%. Get it yet? What may increase is the percent capacity sold. Wait, where has that been presented before?

The other argument you and Abe are making is also skewed, You are arguing that just because the Nets have had a successful move to Brooklyn that the Isles will. You quote attendance, merchandising and team value but it is a totally different sport. Again apples and oranges.

The fact that you have to go back to when the Nets played at NVMC, a time when you probably weren't even born yet, just shows how desperate you are to try and prove your point. Think about it, you are reaching back to the late 1960's and 70's. The world was a different place, sports was in a different place. Heck you could have gotten a ticket back then for $5.

You state that NVMC has had bottom 10 attendance for 30 consecutive years but you are comparing it to teams with larger arenas and different demographics. I will agree that selling to the bottom 33% of the league for decades is not good but selling that same arena over 85% full during that same time frame is good and does show it to be a viable market.

Any of this sinking in yet?

I believe the data isn't relevant because you take correlations and present them as causation.

Hahahahahahahahaha. You never proved chicago drew worse than Nassau. It's hillarious that you're so jaded by your emotions that you acrualky believe that. i don't even understand how anyone could come to that conclusion. Because you're flat out wrong. Your "raw" data didn't prove what you're claiming it did. The Blackhawks have always sold more tickets. Always. No amount of trying to skew those numbers is ever going to change that. The blackhawks have always sold more tickets. The percentage of those tickets sold to total number of seats is irrelevant and has no bearing on the converstaion. Because the Blackhawks sold more tickets than the islanders every.single.year.

Lol, at you saying the past doesn't count. Does that mean we can Ignore the 80's? Does that mean that we can say, with 100% accuracy, that the isles have never had good attendance? Because they haven't been out of the bottom 10 in the past two decades. Because, after all, the 80's was a different time so those years don't count.

I'm over here laughing at your speculation about tickets in Brooklyn. No one here can say with certainty what will happen. You'd have to be pretty arrogant to assume you'd know.

It's also a good point about less seats in Brooklyn. According to the logic you applied to the Blackhawks vs. isles debate that automatically puts them in a better market. According to your logic they can now sell less tickets but still fill the stadium to a higher total capacity. That puts Brooklyn at an automatic advantage. Or does that logic only apply to arguements where you need it to? Did you not realize that you were shooting yourself in the foot there?


Also, nasaau has been bottom of total tickets sold for the past 30 years as well as % of total capacity sold. It doesn't matter which way you look at it. They're always on the bottom.

My arguement has always been that nasaau is a bad market. Which has been proven by their bottom 10 attendance in both total tickets sold and % of capacity filled for three decades.

The nets sold poorly when they played in nasaau, the islanders have sold poorly while they played in nasaau yet you will stand there, in spite of factual evidence you claim otherwise. You try to skew the facts so hard with flawed logic that Your logic has become so dostorted that you're contradictinng yourself without even realizing it(as I've pointed out above).

They've had awful attendenance through bad stretches while markets like the Rangers toronto the Hawks, etc. have all continuted to outsell them through their own rough patches.

Give it a rest man. You're not making any valid points. Take the emotion out of your arguemt, step back, and really look at the situation.

I'll let this Abe guy continue to embarrass you but I'm not going to argue with someone who ignores blatant facts any more.

 

[nyscene]

I think it'd be easier to understand the female mind, myself.

So what you're saying is his task is impossible

 

[24diving]

Because the Blackhawks sold more tickets than the islanders every.single.year.

You are doing this again? Really? about 10 pages back it was pointed out to you a couple of the years where the Islanders outdrew the Blackhawks. Is there a reason you wish to lie.about.it.again.

 

[24diving]

My arguement has always been that nasaau is a bad market. Which has been proven by their bottom 10 attendance in both total tickets sold

Brooklyn is guaranteed to be bottom 10 attendance due to capacity, as I imagine you know. So by your logic, Brooklyn can not possibly be a good market. Why do you want to argue about whether Nassau is a bad market or not anyway...

 

[stranger34]

I believe the data isn't relevant because you take correlations and present them as causation.

Hahahahahahahahaha. You never proved chicago drew worse than Nassau. It's hillarious that you're so jaded by your emotions that you acrualky believe that. i don't even understand how anyone could come to that conclusion. Because you're flat out wrong. Your "raw" data didn't prove what you're claiming it did. The Blackhawks have always sold more tickets. Always. No amount of trying to skew those numbers is ever going to change that. The blackhawks have always sold more tickets. The percentage of those tickets sold to total number of seats is irrelevant and has no bearing on the converstaion. Because the Blackhawks sold more tickets than the islanders every.single.year.

Lol, at you saying the past doesn't count. Does that mean we can Ignore the 80's? Does that mean that we can say, with 100% accuracy, that the isles have never had good attendance? Because they haven't been out of the bottom 10 in the past two decades. Because, after all, the 80's was a different time so those years don't count.

I'm over here laughing at your speculation about tickets in Brooklyn. No one here can say with certainty what will happen. You'd have to be pretty arrogant to assume you'd know.

It's also a good point about less seats in Brooklyn. According to the logic you applied to the Blackhawks vs. isles debate that automatically puts them in a better market. According to your logic they can now sell less tickets but still fill the stadium to a higher total capacity. That puts Brooklyn at an automatic advantage. Or does that logic only apply to arguements where you need it to? Did you not realize that you were shooting yourself in the foot there?


Also, nasaau has been bottom of total tickets sold for the past 30 years as well as % of total capacity sold. It doesn't matter which way you look at it. They're always on the bottom.

My arguement has always been that nasaau is a bad market. Which has been proven by their bottom 10 attendance in both total tickets sold and % of capacity filled for three decades.

The nets sold poorly when they played in nasaau, the islanders have sold poorly while they played in nasaau yet you will stand there, in spite of factual evidence you claim otherwise. You try to skew the facts so hard with flawed logic that Your logic has become so dostorted that you're contradictinng yourself without even realizing it(as I've pointed out above).

They've had awful attendenance through bad stretches while markets like the Rangers toronto the Hawks, etc. have all continuted to outsell them through their own rough patches.

Give it a rest man. You're not making any valid points. Take the emotion out of your arguemt, step back, and really look at the situation.

I'll let this Abe guy continue to embarrass you but I'm not going to argue with someone who ignores blatant facts any more.

If you are going to state that Nassau is a bad market you really should explain why...

I don't think its a good market per se, but i think it's borderline. How many of the current markets that have an NHL team would still look like a good market after the stretch the isles went through? My guess is only the big business US cities, Canadian cities, and locations where hockey is the only winter sport.

Nassau is an almost impossible comp because there aren't too many locations like it in the nation, and there are even less like it that have a pro sports team.

The uniqueness of the situation is part of why I love the islanders and I am heartbroken they are leaving. For them to thrive in Nassau they need to be good... But some locations even being good isn't good enough (the Rays for example in baseball) and even if they were good their corporate dollars would lag.

I think Nassau could have worked as a hockey location under different political and team management circumstances but it was never a lock or a no brainer location.

 

[Abe Vukota]

Brooklyn is guaranteed to be bottom 10 attendance due to capacity, as I imagine you know. So by your logic, Brooklyn can not possibly be a good market. Why do you want to argue about whether Nassau is a bad market or not anyway...

I think the argument should probably be about revenue. Selling more tickets is good; selling more expensive tickets is much, much better. The Nets are almost completely sold out of premium seating which bodes well for corporate interest/sponsorship. % of seats sold is a useful metric, but without the context of price and total revenue, it doesn't tell us much.

One thing lost in much of this discussion: the Isles get $X million per year (plus annual escalations) for being tenants, but they do not share in all revenue streams. How you feel about the LHH source will probably dictate how you feel about the info: "In exchange for the large lump sum payment each season, the source tells Point Blank that the Barclays Center will receive the majority of team revenues. Those revenue streams include ticketing, merchandising, suite sales and other revenue sources that Islander games at the Barclays Center will produce."

http://brooklyneaglesports.com/2013/10/barclays-center-to-pay-the-islanders-annually/

So that means two things: the team itself is insulated from risk, but it will also not share in all the profits should the relocation be a huge success. If I were a fan worried that there isn't interest in Brooklyn (and I'm not), that would make me feel a lot better.

 

[Abe Vukota]

If you are going to state that Nassau is a bad market you really should explain why...

I don't think its a good market per se, but i think it's borderline. How many of the current markets that have an NHL team would still look like a good market after the stretch the isles went through? My guess is only the big business US cities, Canadian cities, and locations where hockey is the only winter sport.

Nassau is an almost impossible comp because there aren't too many locations like it in the nation, and there are even less like it that have a pro sports team.

The uniqueness of the situation is part of why I love the islanders and I am heartbroken they are leaving. For them to thrive in Nassau they need to be good... But some locations even being good isn't good enough (the Rays for example in baseball) and even if they were good their corporate dollars would lag.

I think Nassau could have worked as a hockey location under different political and team management circumstances

Stranger, this is the type of post that makes me crazy. I just posted six to eight links detailing why Nassau isn't a viable market right now. If you want to call it a borderline market, please a) define what that means and b) illustrate the point with data of some kind. Even if you just say, "Hey, year over year attendance improved x% during 2003 when the team was competitive," it's something. I'm not attacking you, but there's a general sense that a strong gut feeling is on a par with research and objective data. They are not equivalent. Saying you think Nassau could work without showing us why is like saying nothing at all. What leads you to that belief? Is it current attendance? Overall fan interest? Population growth? A demographic shift? Economic prosperity?

I would say there is universal agreement here that the franchise being in shambles had a deleterious effect on the fan base. Debating which fan bases have had the worst twenty years is subjective and pointless, but there are teams with similar circumstances that have performed better attendance-wise over time, and some that have performed worse.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Still trying (unsuccessfully) to moderate a bit.

Revenue should be the relevant discussion, I agree. I hope the focus can be on that.

More importantly, why aren't you guys watching USA-FIN right now?

 

[The Underboss]

One thing that I think gets overlooked is we're moving a short distance away rather than to another state or country.

Ask former Thrashers fans how they feel about losing their team all together. I think those fans would have killed for an opportunity to having their Thrashers move only a short distance away. Same for Winnipeg fans when they lost their team the first time. We don't have that "pain" because our Isles are staying local in respect to the area they play in.


Now granted some will be inconvenienced a bit more than normal verse going to NVMC, because the distance to Barclays is further. Some will be inconvenienced by additional costs, gas, train, etc. Some will benefit more in respect to less travel to Barclay.


At the end of the day whether you're pro Barclays/Brooklyn or Pro NVMC/Nassau, our team is still our team and not being shipped off to Vegas or Kansas. Yes again, some people will experience additional inconvenience of travel or costs, but the team is still there.


Think of how you'd feel if the team left all together, because all this sideshow stuff of Brooklyn or Nassau would be moot.

Our team is still here and still the NY Islanders and not the Las Vegas Gamblers.

Be thankful that they're still there cause they could've been elsewhere.

 

[The Underboss]

Brooklyn is guaranteed to be bottom 10 attendance due to capacity, as I imagine you know. So by your logic, Brooklyn can not possibly be a good market. Why do you want to argue about whether Nassau is a bad market or not anyway...

Capacity frankly means crap in all honesty. Percentage capacity is a better look. What is even better is what revenues the seats you have bring in. Barclays could have less seats, better percentage capacity, and bring in more dollars.

 

[MJF]

Yeah, I don't believe Wang for one second when he says half the base is urban, or whatever it was. I knew maybe 10-15 Isles fans in Brooklyn. This article from the Post (which is based on Facebook data, but..but...**** it, I'm using it) indicates there are virtually zero Isles fans in the boroughs, aside from Queens: http://nypost.com/2013/02/17/who-do...-giants-over-jets-and-more-facebook-findings/

I've only ever used Brooklyn's 2.5 million people as a starting point for my assumptions. I factor in the value of mass transit, but I tried to keep myself limited to the smallest data set possible to start, because once you get into redlining regions and factoring in uneven population distributions and hidden populations and everything else...



That's how I feel about it. I'm good at interpreting the data, but I don't want to help create it.

Well that article is the closest I have seen to a real demographics survey available. I'll take it as "for entertainment purposes only". But it was a fun read.

For the record, I'm a 51 year old life-long Queens resident and a STH since 1981, except for 2006 and 2007 when I worked until 8pm and couldn't make many of the games. Since 1981 I've had seats in a few different sections at the Coliseum and the STH's who sat around me were from Bayside (only other NYC resident STH I met), Mineola, Massapequa, Lindenhurst, Sea Cliff, Levittown, Valley Stream, Patchogue, Medford, Holbrook, Seaford, Smithtown and Rocky Point.

 

[Abe Vukota]

Capacity frankly means crap in all honesty. Percentage capacity is a better look. What is even better is what revenues the seats you have bring in. Barclays could have less seats, better percentage capacity, and bring in more dollars.

This is exactly what happened for The Nets. http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201405/nets-revenue-has-exploded-franchise-moved-brooklyn

 

[MJF]

the thing about the PT is it will most adequately service areas that were not traditionally part of our fan base. the PT offered by barclays does almost nothing for eastern Queens or northern Nassau. It's also going to be quite a haul for anyone in Suffolk who lives more than 10-15 mins from a train station.

The key is going to be their ability to draw new fans and be a hot product... if they were going to stink or be mediocre then I think their draw in barclays was going to be DOA but there might be enough of a perfect storm brewing with the quality of the team that they may have a shot.

I think the Islanders expect to write off a portion of the fans due to the commute to Brooklyn and hope to find new business from people who live in NYC.

I think we've discussed this before but I'm in the same situation you are. Live in northeast Queens and served by the Port Washington Line, the only line that doesn't run through Jamaica which is the station to connect for Brooklyn trains. Anyone who lives east of the 179th Street, Main Street or Parsons/Archer subway stations will have a rougher commute than driving to the Coliseum.

 

[24diving]

One thing that I think gets overlooked is we're moving a short distance away rather than to another state or country.

Ask former Thrashers fans how they feel about losing their team all together. I think those fans would have killed for an opportunity to having their Thrashers move only a short distance away. Same for Winnipeg fans when they lost their team the first time. We don't have that "pain" because our Isles are staying local in respect to the area they play in.


Now granted some will be inconvenienced a bit more than normal verse going to NVMC, because the distance to Barclays is further. Some will be inconvenienced by additional costs, gas, train, etc. Some will benefit more in respect to less travel to Barclay.


At the end of the day whether you're pro Barclays/Brooklyn or Pro NVMC/Nassau, our team is still our team and not being shipped off to Vegas or Kansas. Yes again, some people will experience additional inconvenience of travel or costs, but the team is still there.


Think of how you'd feel if the team left all together, because all this sideshow stuff of Brooklyn or Nassau would be moot.

Our team is still here and still the NY Islanders and not the Las Vegas Gamblers.

Be thankful that they're still there cause they could've been elsewhere.

Part of the problem HS, is that to many STH's and longtime committed fans from the east of the coli, the move to Brooklyn isnt much different than moving out of state -- when people who have been going to games for the better part of 40 years 40+ times a year, and can no longer make any weekday games (not just being inconvenienced, not possible) and have a huge hassle going now even on weekends, to them it might as well be out of state. The Islanders have been a part of the Long Island community in many ways over the years, both individually as players, and the organization as a whole, and this is disappearing as well. In the minds of many, this move is as dramatic as leaving the state. I am not one of them, as I will continue for at least the first year being a STH at Barclays, but I can understand their feeling, and telling them to be happy that it could have been worse, doesnt really help IMO. The arguments from the people happy with the move, although logically having merit in regards to the financial stability of the team, seem to lack the understanding or to sound corny, compassion for the people who are feeling like they lost their team. All the arguing here is really kind of pointless -- Everyone on both sides knows that the team will be making more $$ over the next few years in Brooklyn than they would have in Nassau. Some feel that the $ increase is the only reason the team will be able to stay anywhere near local -- which is probably true -- others don't care if the team makes more $, because the team as they know it is gone anyway--Conversely, some feel the fan experience as they know it will get drastically worse -- which is probably true--and others dont care because it wont effect their own personal fan experience negatively. Regardless, the move is happening and all of us are going to deal with it as we want to. The move might be the best thing for the future of the team, or it might be a disaster, we are used to that as fans of the Isles. Its just too bad that there has to be continued arguing over how bad Nassau is/good Brooklyn is vs how bad Brooklyn will be/good Nassau could have been.

 

[24diving]

Capacity frankly means crap in all honesty. Percentage capacity is a better look. What is even better is what revenues the seats you have bring in. Barclays could have less seats, better percentage capacity, and bring in more dollars.

I am not the one arguing that capacity means much. I am fully aware that it is all about $$. Revenues are what is important, the other poster just keeps harping on a bad market is determined by ranking low in attendance

 

[stranger34]

Stranger, this is the type of post that makes me crazy. I just posted six to eight links detailing why Nassau isn't a viable market right now. If you want to call it a borderline market, please a) define what that means and b) illustrate the point with data of some kind. Even if you just say, "Hey, year over year attendance improved x% during 2003 when the team was competitive," it's something. I'm not attacking you, but there's a general sense that a strong gut feeling is on a par with research and objective data. They are not equivalent. Saying you think Nassau could work without showing us why is like saying nothing at all. What leads you to that belief? Is it current attendance? Overall fan interest? Population growth? A demographic shift? Economic prosperity?

I would say there is universal agreement here that the franchise being in shambles had a deleterious effect on the fan base. Debating which fan bases have had the worst twenty years is subjective and pointless, but there are teams with similar circumstances that have performed better attendance-wise over time, and some that have performed worse.

I prefer when you make arguments rather than data dumps. I founds the links to either be in the so what or how is that relevant vein. I've seen you make probably the most compelling pro Brooklyn argument, but your data dumps regarding attendance and county finances don't strike me as all that relevant. If you you think they are relevant tell us why.

The most compelling anti Nassau argument I can think of is that the team sucked BECAUSE the market couldn't sustain the economics of modern pro sports... I'm surprised more people don't make that argument... Not saying I agree with it but it's one that gives me pause.

 

[stranger34]

Part of the problem HS, is that to many STH's and longtime committed fans from the east of the coli, the move to Brooklyn isnt much different than moving out of state -- when people who have been going to games for the better part of 40 years 40+ times a year, and can no longer make any weekday games (not just being inconvenienced, not possible) and have a huge hassle going now even on weekends, to them it might as well be out of state. The Islanders have been a part of the Long Island community in many ways over the years, both individually as players, and the organization as a whole, and this is disappearing as well. In the minds of many, this move is as dramatic as leaving the state. I am not one of them, as I will continue for at least the first year being a STH at Barclays, but I can understand their feeling, and telling them to be happy that it could have been worse, doesnt really help IMO. The arguments from the people happy with the move, although logically having merit in regards to the financial stability of the team, seem to lack the understanding or to sound corny, compassion for the people who are feeling like they lost their team. All the arguing here is really kind of pointless -- Everyone on both sides knows that the team will be making more $$ over the next few years in Brooklyn than they would have in Nassau. Some feel that the $ increase is the only reason the team will be able to stay anywhere near local -- which is probably true -- others don't care if the team makes more $, because the team as they know it is gone anyway--Conversely, some feel the fan experience as they know it will get drastically worse -- which is probably true--and others dont care because it wont effect their own personal fan experience negatively. Regardless, the move is happening and all of us are going to deal with it as we want to. The move might be the best thing for the future of the team, or it might be a disaster, we are used to that as fans of the Isles. Its just too bad that there has to be continued arguing over how bad Nassau is/good Brooklyn is vs how bad Brooklyn will be/good Nassau could have been.

Excellent post!!! Thank you for that!

I am definitely one of those fans who recognizes they will make more money but doesn't care because the team as I know it is gone anyway... You did a great job of capturing that sentiment in words.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

I know what it is like to lose your team. This ain't it.

When the Romans defeated the Carthaginians for the last time they salted the soil to prevent Carthage from ever returning. They wiped Carthage off the face of the Earth with the design of removing it from history.

That is what happened to the Hartford Whalers, only with more betrayal. The move from NVMC to the Barclays is NOTHING like that.

 

[stranger34]

Stranger, this is the type of post that makes me crazy. I just posted six to eight links detailing why Nassau isn't a viable market right now. If you want to call it a borderline market, please a) define what that means and b) illustrate the point with data of some kind. Even if you just say, "Hey, year over year attendance improved x% during 2003 when the team was competitive," it's something. I'm not attacking you, but there's a general sense that a strong gut feeling is on a par with research and objective data. They are not equivalent. Saying you think Nassau could work without showing us why is like saying nothing at all. What leads you to that belief? Is it current attendance? Overall fan interest? Population growth? A demographic shift? Economic prosperity?

I would say there is universal agreement here that the franchise being in shambles had a deleterious effect on the fan base. Debating which fan bases have had the worst twenty years is subjective and pointless, but there are teams with similar circumstances that have performed better attendance-wise over time, and some that have performed worse.

As for why I think it's a borderline market... I think most of that is self apparent. It's a market that borderline supported a franchise for 40 years and was a referendum or a wang-friendly town supervisor away from continuing to do so.

It's borderline because while there is a wealthy and ample sized population there to support it, consistent attendance through down periods hurts the team tremendously because it is not backstopped by enough corporate dollars via luxury boxes and advertising