• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

NHL Beating NBA in Attendance

Much to the dismay of ESPN, which makes me ever happier. Old article, but it's the only one I can find since I have been paying attention to box scores lately and have noticed this trend.

By Greg Wyshynski
It was the June 20, 1994 issue of Sports Illustrated, back when that publication's cover stories and proclamations shaped the conversation for sports culture in the U.S. The story by writer E.M. Swift was titled "Hot Not: While the NBA's image has cooled, the NHL has ignited surprising new interest in hockey." It appeared at a time when offense was down and embarrassing moments were up in the NBA, while Mark Messier's New York Rangers were the sports story of the year.

The SI article has become something of a legend for puckheads, some of whom are convinced it foretold of an NHL surge in popularity past the NBA's -- one that was short-circuited by the 1995 lockout. It's like hockey's answer to the UFO crash in Roswell: infamous and resonating, but everyone has a different version of the truth. The Hockey's Future boards even had a thread created to "myth-bust" what fans claim the story reported.

Yet 14 years later, we find ourselves at another "Hot Not" moment for the NHL and the NBA, the two most popular professional arena sports in North America (sorry, lacrosse). Both leagues are taking their licks as the economy worsens; but the numbers show the NHL's gains and stability in attendance, while basketball fans are concerned about what they see as a clear enthusiasm gap in the NBA.

You can't blame Supersonic Soul for being bitter about the NBA after the Seattle Sonics blog saw its team relocated to Oklahoma City. But it made waves this week by publishing this chart that tracks average attendance in the NBA vs. the NHL over the last several years:



"That, my friends, is the cold, hard hand of reality smacking David Stern in the face. In the past six years, his league has gone from dominator to also-ran," wrote PN on the Soul.

In the NBA's defense, it didn't have the benefit of the "reset button" that was the post-lockout NHL. New rules, new stars and competitive parity -- with a healthy dose of freebies and creative accounting in ticket distribution -- set the NHL on a course through which attendance records fell on almost a monthly basis.

That said, it's a downward trend for the NBA, and a much less severe dip for the NHL, in a spiraling economy.

Head-to-head in cities and states that share both sports, the NHL has always been surprisingly competitive. These numbers tend to rise and fall based in the local teams' success (or lack thereof). Atlanta, for example, had been a Thrashers' town until their fortunes and those of the Hawks changed dramatically.

Here are the head-to-head figures very early in both seasons thus far (numbers complied from ESPN's NBA and NHL attendance figures, prior to last night's games):

City/State
NBA/capacity
NHL/capacity

Atlanta
17,771 (4 games)/88.8
13,726 (8 games)/74.0

Boston
18,624 (7 games)100.0
15,731 (8 games)/84.5

Chicago
21,818 (7 games)/100.5
21,485 (11 games)/104.8

Dallas
20,116 (4 games)/104.8
17,870 (6 games)/96.4

Denver
16,863 (5 games)/88.0
16,485 (8 games)/91.6

Detroit
22,076 (4 games)/100.0
19,753 (7 games)/98.4

Los Angeles
18,997 (5 gms, Lakers)/96.9
14,915 (12 games)/80.6

Miami
15,841 (6 games)/80.8
15,162 (7 games)/78.8

Minnesota
13,629 (5 games)/70.4
18,568 (7 games)/102.8

New Jersey
16,026 (6 games)/79.7
14,459 (10 games)/82.0

New York
18,758 (6 games)/94.9
18,120 (14 games)/107.2

Philadelphia
12,758 (5 games)/62.4
19,267 (8 games)/98.8

Phoenix
18,422 (5 games)/96.8
15,214 (9 games)/86.9

Toronto
19,073 (4 games)/96.3
19,287 (9 games)/102.6

Washington
17,582 (4 games)/85.0
17,758 (8 games)/95.1


Throw in the Carolina Hurricanes (15,091/80.6) over the Charlotte Bobcats (13,040/68.5) if you'd like, even though those are two distinct media markets.

Not counting Carolina, and again extremely early for both sports, the NHL leads the NBA (8-7) in arena capacity while the NBA wins average attendance in a rout (11-4). Outside of Colorado, Denver and New Jersey, the capacity winners in each city will likely hold throughout the season.



Both leagues use the nebulous and deceptive "tickets distributed" method for tabulating attendance. Frequently in their coverage, sports writers will note empty seats in the arenas that greatly vary from the attendance figures in the box scores. That goes for both the NBA and the NHL.

But for the NBA, the empties have taken on a new meaning. Nick Friedell over on Ball Don't Lie reported on what can only be called the Enthusiasm Gap being witnessed between NBA crowds of today and of old:

I had to cringe last weekend when I read Phil Mushnick's column about the attendance problems that some NBA teams are having. He reports that at a recent New York-Memphis game in Tennessee, an eyewitness said there were only about 4,000 people in the stands to see the two teams play. Mushnick also believes that by next spring we will be hearing/seeing stories about how some NBA (and NHL) teams are close to suspending operations because of larger financial troubles.

I wish I could refute his thinking, but, I actually agree with him.

I have watched NBA games throughout my entire life and I don't ever remember seeing this many empty seats in arenas all over the league. I've covered several games in Orlando during the early part of the season, and there are always plenty of good seats to be had. What surprises me more than anything, though, is the general lack of enthusiasm from some of the crowds. For the most part, the crowds I've seen at Magic games are flatter than a pancake. Sure, there are some exciting moments, and, if asked, the fans are usually willing to get out of their seats and cheer. But, if it wasn't for the noise blaring from the speaker system, you would be able to hear Stan Van Gundy barking out orders on almost every possession.

The Enthusiasm Gap may exist between the NBA and the NHL, as well. The Chicago Blackhawks and Washington Capitals fans have eclipsed their NBA brethren for sheer excitement about their teams. The Philadelphia Flyers, Minnesota Wild and Colorado Avalanche all hold historic leads in enthusiasm over their NBA neighbors. From events like the Winter Classic to players like Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin, the NHL has been more adept in creating fresh buzz than the NBA; and on a micro level, the NHL even out-rated the NBA in their respective championship rounds last summer.

NBA fans and pundits will point to overall television ratings, merchandise sales and mainstream attention in an attempt to curb whatever positive momentum can be perceived for the NHL. Which would ignore that (a) basketball translates from the arena to television much better than hockey, which has consistently held the NHL back; (b) NBA merchandise is cheaper, more user-friendly and culturally embraced; and (c) most mainstream sports editors loathe hockey.

The television problem will eventually be solved by technology for hockey. I did an interview with Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban back in 2006, and his thoughts about hockey and HDTV resonate today:

"It's hard to watch for the casual fan. The casual fan doesn't understand strategy and because the action is so fast, it's hard to pick up on it with regular TV. HDTV with its widescreen and high resolution allows for shots of the entire ice, so it's much simpler to pick up the puck and see the strategy that takes place in a game."

(Cuban also said back then: "I'm not as in tune to this for the NHL as I am for the NBA, but I think the NHL's biggest challenge is on the marketing side." Truer words ... )

The fact is that neither of these leagues is particularly thriving in a bad economy, and that both are having to resort to some creative marketing to keeps fannies in the seats. But to hear NBA writers and fans tell it, there seems to be an unmistakable malaise setting in for professional basketball, at a time when professional hockey is having some semblance of a renaissance.

Or, as Sports Illustrated put it 14 years ago, "While the NBA's image has cooled, the NHL has ignited surprising new interest in hockey

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/pu...ey-winning-in-attendance-fan-e?urn=nhl-123904
 
Sport events are crap nowadays. Overpriced, people dress as slobs or casual, and there is always the risk of a fight starting out because people do not know how to maintain civility.

Hell I remember the buffoon at the US Open in tennis last year. He started crap. Stupid.

People should be fined big for that kind of idiocy. Especially if it is televised. No sense in any of that.

NHL. I'm not sure. I know they fight on the ice but it is expected in this particular sport. I tried to get into hockey. I will maybe one day. It looks fun to watch. I just feel odd being a late bloomer about it all.
 
Ho-hum 'news' when you really think about it. Hockey is an exciting sport to watch in person irrespective of where your local team is sitting in the standings.

Television revenue is what these (and most leagues/organizations) care about. In that respect, the NHL is making a fraction of what the NBA is making. Maybe $400 million for the NHL as compared to close to $5 billion for the NBA.
 
Sport events are crap nowadays. Overpriced, people dress as slobs or casual, and there is always the risk of a fight starting out because people do not know how to maintain civility.

Hell I remember the buffoon at the US Open in tennis last year. He started crap. Stupid.

People should be fined big for that kind of idiocy. Especially if it is televised. No sense in any of that.

NHL. I'm not sure. I know they fight on the ice but it is expected in this particular sport. I tried to get into hockey. I will maybe one day. It looks fun to watch. I just feel odd being a late bloomer about it all.

To be honest, hockey is probably one of those sports you have to have played in order to fully feel a connect to it. That said, of all the multi-sport athletes I've known growing up, hockey was the sport they almost always tended to love the most even if they were equally gifted in other sports such as football or baseball. With that said, I'd say it's the funnest sport to play if you are tallented enough to be a superior tallent to those you compete against is hockey. :2 cents:
 
Ho-hum 'news' when you really think about it. Hockey is an exciting sport to watch in person irrespective of where your local team is sitting in the standings.

Television revenue is what these (and most leagues/organizations) care about. In that respect, the NHL is making a fraction of what the NBA is making. Maybe $400 million for the NHL as compared to close to $5 billion for the NBA.

Where in the hell do you get this, out of your ass? I see WAY more jerseys at my NHL games than I do at my NBA games. Prove your claim.
 
Where in the hell do you get this, out of your ass? I see WAY more jerseys at my NHL games than I do at my NBA games. Prove your claim.

Re-read my post is all I can say because I have no clue what you're talking about as it relates to what I posted.
 
Re-read my post is all I can say because I have no clue what you're talking about as it relates to what I posted.

Your post is shit, essentially is what I said. TV revenue is just part of the pie. Jersey and other merchandise also make up part of the pie. And just a brief search totally debunks your claim that the NBA (5 bill) kills the NHL (500 mill):

http://www.plunkettresearch.com/sports recreation leisure market research/industry statistics

NBA: 4 billion in revenue
NHL: 3 billion in revenue

...according to the above-cited source.
 

feller469

Moving to a trailer in Fife, AL.
The NBA has a handful of great players and they are lumped onto about half the teams. the rest of the league could disappear tonight and not many would notice. NBA fans, in my opinion, are a lot more bandwagon than hockey fans are. People go to see individuals far more than they go to see teams.

Hockey fans, in general, are more passionate about the team. sure, they will make sure they go see Sid the Kid and the Great 8, but they will also go to see their team.

With a tightening on the amount of discretionary income people have, fewer bandwagon fans will show up to see a losing home team.
 

PlasmaTwa2

The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
The NHL is a better league to support because there is parity. It is a lot easier to be passionate and follow your team if they have a chance at actually winning, and especially when there is at least one great player on every team. With the NBA, now you only have a handful of teams that anyone would consider winners.

For example, in the NHL right now there are a total of five teams in the league with a losing record (Toronto, Ottawa, New Jersey, Edmonton and the New York Islanders). The best team in the league right now is the Vancouver Canucks, who have 77 points; there are two other teams (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) with more than seventy and twelve other teams with more than sixty points (the playoff cut-off mark right now is roughly sixty, and there is a total of ten teams outside of the playoffs that have a realistic chance at the playoffs). I probably don't have to bring up the parity in the playoffs either, especially not after last year when Philadelphia made it to the Finals as the seventh seed in the East.

Now, the NBA. Fifteen teams have losing records, with two of them (Philadelphia and Indiana) having playoff spots despite their futility. The best team is the San Antonio Sputs, with a percentage of .840; there are only three other teams (Miami, Boston, and Dallas) with a winning percentage of over .700. Over half of the teams in the East have losing records, and really, if you aren't a fan of the good teams, you know that your team isn't going anywhere in the playoffs.
 
Your post is shit, essentially is what I said. TV revenue is just part of the pie. Jersey and other merchandise also make up part of the pie. And just a brief search totally debunks your claim that the NBA (5 bill) kills the NHL (500 mill):

http://www.plunkettresearch.com/sports recreation leisure market research/industry statistics

NBA: 4 billion in revenue
NHL: 3 billion in revenue

...according to the above-cited source.

PRE=Plunkett Research Estimate...do you know exactly what they're estimating?:cool:

I'm not sure what the current NBA TV CONTRACTS are worth but from 2002 - 2008 the combined ABC/ESPN/TNT TV contracts were worth nearly $5 Billion...roughly between 7 and 8 hundred million a year.

In 2008 Versus extended the contract it had with the NHL 3 more years. The original contract paid the NHL $65 mil, $70 mil, and $72.5 mil in respective years beginning in '05. Not sure what NBC pays the NHL for their playoffs but hard to imagine the amount bridging the difference between what the NBA makes on their tv deals.

Again, that's a fraction of what the NBA is being paid by it's tv partners.

That's the latest info I could find relating to Television revenue. Do you have something more current?
 
It appears that this study was done before the lockout.

What are the numbers now?

It's an upward trend. A brief Google search returned a number of sources, some of them legit, and others not so legit. The overall results tend to show an upward gain for the NHL and also noted that when they restructure their TV contract (next year?) they are going to make a massive gain in that market as well.
 
Ahhh, things are global now.

Big fan of both here, but my guess is the NBA is is like.........:1orglaugh

Because hoops worldwide is bigger. Especially in Asia/South America the BIG growing markets. Also TV wise (WORLDWIDE) the NHL is worth....?

I go to both and love NHL in person, the NBA on TV and it makes sense...at least to me. But if the numbers are lower at home don't think the NBA is nervous about it vs NHL.
 
I remember ESPN walked away from the NHL because they didn't want to pony up $100mil a year to broadcast it. NBC paid nothing to broadcast their limited schedule. I think Versus does pay rights fees, but got them for very cheap because I believe they were their own entity and not owned by Comcast (or Cablevision?) as they are now.

ESPN fucked over the NHL. Attending NHL is a much better experience than attending basketball, imo.

HOWEVER--I do like watching them both from home :thefinger Gary Thorne and Bill Clement calling an NHL game--nothing better than that...:weeping:
 

PlasmaTwa2

The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
I remember ESPN walked away from the NHL because they didn't want to pony up $100mil a year to broadcast it. NBC paid nothing to broadcast their limited schedule. I think Versus does pay rights fees, but got them for very cheap because I believe they were their own entity and not owned by Comcast (or Cablevision?) as they are now.

ESPN fucked over the NHL. Attending NHL is a much better experience than attending basketball, imo.

HOWEVER--I do like watching them both from home :thefinger Gary Thorne and Bill Clement calling an NHL game--nothing better than that...:weeping:

I can't help but wonder what ESPN will do if both the NFL and NBA have lockouts next year. They might come crawling back to the NHL and offer a massive contract, or they very well could say "fuck them" and brodcast 24-hour poker. If the NFL goes down for a year, I could see NBC wanting to fill their schedule with more NHL games until next year. Will be interesting to see what happens.

But, just remember people, the NHL isn't the league that is talking about contracting six teams to make a profit. Maybe that's because they don't want to admit it, but hey.
 
^
Great point. TNT can fill their sched with a Law&Order Infinium marathon...but ESPN might be fucked bigtime.

The NHL SHOULD give ESPN the :finger: but they won't. Depending on how the Versus contract is worded--ESPN might have to pull some moneybags shenanigans to get on the schedule.

Or, worse case scenario--ESPN pounds our skulls with goddamn high school sports content ... :sleep:
 

John_8581

FreeOnes Lifetime Member
Periodically I'll watch an NHL game... either the Rangers, Devils, or Islanders.

However I haven't seen a NBA game since Patrick Ewing, Bernard King, Chris Mullen, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen were active and playing.

Yes, it's been over twenty years.
 
I hear NHL games are some of the most exciting events to attend. But does that make it a better sport? Hell no! NHL, like soccer, involves a lot of luck IMO. That's why I can't watch it.
 
Top