Part 1: The Winnipeg Myth
Well it been a week since the announcement that the Atlanta Thrashers are moving to Winnipeg to become the…fill in the name. I know True North Sports (TNS) sold all 13,000 of its season tickets to the “excited” members of the Winnipeg community, but did anyone think they wouldn’t. However, the story of how we got here has been shrouded in myth (definition: any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth).
Anyway, I have spent a lot of time reading articles, blogs and message boards on this topic. One of the things I have noticed is how little “real” reporting is done and how myth has more to do with shaping the debate on whether a market is a “real hockey market.” So the blog in a two part series will focus on a term I coined “The Winnipeg Myth.”
So, what is “The Winnipeg Myth,” well it describes a myth that took root in the late 90’s about franchises and why they moved. The myth is that Winnipeg, Quebec and Hartford all moved from their respective cities despite the fact that they had great fan support and full or almost full buildings. The cities were victim of greedy owners and an uncaring league that allowed these “traditional hockey markets” to lose their teams to place that didn’t care about hockey. I for one believed this myself until recently, my attitude started to change when all the talk of a NHL team moving to Winnipeg heated up and one of the teams to fill that void was the team in the city I live, the Atlanta Thrashers. Like I have said before I am not a Thrasher fan, but I know many who are.
The funny thing about the myth is I remember when Winnipeg, Quebec and Hartford all loaded up the moving vans and vacated their cities. I thought it was wrong and still miss the days of the Jets, Nordiques and Whalers (I will add North Stars too). Even though I remember these events first hand, the myth became the narrative of what I believed and more importantly what the public became to see as reality. It wasn’t always that way, when the Oakland Seals, Atlanta Flames, Colorado Rockies and surprisingly Minnesota North Stars all moved, their fans were blamed for these teams abandoning these cities. Maybe it is because some, but not all weren’t “traditional hockey market” so the perception was no one carried about hockey there, unlike places like Winnipeg. I think this myth was propagated by the media in the northern US and even more so from their counterparts in Canada. The myth that it is not possible for a team from a “hockey hotbed” to move from a lack of community support has become well rooted in the hockey conscious.
What got me going down this road was a related topic. I was reading different message boards a few years ago and hearing people talk about how markets like Atlanta would never be successful because again it was a “bad market.” That the quality of the product had no bearing on why Atlanta had attendance troubles (because it is obvious that the Thrashers have stunk since day one). I would see endless post from Canadian trolls about how markets in their country would support teams despite the quality of product.
I was like wait a minute I remember those days in the 90’s and the Edmonton Oilers had empty seats (it is one of the reasons why they almost moved to Houston), and so did the Calgary Flames. So I went looked up the numbers (it would be nice if some media people could do the same) and over a 12-season span (1992-2004) the Oilers averaged 15,384 that is 1,455 under capacity (16,839). In a four-year stretch (1992-96) Edmonton averaged 13,433 with a season low in 1995-96 of 12,335.
Calgary was having a similar experience, I remember they had the top deck of the Saddledome covered (sound familiar Thrasher fans) until their Cup run in 2004. So during that time, a nine-season span from 1995 to that Cup run, the Flames averaged 16,513 in an arena that had a capacity of 19,289. Even the year of the Flames Cup run the team only averaged 16,580 which put the club 2,709 under capacity at the Saddledome. What did the Oilers and Flames have in common? They both were bad teams through most of that time, so the myth that all Canadian hockey fans will support losing teams is… say it with me.. a myth.
So, what does that have to do with Winnipeg? When the Thrasher moving talk picked up steam, after City of Glendale subsidized the Coyotes another season, I heard these same arguments from mostly Winnipeggers about how they supported the Jets and it was Gary Bettman, the Canadian dollar or their old arena that were the cause of the Jets move, so I decided to look at the numbers (since this was were the Thrashers could and eventually would move).
So, in the 17 seasons that the Jets were in Winnipeg their attendance was 12,205 that was 3,188 under the capacity of the Winnipeg Arena (15,393) and 2,680 less than the Thrashers average it its 11 seasons in Atlanta. Remember out of 17 seasons the Jets played in the NHL the team appeared in the playoffs 11 times, so this makes them a much more successful team on the ice than the Thrashers, but they could not draw as many fans.
As a comparison in each of the franchises most successful seasons the Thrashers averaged 16,229 in 2006-07 while the Jets averaged in 13,592 in 1986-87. In what was the final season for Atlanta last year it once again did better than a “hockey hotbed” like Winnipeg did in its final season? The Thrashers averaged 13,469 while the Jets had its worst season at 11,313. I know Winnipeg trolls will say, “but people knew it was a lost cause,” really so lets expand over the final three seasons (when the Save the Jets effort was going on and which the Thrashers didn’t get a chance to have) once again Atlanta outdrew Winnipeg, 13,900 to 12,542.
Oh, I almost forgot if Winnipeg is such a hockey town why didn’t the have a bigger AHL attendance. Last season the Manitoba Moose, while one of the attendance leaders, averaged 7,520 while the second team in Metro Atlanta, the Gwinnett Gladiators averaged 5,128 in the AA league the ECHL.
That is were my idea of “The Winnipeg Myth” was formed. However, this extended to the other teams that moved around this time. In its last six years Quebec averaged 14,487, which are 689 below capacity. I know that doesn’t sound like much, but the Nordiques with an up-and-coming team and in franchise saving mode and still didn’t sellout.
The part of the myth that I personally had to come to grips with was the moving of the Hartford Whalers. I have always felt Hartford, like Winnipeg and Quebec, had a team the community supported and it was ripped from there hands and sent to a hockey back water. Unfortunately here is another story that is more myth than fact. Like Quebec I don’t have the numbers for the history of the franchise, but over the Whalers last six seasons the team averaged an astonishing low 11,505 a game in an arena that holds 15,635. During these final six-seasons the low for the franchise was 10,144 in 1992-93. However, even with the writing on the wall the Whalers drew 2,364 more fans on average in their final season (no they didn’t make the playoffs in their last season like the Jets) than Winnipeg. I know that other factors will be pointed out, but the main reason people give for the Thrashers lack of success was low number at the gate and the fact that Winnipeg and these other teams never suffered from the same problems is a myth. I know in the short-term Winnipeg will be successful, but let see after some losing season, lack of free agents and high ticket prices will the numbers remain long-term.
I will follow with part two and discuss who should be next for the moving vans.
Anyway, I have spent a lot of time reading articles, blogs and message boards on this topic. One of the things I have noticed is how little “real” reporting is done and how myth has more to do with shaping the debate on whether a market is a “real hockey market.” So the blog in a two part series will focus on a term I coined “The Winnipeg Myth.”
So, what is “The Winnipeg Myth,” well it describes a myth that took root in the late 90’s about franchises and why they moved. The myth is that Winnipeg, Quebec and Hartford all moved from their respective cities despite the fact that they had great fan support and full or almost full buildings. The cities were victim of greedy owners and an uncaring league that allowed these “traditional hockey markets” to lose their teams to place that didn’t care about hockey. I for one believed this myself until recently, my attitude started to change when all the talk of a NHL team moving to Winnipeg heated up and one of the teams to fill that void was the team in the city I live, the Atlanta Thrashers. Like I have said before I am not a Thrasher fan, but I know many who are.
The funny thing about the myth is I remember when Winnipeg, Quebec and Hartford all loaded up the moving vans and vacated their cities. I thought it was wrong and still miss the days of the Jets, Nordiques and Whalers (I will add North Stars too). Even though I remember these events first hand, the myth became the narrative of what I believed and more importantly what the public became to see as reality. It wasn’t always that way, when the Oakland Seals, Atlanta Flames, Colorado Rockies and surprisingly Minnesota North Stars all moved, their fans were blamed for these teams abandoning these cities. Maybe it is because some, but not all weren’t “traditional hockey market” so the perception was no one carried about hockey there, unlike places like Winnipeg. I think this myth was propagated by the media in the northern US and even more so from their counterparts in Canada. The myth that it is not possible for a team from a “hockey hotbed” to move from a lack of community support has become well rooted in the hockey conscious.
What got me going down this road was a related topic. I was reading different message boards a few years ago and hearing people talk about how markets like Atlanta would never be successful because again it was a “bad market.” That the quality of the product had no bearing on why Atlanta had attendance troubles (because it is obvious that the Thrashers have stunk since day one). I would see endless post from Canadian trolls about how markets in their country would support teams despite the quality of product.
I was like wait a minute I remember those days in the 90’s and the Edmonton Oilers had empty seats (it is one of the reasons why they almost moved to Houston), and so did the Calgary Flames. So I went looked up the numbers (it would be nice if some media people could do the same) and over a 12-season span (1992-2004) the Oilers averaged 15,384 that is 1,455 under capacity (16,839). In a four-year stretch (1992-96) Edmonton averaged 13,433 with a season low in 1995-96 of 12,335.
Calgary was having a similar experience, I remember they had the top deck of the Saddledome covered (sound familiar Thrasher fans) until their Cup run in 2004. So during that time, a nine-season span from 1995 to that Cup run, the Flames averaged 16,513 in an arena that had a capacity of 19,289. Even the year of the Flames Cup run the team only averaged 16,580 which put the club 2,709 under capacity at the Saddledome. What did the Oilers and Flames have in common? They both were bad teams through most of that time, so the myth that all Canadian hockey fans will support losing teams is… say it with me.. a myth.
So, what does that have to do with Winnipeg? When the Thrasher moving talk picked up steam, after City of Glendale subsidized the Coyotes another season, I heard these same arguments from mostly Winnipeggers about how they supported the Jets and it was Gary Bettman, the Canadian dollar or their old arena that were the cause of the Jets move, so I decided to look at the numbers (since this was were the Thrashers could and eventually would move).
So, in the 17 seasons that the Jets were in Winnipeg their attendance was 12,205 that was 3,188 under the capacity of the Winnipeg Arena (15,393) and 2,680 less than the Thrashers average it its 11 seasons in Atlanta. Remember out of 17 seasons the Jets played in the NHL the team appeared in the playoffs 11 times, so this makes them a much more successful team on the ice than the Thrashers, but they could not draw as many fans.
As a comparison in each of the franchises most successful seasons the Thrashers averaged 16,229 in 2006-07 while the Jets averaged in 13,592 in 1986-87. In what was the final season for Atlanta last year it once again did better than a “hockey hotbed” like Winnipeg did in its final season? The Thrashers averaged 13,469 while the Jets had its worst season at 11,313. I know Winnipeg trolls will say, “but people knew it was a lost cause,” really so lets expand over the final three seasons (when the Save the Jets effort was going on and which the Thrashers didn’t get a chance to have) once again Atlanta outdrew Winnipeg, 13,900 to 12,542.
Oh, I almost forgot if Winnipeg is such a hockey town why didn’t the have a bigger AHL attendance. Last season the Manitoba Moose, while one of the attendance leaders, averaged 7,520 while the second team in Metro Atlanta, the Gwinnett Gladiators averaged 5,128 in the AA league the ECHL.
That is were my idea of “The Winnipeg Myth” was formed. However, this extended to the other teams that moved around this time. In its last six years Quebec averaged 14,487, which are 689 below capacity. I know that doesn’t sound like much, but the Nordiques with an up-and-coming team and in franchise saving mode and still didn’t sellout.
The part of the myth that I personally had to come to grips with was the moving of the Hartford Whalers. I have always felt Hartford, like Winnipeg and Quebec, had a team the community supported and it was ripped from there hands and sent to a hockey back water. Unfortunately here is another story that is more myth than fact. Like Quebec I don’t have the numbers for the history of the franchise, but over the Whalers last six seasons the team averaged an astonishing low 11,505 a game in an arena that holds 15,635. During these final six-seasons the low for the franchise was 10,144 in 1992-93. However, even with the writing on the wall the Whalers drew 2,364 more fans on average in their final season (no they didn’t make the playoffs in their last season like the Jets) than Winnipeg. I know that other factors will be pointed out, but the main reason people give for the Thrashers lack of success was low number at the gate and the fact that Winnipeg and these other teams never suffered from the same problems is a myth. I know in the short-term Winnipeg will be successful, but let see after some losing season, lack of free agents and high ticket prices will the numbers remain long-term.
I will follow with part two and discuss who should be next for the moving vans.
Comments
Post a Comment