urbanSTL

^ The tickets I purchased for about $30 were selling on stub hub for $130.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:Yeah, I (for the most part) get why people sell tickets both for the Blues and the Rams. It's just funny that when it happens at Blues games no one says anything, yet when it happens at Rams' games, we get called out for being bad fans. Granted the media covers NFL much more than NHL and each NFL game is a more precious commodity, but I couldn't help make the comparison.

Also, with only 8 games in the NFL, it's more expected that "real" fans can make it to pretty much every game. Not as expected for 41 games.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:Speaking of attendance and fan trends, it's interesting that there were a large amount of Blackhawks fans at the game Sunday, yet we don't get billed as a bad hockey town and/or disinterested. The PTI guys were talking awhile back about how we were not an NFL city (total garbage) but were a good NHL city.....if that is the case, then why were there so many Blackhawk fans? Truth is we are a fantastic NHL and MLB city because both teams have been given the chance to develop multigenerational traditions here. Give the Rams or any NFL team that chance and the same pattern will hold. Some teams like the Blackhawks, Cowboys, Steelers, etc, just have the kind of following that will make a grand showing in the home teams' buildings. Especially when the price points are better in places like STL vs bigger market venues.

Go Blues.

^ The guys on The Morning After radio show actually discussed that after the Blackhawks game. The conclusion they came to was that United Center tickets are ridiculously expensive and that in many cases it's actually cheaper for Blackhawks fans to drive down here to watch them play the Blues, especially for fans in the middle to lower part of Illinois.

-RBB

It's simple logic why Chicago fans invade the arena in St. Louis.

Chicago is a huge market with more expensive everything. They've won a couple cups and have a ridiculously large bandwagon fan base. The demand and price for tickets to games in Chicago is therefore high and very high.

Games in St. Louis represent a reasonable distances to go and much, much cheaper prices. Hawks "fans" will pay that to get to see their team play.

St. Louis is, as we know, a much smaller market. The Blues have a strong and loyal fan base, but it's not gigantic, and without a Cup or really even sniffing one, we don't have the bandwagon effect that the Hawks have. (And their bandwagon effect is as big as any has ever been in NHL history.) So we have good attendance, but not constant sellouts, and the secondary market doesn't have crazy ticket prices that would price Chicago fans out.

Basically, until Blues fans are wiling to pay $75 minimum for the worst seats in the building, this is going to happen. And the only way that will ever happen is if the Blues win a Cup, and maybe even not then.

And that doesn't mean we have a bad fan base by any stretch. It's just the realities of the markets.

^you are correct in everything you say but I'll add one caveat. If/when Rams leave, the Blues market will rise. Right now the NHL counts the STL hockey market at ~350,000 fans...a tad lower than Pittsburgh (thanks Lemieux) and a tad higher than Dallas. Which is solid, really solid.

jstriebel wrote:It's simple logic why Chicago fans invade the arena in St. Louis.

Chicago is a huge market with more expensive everything. They've won a couple cups and have a ridiculously large bandwagon fan base. The demand and price for tickets to games in Chicago is therefore high and very high.

Games in St. Louis represent a reasonable distances to go and much, much cheaper prices. Hawks "fans" will pay that to get to see their team play.

St. Louis is, as we know, a much smaller market. The Blues have a strong and loyal fan base, but it's not gigantic, and without a Cup or really even sniffing one, we don't have the bandwagon effect that the Hawks have. (And their bandwagon effect is as big as any has ever been in NHL history.) So we have good attendance, but not constant sellouts, and the secondary market doesn't have crazy ticket prices that would price Chicago fans out.

Basically, until Blues fans are wiling to pay $75 minimum for the worst seats in the building, this is going to happen. And the only way that will ever happen is if the Blues win a Cup, and maybe even not then.

And that doesn't mean we have a bad fan base by any stretch. It's just the realities of the markets.

Just to nit pick here, Chicago's "bandwagon" effect coincided with the death of their horrible owner, Bill Wirtz. He did not allow home games to be televised, unless they were picked up by a national station, which rarely happened outside of the playoffs (Which itself rarely happened). At the same time, due to continued poor seasons, the 'Hawks had some really good drafts, which allowed them to pick up some young talent in Kane and Toews. During his tenure as owner, Bill Wirtz was named the "greediest owner in sports," as well as having the "worst franchise in sports." When his son, Rocky, took over, games were immediately available to be televised locally, allowing fans to watch the games.

Are there bandwagon 'Hawks fans? Yes, absolutely.
Are there douchebag fans? You know it.
However, casting every fan who wears red and black was a bandwagon "fan" is inaccurate, given the circumstances.


Is the same true of fans of the Cardinals, Blues, L.A. Clippers, Green Bay Packers and Seattle Mariners? Uh-huh. Winning tends to draw in more eyeballs. (Except for the Cubs.)

A sport that markets itself only to true "fans," regardless of the product on the ice/field/court is not a sustainable sport.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:Speaking of attendance and fan trends, it's interesting that there were a large amount of Blackhawks fans at the game Sunday, yet we don't get billed as a bad hockey town and/or disinterested. The PTI guys were talking awhile back about how we were not an NFL city (total garbage) but were a good NHL city.....if that is the case, then why were there so many Blackhawk fans? Truth is we are a fantastic NHL and MLB city because both teams have been given the chance to develop multigenerational traditions here. Give the Rams or any NFL team that chance and the same pattern will hold. Some teams like the Blackhawks, Cowboys, Steelers, etc, just have the kind of following that will make a grand showing in the home teams' buildings. Especially when the price points are better in places like STL vs bigger market venues.

Go Blues.

The Blackhawk bandwagon is a miracle of modern engineering. I was in Chicago for business in 2009 and went to a couple of Blackhawk games. The hotel I was staying at was giving tickets away free to frequent guests and the United Center was half full. Totally different story now. I talked to a beer vendor at last night's Blues/Coyotes game and he said he was shocked by where all the people he carded wearing Blackhawks gear were coming from. Not just Illinois, but St. Louis area and all over the midwest addresses.

Blackhawk fans are road tripping all over the place. I watched a Chicago/Minnesota game on the NHL Network and the Blackhawks fans were also overwhelming there. Nashville is doing everything they can to keep Blackhawks fans out of their arena.
http://predators.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=680283
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ro ... olumn.html

Also: the Bulls are the primary tenant of the United Center so they get the Saturday games. Even with two recent Cup wins, the Blackhawks are stuck with lots of weeknight and Sunday night games.

I wasn't happy about the Red Horde filling the building on Sunday. But those out of town fans also filled St. Louis hotels, bars and restaurants on what would normally be a dead-of-winter slow weekend.

sirshankalot wrote:If/when Rams leave, the Blues market will rise.

ding ding ding

ricke002 wrote: However, casting every fan who wears red and black was a bandwagon "fan" is inaccurate, given the circumstances.

Is the same true of fans of the Cardinals, Blues, L.A. Clippers, Green Bay Packers and Seattle Mariners? Uh-huh. Winning tends to draw in more eyeballs. (Except for the Cubs.)

A sport that markets itself only to true "fans," regardless of the product on the ice/field/court is not a sustainable sport.

I'm well aware of the Blackhawks history, including their ownership. But the Hawks weren't always bad under Wirtz, not by a long shot. That fan base abandoned the Blackhawks in a giant way, and the great majority of their current fans are new to hockey.

I agree, that winning brings in fans, and you have to market to those fans, too.

But the Hawks bandwagon is as obvious as it is hilarious. It's not a good fan base, it's just a suddenly gigantic one.

I was at U of I while the transformation was happening. It was humorous, but also quite a bit soul crushing.

jstriebel wrote: But the Hawks bandwagon is as obvious as it is hilarious. It's not a good fan base, it's just a suddenly gigantic one.

Sounds like sour grapes, man. This is just another STL-CHI argument. Can we get your criteria for what a "good" fan base is?

dweebe wrote:

ricke002 wrote:

jstriebel wrote: But the Hawks bandwagon is as obvious as it is hilarious. It's not a good fan base, it's just a suddenly gigantic one.

Sounds like sour grapes, man. This is just another STL-CHI argument. Can we get your criteria for what a "good" fan base is?

It was the speed that everyone jumped back on. They've always been a good fanbase: especially for sticking with the team after all the cr*p Dollar Bill pulled. But it is funny they went from a half-filled United Center in 2009 to 1 million people showing up for their Stanley Cup parade in 2010.

I still don't buy it.

BLUES HAWKS
12,520 12,727 05-06
17,610 16,814 06-07
18,554 22,247 07-08
18,883 21,356 08-09
19,150 21,423 10-11
18,810 21,534 11-12
17,901 21,776 12-13
17,498 22,623 13-14
18,155 21,640 14-15

17,676 20,238 Avg

19,150 19,717 Capacity

92.30% 102.64% % of Capacity

The first full year after the lockout was crappy for both franchises and then the numbers took off for both. The 10% difference in % of capacity can probably be attributed to 2 Cups and 2 appearances in the Conference finals, but it can also be attributed to 7 million more people living in the Chicago MSA than in the St. Louis MSA.

Usually, Cub fans aside, fans of junky teams/organizations are not in your face about their fandom, regardless of how "good" or "bad" the fan base is. Fans of the Blackhawks who "came out of the woodwork" probably fall into this category as well, there's just a whole lot larger of a base to pull from. I 100% understand the "fans" who wear pink hats and only know the Toews/Oshie/LeBron/Pujols/Brady's on teams and how annoying they are, but that doesn't mean it's a reflection on the fan base as a whole, it's a reflection on the success of the team (Again, except for the Cubs, their fans are just blind idiots).

Personally, as I've become older, I have grown less and less interested in baseball and their 3+hour games and more and more interested in hockey. As a child, I was a fan of (and played) basketball, baseball and football. I didn't have the time/attention span to also follow hockey. It was also much, much harder to watch a hockey game on TV 20 years ago, than it was baseball, football or basketball. I didn't live close enough that I could go to professional games, nor could my parents afford even if we did live closer. We did, however, have a minor league baseball team and CBA franchise in the area, so I could see live baseball and basketball. My point is, while I was growing up, it was pretty difficult to get into hockey. As it's become more available to me, it's a sport I enjoy to watch. I don't have the numbers to back it up, but I feel like hockey is growing in popularity, not just in Chicagoland douche bag bars.

shimmy wrote:Hockey is taking off in some of the warmer climate areas, such as LA. Sure, this is due to the Kings success, but it's also due to rinks being built and kids having the chance to play. The problem that hockey is going to have is that it's just so expensive to play compared to other sports. Then again, I'm a huge hockey fan and I can't even skate, even after going to school in Vermont. I grew up a Blues fan playing backyard hockey or in the living room with a laundry basket as a goal. Now my interest in football and basketball is fading (though as sports fan, I still watch) and I find myself really watching more hockey and trying to understand it more than I used to. But this was also influenced by going to school in Vermont where hockey is the flagship sport. The point is, it's about exposure. And hockey is increasing in exposure.

^Exactly.

I really hate the whole "bandwagon" term in general. I've never understood how a team is supposed to attract fans without being successful. It's no fun to root for a team that's always losing (I know, I'm a Bears & Reds fan). Fans of teams like the Cardinals or Red Wings love to play the "bandwagon" card on other fans, but their teams have been good for 15+ years straight & haven't had to put up with crappy stretches of 6-7 seasons in a row.

It's just a reflection of people who really get into something, showing frustration toward the dabblers who don't share their enthusiasm and are encroaching on "their" special thing. People just like organizing themselves into tribes as part of their identity, and the permeable boundaries of fandom disrupt that identity.

I think, what hockey has on basketball, is the fact that it is played the same (at a higher level) as it is in college or minor league levels. The NBA game is all about showboating, no passing, shoot first and not a team game IMO. I hate the NBA game for that reason. I love college basketball, but I'm less interested when Mizzou and SLU are bad. The college game just seems more genuine to me. The NBA does not. It is a showboating league and that irks me. I'm sure there are good games and the playoffs are much more watchable. The NHL comes off as genuine every night. It is like a grudge match, where players have no choice but to play a team game. That is not the case with the NBA. I'm very sure there will be some that disagree with me, but that is why I love hockey so much, versus pro basketball. Football and baseball are a different animal. Baseball can be watched while doing chores or yard work. You can walk away and the game is still going on 2 hours later. Sitting there 3 hours is only possible at bed time or in the post-season, unless I'm in couch potato mode. The NFL, for the most part, is watchable for 3 hours, if the Rams are playing, a game relevant to the home team/fantasy team or it is the post-season. I handle football games like baseball otherwise. Watch while doing other things. The advantage football, basketball and even soccer have, is their low cost to play. All you need is a ball and a playing field or court.

Back on subject. The biggest concern I have with the Blues right now, is goaltending. While I feel better about this team's ability to score, more so than years past, giving up just one softie a game, can kill a team in the playoffs. Elliott seems especially shaky against the big boys....ie.. Hawks, Kings, Preds for example. You cannot allow cheapies against anyone in the playoffs. Goals are at a premium. That, if anything, will be the Blues Achilles heel in the playoffs. I hope I'm wrong.

That Oshie blind pass between the legs the other night was completely awesome - this year feels different in a good way - But I will breath easier when Shattendeuces is back

^ Did anyone hear that Shatty might be out the rest of the season? Channel 11 reported that last night. I do not know what info Rich Gould has, but he reported that possibility, saying "the Blues playoff chances could take a huge hit." I agree, if that is true.

Dweebe, I agree with you on the D. I think my fear is Elliott has been notorious for giving up a softie or two in the playoffs. That concerns me. Maybe this year will be different, since we have guys that can really score like Vlad, Schwartz and the Oshie/Steen/Backes line. We aren't relying on pretenders like Chris Stewart to carry the load in the playoffs. This team is different that years past, from an offensive standpoint. However, we will still need solid goaltending from Elliott. Also, we have to remember, we'll have to beat Chicago at some point. As we know, if LA gets in as an 7 or 8 seed, beware! They do this every year. The West is brutal!