The NHL's Ongoing Woes
Posted by Tom Pasniewski 98
The NHL's Ongoing Woes
Posted by: Tom Pasniewski 98 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: May 02, 2004 08:10AM
I thought it would be a good idea to start a thread to track the problems, issues surrounding the NHL and where it is headed or not headed. Today's Boston Sunday Globe does a good job summarizing right from the opening picture which shows the heyday of hockey...Bobby Orr's 1970 Stanley Cup goal to the mayhem of hockey...the hit on Steve Moore. There's a lot to digest and to pick apart so I figured it was a good starting point
Here's the link:
[www.boston.com]
And the text if the link doesn't work anymore:
On Thin Ice
Hockey is bleeding cash and on the brink of what would be a devastating lookout. Is this the sport's last stand?
By Paul Goldsmith | May 2, 2004
"Put that in the article get rid of the mascot," says Matt Donlan, spearing my notebook with a finger. Sitting at a cramped booth inside J.J. Foley's, a bar near Downtown Crossing, Donlan, a 31-year-old support technician from South Boston, and his friend Bill Stone, 29, an accountant from Charlestown, are watching the after-work crowd file in. On the wall, wool topcoats hang next to battered work jackets, and up on the big screen, the Bruins are getting ready to face off against the Buffalo Sabres. Between the two friends the topic of conversation, as usual, is hockey, specifically the Bruins, and at this moment, more specifically the team's mascot, Blades. Even with the Bruins playing so well (they would reach the playoffs but lose their opening series), Donlan and Stone want to vent about the new mascot, just the latest in a string of indignities. Hockey fans in Boston may be outnumbered by baseball, football, and basketball fans, and it's rare when a Bruins discussion dominates the talk on AM sports station WEEI, but Bruins rooters compensate with a fervor that only Red Sox fans can match.
Everything Bruins you always knew, they changed all that," says Stone, shaking his head, putting down his pint for emphasis. "First, the Garden, gone. Then they changed the uniforms. Everything.
"Then it was the radio and TV personalities you always knew, gone. And then one by one, Neely was gone and then Bourque."
And now this -- a 6-foot, blue-eyed plush bear is haunting the lower-level seats at the FleetCenter. And the list goes on: league expansion, ticket prices, low-scoring games, the end of regional rivalries. There is little about the game that excites them anymore. Mention the future, and what you get from Donlan and Stone is grim resignation.
For years now, they've watched the storm clouds gather over the National Hockey League, from expansion into non-traditional, mostly Southern markets to team bankruptcies, rising ticket prices, broadcast ratings flat lining, and now a possible lockout that threatens next season and beyond. Then came one of the sport's lowest points: On March 8, Todd Bertuzzi of the Vancouver Canucks skated up behind Colorado Avalanche forward Steve Moore, slammed a roundhouse punch into the side of Moore's head, and drove him face first into the ice, leaving Moore in a pool of blood with three broken vertebrae. Even for hockey purists who insist fighting is a part of the game, the blindside hit was impossible to justify, and for those who have never had much interest in the sport, it simply gave them one more reason to stay away.
For Donlan and Stone, lifelong Bruins fans who grew up playing hockey on frozen cranberry bogs in Plymouth, dreaming of the day when they'd be season-ticket holders, the criticism is like hearing someone tear down a once-proud family member. Even though this person may have run his life into the ground, well, they're still family and what gives you the right? But they have no illusions. The NHL is at a crossroads, and change is imminent
It's now or never," says Stone.
Up on the big screen, the puck drops.
Labor problems are nothing new for professional hockey. In 1910, the National Hockey Association, the precursor to the modern NHL, crushed an early attempt to organize players with a $5,000-per-team salary cap. Ever since, player-vs.-owner has been the sport's most consistent story line. The current object of contention is the league's nine-year-old collective bargaining agreement with the National Hockey League Players' Association, which is set to expire on September 15. The issue, as always, is payroll.
The league says it's losing money, and points the finger at skyrocketing player contracts, which have risen 144 percent since 1995, making hockey players, with a $1.7 million salary average, among the highest-paid athletes in professional sports. The Bruins' payroll this season is reportedly $47 million (Detroit has the highest payroll at $78 million and Nashville the lowest at $22 million). Bruins star Joe Thornton signed a rookie contract in 1997 for $925,000, but his deal included performance incentives that boosted the value of his contract that year to more than $2 million. To the players, blaming their salaries for the league's financial woes is a hypocritical argument, given that it was the owners who, in their competitive glee, offered those contracts.
In February 2003, the NHL commissioned a study by Arthur Levitt, a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The findings, released this February, paint a grim picture. For the 2002-2003 season, the league reported almost $2 billion in revenues while suffering a $273 million operating loss, this despite the average ticket in hockey costing $44, roughly double the average price of a Major League Baseball ticket. According to Levitt, 19 of 30 teams are in the red, by an average of $18 million. The teams near the bottom of last season's attendance list include Phoenix and Carolina, both of which are transplants from Northern cities, the defending champion New Jersey Devils, and two storied members of the NHL's original six franchises, the Chicago Blackhawks and the Bruins.
At the press conference in New York announcing his findings, Levitt was blunt. "The results were as close to catastrophic as I've seen in any enterprise of this size," Levitt said.
The NHL is "on a treadmill to obscurity.... I would neither underwrite as a banker any of these ventures, nor would I invest a dollar of my own personal money in a business which to me appears to be heading south." Bolstered by the report, owners and league officials are demanding something called "cost certainty." League officials deny that "cost certainty" is code for a salary cap, in which teams are limited to a maximum amount they can spend on salaries, something the National Football League has adopted, but Major League Baseball and the NHL have not. The hockey players' association has said it will never agree to any form of salary cap. Predictably, both sides have said their terms are nonnegotiable on this point.
If a new agreement isn't signed by September 15, the league is threatening to lock players out for the 2004-2005 season (the league's last lock-out in the 1994-1995 season lasted 103 days). The players' association is quick to point out that its members want to play and says any work stoppage would be the fault of owners. With a $100 million lockout fund and offers for many players to skate in Europe, the players have dug in their blades and seem prepared to try and outlast the league.
The owners "can dig in all they want," Philadelphia Flyers center Jeremy Roenick told reporters at the All-Star game in February. "The players can dig in just as hard." Roenick, a Boston native, went on to say that it was owners who had the most to lose, since they had to concern themselves with empty arenas. "Is Buffalo going to stick around? Is Carolina going to stick around? Is Ottawa going to stick around, Calgary, Edmonton? These teams are not going to be able to withstand one or two years."
Contraction -- elimination of one or more of the league's smaller-market franchises -- was a hot topic at the All-Star Game. NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has refused to admit that it is being considered, but if a lockout occurs, it becomes a real possibility. Some former players are even calling for it, but they, of course, are already retired. And at 34, the tough-talking Roenick, maybe the greatest American-born hockey player, could probably afford to retire tomorrow. For others, the combativeness doesn't come easy.
"I think that (contraction) may happen, but I don't know if it's inevitable," says Bruins left wing Doug Doull. At 29, Doull is just beginning an NHL career after years in the minors. He was called up from Providence midseason and describes the past few months as a dream. But he has no illusions. Contraction would consolidate rosters and leave some players out in the cold. Doull, a player of considerable heart if limited ability, knows he might be one of those.
Regardless of what side you take, there is no debating that the league and its owners are not seeing enough return on their investment and in a few cases, any return at all. In 2003, the Buffalo Sabres and Ottawa Senators filed for bankruptcy within a week of each other. The Pittsburgh Penguins, the league's most successful team in the early '90s, have been on the verge of bankruptcy for years, prompting player/owner Mario Lemieux to forgo his $5 million raise. Despite Lemieux's efforts to stem the tide, and despite having one of the league's lowest payrolls, the Penguins still expect to lose more than $5 million this season
"This is a funny thing to reconcile, because this has never happened in sports, but if we look at other industries, companies go out of business all the time," says Paul Swangard, a director of the Warsaw Sports Marketing Center at the University of Oregon. Having grown up in Vancouver, British Columbia, Swangard is also a diehard Canucks fan, and neither he nor the league's harshest naysayers are convinced that the NHL will disappear entirely. At least not yet
The first period ends with the Bruins and Sabres scoreless.
"We had to ask the bartender to even put the game on," says Stone. "It's ridiculous; no one even cares." Only a fight between Bruins enforcer Doull and the Sabres' Andrew Peters seems to grab bargoers' attention.
"It's March, the Bruins are playing well, just a few weeks after the Super Bowl, and all anybody wants to talk about -- Schilling. Well, what about Raycroft?" Donlan is talking about the Bruins' 23-year-old goaltender, Andrew Raycroft, a strong candidate for the league's Rookie of the Year. "Joe Thornton should be on billboards," adds Stone. "He could be bigger than Brady," the Patriot quarterback.
Tom Brady and newly arrived Red Sox ace Curt Schilling -- listen to the talk in Boston bars and on sports radio, and you'd think those two were running for president. If the Patriots have an inferiority complex when it comes to the Red Sox, then what does that say about the Bruins -- a team surging toward the playoffs? "It's a fact that nationwide no one watches," says Donlan, "so if there is a lockout, even here in Boston, no one's gonna know."
Except in the ugliest of instances, like Bertuzzi's blindsiding of Moore, hockey goes largely ignored by the general media. Look no further than ESPN's SportsCenter, the nation's true sports page. Even at the height of the season, hockey stories were being reported after baseball spring training stories. This spring, the NHL's five-year television contract with ABC/ESPN is set to expire, and though talk of a TV deal plays no direct role in the talks between players and owners, the network's reluctance to strike a new, comparable deal is one more troubling sign that the sport's national profile may shrink even further.
As it is, TV ratings are weak. This year's NHL All-Star Game, held in St. Paul, Minnesota, hub of the most hockey-crazed state in the country, trailed an Arena Football League game in national ratings.
"In professional sports, the major problem is that everybody wants to be the NFL," says Jeffrey James, a professor of sport management at Florida State University, who studies fan loyalty. "Well, that's a league that emerged with the growth of television, and it's never going to happen again." The NFL seems custom-crafted for television. The game is played in formations. The ball is large enough to spot even in the air. There are multiple brief stoppages perfect for making a run to the fridge or airing a 30-second beer commercial. Most games are played on the same day of the week, Sunday. It's a formula so successful that the NFL can even support its own cable network.
If there has been one prevailing complaint about hockey, it is that the sport just doesn't work on television. "I can't see the puck" has been the refrain of non-hockey types since the days of smoky, poorly lit arenas and limited camera angles. During the NHL's tenure with Fox from 1994 to 1999, producers tried to tackle the complaint by implanting a microchip in the black puck that made it glow neon on screen. Traditionalists dismissed the idea, and it died quietly. Today, the NHL is hanging its hopes on the increased clarity and letterbox format of high-definition television, but that's a pretty thin line on which to hang hope. Technology improvements aside, hockey will never be a perfect fit for television. Any sport in which three 20-minute periods are separated by two 15-minute intermissions is bound to lose viewers along the way, since not even the most dedicated fan wants to sit through a half-hour of analysis and ads waiting for play to resume.
"The thing I've always appreciated about hockey is that it is, in a sense, very venue driven," says Swangard. "There is a general correlation between having been to a game and your interest in the sport. Talk to NFL fans, you may find thousands upon thousands who have never seen a game live." Most NFL fans learn to love the game through television. Hockey has never been that lucky. Its fans grew to love it after seeing a game live: The speed and grace of the players, the nonstop action, the crashing into the boards are all elements no other sport can match. "You have to see a game to appreciate it, and once you do that, you're bitten by it," says Charles Jacobs, executive vice president of the Bruins and son of team owner Jeremy M. Jacobs. The trick is getting new fans to bite.
Buffalo leads Boston 1-0. The only reason Donlan and Stone are here at Foley's is that the Bruins are on the road tonight. Otherwise, they'd be inside the FleetCenter, watching from the same balcony seats they've had for six years. "We've been offered upgrades," says Stone. "But we've always turned them down. In the corporate seats, no one watches."
Stone's loyalty is in his blood. His father played hockey for Christopher Columbus High School in the North End and, at age 56, still plays twice a week. His mother was the backup goalie for Scituate High School boys' hockey team and still talks about the day she met Bobby Orr. "In my family, hockey was like group therapy," says Stone. For him to sit elsewhere, in a lower level, would be to betray his roots. "I want to sit in the heavens, where you got guys like us paying $19 to yell and scream." He lets out a short laugh. "I guess we live in the past a little."
The National Football League brings in an estimated $2.2 billion a year in broadcast rights alone, more than enough to cover player salaries. The NHL's soon-to-expire contract with ABC/ESPN, after being split among 30 teams, leaves an annual allotment of only $4 million per franchise. Without any substantial revenue from television dollars, the burden is shifted to the one variable most easily controlled by ownership: ticket prices.
The National Hockey League relies on ticket sales as a primary source of revenue, more so than the NFL, Major League Baseball, and the National Basketball Association.
In the 1990s, luxury boxes were the thing. In order to be competitive, the logic went, you needed new arenas with ample, plush private boxes to lure the sponsors and the corporate dollars. The old-style arenas -- Boston Garden, Chicago Stadium, Maple Leaf Gardens -- were replaced by shiny new multipurpose buildings that offered ticket buyers every conceivable comfort. And it worked. The dollars came in. Today, luxury boxes and much of the prime lower-level seating in NHL arenas belong to corporate clients. And since ticket prices are most often determined by supply and demand, this affluent group allowed club owners to price tickets accordingly. But while corporate sales might be good for revenue and boosting attendance numbers, they aren't as reliable as the hard-core, long-term fans when it comes to filling seats. The NHL reports that during the regular season, it operates at 90 percent capacity, but attendance numbers aren't a gauge of how many fans are actually in the seats. Rather, they show how many tickets were bought.
"I don't care what night you go, there's whole boxes dark," says Donlan. A survey conducted by J.D. Power and Associates said the NHL's fan base is more affluent, more educated, and has more disposable income than those of the other major sports, seemingly making it an attractive outlet for advertisers. But ad spending on televised hockey is dismal. In 2003, advertisers spent $132.5 million on NHL programming, ranking hockey 10th out of the major sports categories, well behind the NBA, college football and basketball, and NASCAR. According to Ed Horne, president of NHL Enterprises, the league's marketing arm, the focus is on attracting youngsters and that solid-gold age group everybody's after, 18-to-34-year-olds, because that's the group advertisers are desperate to reach. "We believe it can be done in a way that does not alienate the existing fan base," says Horne, "but gives us the opportunity to bring those new fans in that maybe you are not seeing right now."
Fans who want a premium lower-level seat "have to be affluent to afford a $175 ticket," says Jim Boone, president of the Ottawa-based National Hockey League Fans' Association, an independent group with nearly 22,000 members. "If the NHL wants to go after the bigger market share, and the big market share is a television audience, you have to make the games affordable. You want to be able to introduce the sport, the live sport, to the blue-collar guy, and it's impossible to do when the tickets are so bloody expensive."
Even some in management admit ticket prices have risen beyond the reach of many fans. "The guy that we put upstairs has a difficult time coming to a hockey game," says Harry Sinden, president of the Bruins, referring to the upper-level seats. Sinden, along with other front-office NHL executives, is quick to blame player salaries for high ticket prices. "You used to get in here for $2."
Cam Neely, the retired Bruins great, says: "The fan that went to the Garden I don't think can go to the FleetCenter on a regular basis, because of the price of the ticket. They still love the game, but they can't just lay out the money."
In the fall of 2002, the fans' association polled its members and showed the disparity: Sixty-six percent of respondents went to fewer than five games over the previous 12 months, while 47 percent watched more than 60 games on television. This suggests the game's most ardent fans are staying away.
WITH 25 SECONDS LEFT in the third period, the Bruins are clinging to a one-goal lead. But on a face-off, the puck slips free, allowing Buffalo's Miroslav Satan a clear shot. The puck stretches the net before you can even see it, and the clock expires. Tie score. The Bruins head to sudden-death overtime. Then, with 3:35 left in overtime, Mike Knuble slips in a goal, and the Bruins win.
"THE WISHFUL THINKING is that everybody will walk out of that conference room for the final time, stand up together, and say we've set it up in such a way that everybody wins," says Swangard. "I think the league has come to grips with the fact that unless they do something with a very specific set of expectations, it's just putting a piece of gum in a cracking dam."
But the expectation among many fans is that a work stoppage will happen and needs to happen. Some smaller franchises could fold, and some players may lose their jobs, but the league would emerge stronger. The big question is whether the fans will still be there. NHL.com released a fan survey stating that 86 percent of respondents, while not happy about a work stoppage, would eventually return. That contrasts with a poll conducted by The Hockey News that said 26 percent of respondents might not return.
It's a safe assumption that many will return, if grudgingly at first. "We're ungodly loyal," Stone says of his and others' devotion to the Bruins.
There are already positive signs. In one move that may have league-wide effect, the Dallas Stars have lowered ticket prices for next season, and Bruins executive vice president Charles Jacobs admits that ticket price is an issue for him. "As club owners, we need to completely address structure and how we price our house," he says. "John Q. Fan can't be asked every time he comes to a game to cover that loss."
Here's the link:
[www.boston.com]
And the text if the link doesn't work anymore:
On Thin Ice
Hockey is bleeding cash and on the brink of what would be a devastating lookout. Is this the sport's last stand?
By Paul Goldsmith | May 2, 2004
"Put that in the article get rid of the mascot," says Matt Donlan, spearing my notebook with a finger. Sitting at a cramped booth inside J.J. Foley's, a bar near Downtown Crossing, Donlan, a 31-year-old support technician from South Boston, and his friend Bill Stone, 29, an accountant from Charlestown, are watching the after-work crowd file in. On the wall, wool topcoats hang next to battered work jackets, and up on the big screen, the Bruins are getting ready to face off against the Buffalo Sabres. Between the two friends the topic of conversation, as usual, is hockey, specifically the Bruins, and at this moment, more specifically the team's mascot, Blades. Even with the Bruins playing so well (they would reach the playoffs but lose their opening series), Donlan and Stone want to vent about the new mascot, just the latest in a string of indignities. Hockey fans in Boston may be outnumbered by baseball, football, and basketball fans, and it's rare when a Bruins discussion dominates the talk on AM sports station WEEI, but Bruins rooters compensate with a fervor that only Red Sox fans can match.
Everything Bruins you always knew, they changed all that," says Stone, shaking his head, putting down his pint for emphasis. "First, the Garden, gone. Then they changed the uniforms. Everything.
"Then it was the radio and TV personalities you always knew, gone. And then one by one, Neely was gone and then Bourque."
And now this -- a 6-foot, blue-eyed plush bear is haunting the lower-level seats at the FleetCenter. And the list goes on: league expansion, ticket prices, low-scoring games, the end of regional rivalries. There is little about the game that excites them anymore. Mention the future, and what you get from Donlan and Stone is grim resignation.
For years now, they've watched the storm clouds gather over the National Hockey League, from expansion into non-traditional, mostly Southern markets to team bankruptcies, rising ticket prices, broadcast ratings flat lining, and now a possible lockout that threatens next season and beyond. Then came one of the sport's lowest points: On March 8, Todd Bertuzzi of the Vancouver Canucks skated up behind Colorado Avalanche forward Steve Moore, slammed a roundhouse punch into the side of Moore's head, and drove him face first into the ice, leaving Moore in a pool of blood with three broken vertebrae. Even for hockey purists who insist fighting is a part of the game, the blindside hit was impossible to justify, and for those who have never had much interest in the sport, it simply gave them one more reason to stay away.
For Donlan and Stone, lifelong Bruins fans who grew up playing hockey on frozen cranberry bogs in Plymouth, dreaming of the day when they'd be season-ticket holders, the criticism is like hearing someone tear down a once-proud family member. Even though this person may have run his life into the ground, well, they're still family and what gives you the right? But they have no illusions. The NHL is at a crossroads, and change is imminent
It's now or never," says Stone.
Up on the big screen, the puck drops.
Labor problems are nothing new for professional hockey. In 1910, the National Hockey Association, the precursor to the modern NHL, crushed an early attempt to organize players with a $5,000-per-team salary cap. Ever since, player-vs.-owner has been the sport's most consistent story line. The current object of contention is the league's nine-year-old collective bargaining agreement with the National Hockey League Players' Association, which is set to expire on September 15. The issue, as always, is payroll.
The league says it's losing money, and points the finger at skyrocketing player contracts, which have risen 144 percent since 1995, making hockey players, with a $1.7 million salary average, among the highest-paid athletes in professional sports. The Bruins' payroll this season is reportedly $47 million (Detroit has the highest payroll at $78 million and Nashville the lowest at $22 million). Bruins star Joe Thornton signed a rookie contract in 1997 for $925,000, but his deal included performance incentives that boosted the value of his contract that year to more than $2 million. To the players, blaming their salaries for the league's financial woes is a hypocritical argument, given that it was the owners who, in their competitive glee, offered those contracts.
In February 2003, the NHL commissioned a study by Arthur Levitt, a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The findings, released this February, paint a grim picture. For the 2002-2003 season, the league reported almost $2 billion in revenues while suffering a $273 million operating loss, this despite the average ticket in hockey costing $44, roughly double the average price of a Major League Baseball ticket. According to Levitt, 19 of 30 teams are in the red, by an average of $18 million. The teams near the bottom of last season's attendance list include Phoenix and Carolina, both of which are transplants from Northern cities, the defending champion New Jersey Devils, and two storied members of the NHL's original six franchises, the Chicago Blackhawks and the Bruins.
At the press conference in New York announcing his findings, Levitt was blunt. "The results were as close to catastrophic as I've seen in any enterprise of this size," Levitt said.
The NHL is "on a treadmill to obscurity.... I would neither underwrite as a banker any of these ventures, nor would I invest a dollar of my own personal money in a business which to me appears to be heading south." Bolstered by the report, owners and league officials are demanding something called "cost certainty." League officials deny that "cost certainty" is code for a salary cap, in which teams are limited to a maximum amount they can spend on salaries, something the National Football League has adopted, but Major League Baseball and the NHL have not. The hockey players' association has said it will never agree to any form of salary cap. Predictably, both sides have said their terms are nonnegotiable on this point.
If a new agreement isn't signed by September 15, the league is threatening to lock players out for the 2004-2005 season (the league's last lock-out in the 1994-1995 season lasted 103 days). The players' association is quick to point out that its members want to play and says any work stoppage would be the fault of owners. With a $100 million lockout fund and offers for many players to skate in Europe, the players have dug in their blades and seem prepared to try and outlast the league.
The owners "can dig in all they want," Philadelphia Flyers center Jeremy Roenick told reporters at the All-Star game in February. "The players can dig in just as hard." Roenick, a Boston native, went on to say that it was owners who had the most to lose, since they had to concern themselves with empty arenas. "Is Buffalo going to stick around? Is Carolina going to stick around? Is Ottawa going to stick around, Calgary, Edmonton? These teams are not going to be able to withstand one or two years."
Contraction -- elimination of one or more of the league's smaller-market franchises -- was a hot topic at the All-Star Game. NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has refused to admit that it is being considered, but if a lockout occurs, it becomes a real possibility. Some former players are even calling for it, but they, of course, are already retired. And at 34, the tough-talking Roenick, maybe the greatest American-born hockey player, could probably afford to retire tomorrow. For others, the combativeness doesn't come easy.
"I think that (contraction) may happen, but I don't know if it's inevitable," says Bruins left wing Doug Doull. At 29, Doull is just beginning an NHL career after years in the minors. He was called up from Providence midseason and describes the past few months as a dream. But he has no illusions. Contraction would consolidate rosters and leave some players out in the cold. Doull, a player of considerable heart if limited ability, knows he might be one of those.
Regardless of what side you take, there is no debating that the league and its owners are not seeing enough return on their investment and in a few cases, any return at all. In 2003, the Buffalo Sabres and Ottawa Senators filed for bankruptcy within a week of each other. The Pittsburgh Penguins, the league's most successful team in the early '90s, have been on the verge of bankruptcy for years, prompting player/owner Mario Lemieux to forgo his $5 million raise. Despite Lemieux's efforts to stem the tide, and despite having one of the league's lowest payrolls, the Penguins still expect to lose more than $5 million this season
"This is a funny thing to reconcile, because this has never happened in sports, but if we look at other industries, companies go out of business all the time," says Paul Swangard, a director of the Warsaw Sports Marketing Center at the University of Oregon. Having grown up in Vancouver, British Columbia, Swangard is also a diehard Canucks fan, and neither he nor the league's harshest naysayers are convinced that the NHL will disappear entirely. At least not yet
The first period ends with the Bruins and Sabres scoreless.
"We had to ask the bartender to even put the game on," says Stone. "It's ridiculous; no one even cares." Only a fight between Bruins enforcer Doull and the Sabres' Andrew Peters seems to grab bargoers' attention.
"It's March, the Bruins are playing well, just a few weeks after the Super Bowl, and all anybody wants to talk about -- Schilling. Well, what about Raycroft?" Donlan is talking about the Bruins' 23-year-old goaltender, Andrew Raycroft, a strong candidate for the league's Rookie of the Year. "Joe Thornton should be on billboards," adds Stone. "He could be bigger than Brady," the Patriot quarterback.
Tom Brady and newly arrived Red Sox ace Curt Schilling -- listen to the talk in Boston bars and on sports radio, and you'd think those two were running for president. If the Patriots have an inferiority complex when it comes to the Red Sox, then what does that say about the Bruins -- a team surging toward the playoffs? "It's a fact that nationwide no one watches," says Donlan, "so if there is a lockout, even here in Boston, no one's gonna know."
Except in the ugliest of instances, like Bertuzzi's blindsiding of Moore, hockey goes largely ignored by the general media. Look no further than ESPN's SportsCenter, the nation's true sports page. Even at the height of the season, hockey stories were being reported after baseball spring training stories. This spring, the NHL's five-year television contract with ABC/ESPN is set to expire, and though talk of a TV deal plays no direct role in the talks between players and owners, the network's reluctance to strike a new, comparable deal is one more troubling sign that the sport's national profile may shrink even further.
As it is, TV ratings are weak. This year's NHL All-Star Game, held in St. Paul, Minnesota, hub of the most hockey-crazed state in the country, trailed an Arena Football League game in national ratings.
"In professional sports, the major problem is that everybody wants to be the NFL," says Jeffrey James, a professor of sport management at Florida State University, who studies fan loyalty. "Well, that's a league that emerged with the growth of television, and it's never going to happen again." The NFL seems custom-crafted for television. The game is played in formations. The ball is large enough to spot even in the air. There are multiple brief stoppages perfect for making a run to the fridge or airing a 30-second beer commercial. Most games are played on the same day of the week, Sunday. It's a formula so successful that the NFL can even support its own cable network.
If there has been one prevailing complaint about hockey, it is that the sport just doesn't work on television. "I can't see the puck" has been the refrain of non-hockey types since the days of smoky, poorly lit arenas and limited camera angles. During the NHL's tenure with Fox from 1994 to 1999, producers tried to tackle the complaint by implanting a microchip in the black puck that made it glow neon on screen. Traditionalists dismissed the idea, and it died quietly. Today, the NHL is hanging its hopes on the increased clarity and letterbox format of high-definition television, but that's a pretty thin line on which to hang hope. Technology improvements aside, hockey will never be a perfect fit for television. Any sport in which three 20-minute periods are separated by two 15-minute intermissions is bound to lose viewers along the way, since not even the most dedicated fan wants to sit through a half-hour of analysis and ads waiting for play to resume.
"The thing I've always appreciated about hockey is that it is, in a sense, very venue driven," says Swangard. "There is a general correlation between having been to a game and your interest in the sport. Talk to NFL fans, you may find thousands upon thousands who have never seen a game live." Most NFL fans learn to love the game through television. Hockey has never been that lucky. Its fans grew to love it after seeing a game live: The speed and grace of the players, the nonstop action, the crashing into the boards are all elements no other sport can match. "You have to see a game to appreciate it, and once you do that, you're bitten by it," says Charles Jacobs, executive vice president of the Bruins and son of team owner Jeremy M. Jacobs. The trick is getting new fans to bite.
Buffalo leads Boston 1-0. The only reason Donlan and Stone are here at Foley's is that the Bruins are on the road tonight. Otherwise, they'd be inside the FleetCenter, watching from the same balcony seats they've had for six years. "We've been offered upgrades," says Stone. "But we've always turned them down. In the corporate seats, no one watches."
Stone's loyalty is in his blood. His father played hockey for Christopher Columbus High School in the North End and, at age 56, still plays twice a week. His mother was the backup goalie for Scituate High School boys' hockey team and still talks about the day she met Bobby Orr. "In my family, hockey was like group therapy," says Stone. For him to sit elsewhere, in a lower level, would be to betray his roots. "I want to sit in the heavens, where you got guys like us paying $19 to yell and scream." He lets out a short laugh. "I guess we live in the past a little."
The National Football League brings in an estimated $2.2 billion a year in broadcast rights alone, more than enough to cover player salaries. The NHL's soon-to-expire contract with ABC/ESPN, after being split among 30 teams, leaves an annual allotment of only $4 million per franchise. Without any substantial revenue from television dollars, the burden is shifted to the one variable most easily controlled by ownership: ticket prices.
The National Hockey League relies on ticket sales as a primary source of revenue, more so than the NFL, Major League Baseball, and the National Basketball Association.
In the 1990s, luxury boxes were the thing. In order to be competitive, the logic went, you needed new arenas with ample, plush private boxes to lure the sponsors and the corporate dollars. The old-style arenas -- Boston Garden, Chicago Stadium, Maple Leaf Gardens -- were replaced by shiny new multipurpose buildings that offered ticket buyers every conceivable comfort. And it worked. The dollars came in. Today, luxury boxes and much of the prime lower-level seating in NHL arenas belong to corporate clients. And since ticket prices are most often determined by supply and demand, this affluent group allowed club owners to price tickets accordingly. But while corporate sales might be good for revenue and boosting attendance numbers, they aren't as reliable as the hard-core, long-term fans when it comes to filling seats. The NHL reports that during the regular season, it operates at 90 percent capacity, but attendance numbers aren't a gauge of how many fans are actually in the seats. Rather, they show how many tickets were bought.
"I don't care what night you go, there's whole boxes dark," says Donlan. A survey conducted by J.D. Power and Associates said the NHL's fan base is more affluent, more educated, and has more disposable income than those of the other major sports, seemingly making it an attractive outlet for advertisers. But ad spending on televised hockey is dismal. In 2003, advertisers spent $132.5 million on NHL programming, ranking hockey 10th out of the major sports categories, well behind the NBA, college football and basketball, and NASCAR. According to Ed Horne, president of NHL Enterprises, the league's marketing arm, the focus is on attracting youngsters and that solid-gold age group everybody's after, 18-to-34-year-olds, because that's the group advertisers are desperate to reach. "We believe it can be done in a way that does not alienate the existing fan base," says Horne, "but gives us the opportunity to bring those new fans in that maybe you are not seeing right now."
Fans who want a premium lower-level seat "have to be affluent to afford a $175 ticket," says Jim Boone, president of the Ottawa-based National Hockey League Fans' Association, an independent group with nearly 22,000 members. "If the NHL wants to go after the bigger market share, and the big market share is a television audience, you have to make the games affordable. You want to be able to introduce the sport, the live sport, to the blue-collar guy, and it's impossible to do when the tickets are so bloody expensive."
Even some in management admit ticket prices have risen beyond the reach of many fans. "The guy that we put upstairs has a difficult time coming to a hockey game," says Harry Sinden, president of the Bruins, referring to the upper-level seats. Sinden, along with other front-office NHL executives, is quick to blame player salaries for high ticket prices. "You used to get in here for $2."
Cam Neely, the retired Bruins great, says: "The fan that went to the Garden I don't think can go to the FleetCenter on a regular basis, because of the price of the ticket. They still love the game, but they can't just lay out the money."
In the fall of 2002, the fans' association polled its members and showed the disparity: Sixty-six percent of respondents went to fewer than five games over the previous 12 months, while 47 percent watched more than 60 games on television. This suggests the game's most ardent fans are staying away.
WITH 25 SECONDS LEFT in the third period, the Bruins are clinging to a one-goal lead. But on a face-off, the puck slips free, allowing Buffalo's Miroslav Satan a clear shot. The puck stretches the net before you can even see it, and the clock expires. Tie score. The Bruins head to sudden-death overtime. Then, with 3:35 left in overtime, Mike Knuble slips in a goal, and the Bruins win.
"THE WISHFUL THINKING is that everybody will walk out of that conference room for the final time, stand up together, and say we've set it up in such a way that everybody wins," says Swangard. "I think the league has come to grips with the fact that unless they do something with a very specific set of expectations, it's just putting a piece of gum in a cracking dam."
But the expectation among many fans is that a work stoppage will happen and needs to happen. Some smaller franchises could fold, and some players may lose their jobs, but the league would emerge stronger. The big question is whether the fans will still be there. NHL.com released a fan survey stating that 86 percent of respondents, while not happy about a work stoppage, would eventually return. That contrasts with a poll conducted by The Hockey News that said 26 percent of respondents might not return.
It's a safe assumption that many will return, if grudgingly at first. "We're ungodly loyal," Stone says of his and others' devotion to the Bruins.
There are already positive signs. In one move that may have league-wide effect, the Dallas Stars have lowered ticket prices for next season, and Bruins executive vice president Charles Jacobs admits that ticket price is an issue for him. "As club owners, we need to completely address structure and how we price our house," he says. "John Q. Fan can't be asked every time he comes to a game to cover that loss."
Re: The NHL's Ongoing Woes
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: May 02, 2004 10:52AM
Opinion: When reading the NHL's financial report, you need to keep in mind that the league office is beholden to the owners, and therefore the teams are going to always be portrayed as losing money to exert downward force on salaries and justify the high ticket prices. Owners have not, as a rule, been honest when presenting their financial situation. You have to ask yourself: if it's really so bad, why are these guys in the business, and why did they write the checks to the players in the first place? And if these guys are really so community-minded and worried about the average fan, why not allot a certain percentage of seating capacity to $25 tickets and make up the difference by raising the rates on luxury boxes (or cutting management salary and perks)?
The sad thing is that NHL actually might not be in as good shape financially as the league predicted it would be, but we'll never know, anything factual, because we have to be skeptical to the point of dismissive when reading their reports. It would be nice if the teams threw their books wide open to everyone and had financial analyses done by the players' union and by an independent body -- then we'd have a discussion baseline.
The sad thing is that NHL actually might not be in as good shape financially as the league predicted it would be, but we'll never know, anything factual, because we have to be skeptical to the point of dismissive when reading their reports. It would be nice if the teams threw their books wide open to everyone and had financial analyses done by the players' union and by an independent body -- then we'd have a discussion baseline.
Re: The NHL's Ongoing Woes
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: May 02, 2004 09:16PM
The NHL is both in worse and better shape than it claims: Teams probably are losing money, yet it also has the most affluent fan base.
The players say they won't accept salary cuts. But they will eventually, just as 25-year-old Web designers who demanded $80,000 plus options in 1998 are taking $40,000 now if that's the only job available. Also, sabermetrics will come to hockey and do a better job deciding who really deserves the big bucks; it will help teams figure out how many role players you need and how many franchise players you need.
Call me a cynic, but most people who watch hockey couldn't tell the B players from the A players. (Plus, the B's probably swing their fists as well or better.) If the top guys walk, replacements could keep the teams going for a couple years, although with reduced attendance, and the liklihood of a half-dozen weak teams failing. Every player who makes the NHL makes enough money to live comfortably, so whether that's $500,000 or $2.5 million (the Globe article says the average is $1.7 million), he'll survive. (I'm assuming the NHL won't squeeze the minor leagues because except for the pending stars still on their initial signing contracts, I don't think they're getting rich.) Eventually they'll agree to a revenue sharing agreement (the players get say 50% or 65% of total revenue and not a penny more). If the Players Assn was smart, they'd put more of it into the back end, eg deferred compensation or retirement benefits that kick in sooner and last longer (kind of socialistic or paternalistic, in the belief some players will fritter away everything in their current paychecks).
Look at open wheel auto racing in the US. Americans have never been concerned that Formula One racing has far better cars and probably far better drivers. And when there was the schism between CART (the better cars and drivers) and Indy Car (the lower cost solution), ultimately Indy Car fared better. Although nothing has done as well as Nascar, which is more about theater than technical excellence.
HDTV is going to help hockey a lot because you'll finally be able to see the puck. I actually thought the Fox flaming puck was not entirely bad, although I would have been happier if it wasn't quite so pronounced, or if you had the option to turn it off. We go to a couple Devils games each year ($65 to sit up near the rafters) and I think that money would be better spent on an HDTV (except I think the technology's going to change / improve / get cheaper in three years that anythign you buy today is an interim solution -- at the least, make sure it has a built in cable converter (called "cable card"
).
Hockey would be better with more artists like Paul Kariya and fewer goons concussing Kariya. That's unlikely to ever happen, which mostly means careers will on average be shorter because you'll blow out your knee (or concuss yourself) for the third and last time at 28 not 35. I think every pro sport becomes more violent each year. Part of it's because the league lets it be that way, partly because everyone's so much bigger now and the knees and skull can only take so much pounding.
The players say they won't accept salary cuts. But they will eventually, just as 25-year-old Web designers who demanded $80,000 plus options in 1998 are taking $40,000 now if that's the only job available. Also, sabermetrics will come to hockey and do a better job deciding who really deserves the big bucks; it will help teams figure out how many role players you need and how many franchise players you need.
Call me a cynic, but most people who watch hockey couldn't tell the B players from the A players. (Plus, the B's probably swing their fists as well or better.) If the top guys walk, replacements could keep the teams going for a couple years, although with reduced attendance, and the liklihood of a half-dozen weak teams failing. Every player who makes the NHL makes enough money to live comfortably, so whether that's $500,000 or $2.5 million (the Globe article says the average is $1.7 million), he'll survive. (I'm assuming the NHL won't squeeze the minor leagues because except for the pending stars still on their initial signing contracts, I don't think they're getting rich.) Eventually they'll agree to a revenue sharing agreement (the players get say 50% or 65% of total revenue and not a penny more). If the Players Assn was smart, they'd put more of it into the back end, eg deferred compensation or retirement benefits that kick in sooner and last longer (kind of socialistic or paternalistic, in the belief some players will fritter away everything in their current paychecks).
Look at open wheel auto racing in the US. Americans have never been concerned that Formula One racing has far better cars and probably far better drivers. And when there was the schism between CART (the better cars and drivers) and Indy Car (the lower cost solution), ultimately Indy Car fared better. Although nothing has done as well as Nascar, which is more about theater than technical excellence.
HDTV is going to help hockey a lot because you'll finally be able to see the puck. I actually thought the Fox flaming puck was not entirely bad, although I would have been happier if it wasn't quite so pronounced, or if you had the option to turn it off. We go to a couple Devils games each year ($65 to sit up near the rafters) and I think that money would be better spent on an HDTV (except I think the technology's going to change / improve / get cheaper in three years that anythign you buy today is an interim solution -- at the least, make sure it has a built in cable converter (called "cable card"
).
Hockey would be better with more artists like Paul Kariya and fewer goons concussing Kariya. That's unlikely to ever happen, which mostly means careers will on average be shorter because you'll blow out your knee (or concuss yourself) for the third and last time at 28 not 35. I think every pro sport becomes more violent each year. Part of it's because the league lets it be that way, partly because everyone's so much bigger now and the knees and skull can only take so much pounding.
[Way OT] IRL vs. Champ Car
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: May 04, 2004 12:49PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Look at open wheel auto racing in the US. Americans have never been concerned that Formula One racing has far better cars and probably far better drivers. And when there was the schism between CART (the better cars and drivers) and Indy Car (the lower cost solution), ultimately Indy Car fared better.[/Q]
While I see the point you're trying to make, I don't entirely agree with your assessment. What puts the IRL in a better position than Champ Car (CART) today? Honda and Toyota throwing money at big name teams and drivers?
As soon as Toyota finishes paying their dues to the Oval Track Cartel to get into Nextel Cup, they'll bolt from the IRL like a scalded cat. F1 takes care of their needs globally, and stock cars domestically. They have no allegiance. Hell, they sponsor Champ Car's biggest US race.
Honda wants to win at Motegi and Indy. One down. They're fickle. They left CART over the pop-off valve incident, and once they win in May, I'd be nervous about them if I were Tony George. (Actually, if I were Tony George, I'd kill myself for the good of humanity.) They'll follow Toyota because, well, that's what they do. Already have in F1 and they'd love to get their foot in the door at NASCAR. Just need to build some of them thar pickups.
Other than that, the IRL can't put anyone in the seats unless Marlboro gives away 20,000 tickets for free. No one watches them on TV (plus they're in the last year of their contract), and sooner or later, they'll end up killing all their drivers. And don't think there's any team allegiance either. If Marlboro told Penske they wanted to go lawnmower racing, there'd be a cartoon puff cloud where their trucks sat at Indy. Ganassi doesn't care about anything but NASCAR any more, and if Honda leaves Andretti-Green is done.
On the other hand, everyone in Champ Car today is there because they want to be. The owners are worth around $8B between them and have already shelled out enough to buy the series to prove they're serious. Attendance in Canada, Mexico, and Australia is F1-caliber. You'll see less domestic races in the next few years as the series plays to its international strengths. Bernie Ecclestone has more venues than he can send the F1 circus to, and I think he'll still play a role in Champ Car's future.
What you're definitely right about is NASCAR being king in the US. Thanks to Tony George, open wheel racing is probably beyond salvation in this country (except for Long Beach and perhaps Las Vagas and Road America). That's probably why the IRL is looking at Canada and Mexico. Except one of the Champ Car owners has the rights to every significant city in Mexico and Molson (so far) seems to be loyal to Champ Car.
So in the end, that leaves the IRL in a very tenuous position. If Honda and Toyota leave (and they will), how long with the Hulman-George family let Tony spend their money on a series with no fans, one iconic but increasingly irrelevant race that they can't even sell out any more, and no viable venues? Champ Car has passionate owners with considerable resources, a good worldwide fanbase, better drivers and better venues (and no reliance on volatile tobacco money). I'm not sure how much better IndyCar is faring.
Look at open wheel auto racing in the US. Americans have never been concerned that Formula One racing has far better cars and probably far better drivers. And when there was the schism between CART (the better cars and drivers) and Indy Car (the lower cost solution), ultimately Indy Car fared better.[/Q]
While I see the point you're trying to make, I don't entirely agree with your assessment. What puts the IRL in a better position than Champ Car (CART) today? Honda and Toyota throwing money at big name teams and drivers?
As soon as Toyota finishes paying their dues to the Oval Track Cartel to get into Nextel Cup, they'll bolt from the IRL like a scalded cat. F1 takes care of their needs globally, and stock cars domestically. They have no allegiance. Hell, they sponsor Champ Car's biggest US race.
Honda wants to win at Motegi and Indy. One down. They're fickle. They left CART over the pop-off valve incident, and once they win in May, I'd be nervous about them if I were Tony George. (Actually, if I were Tony George, I'd kill myself for the good of humanity.) They'll follow Toyota because, well, that's what they do. Already have in F1 and they'd love to get their foot in the door at NASCAR. Just need to build some of them thar pickups.
Other than that, the IRL can't put anyone in the seats unless Marlboro gives away 20,000 tickets for free. No one watches them on TV (plus they're in the last year of their contract), and sooner or later, they'll end up killing all their drivers. And don't think there's any team allegiance either. If Marlboro told Penske they wanted to go lawnmower racing, there'd be a cartoon puff cloud where their trucks sat at Indy. Ganassi doesn't care about anything but NASCAR any more, and if Honda leaves Andretti-Green is done.
On the other hand, everyone in Champ Car today is there because they want to be. The owners are worth around $8B between them and have already shelled out enough to buy the series to prove they're serious. Attendance in Canada, Mexico, and Australia is F1-caliber. You'll see less domestic races in the next few years as the series plays to its international strengths. Bernie Ecclestone has more venues than he can send the F1 circus to, and I think he'll still play a role in Champ Car's future.
What you're definitely right about is NASCAR being king in the US. Thanks to Tony George, open wheel racing is probably beyond salvation in this country (except for Long Beach and perhaps Las Vagas and Road America). That's probably why the IRL is looking at Canada and Mexico. Except one of the Champ Car owners has the rights to every significant city in Mexico and Molson (so far) seems to be loyal to Champ Car.
So in the end, that leaves the IRL in a very tenuous position. If Honda and Toyota leave (and they will), how long with the Hulman-George family let Tony spend their money on a series with no fans, one iconic but increasingly irrelevant race that they can't even sell out any more, and no viable venues? Champ Car has passionate owners with considerable resources, a good worldwide fanbase, better drivers and better venues (and no reliance on volatile tobacco money). I'm not sure how much better IndyCar is faring.
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: [Way OT] IRL vs. Champ Car
Posted by: billhoward (---.ziffdavis.com)
Date: May 04, 2004 01:12PM
You did not choose Cornell in hopes Formula One would be at the Glen in perpetuity, did you?
Re: The NHL's Ongoing Woes
Posted by: ugarte (---.ny5030.east.verizon.net)
Date: May 04, 2004 01:48PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:The players say they won't accept salary cuts. But they will eventually, just as 25-year-old Web designers who demanded $80,000 plus options in 1998 are taking $40,000 now if that's the only job available. Also, sabermetrics will come to hockey and do a better job deciding who really deserves the big bucks; it will help teams figure out how many role players you need and how many franchise players you need. ...[/q]I agree. Salaries will inevitably come down, regardless of the current unity of the union. Hockey salaries seem completely out of line with the economics of the game. (This is not true in baseball.)
The economics of hockey are strange. Teams sell out arenas, but nobody watches at home - so there is much less TV money in hockey than there is in the other major sports. And TV money is what pays the salaries in those sports. The NHL had a short window when it looked like it was going to break out, and salaries raced out ahead of a financial windfall that never materialized. Unfortunately, the NHL won't solve its problems unless it does what the NBA did: 1) open the books completely and 2) make the players financial stakeholders in the growth of the game.
Soccer has a similar TV ratings problem but it solved its labor problem by organizing as a single-entity to avoid antitrust liability. All salaries come from the league, not the teams, so there is no real free agency. As a result, the salaries remain in line with the revenues that the league is earning, and there are no teams that can outspend their competitors. (This is also, I believe, how the WNBA organized itself. Not-so-bold prediction: It will be the design of all future leagues as well.)
[q]HDTV is going to help hockey a lot because you'll finally be able to see the puck. ...[/q]I sure hope so. I want visibility increased so that TV viewership will grow but I don't want the game itself changed.
[q]Hockey would be better with more artists like Paul Kariya and fewer goons concussing Kariya. That's unlikely to ever happen, which mostly means careers will on average be shorter because you'll blow out your knee (or concuss yourself) for the third and last time at 28 not 35. I think every pro sport becomes more violent each year. Part of it's because the league lets it be that way, partly because everyone's so much bigger now and the knees and skull can only take so much pounding. [/q]I hope not. The combination of grace and violence is what gives hockey its appeal when watching it live. Take away the aggression and you have the all-star game.
The economics of hockey are strange. Teams sell out arenas, but nobody watches at home - so there is much less TV money in hockey than there is in the other major sports. And TV money is what pays the salaries in those sports. The NHL had a short window when it looked like it was going to break out, and salaries raced out ahead of a financial windfall that never materialized. Unfortunately, the NHL won't solve its problems unless it does what the NBA did: 1) open the books completely and 2) make the players financial stakeholders in the growth of the game.
Soccer has a similar TV ratings problem but it solved its labor problem by organizing as a single-entity to avoid antitrust liability. All salaries come from the league, not the teams, so there is no real free agency. As a result, the salaries remain in line with the revenues that the league is earning, and there are no teams that can outspend their competitors. (This is also, I believe, how the WNBA organized itself. Not-so-bold prediction: It will be the design of all future leagues as well.)
[q]HDTV is going to help hockey a lot because you'll finally be able to see the puck. ...[/q]I sure hope so. I want visibility increased so that TV viewership will grow but I don't want the game itself changed.
[q]Hockey would be better with more artists like Paul Kariya and fewer goons concussing Kariya. That's unlikely to ever happen, which mostly means careers will on average be shorter because you'll blow out your knee (or concuss yourself) for the third and last time at 28 not 35. I think every pro sport becomes more violent each year. Part of it's because the league lets it be that way, partly because everyone's so much bigger now and the knees and skull can only take so much pounding. [/q]I hope not. The combination of grace and violence is what gives hockey its appeal when watching it live. Take away the aggression and you have the all-star game.
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: [Way OT] IRL vs. Champ Car
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: May 04, 2004 02:06PM
Nah, that's what Canada's for. The Glen is a real shame. I still think it's the best natural terrain road course in North America. Or at least the asphalt part. Or at least if they ever paved it. It was state-of-the-art in 1970. Unfortunately about all they've done since then is mow the grass, and as long as the France Family/ISC/Oval Track Cartel have their grubby mitts on it, that's not likely to change. And they may even stop the mowing bit if they move that NASCAR race to Mexico City. On the other hand, I wouldn't have to hide in my house for that whole weekend any more. No, I wasn't around to see F1 there in the 70's, but when IMSA was there in the GTP days, it didn't get much better. Now all I have to look forward to is the vintage weekend once a year 
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: [Way OT] IRL vs. Champ Car
Posted by: jeh25 (---.epsy.uconn.edu)
Date: May 04, 2004 03:49PM
[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:
No, I wasn't around to see F1 there in the 70's, but when IMSA was there in the GTP days, it didn't get much better. Now all I have to look forward to is the vintage weekend once a year[/q]
Didn't FIA GT and Barber Dodge run at the Glen in '99? John ducks....
And for people that have no friggin clue what we are talking about, Age's post makes far more sense if you read this first:
[www.netaxs.com]
No, I wasn't around to see F1 there in the 70's, but when IMSA was there in the GTP days, it didn't get much better. Now all I have to look forward to is the vintage weekend once a year[/q]
Didn't FIA GT and Barber Dodge run at the Glen in '99? John ducks....
And for people that have no friggin clue what we are talking about, Age's post makes far more sense if you read this first:
[www.netaxs.com]
Re: [Way OT] IRL vs. Champ Car
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: May 04, 2004 05:14PM
[Q]jeh25 Wrote:
Didn't FIA GT and Barber Dodge run at the Glen in '99? John ducks....[/q]
Yeah, and you, me, and 3 other people watched Olivier Beretta drive laps around everyone in the Viper. Woo.
Didn't FIA GT and Barber Dodge run at the Glen in '99? John ducks....[/q]
Yeah, and you, me, and 3 other people watched Olivier Beretta drive laps around everyone in the Viper. Woo.
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: The NHL's Ongoing Woes
Posted by: jeh25 (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: May 04, 2004 06:21PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Formula One racing has far better cars and probably far better drivers. [/q]
Probably true. Of course, the racing sucks. Watching Michael Schumacher lead for the entire race ain't exactly exciting.
John pokes Doyle with a stick....
Formula One racing has far better cars and probably far better drivers. [/q]
Probably true. Of course, the racing sucks. Watching Michael Schumacher lead for the entire race ain't exactly exciting.
John pokes Doyle with a stick....
Re: [Way OT] IRL vs. Champ Car
Posted by: jeh25 (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: May 04, 2004 09:18PM
[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:
jeh25 Wrote:
Didn't FIA GT and Barber Dodge run at the Glen in '99? John ducks....[/Q]
Yeah, and you, me, and 3 other people watched Olivier Beretta drive laps around everyone in the Viper. Woo.[/q]
Don't forget that one confused guy with 3 teeth sitting in a Dale Jr. inflatable chair on top of his winny, cheering for somebody to crash in the bus stop chicane....
Gee, can we guess who doesn't want to be reading about hierarchical multiway frequency analysis....
___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.