An outdoor game in Los Angeles?
Really?
Didn't the 45 and rainy in Pittsburgh teach the league anything about weather?
Really?
Didn't the 45 and rainy in Pittsburgh teach the league anything about weather?
Confirmed with Link: Rangers Games at Yankee Stadium (1/26 at Devils; 1/29 at Islanders)
- Thread starter RangerBoy
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Here's another link from SBNation
http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2013/4/...ew-york-city-dodger-stadium-chicago-vancouver
http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2013/4/...ew-york-city-dodger-stadium-chicago-vancouver
Problematique
Registered User
Does being the away team in both games have anything to do with having a new road jersey similar to the WC?
Anybody know?
Anybody know?
Kane One
Registered User
Smart idea to have the Rangers as the road team in both games. They will still sell out 41 home games + these two outdoor games.
If the Rangers were the home team, you'd be taking two sellouts away from the Rangers at MSG while giving the Islanders and Devils a home game in their arenas that most likely won't sell out.
If the Rangers were the home team, you'd be taking two sellouts away from the Rangers at MSG while giving the Islanders and Devils a home game in their arenas that most likely won't sell out.
Last edited:
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,060
- 17,680
It's pretty easy to figure out why it happened this way. The sell-out reasoning doesn't really work out because you're not taking away any random home game, you're taking away a Devils-Rangers game which was going to sell out at the Rock (and Nassau) regardless. The way these things work, I'm pretty sure, is that the home team is compensated the $$$ they would have made for a normal regular season game and the NHL takes home the rest, so not like there's any direct monetary incentive to host (but there is publicity, jersey sales, etc. for both teams).
TG (Devils beat writer) said that the NHL didn't want to leave one of the three teams out, so they needed to have two games to get everyone involved. If the Rangers were going to play in both games, as they should because they're the bigger market, this kind of 'evens' it up for Devils/Islanders fans in terms of tickets as well as connection to the event.
Look at it this way, the only difference is what color jersey the team will be wearing (if that, because if they keep up retro jerseys for this, could theoretically be anything).. and you guys get two outdoor games versus everyone else's one.. that's two tickets to look for a decent deal vs. the one game you HAVE to go to at any cost. It would be cluster**** for you guys to scramble for tickets to one game (see: last year's WC.. tickets were pretty expensive).
I was at the WC last year and even though I was hoping the rink would collapse and engulf my two most hated rivals, it was a really cool experience.. definitely going to attend the Devils one. Having it all on Superbowl week will be epic as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kane One
Registered User
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
Actually, the sell-out reasoning works quite well. Involving the Devils and the Islanders here, we both know that the games would be sell-outs or close to them for those teams. Yet having them in the WC, then, makes up for all the other non-sellouts those two teams will have during the year. So yeah, it actually does make sense. But on a broader scale than one game.
I don't really get your point considering you really didn't say anything outright and that middle sentence doesn't make any sense at all to me. I think you're trying to say that the increased revenue generated by the game would help the Devils/Islanders 'cover-up' their otherwise lack of revenue from selling out all their other home games?
If that's the case, it absolutely makes zero sense considering the home team doesn't take a cent home from the gate sales for an outdoor game/Winter-classic. The NHL reimburses the home team the amount of money they typically make from a regular-season sellout and they keep the rest. There's no direct financial advantage in hosting such an event.
EDIT: This article on Puck Daddy talks about how revenue from the WC is split and I'd assume these outdoor events would follow the same model. Obviously both teams benefit financially from being in the game but more through merchandising than gate revenue (all goes to the league). The only financial incentive for a team to host such an event would be the increased revenue generated in the host city: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/pu...he-winter-classic-revenue-pie?urn=nhl,wp22962
Last edited by a moderator:
NYR Viper
Registered User
Exactly this.
It makes sense because even (1) sellout for either team is an improvement whereas the Rangers will sell-out no matter what. It's almost like revenue sharing as Yankee stadium will be packed with Rangers fans.
Also, I like the idea of multiple outdoor games each year. I am sure teams want in on this every year and having only (2) or (4) is a tough sell. Love it.
The NHL buys the home date from the team. The NHL gives the team losing the home date the money they would usually make in a home game. The Rangers aren't losing a home gate. Maybe there are other things tied into the decision. The NHL pays to rent the building. They buy the home date from the team. The NHL keeps everything. The beer money. Concessions. Ticket sales. Parking. Not that much parking at Yankee Stadium.
Made Dan
Registered User
So the home team wouldn't get compensated for the increased ticket prices, they'd get the same money as a regular sellout?
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
To all the complaints about there being too many games,
This seems like the exact kind of thing where everybody expects it to flop, but the games still get a bunch of attention and sell out. Kinda reminds me of the speculation on the NHL losing a ton of revenue following the 04-05 lockout.
This seems like the exact kind of thing where everybody expects it to flop, but the games still get a bunch of attention and sell out. Kinda reminds me of the speculation on the NHL losing a ton of revenue following the 04-05 lockout.
trueblue9441
Registered User
correct.
this is a stupid, stupid idea. too many outdoor games in my opinion, the winter classic will lose all of its appeal. thats the game i wanted. not two meaningless games vs. the islanders and devils. just sucks
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
It definitely taught them that the weather might make the hockey game itself a little worse, but the event will still be a big success.
I think the outdoor game vs the Devils should be played at Red Bull Arena.... Thoughts? I know RBA only holds 25, 000, but the noise that the roof generates from the crowd would be epic.
LittleKev6D9
Unregistered User
Congratulations New York Rangers on getting 43 home games next year.
What a dumb idea. Two outdoor games. The NHL just ruined a great idea with some stupid gimmick. Why not have a game where the two teams play a game of Roller Hockey as well? Stupid.
What a dumb idea. Two outdoor games. The NHL just ruined a great idea with some stupid gimmick. Why not have a game where the two teams play a game of Roller Hockey as well? Stupid.
I have said this exact thing several times in the past. Red Bull Arena would a sick venue for a hockey game.
TomLaidlaw
Registered User
I like this idea. Can they blast Abba throughout the entire game to really get that Roller Rink feel?
1Knee1T
Registered User
- Jun 29, 2008
- 3,410
- 139
Frozen North
Healthy Scratch
Yes! And sign Tony Szabo to a PTO contract. And have the Rangers wear "Salsa" jerseys, and the Isles wear "Web Warriors" jersey!
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
I can only imagine what the reaction would've been like on here when the league moved to having 2 neutral site games every year for every team.
- Status
