The Athletic - Boston FLUTO - Bruins fan survey: Higher ticket prices for a non-playoff team? Not a popular move

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

Give me rivalry games vs Western Conference teams all day, every day. We need those today far more than we did when the only access to hockey was TV38. If I want to see McDavid, I can watch on YouTube, NHL Center Ice, the NHL app, or any number of other sources. I'd much rather see the Habs vs. Bruins fomenting hatred in 8 total games over the course of the season than watch the Oilers come to town once.

The NHL is starting to get a little good buddy mode like the NBA

Not good

 

[jgatie]

The NHL is starting to get a little good buddy mode like the NBA

Not good

Yep. There's nothing about the regular season that prepares a team for the playoffs anymore. A team built to win games in the relatively calm regular season where everyone is buddy buddy is run over like roadkill when the intensity ramps up in the playoffs seeing the same team up to 7 games in a row.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

Give me rivalry games vs Western Conference teams all day, every day. We need those today far more than we did when the only access to hockey was TV38. If I want to see McDavid, I can watch on YouTube, NHL Center Ice, the NHL app, or any number of other sources. I'd much rather see the Habs vs. Bruins fomenting hatred in 8 total games over the course of the season than watch the Oilers come to town once.

I'd be curious to see fan poll numbers on this. Would a majority of people prefer more inter-divisional games, the same amount, or something else? The first counter-argument in thinking about 8 Habs-Bruins games is always the same - that means 8 against Buffalo too, or whichever other Atlantic team currently happens to suck. And perhaps folks are ok with that, but it has to be considered.

My guess though is it will never happen for one main reason - it would make the league look too provincial and not truly national. And that's bad for business. It would also be seen as a backwards step. On the flip side you could point to playoff TV ratings being down as an example of the downsides of the league being spread too thinly and into too many off-market, non-rivalry areas, but my guess is the NHL is actually still reasonably happy because even though total viewership is down, there are people watching hockey in more places, so your footprint is bigger and your sponsors have a broader, more diverse reach. Combine that with record game attendance league-wide, and I see no solid case for change. In most ways the league has never been healthier.

 

[rfournier103]

Agree with you in general, but.....have you ever seen McDavid live? Because there seriously is nothing else in hockey, heck nothing else in sports, quite like it. Well well worth checking out. I imagine MacKinnon would be similar, and that's about it.

I get that it's probably different than most people think, but I'm a B's fan first, and a hockey fan a somewhat distant second, I guess is the best way to explain it.

If I watched McDavid score the most magnificent goal in history against the B's --- it would only make me like him less --- obviously if it had an effect on the final score....he scores it in an 8-1 loss or vs. the Islanders and I happened to be at that game for some reason, I'd appreciate it. But, in the end I want the B's to win above all else.

I have seen Connor McDavid in person at the Garden twice, and TV and YouTube do not do him justice. The only other player I’ve ever seen in person that made me more nervous when he had the puck was Wayne Gretzky.

The first time I saw McDavid, the Bruins beat the Oilers 4 or 5-1. Bergeron, Pastranak and Marchand all scored for the Bruins, and McDavid got the Oilers lone goal on an end-to-end rush. He skated around all five Bruins like they were orange cones and beat Tuukka Rask like a rented goalie.

That dude is blazing fast, and his skating ability is the best I’ve ever seen in the NHL.

 

[jgatie]

I'd be curious to see fan poll numbers on this. Would a majority of people prefer more inter-divisional games, the same amount, or something else? The first counter-argument in thinking about 8 Habs-Bruins games is always the same - that means 8 against Buffalo too, or whichever other Atlantic team currently happens to suck. And perhaps folks are ok with that, but it has to be considered.

My guess though is it will never happen for one main reason - it would make the league look too provincial and not truly national. And that's bad for business. It would also be seen as a backwards step. On the flip side you could point to playoff TV ratings being down as an example of the downsides of the league being spread too thinly and into too many off-market, non-rivalry areas, but my guess is the NHL is actually still reasonably happy because even though total viewership is down, there are people watching hockey in more places, so your footprint is bigger and your sponsors have a broader, more diverse reach. Combine that with record game attendance league-wide, and I see no solid case for change. In most ways the league has never been healthier.

If you don't know that hatred and familiarity equals ratings, I give you this:

The 2nd 4 Nations game between USA/Canada was the most watched hockey game in history. I know people who don't know a blue line from a clothes line who watched that game, and it wasn't just because of the quality of play. The opening fights of the 1st matchup were shown on every national news show, all across the US, and the national news just barely covers the Stanley Cup when it is won.

Second, the highest ratings ever for a modern regular season NHL game was the Rangers/Caps matchup after Wilson injured Panarin and the Rags promised payback. I wouldn't watch a Rags/Caps game if it was on at 2AM and I was suffering insomnia, but I tuned in for that one and was not let down.

 

[rfournier103]

I'd be curious to see fan poll numbers on this. Would a majority of people prefer more inter-divisional games, the same amount, or something else? The first counter-argument in thinking about 8 Habs-Bruins games is always the same - that means 8 against Buffalo too, or whichever other Atlantic team currently happens to suck. And perhaps folks are ok with that, but it has to be considered.

My guess though is it will never happen for one main reason - it would make the league look too provincial and not truly national. And that's bad for business. It would also be seen as a backwards step. On the flip side you could point to playoff TV ratings being down as an example of the downsides of the league being spread too thinly and into too many off-market, non-rivalry areas, but my guess is the NHL is actually still reasonably happy because even though total viewership is down, there are people watching hockey in more places, so your footprint is bigger and your sponsors have a broader, more diverse reach. Combine that with record game attendance league-wide, and I see no solid case for change. In most ways the league has never been healthier.

The NHL is just too big now.

When I started watching in the ‘80s, there were 21 teams. You had 8 games vs. divisional opponents, and every team visited every other non-divisional opponent at least once.

The Adams Division back then was the Bruins; Canadiens; Sabres; Hartford Whalers (Carolina Hurricanes) and Quebec Nordiques (Colorado Avalanche). There was REAL hatred among all the teams, great hockey, and it was a lot of fun.

I miss that era a lot.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

I have seen Connor McDavid in person at the Garden twice, and TV and YouTube do not do him justice. The only other player I’ve ever seen in person that made me more nervous when he had the puck was Wayne Gretzky.

The first time I saw McDavid, the Bruins beat the Oilers 4 or 5-1. Bergeron, Pastranak and Marchand all scored for the Bruins, and McDavid got the Oilers lone goal on an end-to-end rush. He skated around all five Bruins like they were orange cones and beat Tuukka Rask like a rented goalie.

That dude is blazing fast, and his skating ability is the best I’ve ever seen in the NHL.

Spot on. TV gives you some idea of McDavid's ability, but in person is something else entirely. The two just don't compare. I would pay money just to watch Connor run laps around the rink for an hour. His skating is otherworldly.

 

[Ladyfan]

The NHL is just too big now.

When I started watching in the ‘80s, there were 21 teams. You had 8 games vs. divisional opponents, and every team visited every other non-divisional opponent at least once.

The Adams Division back then was the Bruins; Canadiens; Sabres; Hartford Whalers (Carolina Hurricanes) and Quebec Nordiques (Colorado Avalanche). There was REAL hatred among all the teams, great hockey, and it was a lot of fun.

I miss that era a lot.

I started watching in 1960....there were 6 teams.

I believe we listened to Bob Wilson on the radio ...Don't remember how many games were on TV

There are too many now.

 

[rfournier103]

Spot on. TV gives you some idea of McDavid's ability, but in person is something else entirely. The two just don't compare. I would pay money just to watch Connor run laps around the rink for an hour. His skating is otherworldly.

Absolutely.

People also forget that he had a nasty knee injury a few years ago, and he’s as good now as he ever was before.

After watching a game on NHL Network late one night, Mrs. 103 and I were about to shut the TV off and go to bed, when a documentary about Connor McDavid’s injury and rehab came on. We were totally sucked in and were amazed at both how talented he is, and how hard he works. We’ve been fans of his ever since. I’d kill to have him on the Bruins.

 

[Bradely]

see above.

Bottom line...sure I would love cheaper ST but supply / demand.

My advise....get your ST (if you want them) when things aren't so good because if you wait until the Bs are playing well there will be nothing to get.

Absolutely!!!

 

[Aussie Bruin]

If you don't know that hatred and familiarity equals ratings, I give you this:

The 2nd 4 Nations game between USA/Canada was the most watched hockey game in history. I know people who don't know a blue line from a clothes line who watched that game, and it wasn't just because of the quality of play. The opening fights of the 1st matchup were shown on every national news show, all across the US, and the national news just barely covers the Stanley Cup when it is won.

Second, the highest ratings ever for a modern regular season NHL game was the Rangers/Caps matchup after Wilson injured Panarin and the Rags promised payback. I wouldn't watch a Rags/Caps game if it was on at 2AM and I was suffering insomnia, but I tuned in for that one and was not let down.

I don't see how your two examples really help. 4 Nations was an exceptional event, held in exceptional times. Of course it was huge, but how could anything in the regular NHL even remotely replicate it? Even Habs-Bruins at its biggest, are you really getting much interest from places outside New England and Quebec? In playoffs probably, otherwise I doubt it. And that Rangers/Caps game came out of a one-off piece of league stupidity. Sure it drew a short burst of wider attention. But did it grow the game. Did it display anything sustainable in an age when fights are being steadily eradicated? Unlikely.

Of course rivalries are good for sport and for ratings. Hockey is probably built on rivalries more than any other sport. But still they are only one factor in the mix in the league determining how best to grow and promote the game. Everything involves trade-offs. More divisional games would be good in some ways, negative in others. What's the best balance?

 

[jgatie]

I don't see how your two examples really help. 4 Nations was an exceptional event, held in exceptional times. Of course it was huge, but how could anything in the regular NHL even remotely replicate it? Even Habs-Bruins at its biggest, are you really getting much interest from places outside New England and Quebec? In playoffs probably, otherwise I doubt it. And that Rangers/Caps game came out of a one-off piece of league stupidity. Sure it drew a short burst of wider attention. But did it grow the game. Did it display anything sustainable in an age when fights are being steadily eradicated? Unlikely.

Of course rivalries are good for sport and for ratings. Hockey is probably built on rivalries more than any other sport. But still they are only one factor in the mix in the league determining how best to grow and promote the game. Everything involves trade-offs. More divisional games would be good in some ways, negative in others. What's the best balance?

I'm going to speak bluntly: I posit to you that audiences for both games, including those who never watch hockey, were driven by the expectation of violence, and eliminating that violence in order to "grow the sport" is not going to grow the sport. Quite the opposite. More games against hated rivalries increase the likelihood of that violence, two games a year against McDavid do not.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

I'm going to speak bluntly: I posit to you that audiences for both games, including those who never watch hockey, were driven by the expectation of violence, and eliminating that violence in order to "grow the sport" is not going to grow the sport. Quite the opposite. More games against hated rivalries increase the likelihood of that violence, two games a year against McDavid do not.

I'll be equally blunt: I think that's dinosaur thinking in an age where we know what we do about concussions. I enjoy a good brawl as much as anyone but the medical evidence is undeniable. Within a decade fights will be banned and if hockey really can't survive without them then it will die.

Fortunately that's not the case. Fights, late/high hits and anything but the tamest of scrums were eradicated from the major two Australian contact sports 25 years ago and both have never been in better shape. The kids now don't know any different. There are ways of being physical and competitive that don't involve fisticuffs and cheap stuff. The world is moving on and hockey must move with it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Which part?

Hoping to see a win after spending $500+ for a night of entertainment?

Unless I'm seeing the Bruins winning the Stanley Cup that night, it's not going to be worth $500+ for me.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'll be equally blunt: I think that's dinosaur thinking in an age where we know what we do about concussions. I enjoy a good brawl as much as anyone but the medical evidence is undeniable. Within a decade fights will be banned and if hockey really can't survive without them then it will die.

Fortunately that's not the case. Fights, late/high hits and anything but the tamest of scrums were eradicated from the major two Australian contact sports 25 years ago and both have never been in better shape. The kids now don't know any different. There are ways of being physical and competitive that don't involve fisticuffs and cheap stuff. The world is moving on and hockey must move with it.

Agreed, the bloodlust fans will just be replaced by fans that appreciate the skills of the game more.

And of course, winning is the biggest factor.

 

[sarge88]

Unless I'm seeing the Bruins winning the Stanley Cup that night, it's not going to be worth $500+ for me.

That’s the going rate if it’s just my wife and I in good seats, or a kid or two in lesser seats.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That’s the going rate if it’s just my wife and I in good seats, or a kid or two in lesser seats.

How much for "good seats"?

 

[sarge88]

How much for "good seats"?

I mean, with fees, you’re looking at $180 or so per seat in rows 3-10 of the balcony. More for row 1-2, less for 11 to the last row. Of course, there are a bunch of different sites or ways to try to get cheaper seats, but I’ve found that the “no fee” sites don’t have the volume or quality the other ones do.

Best option is knowing a STH who sells to you directly.

Then parking and food and it’s easily a $500 night,

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I mean, with fees, you’re looking at $180 or so per seat in rows 3-10 of the balcony. More for row 1-2, less for 11 to the last row. Of course, there are a bunch of different sites or ways to try to get cheaper seats, but I’ve found that the “no fee” sites don’t have the volume or quality the other ones do.

Best option is knowing a STH who sells to you directly.

Then parking and food and it’s easily a $500 night,

Well, that's where I like to sit.

If I were to go, I'd have to tack on the one-night hotel bill too.

Hence, I don't go.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

The NHL is starting to get a little good buddy mode like the NBA

Not good

Yep. The players are realizing they are truly worth millions and the fans are not. Why fight and play with hate against your peers?

A true shame because these playoffs have been dull. Zero physicality and hatred overall. The NHL is declining too rapidly into what the Habs have been for decades. Soft, small, skilled (or not for the lottery teams) hockey. 82 games of that followed by the playoffs of the same quality is not good for the ratings.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

Yep. The players are realizing they are truly worth millions and the fans are not. Why fight and play with hate against your peers?

A true shame because these playoffs have been dull. Zero physicality and hatred overall. The NHL is declining too rapidly into what the Habs have been for decades. Soft, small, skilled (or not for the lottery teams) hockey. 82 games of that followed by the playoffs of the same quality is not good for the ratings.

Marchand and Bennet yucking it up is sad.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Marchand and Bennet yucking it up is sad.

Revolting, truly. Especially this example. A potential dose of CTE administered just last playoffs to Marchand.

 

[rfournier103]

The NHL is starting to get a little good buddy mode like the NBA

Not good

It’s funny, actually.

In everyday public life, civility; politeness and courtesy have declined markedly. We’ve grown more hostile and confrontational as a society, while testosterone-infused so-called alpha-males are now the picture of gentlemanly conduct.

WTF.

 

[Morris Wanchuk]

I'll be equally blunt: I think that's dinosaur thinking in an age where we know what we do about concussions. I enjoy a good brawl as much as anyone but the medical evidence is undeniable. Within a decade fights will be banned and if hockey really can't survive without them then it will die.

Fortunately that's not the case. Fights, late/high hits and anything but the tamest of scrums were eradicated from the major two Australian contact sports 25 years ago and both have never been in better shape. The kids now don't know any different. There are ways of being physical and competitive that don't involve fisticuffs and cheap stuff. The world is moving on and hockey must move with it.

Agree but that's why I watch a fraction of the hockey I used to, just doesn't really do it for me anymore.

 

[jgatie]

I'll be equally blunt: I think that's dinosaur thinking in an age where we know what we do about concussions. I enjoy a good brawl as much as anyone but the medical evidence is undeniable. Within a decade fights will be banned and if hockey really can't survive without them then it will die.

Fortunately that's not the case. Fights, late/high hits and anything but the tamest of scrums were eradicated from the major two Australian contact sports 25 years ago and both have never been in better shape. The kids now don't know any different. There are ways of being physical and competitive that don't involve fisticuffs and cheap stuff. The world is moving on and hockey must move with it.

In a world where arenas are filled to capacity to watch MMA and UFC fighters pummel each other with almost bare knuckled hands and feet for round after round after round, I'm not too concerned about two willing combatants going at it on skates for an average of less than half a minute. So call me a dinosaur if you wish, but there are far more modern "sports" that make athletes far more at risk.