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

[Aussie Bruin]

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.

Not the same. Boxers and fighters sign up for head contact and the like, a hockey player should not have to. Fights and weakly penalized head shots are not intrinsic parts of the sport, or at least they don't have to be. You can say that both players have to agree to drop the gloves to make a fight happen, and therefore it's fully voluntary, but the culture of the sport and the obligations that can arise on-ice mean that's not quite true, even in this current age. You should be able to play a ball/puck sport without the possibility that someone might semi-legally punch you in the head.

I'd also say if you think hockey can't thrive without fights and excessive scrums, you arguably have a pretty low opinion of the sport. Violence sells, no doubt about it, but surely there is much more to the game than that, and, again, you can be tough and physical without throwing punches and so on.

End of the day, regardless of what you and I think, at some point fights will be banned, just as the reality is that a return to increased numbers of inter-divisional games is a very low possibility. Such are the times. If you think the league will suffer as a result, you may be right. But one can only hope not.

My main complaint is there are too many teams, and that dilutes the quality of the product. I think 30 was about right. To me the endless fascination with expansion is the biggest problem.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

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

Yeah I get that. I'm sure there are lots of folks who think similarly. The game has changed massively in the last 20-30 years and what it's turned into won't be for everybody. I just think there will be plenty of new fans to take the place of those who have chosen to step back or away. Record attendance figures tend to support that argument, for now at least.

 

[dafoomie]

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.

Cognitive decline and CTE are inherent occupational hazards of contact sports due to repetitive impacts, and hockey is unique among them for having a very hard playing surface, walls, and very high speeds. Fighting represents only a small fraction of concussions, and a statistically insignificant number of subconcussive impacts. If they actually want to make the game safer, they'd have to start with reducing the schedule with a mandatory recovery period between games, slowing the game down, increasing the size of the playing surface, and eliminating body checks. Anything else is merely optics, which may be all that those seeking change are interested in.

People break their bodies every day for far less reward and pay the price later in life just as athletes do, it's the reality many of us face. If there's any change, it's that hockey is pursuing fans who do not and who would rather not be reminded of it.

 

[jgatie]

Not the same. Boxers and fighters sign up for head contact and the like, a hockey player should not have to. Fights and weakly penalized head shots are not intrinsic parts of the sport, or at least they don't have to be. You can say that both players have to agree to drop the gloves to make a fight happen, and therefore it's fully voluntary, but the culture of the sport and the obligations that can arise on-ice mean that's not quite true, even in this current age. You should be able to play a ball/puck sport without the possibility that someone might semi-legally punch you in the head.

I'd also say if you think hockey can't thrive without fights and excessive scrums, you arguably have a pretty low opinion of the sport. Violence sells, no doubt about it, but surely there is much more to the game than that, and, again, you can be tough and physical without throwing punches and so on.

End of the day, regardless of what you and I think, at some point fights will be banned, just as the reality is that a return to increased numbers of inter-divisional games is a very low possibility. Such are the times. If you think the league will suffer as a result, you may be right. But one can only hope not.

My main complaint is there are too many teams, and that dilutes the quality of the product. I think 30 was about right. To me the endless fascination with expansion is the biggest problem.

So we accept more modern sports where heads are beaten in for extended periods of time, but ruthlessly condemn a faction of a sport which isn't "part of the sport"? Even though it actually has been a part of the sport since long before the barbaric head beating sports even existed?

 

[jgatie]

Yeah I get that. I'm sure there are lots of folks who think similarly. The game has changed massively in the last 20-30 years and what it's turned into won't be for everybody. I just think there will be plenty of new fans to take the place of those who have chosen to step back or away. Record attendance figures tend to support that argument, for now at least.

The ratings for the 4 Nations game and the Rags/Caps regular season game compared to the current playoff ratings belie your conclusions.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

Cognitive decline and CTE are inherent occupational hazards of contact sports due to repetitive impacts, and hockey is unique among them for having a very hard playing surface, walls, and very high speeds. Fighting represents only a small fraction of concussions, and a statistically insignificant number of subconcussive impacts. If they actually want to make the game safer, they'd have to start with reducing the schedule with a mandatory recovery period between games, slowing the game down, increasing the size of the playing surface, and eliminating body checks. Anything else is merely optics, which may be all that those seeking change are interested in.

People break their bodies every day for far less reward and pay the price later in life just as athletes do, it's the reality many of us face. If there's any change, it's that hockey is pursuing fans who do not and who would rather not be reminded of it.

I agree that hockey has a general high risk of concussions, but it's not unique. In Australia's two major sports - Australian Rules Football and rugby league - a player sustains a diagnosed concussion in roughly one out of every four games played. That's a much higher frequency than in the NHL. So hockey is not especially dangerous by comparison. And as for fights only being a contributing factor towards a small percentage of concussions, yes, but why allow something that contributes any percentage when you don't have to and is actually outside the laws of the game?

My other thing with fights is how can it be that when people throw punches to settle their differences in general society, it's a crime and condemned, but do it in a hockey game and it's fine, even admirable? That really doesn't make much sense. Boxing and the like to me is completely different because the whole purpose there is a test of skill between two equally willing and trained participants. You can be against that too, of course, but I think the argument is different.

As for making the game safer in other ways, agree 100% that's important. In Australia all concussions result in the player having to take a minimum of 12 days off, no exceptions. So you could have something like that in hockey. I'd also probably get rid of back-to-backs, and look to reduce the number of games played. There are limits of course - increasing the size of the rinks would cost a fortune, and eliminating checks would completely alter and damage the very DNA of the game - but there are certainly things that are achievable to improve player welfare.

 

[jgatie]

Exactly why is a hockey fight different from "a test of skill between two equally willing and trained participants"? If two hockey players square off and fight, is it not up to them to decide the willingness and/or level of training each participant brings to the fight? Hasn't the instigator rule been in effect for 30+ years to regulate just this type of ambiguity?

 

[Aussie Bruin]

So we accept more modern sports where heads are beaten in for extended periods of time, but ruthlessly condemn a faction of a sport which isn't "part of the sport"? Even though it actually has been a part of the sport since long before the barbaric head beating sports even existed?

The ratings for the 4 Nations game and the Rags/Caps regular season game compared to the current playoff ratings belie your conclusions.

If people wish to beat each other up and get paid for it in MMA and the like, to me that's on them. Some people of course do oppose it. I'm not one of them. It just doesn't interest me at all. But I don't see why fighting and big scrums have any need to be part of a team sport, even one as physical and high contact as hockey. If it's not necessary, and it adds a risk to player welfare, however small in comparison to the wider risks of the game, then why allow it?

I would argue that the playoff ratings are down primarily because Chicago, Detroit, NY and Boston all aren't there, and most of the matchups are between teams that have limited history, are one-sided, or are in non-traditional markets, rather than there being anything actually deficient with the quality of the hockey being played. Does the league need to do more to build the fanbase and rivalries in the smaller and newer markets? Absolutely, but that can be achieved in time. Dallas-Colorado is non-traditional, and that's been the best series of the first round. Otherwise I again point to live attendance - why did the league hit record attendance figures and 97% capacity this season if the sport is becoming less popular? How can that be accounted for?

I guess it comes down to a basic question - do you truly believe hockey will decline in popularity if most of the extra-curriculars are taken out of it? Can you have rivalries and games worth watching without the 'hatred' element? I have a positive outlook in these regards and I think the history of some other sporting examples is on my side. But only time will tell. Which is not to say that the NHL doesn't have problems, some of them self-inflicted, because it does. I just think the general outlook is mostly fine.

 

[jgatie]

If people wish to beat each other up and get paid for it in MMA and the like, to me that's on them. Some people of course do oppose it. I'm not one of them. It just doesn't interest me at all. But I don't see why fighting and big scrums have any need to be part of a team sport, even one as physical and high contact as hockey. If it's not necessary, and it adds a risk to player welfare, however small in comparison to the wider risks of the game, then why allow it?

I was asked this exact question one time by a fan of soccer, who specifically mentioned the superiority of soccer to hockey, in particular the difference in the fighting. My reply was "Hockey is a sport between ballet and violence, and I will never choose between the two."

 

[Aussie Bruin]

Exactly why is a hockey fight different from "a test of skill between two equally willing and trained participants"? If two hockey players square off and fight, is it not up to them to decide the willingness and/or level of training each participant brings to the fight? Hasn't the instigator rule been in effect for 30+ years to regulate just this type of ambiguity?

We both know it is not always so simple for someone to just turn down a fight. As long as it's part of the sport, there will be instances of players taking on fights, sometimes at a significant size disadvantage, that they'd rather have avoided. Vast majority of players aren't trained fighters either. Plenty of cheap head punches happen in scrums too that really should be dealt with more severely.

But even allowing your premise, I would be asking this: why is hockey the only team sport left where fighting is (sort of) allowed? What makes it so necessary? Why should it remain an outlier? I've heard most of the arguments, and while I understand some of them, I'm yet to be convinced by any.

 

[jgatie]

We both know it is not always so simple for someone to just turn down a fight. As long as it's part of the sport, there will be instances of players taking on fights, sometimes at a significant size disadvantage, that they'd rather have avoided. Vast majority of players aren't trained fighters either. Plenty of cheap head punches happen in scrums too that really should be dealt with more severely.

But even allowing your premise, I would be asking this: why is hockey the only team sport left where fighting is (sort of) allowed? What makes it so necessary? Why should it remain an outlier? I've heard most of the arguments, and while I understand some of them, I'm yet to be convinced by any.

I think you know by now I don't give two shits about other sports compared to hockey. The history of hockey, back to the origins, has included the element of fighting. You need to justify why this element needs to be eliminated, not for I to reason to have it continue.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

I think you know by now I don't give two shits about other sports compared to hockey. The history of hockey, back to the origins, has included the element of fighting. You need to justify why this element needs to be eliminated, not for I to reason to have it continue.

Concussions, pure and simple. If fighting causes even one concussion, it's one too many for an element of the sport that can be easily removed. IMO, that's justification enough.

 

[jgatie]

Concussions, pure and simple. If fighting causes even one concussion, it's one too many for an element of the sport that can be easily removed. IMO, that's justification enough.

The same conclusion should be applied to every other sport, including those that by their very definition result in far more concussions per participant than hockey. Are you willing to call out MMA and UFC fighting as much as hockey in the main question here? I certainly am willing to consider the lowered concern about concussions that apply to spontaneous fights among hockey players compared to a sport like MMA fighting. Are you willing to do the same?

As an aside: I personally find those MMA "fighting" sports barbaric, with far too many blows to the head over far too long a time. Others differ. But I'm also all about a lack of hypocrisy rather than singling out my particular pet peeves when it comes to concussions in professional sports.

 

[DKH]

my folks had season tickets before I was born by a lot and in 1983 out of school I took them over

They treat me fantastic BUT the 13% back to back price increase was not good - was not happy

I know a lot of season ticket holders because I’ve had them so long and they are equally upset

I didn’t check the inventory for select-a-seat but a few friends did and they mentioned there were more openings then ever - but not outrageous but noteworthy

The price has put a few of my close friends out but majority are still there

The 4 % is a bad show of faith - the two prior seasons they missed 2015 & 2016 I’m 99.9999 % certain they did not move

 

[Aussie Bruin]

The same conclusion should be applied to every other sport, including those that by their very definition result in far more concussions per participant than hockey. Are you willing to call out MMA and UFC fighting as much as hockey in the main question here? I certainly am willing to consider the lowered concern about concussions that apply to spontaneous fights among hockey players compared to a sport like MMA fighting. Are you willing to do the same?

As an aside: I personally find those MMA "fighting" sports barbaric, with far too many blows to the head over far too long a time. Others differ. But I'm also all about a lack of hypocrisy rather than singling out my particular pet peeves when it comes to concussions in professional sports.

I disagree with the comparison. I think people should be able to play hockey without the risk of being drawn or pressured into a fight, or being cheap-shot in the head in a scrum. I don't agree that all fights in hockey, or the perception a player may form of the need to start a fight, are purely voluntary. That's completely different to a sport where being deliberately hit in the head is simply part of it. You don't want to get punched, you can't take up MMA. It shouldn't be that if you don't want to risk getting punched and the health implications that might follow, you can't play hockey. For sure there are reasons to oppose MMA. To me it's just a different kind of conversation from the hockey one.

You view fighting as an intrinsic or inalienable part of the sport. I don't. It's certainly part of its history, but I think it can be removed without any serious damage. It's banned in many junior leagues, in Europe, and in international competition. So clearly the game can get by just fine without it.

I understand the wider concerns about the violence and hatred going out of the game. They're not without merit. But I'm going to point to Dallas-Colorado again. Easily the best series of the first round. Fantastic fast, skilled, hard-nosed hockey. But through six games, not a single fight, only one major scrum, no real hate. And they're not missed. Of course not every series is like this. But it points to what's possible and as more and more skill comes into the game with the passing of time, the more hockey there will be of this type and caliber. The sport will continue to adapt and be just fine.

 

[4ORRBRUIN]

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.

When you are making the money these guys are making now in the NHL gone are the days when they can relate to the common fan.

It's what made the NHL so special to fans.

As Wally always reminds us "its always about the money"

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

It will never stop being weird to me how so many look at price as if it’s just something a bunch of overlords “decide”.

Price is ultimately a confluence in numerical form of supply and demand. Do the powerful rig the game (pro sports owners are one of the best examples) so markets work in their favor? Yes. They still can’t simply “set” prices wherever they want.

Things going up in price sucks, but it’s not a “right” and “wrong” thing. It’s a get the most money possible based on demand thing. The Bruins would sell back row balcony for $1,000 a seat if the market permitted it and so would everyone else.

 

[jgatie]

I disagree with the comparison. I think people should be able to play hockey without the risk of being drawn or pressured into a fight, or being cheap-shot in the head in a scrum. I don't agree that all fights in hockey, or the perception a player may form of the need to start a fight, are purely voluntary. That's completely different to a sport where being deliberately hit in the head is simply part of it. You don't want to get punched, you can't take up MMA. It shouldn't be that if you don't want to risk getting punched and the health implications that might follow, you can't play hockey. For sure there are reasons to oppose MMA. To me it's just a different kind of conversation from the hockey one.

You view fighting as an intrinsic or inalienable part of the sport. I don't. It's certainly part of its history, but I think it can be removed without any serious damage. It's banned in many junior leagues, in Europe, and in international competition. So clearly the game can get by just fine without it.

I understand the wider concerns about the violence and hatred going out of the game. They're not without merit. But I'm going to point to Dallas-Colorado again. Easily the best series of the first round. Fantastic fast, skilled, hard-nosed hockey. But through six games, not a single fight, only one major scrum, no real hate. And they're not missed. Of course not every series is like this. But it points to what's possible and as more and more skill comes into the game with the passing of time, the more hockey there will be of this type and caliber. The sport will continue to adapt and be just fine.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

Agree to disagree.

Indeed. In all sincerity, good chat.

 

[Kate08]

We had season tickets for 12 years. Fortunately, we got in just before things got good. Row 3 balcony seats on the aisle were $26/ticket. By the time we gave them up, they were around $65/ticket. We gave them up after 2020; how they treated STH during COVID was the straw that broke the camel’s back for us, as we were on the fence anyways.

People have STH for different reasons. We loved our seats , the team was exciting, and met some fantastic people around us and also prior to the games at the bar (we had an entire table to “Bruins friends” at our wedding). We were also at a point in our lives (20s into 30s) where the financial and time commitment made sense to us. I can’t imagine spending that much time and money on the team now, even if they were great.

For us, yes, it was about the hockey but also very much about the community. Once people started dropping tickets, or selling more, it just wasn’t as fun.

Now, we might go to one or two games a year (usually an event or an invitation). We love traveling for an away game as it’s a 2-for-1. Get to check out another city, another arena, and get a mini vacation in. Of course, it’s much more expensive, but it’s a totally different experience.

It also opened our eyes to how poorly the Bruins treat their STH. The perks they get from other teams is absolutely insane compared to what we got. Even in Delaware North buildings, concession options were better and more affordable. Yes, some of the teams are bad while the Bruins were riding high - but the difference was stark.

Disposable income and how it’s used is highly personal. We loved our time as STH, but I can’t imagine being in our 40s and tying up that much time and money into tickets and the overall experience when there are so many other things to do and see. As always, YMMV.

 

[Kegs]

Imagine liking when something becomes more expensive ?

 

[Ladyfan]

Imagine liking when something becomes more expensive ?

Who does?

I wish my ST costs the same as they did 23 years ago but that isn't very realistic. Now if % wise they go up as much as my groceries have in the last couple of months I will have to be out.

 

[the negotiator]

Who does?

I wish my ST costs the same as they did 23 years ago but that isn't very realistic. Now if % wise they go up as much as my groceries have in the last couple of months I will have to be out.

This is the ever speeding up issue that should have Bs management scared silly

Higher prices is something that happens across the spectrum of life- but not building up STH goodwill over the last 10-15 years has been a major strategic error. It actually feels like management looked for ways to erode that relationship in order to maximize every profit dollar (or penny).

Now we see the confluence of a poor on-ice product and an even weaker off-ice product coming together during a time of great economic uncertainty. Not a very good trifecta for Delaware North to try and solve-assuming they are even aware of the tsunami that is coming.

 

[rfournier103]

Since I joined this board several years ago, this little community has done more to keep me interested in Bruins hockey than Bruins ownership and management has.

Charlie Jacobs sits in his office thinking all is well in his little fiefdom, but if we hardcore Bruins fans are this unhappy, and starting to lose interest, what are less committed fans thinking? Is anyone else noticing less traffic on the Bruins board, or is it just me?

 

[bigbadbruins1]

well of course the out of touch Jacobs don't see what the real issues are.
The fans are the issue here. We enable them by constantly buying tickets, no matter the product on the ice. Us fans really need to cut the **** and hold them accountable and stop buying tickets and paying those ridiculous concession prices.

Want Sweeney and Neely gone? hurt their profits. Jacobs will can them in the blink of an eye when profits tank.