Canadian Baloney, starring James Mirtle
Update (April 24, 2009): Earlier this year Mirtle made a trip to assess the Nashville hockey scene with his own eyes, and I highly recommend his series of articles on the subject.
---------------------------
A tireless refrain from the Canadian media is that Nashville is an absolute failure as a hockey market, and failing to move the team north of the border is an exercise in folly by the NHL.
Our latest exhibit comes from James Mirtle, usually one of the more thoughtful hockey bloggers extant:
But Nashville, quite simply, has proven it cannot sustain an NHL hockey team. Even with the lowest ticket prices in the entire league (I know: I've looked into flying there for a game or two) and a ridiculously forgiving arena lease, the team has had attendance issues despite having one of the best records in the league.
It's not a matter of Canadians not wanting teams in the southern U.S.; I've argued time and again in favour of teams like Dallas and Tampa Bay that have supported their teams and really brought something to the table in terms of bringing news fans and new energy to the game. That's a good thing.
The Predators, however, are not that, not in the beginning and certainly not now, and they never will be. Even with an owner as forgiving and deep-pocketed as Craig Leipold, the experiment has failed miserably, and the team will be leaving as soon as it can extricate itself from its lease agreement.
Once again, we're caught having to fend off the vultures who want to write off Nashville as a lost cause prematurely. There's no doubt that establishing a hockey fan base in foreign territory is a long term proposition, but one shouldn't discount the fact that when talking about Dallas and Tampa Bay, they've had Stanley Cup championships to build around, which provides a huge bandwagon effect. The Predators have yet to come anywhere close to that kind of postseason success, since they've never made it past the first round, which was a particular disappointment the last two years after earning home-ice advantage.
So where to begin the dissection? Let's start with "the lowest ticket prices in the league". According to Teammarketing.com's survey, Nashville comes in at #19 in the NHL for average ticket prices, not #30 after all.
Secondly, paid attendance figures are on a clearly positive track. I got paid attendance averages for previous years from John Glennon at the Tennessean, and the darkest days are clearly in the rear-view mirror, with the team not far from getting back to the strong level of support seen in the first two seasons:
So what caused that ski-slope decline from 2000-2003? Let's think back to that bandwagon effect, and remember that in the fall of 1999, the NFL's Titans came to Nashville, appeared in Super Bowl XXXIV, and for the next few years were a strong team led by a league MVP in Steve McNair, making an AFC Conference Championship appearance in 2003. During that time, the Predators fielded a patchwork team that was clearly uncompetitive, and merely aspired to a .500 record, let alone a playoff appearance. It's no wonder that under those circumstances attendance suffered. In an established hockey market like St. Louis or Chicago they refer to hockey-savvy customers not buying what ownership is selling, but in Nashville it's deemed a congenital defect in the market.
It takes time to rebuild from that deep a trough, but since the nadir of 2002-3 paid attendance is up over 30%, and efforts this summer appear to be building momentum towards continued improvement this upcoming season, making it likely that the magic 14,000 mark will be surpassed. Obviously, the goal would be to get that figure more towards 16,000 or higher, but the biggest factor there is seeing some genuine playoff success in Nashville to get casual fans more deeply involved with the team. Last year was the first time the team was felt to be a real contender heading into the regular season, and their playoff flop against the Sharks was a huge disappointment. If they had made it into the second round the average attendance would have topped 14,000, and we likely wouldn't be having this story to talk about this summer. Regardless, many critics say that lackluster support for a successful regular season is a hallmark of failure. But having been told for so long that the regular season doesn't matter, what should we expect?
So much of the discussion in sports media over the last several years has been that "the regular season doesn't matter, only championships do." We see captains refusing to hoist the Campbell Bowl or Prince of Wales Trophy, and generally treating the President's Cup like it was Aunt Millie's ancient fruit cake getting passed around the table. When you consistently hammer home that message, why should anyone be surprised that support wasn't surging just because the team was in 1st place back in December? In my mind, professional sports in general needs to reconsider that message, as the bread-and-butter of their business is the regular season - you shouldn't tell folks that they're paying thousands of dollars to see games that don't really matter.
In short, this patient isn't dead yet, and is in fact making strong progress (note how quickly all the home playoff games sold out this spring). What this is really all about is a hockey mad country that is enjoying a flush of economic purchasing power, and has powerful Canadian Loonies burning holes in it's collective pocket. Currency swings can be unpredictable however, and if this tide reverses, we could see the Calgary's and Edmonton's of the league crying poor once again:
Remember that NHL player salaries are paid in US dollars, so over the last few years a Canadian ticket price that just stays flat is able to buy 50% more player on the open market. It's no wonder they want another franchise so desperately. At the moment, they could easily support a competitive team.
There's no question in my mind that Canada should get an expansion team well ahead of Kansas City, but Nashville shouldn't be tossed off as a failure just yet. Momentum is on the upswing in the Music City, a prosperous, growing area that can certainly support an NHL team over the long term. Maybe Craig Leipold doesn't have the wherewithal to make it through these lean times to see that stage occur, and that's unfortunate, but fresh ownership that commits to winning can make it happen.
In short, don't confuse the desire for another Canadian team with a judgment that Nashville is a lost cause. Those two points aren't intertwined, and if Mr. Balsillie is so hell-bent on owning a Canadian franchise, then he should certainly be able to outbid other would-be expansion groups in order to make that happen. That, at least, is one certain way that he could line the pockets of current ownership and avoid thorny legal battles on his way into the NHL club.
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
by Anonymous on Jun 29, 2007 1:32 PM EDT reply actions
How exactly has that stance doomed the game?!? What franchises have left markets because of this opinion in the last umpteen years? The ones that have moved have had strong attendance records.
The league expanded way too quickly, and into markets that were somewhat questionable, all in an effort (partially, anyways) to bask in the vast expansion money that came with it.
The fact is, the NHL is mainly a gate driven league ... TV money and merchandising are at the very bottom end of the revenue spectrum. Therefore, teams with poor attendance are going to have trouble prospering. This is not to say that there are not knowledgeable and deserving fans in Nashville - of course there are. But something is not right - Leopold wants out for a reason.
by Anonymous on Jun 29, 2007 2:49 PM EDT reply actions
by Anonymous on Jun 29, 2007 2:51 PM EDT reply actions
Be careful with using facts because they may like confuse people.
As for me, I stand corrected for touting what I've read in the MSM...
I'll make a wager that the Predators will make the attendance figures and because of that will have their team stay put.
Of course, you won't take the best because you believe that...but maybe you should on the other Canadian blogs to see if there will be takers.
Could be fun?
Again nice going.
by PB on Jun 29, 2007 3:22 PM EDT reply actions
And for the record, it's not like I'm a diehard Preds fan. I've lived here for almost two years now, but have been impressed with the energy in the fan base and the potential in this market.
by The Forechecker on Jun 29, 2007 3:30 PM EDT reply actions
Look - I know there are a lot of fans in Tennessee who have really supported the team, and I've lamented that in the past. But the support has come in the form of fans embracing a product that has been well underpriced and a franchise that has drained the revenue-sharing pool more than any other the past two years. That is unsustainable, and if Leipold, a man who wanted hockey to succeed in Nashville more than anyone, is prepared to throw in the towel, I am, too.
If this was all really related to hopes for another Canadian franchise, why then would I be advocating the league eliminated five or six franchises?
There's honestly no bias here. I simply don't think the city can support an NHL franchise longterm. And my argument in favour of Hamilton is really one against Kansas City, and not related to Nashville's demise.
by James Mirtle on Jun 29, 2007 4:16 PM EDT reply actions
I must say that your coverage of this story has been among the most balanced out there. I've been cobbling together the bits of my article today for about a week or so, and when I saw your post today, I felt the need to bring it all together in response.
We're definitely on the same page in seeing a Canadian market get a team ahead of Kansas City, however. That looks like a terrible long-term decision.
by The Forechecker on Jun 29, 2007 4:28 PM EDT reply actions
Let me again remind that I hold no ill will for the Forechecker or the Predator faithful. But the NHL is a tough sell in a market that loves hockey, nevermind a new market AND small market.
On the attendance numbers that you mentioned. IMHO using overall league average attendance numbers versus Predator average attendence numbers is an apple to oranges comparison. IMHO, we should be comparing average attendance for teams with similiar circumstances....
Teams that finished with 100 or more points for 2006-7 NHL season...NJ Devils (107), Penguins (105), Buffalo Sabres (113), Ottawa Sens (105), Detroit RW (113), Nashville Preds (110), Vancouver Cancks (105), Minn. Wild (104), Ducks (110), Stars(107) and Sharks (107)
Now you can find similiar circumstances with the Preds and other teams in that group...that is...small market...southern U.S. market...recent expansion....combinations there of.
IMHO...since I've been following your blog and tossing the odd comment in here and there...something that I've noticed is that you have and have commented on taking some flak from Canuckistan. Hey, we have our birds just like you yanks do. But beyond that, I think something that really irks [us] folks from north of the border is that you [Nashvillians] have no idea how much more not only viable would a team like the Preds be but how much more appreciated. Not only has the hockey-god Gary Bettman and crew placed a NHL team in Nashville but you have a great team. It's not suffering the problems of a Phoenix or Anaheim in the early years.
Anyways, now it looks as if something has gone on and the Preds could be Kansas City bound. Reminds me of a SNL skit...reallY? Kansas City? Really?
I'll be reading Forechecker. All the best and an early happy 4th to you and yours!
by Anonymous on Jun 29, 2007 6:09 PM EDT reply actions
Please, go ahead and sell out. Nobody is stopping you but yourselves. It's not lack of respect, it's anger over the fact that the Preds have (ok, had) one of the leagues most exciting teams and yet they couldn't fill a the rink selling tickets for less than $50. Meanwhile, where I'm from (Canada), I can't get a ticket to see a crappy team for less than $300. I've actually driven almost 10 hours round trip just to see NHL calibre hockey at a price that doesn't put me back a week's pay. We crave hockey here, and yet some of the leagues best teams are in markets where people don't care enough to the point where they're giving tickets away. If the only way to sustain popularity is by winning championships then hockey doesn't belong there (which can be said about many NHL markets at the moment, so don't take offense) because there's only one winner a year, and a 30 year (or maybe 32 year) cycle is probably too long a memory for most people in Nashville.
by Stan the Caddy on Jun 30, 2007 3:59 PM EDT reply actions

by 






















