Like I said before, I don't care if I understand it or not because it doesn't appeal to me. Just because I don't like hockey doesn't mean i'm a bad person or ignorant.

 

 

Well take this into consideration. My mother hates the sh*t out of baseball... why? Because, all it is to her is a game that is slow, boring, the old guys wear a uniform, and people spit a lot. She hates it, because it doesnt appeal to her. You hate hockey, because your first impression of it didnt appeal to it, even though you have no knowledge of it. My mom is ignorant about baseball. You are ignorant about hockey. Mike Milbury refers to those Americans who say exactly what you say. Hockey sucks, and it doesnt deserve my eyes.

Right, and then there's people like you who take sh*t waaaay too seriously and are too stupid to catch the hint of playfulness in my post that was ended with a smiley.

 

 

I've watched Hockey games on TV and they just don't appeal to me, i'm not saying it sucks just for the sake of saying it sucks.

 

doesn't sound like a "hint of playfullness" there. does it? sounds like you're saying the sport sucks to me.

 

you may have watched a few hockey games but i'd be willing to bet my life you sure as hell don't understand it. go to a game, legitamately root for the panthers and then tell me it sucks and i'll believe you. until then..... :whistle

 

First, I was referring to my original post that was ended with a smiley face. Second, I don't care if I understand it or not because it just doesn't appeal to me.

 

:notworthy

 

so you just admitted you're ignorant about five minutes after trying to convince us you "have watched the sport"? beautiful.

 

why else would you say that aside from trying to gain credibility on your knowledge of the sport?

 

buzz off. you don't know what you're talking about...go catch a game and then get back to us. if you're a sports fan, you wont walk out of that arena dissapointed. if you want to keep living in a bubble...go right ahead.

 

Are you incoherent or just plain stupid? Just because it doesn't appeal to me doesn't mean I haven't ran across it on tv or been forced to watch while others were watching it.

 

 

sigh.....you are hopeless.

 

ps: might want to pull out your dictionary and give a quick check on "incoherent". :notworthy

This whole topic is going nowhere fast, this is something that probably should be dealt with in PMs... Can I petition to a mod to cleanup/close the thread please?

why do you think in markets up north. the hockey team is just as-if not more popular than the rival sports in that city? the nfl is king everywhere, but the wings are bigger than the pistons, wild over the t-wolves, penguins over the pirates, flyers over the sixers, etc. etc. people grow up with those teams and with the sport so they have history and tradition. the "expansion" markets have yet to build tradition so you still have plenty of ignorance floating around.

 

This argument is extremely weak, the fan bases are "stronger" because the teams are proven to win more

 

Wings have a crap load of championships > Pistons having 1 in however many years

 

Wild > T'Wolves because the Wolves pretty much suck

 

Penguins > Pirates, same reason... I'll guarantee you this though, if they put a product on the field that has a chance at that division, Pittsburgh fans will come back in droves, they've been legitimately cheated this past decade by HORRIBLE team management

 

Flyers > Sixers, same as above

 

oh please. give me a break. if you want to use that logic you can pretty much use it against NBA/MLB franchises as well.

 

the heat are more popular than the panthers because they've won a championship and been competitive while the panthers toil in mediocrity!

 

you and i both know thats not true.

 

go to philly, go to detroit, go to pittsburgh. you see much more flyers memorabilia than sixers, more penguins than, more wings than pistons.

 

if the panthers go out in the next 10 years and win 5 championships and the heat have 10 more seasons like the one they had last year...the panthers will be more popular, even here.

 

but the wings and pistons have been extremely successful franchises in detroit. saying the wings are "more popular" because they've finished their success with more titles is, honestly, pretty stupid.

 

i dont know that much about the sixers, but the flyers havent won a championship in what, 3 decades? they were absolutely dreadful last year yet they sold out every game regardless. they're significantly bigger in philadelphia.

 

you can put the wild in dead last the next 10 years and the t-wolves in first in minnesota and the wild would still be bigger in minny. if you disagree you have no idea of the culture there. minnesota sells out high school hockey games at the xcel energy center (20,000 capacity). They are the self-proclaimed "State of Hockey".

 

regardless, the point remains. cities with history and tradition have no problems drawing and sustaining interest in the nhl, because those children grow up with the game and love it and understand it. in the expansion markets....you dont have that......yet. within the next decade or so that is going to start to change. hell, it already is. most of the "expansion" markets are 10+ years old now. go to a panthers game, you'll see more kids there than any other sports event in south florida. it'll change with time.

oh please. give me a break. if you want to use that logic you can pretty much use it against NBA/MLB franchises as well.

 

I can, and I do... because it's a fact

 

the heat are more popular than the panthers because they've won a championship and been competitive while the panthers toil in mediocrity!

 

you and i both know thats not true.

 

It is true, the pre suck-tastic season, the Heat were outdrawing the Panthers, while a S. Fla, or almost ANY other team is winning, they will outdraw a team that isn't

 

go to philly, go to detroit, go to pittsburgh. you see much more flyers memorabilia than sixers, more penguins than, more wings than pistons.

 

Because the Flyers are better than the Sixers, the Penguins than the Pirates, and the Wings than the Pistons.... That's a fact, irrefutable and undeniable

 

if the panthers go out in the next 10 years and win 5 championships and the heat have 10 more seasons like the one they had last year...the panthers will be more popular, even here.

 

That's my point, EXACTLY my point, one that you refuted up there... and are now changing your story on

 

but the wings and pistons have been extremely successful franchises in detroit. saying the wings are "more popular" because they've finished their success with more titles is, honestly, pretty stupid.

 

It's not stupid at all, a big consideration in the average fan's choosing to go to a sporting event is contingent on whether or not their team will win or lose... unless a historic event or something is happening... You acknowledge that football is king, but the Pistons and Red Wings outdraw the Lions... why? Because the Lions suck, and the Tigers couldn't draw an elementary school field trip back in 2000? Why, because they sucked... now they're a good team... and well they're slumping now, but guess what, they're selling tickets.... because they're supposed to be a World Series favorite.

 

i dont know that much about the sixers, but the flyers havent won a championship in what, 3 decades? they were absolutely dreadful last year yet they sold out every game regardless. they're significantly bigger in philadelphia.

 

BECAUSE ALL PHILLY TEAMS SUCK... none of them have won a championship in ages, they're almost as bad as Ohio in terms of winning it all... The Sixers were dreadful too, the only team that wasn't BAD was the playoff-making Phillies

 

you can put the wild in dead last the next 10 years and the t-wolves in first in minnesota and the wild would still be bigger in minny. if you disagree you have no idea of the culture there. minnesota sells out high school hockey games at the xcel energy center (20,000 capacity). They are the self-proclaimed "State of Hockey".

 

That's wrong, a last place team will ALWAYS suffer in attendance ALWAYS, ignoring that is ignorant. If the Wolves suddenly acquire Gilbert Arenas, Baron Davis and Elton Brand, or any of the big FAs on the market, and they contend for a title, that stadium will sell out EVERY night. Look at what happened with the Celtics, and what happened with the Heat. And if you compare that to a (you're scenario) pitiful Wild team, then there is no contest...

 

regardless, the point remains. cities with history and tradition have no problems drawing and sustaining interest in the nhl, because those children grow up with the game and love it and understand it. in the expansion markets....you dont have that......yet. within the next decade or so that is going to start to change. hell, it already is. most of the "expansion" markets are 10+ years old now. go to a panthers game, you'll see more kids there than any other sports event in south florida. it'll change with time.

 

Saying that established markets are better than new markets is so pointlessly obvious, I'm actually pained having to read that. But you are blatantly ignoring the effect of having a winning team. Winning is THE BIGGEST effect on attendance in sports. Put a star player on a losing team, and his star will fade, put average players on a winning team and they will become stars and fan favorites... Look at Tampa Bay this year in the MLB, they're winning, and *gasp* selling tickets. The Lightning... a relatively young team, a team that should be suffering from "lack of tradition" as per your suggestion, had OUTSTANDING attendance, because they had a winning team. The Penguins were having a devil of a time drawing fans out there pre-Sidney Crosby... heck they were contemplating relocation because they couldn't get the proper support...

oh please. give me a break. if you want to use that logic you can pretty much use it against NBA/MLB franchises as well.

 

I can, and I do... because it's a fact

 

the heat are more popular than the panthers because they've won a championship and been competitive while the panthers toil in mediocrity!

 

you and i both know thats not true.

 

It is true, the pre suck-tastic season, the Heat were outdrawing the Panthers, while a S. Fla, or almost ANY other team is winning, they will outdraw a team that isn't

 

go to philly, go to detroit, go to pittsburgh. you see much more flyers memorabilia than sixers, more penguins than, more wings than pistons.

 

Because the Flyers are better than the Sixers, the Penguins than the Pirates, and the Wings than the Pistons.... That's a fact, irrefutable and undeniable

 

if the panthers go out in the next 10 years and win 5 championships and the heat have 10 more seasons like the one they had last year...the panthers will be more popular, even here.

 

That's my point, EXACTLY my point, one that you refuted up there... and are now changing your story on

 

but the wings and pistons have been extremely successful franchises in detroit. saying the wings are "more popular" because they've finished their success with more titles is, honestly, pretty stupid.

 

It's not stupid at all, a big consideration in the average fan's choosing to go to a sporting event is contingent on whether or not their team will win or lose... unless a historic event or something is happening... You acknowledge that football is king, but the Pistons and Red Wings outdraw the Lions... why? Because the Lions suck, and the Tigers couldn't draw an elementary school field trip back in 2000? Why, because they sucked... now they're a good team... and well they're slumping now, but guess what, they're selling tickets.... because they're supposed to be a World Series favorite.

 

i dont know that much about the sixers, but the flyers havent won a championship in what, 3 decades? they were absolutely dreadful last year yet they sold out every game regardless. they're significantly bigger in philadelphia.

 

BECAUSE ALL PHILLY TEAMS SUCK... none of them have won a championship in ages, they're almost as bad as Ohio in terms of winning it all... The Sixers were dreadful too, the only team that wasn't BAD was the playoff-making Phillies

 

you can put the wild in dead last the next 10 years and the t-wolves in first in minnesota and the wild would still be bigger in minny. if you disagree you have no idea of the culture there. minnesota sells out high school hockey games at the xcel energy center (20,000 capacity). They are the self-proclaimed "State of Hockey".

 

That's wrong, a last place team will ALWAYS suffer in attendance ALWAYS, ignoring that is ignorant. If the Wolves suddenly acquire Gilbert Arenas, Baron Davis and Elton Brand, or any of the big FAs on the market, and they contend for a title, that stadium will sell out EVERY night. Look at what happened with the Celtics, and what happened with the Heat. And if you compare that to a (you're scenario) pitiful Wild team, then there is no contest...

 

regardless, the point remains. cities with history and tradition have no problems drawing and sustaining interest in the nhl, because those children grow up with the game and love it and understand it. in the expansion markets....you dont have that......yet. within the next decade or so that is going to start to change. hell, it already is. most of the "expansion" markets are 10+ years old now. go to a panthers game, you'll see more kids there than any other sports event in south florida. it'll change with time.

 

Saying that established markets are better than new markets is so pointlessly obvious, I'm actually pained having to read that. But you are blatantly ignoring the effect of having a winning team. Winning is THE BIGGEST effect on attendance in sports. Put a star player on a losing team, and his star will fade, put average players on a winning team and they will become stars and fan favorites... Look at Tampa Bay this year in the MLB, they're winning, and *gasp* selling tickets. The Lightning... a relatively young team, a team that should be suffering from "lack of tradition" as per your suggestion, had OUTSTANDING attendance, because they had a winning team. The Penguins were having a devil of a time drawing fans out there pre-Sidney Crosby... heck they were contemplating relocation because they couldn't get the proper support...

 

 

you obviously didn't get my point so your reply is just a bunch of verbal diarrhea.

 

i am not arguing that winning/losing has a drastic effect on attendance. my point was that in the north, the hockey teams draw comparatively/favorably to their rival sports regardless of their performance. for example, the red wings and pistons are both extremely successful franchises, and the red wings outdraw them. both in attendance and TV. the championships are irrelevant as they've both been true contenders for the last decade or so. the same goes for the penguins...just a few years ago they were dismal, just like the pirates, yet they still were supported in the stands while the pirates were not. hell, recently there was an article printed in pittsburgh on how the penguins are catching the STEELERS in terms of popularity. i find that hard to believe, but, i don't live there.

 

that is my point. i don't disagree with what you're saying, it's just irrelevant in the context of my argument.

 

and as far as the lightning go...i don't know if you noticed, but they were dead last in the nhl and still drew very, very well. if one thing hockey has going for them, the fans are far more loyal than in the other 3 sports. how else can one explain the panthers still getting 16,000+ a year after what they've put us through?

Right, and then there's people like you who take sh*t waaaay too seriously and are too stupid to catch the hint of playfulness in my post that was ended with a smiley.

 

 

I've watched Hockey games on TV and they just don't appeal to me, i'm not saying it sucks just for the sake of saying it sucks.

 

doesn't sound like a "hint of playfullness" there. does it? sounds like you're saying the sport sucks to me.

 

you may have watched a few hockey games but i'd be willing to bet my life you sure as hell don't understand it. go to a game, legitamately root for the panthers and then tell me it sucks and i'll believe you. until then..... :whistle

 

First, I was referring to my original post that was ended with a smiley face. Second, I don't care if I understand it or not because it just doesn't appeal to me.

 

:notworthy

 

so you just admitted you're ignorant about five minutes after trying to convince us you "have watched the sport"? beautiful.

 

why else would you say that aside from trying to gain credibility on your knowledge of the sport?

 

buzz off. you don't know what you're talking about...go catch a game and then get back to us. if you're a sports fan, you wont walk out of that arena dissapointed. if you want to keep living in a bubble...go right ahead.

 

Are you incoherent or just plain stupid? Just because it doesn't appeal to me doesn't mean I haven't ran across it on tv or been forced to watch while others were watching it.

 

 

sigh.....you are hopeless.

 

ps: might want to pull out your dictionary and give a quick check on "incoherent". :notworthy

 

Lacking cohesion, connection, or harmony

 

You're certainly lacking that...along with a brain. :notworthy :fyou

Right, and then there's people like you who take sh*t waaaay too seriously and are too stupid to catch the hint of playfulness in my post that was ended with a smiley.

 

 

I've watched Hockey games on TV and they just don't appeal to me, i'm not saying it sucks just for the sake of saying it sucks.

 

doesn't sound like a "hint of playfullness" there. does it? sounds like you're saying the sport sucks to me.

 

you may have watched a few hockey games but i'd be willing to bet my life you sure as hell don't understand it. go to a game, legitamately root for the panthers and then tell me it sucks and i'll believe you. until then..... :whistle

 

First, I was referring to my original post that was ended with a smiley face. Second, I don't care if I understand it or not because it just doesn't appeal to me.

 

:notworthy

 

so you just admitted you're ignorant about five minutes after trying to convince us you "have watched the sport"? beautiful.

 

why else would you say that aside from trying to gain credibility on your knowledge of the sport?

 

buzz off. you don't know what you're talking about...go catch a game and then get back to us. if you're a sports fan, you wont walk out of that arena dissapointed. if you want to keep living in a bubble...go right ahead.

 

Are you incoherent or just plain stupid? Just because it doesn't appeal to me doesn't mean I haven't ran across it on tv or been forced to watch while others were watching it.

 

 

sigh.....you are hopeless.

 

ps: might want to pull out your dictionary and give a quick check on "incoherent". :notworthy

 

Lacking cohesion, connection, or harmony

 

You're certainly lacking that...along with a brain. :notworthy :fyou

:lol

 

what an idiot

 

i know what incoherent means, thanks. the word made no sense in the context that you used it in. incompetent might have been a better choice. got it now?

 

learn the english language a bit better and then come play with the big boys, kid. :thumbup

you obviously didn't get my point so your reply is just a bunch of verbal diarrhea.

 

i am not arguing that winning/losing has a drastic effect on attendance. my point was that in the north, the hockey teams draw comparatively/favorably to their rival sports regardless of their performance. for example, the red wings and pistons are both extremely successful franchises, and the red wings outdraw them. both in attendance and TV. the championships are irrelevant as they've both been true contenders for the last decade or so. the same goes for the penguins...just a few years ago they were dismal, just like the pirates, yet they still were supported in the stands while the pirates were not. hell, recently there was an article printed in pittsburgh on how the penguins are catching the STEELERS in terms of popularity. i find that hard to believe, but, i don't live there.

 

that is my point. i don't disagree with what you're saying, it's just irrelevant in the context of my argument.

 

and as far as the lightning go...i don't know if you noticed, but they were dead last in the nhl and still drew very, very well. if one thing hockey has going for them, the fans are far more loyal than in the other 3 sports. how else can one explain the panthers still getting 16,000+ a year after what they've put us through?

 

 

My point is that all of your examples suck and do nothing to further your point, you used Hockey teams that were as or more successful than rival sports in their respective cities, of course the fan base will be stronger...

 

If the Yankees, Giants, Knicks and Rangers all were the most dominant teams in their respective sports, the Rangers would draw the worst of all of those teams, and that's a team with history.

 

Also, as for the Penguins catching the Steelers in popularity, yes, they are "catching" the Steelers in the sense that they have (long since) passed the Pirates... and are now the second most followed team in the state.... because they are winning, not because of their history...

 

Hockey's follower-ship is based on the team winning... just like every other team... you're putting hockey on some sort of pedestal and it's got no difference between any other team... sans the fact that it and basketball are both indoor sports, so there is no fear of inclimate weather.

 

Also, I'm calling BS on your "point" of hockey teams drawing comparatively/favorably to their rival sports regardless of their performance, performance has EVERYTHING to do with it... a poorly performing hockey team will NEVER draw as well as a competitive team.

Right, and then there's people like you who take sh*t waaaay too seriously and are too stupid to catch the hint of playfulness in my post that was ended with a smiley.

 

 

I've watched Hockey games on TV and they just don't appeal to me, i'm not saying it sucks just for the sake of saying it sucks.

 

doesn't sound like a "hint of playfullness" there. does it? sounds like you're saying the sport sucks to me.

 

you may have watched a few hockey games but i'd be willing to bet my life you sure as hell don't understand it. go to a game, legitamately root for the panthers and then tell me it sucks and i'll believe you. until then..... :whistle

 

First, I was referring to my original post that was ended with a smiley face. Second, I don't care if I understand it or not because it just doesn't appeal to me.

 

:notworthy

 

so you just admitted you're ignorant about five minutes after trying to convince us you "have watched the sport"? beautiful.

 

why else would you say that aside from trying to gain credibility on your knowledge of the sport?

 

buzz off. you don't know what you're talking about...go catch a game and then get back to us. if you're a sports fan, you wont walk out of that arena dissapointed. if you want to keep living in a bubble...go right ahead.

 

Are you incoherent or just plain stupid? Just because it doesn't appeal to me doesn't mean I haven't ran across it on tv or been forced to watch while others were watching it.

 

 

sigh.....you are hopeless.

 

ps: might want to pull out your dictionary and give a quick check on "incoherent". :notworthy

 

Lacking cohesion, connection, or harmony

 

You're certainly lacking that...along with a brain. :notworthy :fyou

:lol

 

what an idiot

 

i know what incoherent means, thanks. the word made no sense in the context that you used it in. incompetent might have been a better choice. got it now?

 

learn the english language a bit better and then come play with the big boys, kid. :thumbup

 

Meh, I thought i'd explain it in a different context since you seemed to be too stupid to understand it in the first one. I kept explaining why I don't care for hockey and you kept replying with senseless crap about me being ignorant. Btw, big boys don't watch hockey. :thumbup

Meh, I thought i'd explain it in a different context since you seemed to be too stupid to understand it in the first one. I kept explaining why I don't care for hockey and you kept replying with senseless crap about me being ignorant. Btw, big boys don't watch hockey. :thumbup

 

My point is that all of your examples suck and do nothing to further your point, you used Hockey teams that were as or more successful than rival sports in their respective cities, of course the fan base will be stronger...

 

If the Yankees, Giants, Knicks and Rangers all were the most dominant teams in their respective sports, the Rangers would draw the worst of all of those teams, and that's a team with history

 

thats nice....and probably true...but again, completely irrelevant.

 

if the knicks and rangers were both dead last, what would they draw? probably pretty evenly.

 

all things being equal, the popularity in most of the markets up north is comparable. you seem to think it's all because of on-field (ice) performance but it's not as black/white as you're trying to paint it . there's gray area. markets like minnesota and buffalo have season tickets being passed down in their wills. they will support their teams regardless of what they do on the ice, especially minnesota. the T-wolves do not get that type of support, and you can't argue that they do.

 

Also, as for the Penguins catching the Steelers in popularity, yes, they are "catching" the Steelers in the sense that they have (long since) passed the Pirates... and are now the second most followed team in the state.... because they are winning, not because of their history...

 

but the steelers are winning too. so if they are catching them in popularity, the "winning" has nothing to do with it. the steelers have been just as successful as the penguins have, if not more.

 

and the article was straight forward. it had nothing to do with the pirates or the penguins passing them in popularity so lets not try and spin it off that way. i dont neccessarily buy it, but i dont live there so i wouldnt know.

 

Hockey's follower-ship is based on the team winning... just like every other team... you're putting hockey on some sort of pedestal and it's got no difference between any other team... sans the fact that it and basketball are both indoor sports, so there is no fear of inclimate weather.

 

Also, I'm calling BS on your "point" of hockey teams drawing comparatively/favorably to their rival sports regardless of their performance, performance has EVERYTHING to do with it... a poorly performing hockey team will NEVER draw as well as a competitive team.

 

so are you telling me the toronto maple leafs (terrible, terrible team) don't draw as well as the toronto raptors?

 

obviously, they do, and obviously, it's not an american market so the point is irrelevant. but, again, in markets like minnesota it isn't all that much different. this subject is not black/white like you seem to believe.

Hockey's follower-ship is based on the team winning... just like every other team... you're putting hockey on some sort of pedestal and it's got no difference between any other team... sans the fact that it and basketball are both indoor sports, so there is no fear of inclimate weather.

 

Wait what? Ive been a Panther fan ever since I could remember, and as far as I can remember, with acceptions to one season, they have blown forever. So now there is no such thing as a hockey fan? Just a fan of winning? Ok and there are no baseball fans either, just winning fans.

Hockey's follower-ship is based on the team winning... just like every other team... you're putting hockey on some sort of pedestal and it's got no difference between any other team... sans the fact that it and basketball are both indoor sports, so there is no fear of inclimate weather.

 

Wait what? Ive been a Panther fan ever since I could remember, and as far as I can remember, with acceptions to one season, they have blown forever. So now there is no such thing as a hockey fan? Just a fan of winning? Ok and there are no baseball fans either, just winning fans.

 

I'm talking about attendance figures, the Marlins have league average TV ratings, but well below league average TV ratings... why? Yeah...

Hockey's follower-ship is based on the team winning... just like every other team... you're putting hockey on some sort of pedestal and it's got no difference between any other team... sans the fact that it and basketball are both indoor sports, so there is no fear of inclimate weather.

 

Wait what? Ive been a Panther fan ever since I could remember, and as far as I can remember, with acceptions to one season, they have blown forever. So now there is no such thing as a hockey fan? Just a fan of winning? Ok and there are no baseball fans either, just winning fans.

 

I'm talking about attendance figures, the Marlins have league average TV ratings, but well below league average TV ratings... why? Yeah...

 

I dont see in that post where you once mentioned TV ratings, attendance figures, or league averages...

Wrenching the topic back on track... Tiger really shouldn't make any comment about other sports when he himself doesn't compete in any sort of athletic contest.

What a waste of server space.