Forbes: Flyers Fans 3rd Best in NHL

by Travis Hughes on Dec 21, 2009 11:51 AM EST

I know the Forbes name has a lot of caché, and their team valuations are always spot on. But when it comes to lists like these -- the best and worst NHL fans of the year -- I'm not so sure they're the right people to be making the call.

Then again, they're Forbes, so we'll listen.

Top top five (or six or seven) fan bases in the NHL last season, please.

Top Five:

1. Pittsburgh
2. Toronto
3. Philadelphia
4. Montreal
5 tie. Chicago
5 tie. Minnesota
5 tie. Detroit

I think it's kind of obvious the beef we may have here, so there's really no sense in saying it. I just have one question. I know it's a list of the top fan bases of the year, not the decade or the century or whatever, and that it's all according to numbers, but doesn't recent history matter even a little bit? Does the fact that Pittsburgh and Chicago were practically hockey ghost towns as little as five years ago (or two years ago in Chicago's case) mean anything?

On the flip side, does it matter that Toronto and Montreal are the two most rabid hockey cities in the world, and that no city in America, as much as it may hurt to admit it, will ever reach that level of hockey heaven?

Discuss it in the comments, of course.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

This is like the third place I’ve seen this list posted, and we’re now 0-3 on explaining why the list is so statistically biased.

They used just 3 criteria:

1) Percent of available tickets sold
2) Local tv ratings
3) Merchandise sales

Why oh why is Pittsburgh #1?

1) They play in a tiny arena.

The building only holds 16,958. Only the Islanders’ arena is smaller in the NHL, and its smaller than the Spectrum and a number of other last generation NHL arenas, as well as being smaller than a number of minor league arenas.

This means they score improperly high on the “percentage of tickets sold”.

2) Pittsburgh has no basketball team

There’s no other professional sport competing for television time or even ticket money. Yes, the Steelers’ exist, but they have 8 home games, two or three of which are played before hockey season and they never have games in conflict.

This means the Penguins score improperly high on all three categories, ticket sales, tv ratings, and merchandise.

by MarioD on Dec 21, 2009 12:04 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Well done. Glad someone can break it down.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 21, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions

And as for merchandise sales, when all those bandwagoners are out buying Crosby and Malkin jerseys (or, as much as it pains me to say it, Stanley Cup Champs gear) it boosts those numbers significantly. I happened to have bought a Richards jersey this year, but I haven’t exactly been scooping up Flyers gear at an astonishing rate in a long time (the old stuff keeps holding up just fine)…

Philly Sports and Coyotes Hockey - and yes, I am tired of defending my teams...

by Jordan Ellel on Dec 21, 2009 1:53 PM EST up reply actions

Pittsburgh's also a small metro area

According to Nielsen, the Pittsburgh Demographic Area is 23rd in the country in size. NHL areas in the US that are larger:

New York (1)
Los Angeles (2)
Chicago (3)
Philadelphia (4)
Dallas (5)
San Francisco/San Jose (6)
Boston (7)
Atlanta (8)
DC (9)
Detroit (11)
Phoenix (12)
Tampa (14)
Twin Cities (15)
Denver (16)
Miami (17)
St. Louis (21)

That’s 16 metro areas with 17 teams that are larger, television-wise, than Pittsburgh. Given that TV watching is also measured by percentage, that gives Pitt an advantage. Likewise, every one of those cities except St. Louis has a basketball team (Memphis would be closest for St. Louis, I believe).

"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"

by The Dark on Dec 21, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions

Absolutely.

I wasn’t sure if it tv ratings were incorporated based on number of homes watching them or a percentage of homes watching, so I avoided that part in my criticism.

But if it is based on percentage of homes, that is yet another statistical incongruity that Forbes ignored.

by MarioD on Dec 21, 2009 4:11 PM EST up reply actions

I wasn’t sure at first either, but the article states “we ranked teams based on average regular-season home game attendance as a percentage of arena capacity, regular-season local television viewers as a percentage of the team’s metro area population and team merchandise sales.”

Based on percentages, Pittsburgh was 5th in attendance last year (behind Chicago, Ottawa, Minnesota, and Toronto). For absolute numbers, they were 18th, behind that hockey hotbed Dallas and just barely ahead of Tampa and Carolina. Teams like Tampa get hosed on percentage-based measures, since they have the 7th largest arena in the NHL (Flyers are 5th, Leafs are 9th, to provide some perspective).

It gets ridiculous when you look at individual situations. The Blues aren’t exactly in a hockey-rich area, yet they averaged 1600 more butts in seats than the Penguins. Forbes, however, penalizes the Blues because they only filled 88% of their arena. Frankly, I think showing optimism in the potential for growth in the sport is better than having an over-full, undersized arena that can’t take advantage of growth opportunities.

"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"

by The Dark on Dec 22, 2009 7:52 AM EST up reply actions

Really good point regarding the arena size, but I disagree about TV ratings and Merchandise. Regardless of whether there is an NBA team there or not, people are watching the games. The NBA and NHL aren’t even fighting for the same fans primarily. There is definitely some overlap, but I know more people that refuse to either watch the NHL or the NBA than I know people that watch both. The Steelers are obviously the big man on campus, but don’t underestimate how much support both Pitt and Penn state draw in the area. Basically every weekend is devoted to football in one form or another, and even outside football there is always something to put on TV. People watch the NHL because they like to, not because there isn’t an NBA/NFL/NCAA/whatever game on. Same goes for merchandise. The people are buying the jerseys regardless of what else is going on, so they get credit for that (especially a city that is much maligned for their economic woes).

But of course it’s an absolutely absurd ranking, and I’m sure Hooks Orpik is going to throw this right in my face.

In an ideal world all ten fingers would be on my left hand so my right hand could just be a fist for punching.

by Rob Parker on Dec 21, 2009 5:30 PM EST up reply actions

Basing things off of our Phillies championship trust me the championship has a lot to do with merchandise sales. Sporting Goods stores around here had lines starting at 3 am to get the world series hats and such for the parade and myself a casual Phillies fan bought a half a dozen tee shirts and 2 hats in support of the Phillies run, something I would have not had done otherwise.

by chrislanci on Dec 21, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions

Chicago

I was in Chicago on business in 2005. At the time I was a SQL database administrator for a large law firm and they sent me out to be trained on a new program. They sent me out on Super Bowl Sunday, and I got to my hotel in plenty of time to see the Eagles lose to the Patriots. But that’s another story.

The hotel had a shuttle service which took everyone to and from the training facility every day. I’d usually find myself having conversations with the drivers about sports. One day I asked the driver to rank the Chicago teams in terms of popularity. He said it was like this:

1. Bears
2. Fighting Illini
3. Cubs / White Sox (split down the middle)
4. Bulls
5. Blackhawks

I was surprised that the Illini were more popular than four professional franchises. The driver told me that they would be third if Chicago didn’t have two baseball teams. He also told me that the Bulls’ popularity waxed and waned depending on whether or not they were any good. As for the Blackhawks, he said, “I’ll be surprised if they survive this lockout.” (This was 2005, so no NHL hockey was being played.)

I was a little taken aback by this statement and asked why the driver felt the way he did. He said that “Dollar Bill” Wirtz had effectively killed the fan base by putting a crappy team on the ice every year just to maximize profits (a la Harold Ballard). And Blackhawks fans had gotten sick of it. Enough of them were staying away from the United Center before the lockout as it was.

Fortunately for the Blackhawks, “Dollar Bill” is no longer in the picture. But along with Mario’s comment and Travis’ point in the article, this goes to show you how skewed Forbes’ findings are. They certainly don’t look at the big picture.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Dec 21, 2009 12:26 PM EST reply actions

I figured the Fyers would be third behind the likes of Toronto and Montreal. The amount of support those two teams get is staggering, even when they are doing poorly.

But Pittsburgh at #1? Pluh-leese.

by jello44 on Dec 21, 2009 4:16 PM EST reply actions

another reason why all the Crosby is Cry-Baby and Fuck Pittsburgh Tee-Shirts bought in Philly count towards the Pittsburgh merchandise totals not the Flyers.

http://phillyphaithful.com/?_a=viewProd&productId=33

by chrislanci on Dec 21, 2009 4:57 PM EST reply actions

I heard that 30% percent of all hockey article is from montreal, so they got to be number 1. I live in quebec city and even during summer there is 3 tv show that talks almost exclusively of the habs.

by MathB on Dec 21, 2009 7:12 PM EST reply actions