What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

Matthew Webb said:
I'm trying to figure out why it's notable at all. With the locations and participants as they were, there's no way the women shouldn't have outdrawn the men.

It's a pointless comparison, so I'm still trying to figure out why the factoid is significant. If anything actually, the fact it is "notable" to some speaks only to how pathetic attendance is for women's hockey, and that's not a good thing. It's almost like a "hey look! we actually drew fans for a change!" sort of thing. CongraDulations?

Aside from that, what the hell does Title IX have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Ok, I did forget to mention Division III, my question should have read:
Also, without Title IX, would a Division III public school have fielded a women's hockey team? (Were there ANY prior to Title IX - I haven't checked).

Also, IMO, the fact that a women's hockey team could outdraw there male counterpart (with 1333), speaks volumns for the gaining acknowledgement of women's hockey. The fact that few showed for the men's games also speaks for the quality of Division III men's ice hockey fans, the West and Superior couldn't pull in better than 1052 - and that is paid attendance (not actual), I would have thought that advance ticket sales alone would have exceeded that.
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

norm1909 said:
Ok, I did forget to mention Division III, my question should have read:
Also, without Title IX, would a Division III public school have fielded a women's hockey team? (Were there ANY prior to Title IX - I haven't checked).

Also, IMO, the fact that a women's hockey team could outdraw there male counterpart (with 1333), speaks volumns for the gaining acknowledgement of women's hockey. The fact that few showed for the men's games also speaks for the quality of Division III men's ice hockey fans, the West and Superior couldn't pull in better than 1052 - and that is paid attendance (not actual), I would have thought that advance ticket sales alone would have exceeded that.
Click to expand...
Are you intentionally ignoring all the points here?

A) You're talking about one specific game. Where the host school didn't even make the frozen four, and the one regional team was 5+ hours away and lost in the semifinals. And where the finals + semifinals still outdrew the women's finals and semifinals.

B) Compare it to this year, where the women were in a similar situation as the 2007 men. The only difference was the host school actually made it, although they lost in the semifinals. The final in lake placid drew around 5700 this year, which is far far far more than the entire women's NCAA tournament this year or in 2007.

C) You're looking at an exception and assuming it's the rule.

D) Even though the women did have higher attendance for that one game, what exactly is your point? Both the 2007 men and women's DIII tournaments lost money, but the women's title game (but not entire tournament) had more attendance, soo...... (Insert your point here)
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

norm1909 said:
The fact that few showed for the men's games also speaks for the quality of Division III men's ice hockey fans, the West and Superior couldn't pull in better than 1052 - and that is paid attendance (not actual)
Click to expand...
The highest women's DIII attendence is RIT with 329. There are 36 men's DIII schools averaging higher than that, including 1-23-1 St. Mary's.

If you look at the first only DIII women's school, middlebury averaged 303 attendance. Which adds notable DIII powerhouses Hamilton, Lake Forest, Buffalo State, Fitchburg State, and Wesleyan.

Johnson and Wales drew the 2nd fewest fans out of men's DIII with 120. 18 women's schools averaged fewer than this.

Only 2 DI women's schools averaged over 1,000 attendance (Wisconsin and Minnesota). 18 men's DIII schools average more.

So why are you looking at an exception from 3 years ago and acting like it's some turning point or milestone?
 
Last edited:
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

one_to7 said:
The highest women's DIII attendence is RIT with 329. There are 36 men's DIII schools averaging higher than that, including 1-23-1 St. Mary's.

If you look at the first only DIII women's school, middlebury averaged 303 attendance. Which adds notable DIII powerhouses Hamilton, Lake Forest, Buffalo State, Fitchburg State, and Wesleyan.

Johnson and Wales drew the 2nd fewest fans out of men's DIII with 120. 18 women's schools averaged fewer than this.

Only 2 DI women's schools averaged over 1,000 attendance (Wisconsin and Minnesota). 18 men's DIII schools average more.

So why are you looking at an exception from 3 years ago and acting like it's some turning point or milestone?
Click to expand...

Because, IMO, it is a milestone - and a sad thing that the west couldn't, in the NCAA championship game, sell more than 1052 tickets.

I am not saying that women's hockey has - or will - become preferred over men's hockey. I am saying that I believe they have achieved recognition among HOCKEY fans – to a point where – at least eastern fans – would be willing to pay to see them, while – at least western fans – would pass on a chance to see, in relatively their backyard, two of the top teams in division III hockey (Oswego & Middlebury). In 2009, paid attendance was 3141, to watch Neumann & Gustavus Adolphius, not exactly perennial favorites.

Yes, division III women’s ice hockey has a lot of room to grow, but IMO, they have managed to prove their legitimacy – at least in some neighborhoods (and/or some division III men’s ice hockey neighborhoods have proven their fickleness).
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

norm1909 said:
I am not saying that women's hockey has - or will - become preferred over men's hockey. I am saying that I believe they have achieved recognition among HOCKEY fans – to a point where – at least eastern fans – would be willing to pay to see them, while – at least western fans – would pass on a chance to see, in relatively their backyard, two of the top teams in division III hockey (Oswego & Middlebury). In 2009, paid attendance was 3141, to watch Neumann & Gustavus Adolphius, not exactly perennial favorites.
Click to expand...


3141 with about 1500 no-shows. You know, sort of the same way a significant abundance of Oswego and Plattsburgh (Plattsburgh in particular) fans didn't show up for the Norwich-St. Norbert game this year.

But feel free to keep acting like there is some sort of anomaly here. It's gone from confusing to downright comical if this is your grand conclusion as to why there were only 1300 fans in Superior when three Eastern teams were there and the one Western team was from 5.5 hours away and lost in the semifinals.
 
Last edited:
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

Matthew Webb said:
3141 with about 1500 no-shows. You know, sort of the same way a significant abundance of Oswego and Plattsburgh (Plattsburgh in particular) fans didn't show up for the Norwich-St. Norbert game this year.

But feel free to keep acting like there is some sort of anomaly here. It's gone from confusing to downright comical if this is your grand conclusion as to why there were only 1300 fans in Superior when three Eastern teams were there and the one Western team was from 5.5 hours away and lost in the semifinals.
Click to expand...

So you claiming there were not any no-shows among the 1052 in 2007? And, no, I never stated it was an anomaly - and hope on the women's side it wasn't and on the men's side, that something kept the fans away, myself, I drive 4 hours (roundtrip) just to watch Adrian & Potsdam play a early season regular matchup (and I'm a Plattsburgh fan). Five hours for a rare western championship game - I wouldn't have missed it. You are making it sound comical that the west should ever host:confused:
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

If superior had actually made the semifinals, then the tournament would have obliterated the women's championship that year. If it had been held in St Norbert, it would have obliterated the women that year. If St scholastica had made it, they would have obliterated the women that year.

You're looking at a perfect storm for the women and an absolute worst case scenario for the men and assuming it's the norm instead of an exception.

http://collegehockeystats.net/0607/boxes/mcrtplt1.d01

oh my god norm, the women's title game outdrew a Friday night Plattsburgh game! Plattsburgh is surely in a sad state of affairs and should consider folding the mens program to focus on women's hockey. Either that or their fans are just poor fans.

See how absurd that sounds? Those are the exact same type of claims you're making. You also continue to ignore the plethora of western mens teams outdrawing the most attended women's team. St mary's went 1-23-1 last season and still managed this feat, yet eastern fans are 'better'?

Again norm, what was the point of this?
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

one_to7 said:
If superior had actually made the semifinals, then the tournament would have obliterated the women's championship that year. If it had been held in St Norbert, it would have obliterated the women that year. If St scholastica had made it, they would have obliterated the women that year.

You're looking at a perfect storm for the women and an absolute worst case scenario for the men and assuming it's the norm instead of an exception.

http://collegehockeystats.net/0607/boxes/mcrtplt1.d01

oh my god norm, the women's title game outdrew a Friday night Plattsburgh game! Plattsburgh is surely in a sad state of affairs and should consider folding the mens program to focus on women's hockey. Either that or their fans are just poor fans.

See how absurd that sounds? Those are the exact same type of claims you're making. You also continue to ignore the plethora of western mens teams outdrawing the most attended women's team. St mary's went 1-23-1 last season and still managed this feat, yet eastern fans are 'better'?

Again norm, what was the point of this?
Click to expand...

As Webb pointed out, there were likely 1500 No Shows at Lake Placid, half again the ticket sales alone when the game was out west, why - because 1500 people were willing to take chance their team would be there, when the weren't saddly they choose to watch the team that beat their team play.

My point though, is and has been, that people are starting to take notice of women's hockey, IMO, the sport, at the division III level is a byproduct of Title IX. Even a "perfect storm" needs the right elements to occur.

The point some appear intent on making, is that there is not a significant hockey fan base in the west - at least not serious enough to purchase tickets. Myself, I am not sure why the results were SO dismal, I appreciate the lack of a home area favorite in the final, nevertheless, St Norbert was in the Final Four, and the game WAS in the west (as I mentioned previously, a rare great chance for local fans to see perennial eastern favorites, if nothing else – but apparently that wasn’t the case). In Plattsburgh, many fans WERE willing to pay to watch alternative hockey - NOT there perferred teams' but hockey - in their case, local women's ice hockey, but in Superior, they weren't willing to pay to watch alternative hockey, they couldn't have seen their home team play, BUT they could have seen among the best of their preferred sport (or maybe it isn't).
 
Last edited:
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

norm1909 said:
The point some appear intent on making, is that there is not a significant hockey fan base in the west - at least not serious enough to purchase tickets.
Click to expand...

If my "some" you mean "you" I guess you're right.

Problem is you're wrong across the board here for a myriad of reasons, the likes of which you can google on your own. Nothing about any of the attendances mentioned in the past 24 hours is out of place and couldn't have been closely predicted ahead of time. And certainly none require any sort of hockeycentric socioeconomic underwhelming hyper-analysis to explain so yet again...I have absolutely no clue what your point is, unless you really are trying to "rank" fans in regional terms, which wouldn't be so much a point as it would be a joke.
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

Matthew Webb said:
If my "some" you mean "you" I guess you're right.

Problem is you're wrong across the board here for a myriad of reasons, the likes of which you can google on your own. Nothing about any of the attendances mentioned in the past 24 hours is out of place and couldn't have been closely predicted ahead of time. And certainly none require any sort of hockeycentric socioeconomic underwhelming hyper-analysis to explain so yet again...I have absolutely no clue what your point is, unless you really are trying to "rank" fans in regional terms, which wouldn't be so much a point as it would be a joke.
Click to expand...

My point was that women’s ice hockey has evolved to a point where fans of men’s ice hockey – were willing to pay to watch the sport – regardless of whether or not it was their favorite team, What I seen, was an attempt by some to belittle the accomplishments of the women’s teams by claiming it was merely because of the location. Well, the location was in two great hockey towns, towns that one would expect to have large numbers of hockey fans. No one has given me an explanation as to why it is not significant that fans of men’s ice hockey would turn out to watch their local women’s team, yet fans of men’s ice hockey wouldn’t turn out to see two of the best teams in their sport play, in a rarity of being in their backyard, nonetheless.
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

norm1909 said:
No one has given me an explanation as to why it is not significant that fans of men’s ice hockey would turn out to watch their local women’s team, yet fans of men’s ice hockey wouldn’t turn out to see two of the best teams in their sport play, in a rarity of being in their backyard, nonetheless.
Click to expand...

You seriously need an explanation for that?

Seriously?

You honestly can't see how the two are different? You're comparing apples to cinder blocks.
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

What do you think a game between Oswego and wisconsin-river falls would draw if it was played at Plattsburgh? I'd wager it's be somewhere between 'slim' and 'none' besides the traveling fans from wego or Hudson.

Why would superior students on spring break come see their archrival play someone else? Why would most fans be happy to see a showcase that doesn't have anyhong to do with their team?

Hockey on any level in college is driven strongly by a school connection. I highly doubt a significant proportion of fans watching that women's game were random hockey fans just stopping by. They were most likely fans of the teams involved, who were pretty much all within driving distance (and about half the drive from St norbert to superior if you're following this.)

also, hockey fans out here have a lot more local options than just mens or women's d3 if they want a hockey fix. There's a slew of D1 teams, high school hockey is enormous in Minnesota, there're jr leagues where the top teams rival some d3 teams.

Norm, when the women host their frozen four 300+ miles from the nearest participating school and 1,000+ miles from 3/4 of the teams, let me know. Something makes me think the attendance would be a joke.

Youre making a huge number of assumptions without doing anything to support them, and you're being rather silly with your reasoning at the same time. You're all over the map drawing sweeping generalizations from a single game, and ignoring every point against your presumptions.

Oh, someone give me a call when the top women's hockey teams in the world can beat a mens high school team, thanks.
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

joeyc3402 said:
You seriously need an explanation for that?

Seriously?

You honestly can't see how the two are different? You're comparing apples to cinder blocks.
Click to expand...

If I thought the paying fans at the 2007 women's game were not predominately fans of men's hockey, I would agree. But I'd believe they were fans willing to recognize the growing quality of women's hockey. Also, while I have great respect for the hockey fans in the west, I am nevertheless, disappointed, that many didn't take advantage of the opportunity they had.

The comparison is between the two similar sets of division III men’s hockey fans and their reaction to two related events, event A the - the apples (championship hockey from a different area) versus event B - the cinderblocks (championship hockey of a different gender).

Apples and cinderblocks? I'm thinking Extra Sharp Cheddar versus Mild Cheddar :p ;)
 
Re: Plattsburgh State Hockey 2010-11

norm1909 said:
If I thought the paying fans at the 2007 women's game were not predominately fans of men's hockey, I would agree. But I'd believe they were fans willing to recognize the growing quality of women's hockey. Also, while I have great respect for the hockey fans in the west, I am nevertheless, disappointed, that many didn't take advantage of the opportunity they had.

The comparison is between the two similar sets of division III men’s hockey fans and their reaction to two related events, event A the - the apples (championship hockey from a different area) versus event B - the cinderblocks (championship hockey of a different gender).

Apples and cinderblocks? I'm thinking Extra Sharp Cheddar versus Mild Cheddar :p ;)
Click to expand...
College hockey is fundamentally about fans supporting their school. That's what gets people into the sport; whether it's a local team or an alma mater.

I doubt anyone goes to a DIII hockey game because they just want to see hockey, but have no (and never had a) connection to any team. Otherwise they'd be much better served going to a DI or NHL game, obviously.

So while the fans going to the title g ame in 2007 may have gotten into mens hockey first, they did so because it was PLATTSBURGH hockey, not because it was hockey in general. It's not exactly a leap to have them go to go see their team hosting a national championship game.

That's entirely different than fans around the superior areae going to see oswego and middlebury when they have no vested interest in either.

Have a men's frozen four at bowdoin with UW-River Falls, Hamline, St Norbert and Elmira, and you'd have virtually NO ONE there. It has no bearing about how 'good of a fan' the locals are, it's all about the fact that they have no connection to the teams playing.

Go look at Umass-Dartmout from 2006-2008. 200 fans every game, until you get to the semifinals or championship game, and all of a sudden 1500 people show up. A title game draws people with a connection to the school, even if it's 1,000 drunk students chanting obscenities at the other team. It has nothing to do with people wanting to see a higher level of hockey.

How can you possibly believe this? It's absurd.

And while I'm ranting, if you want to talk about the level of women's hockey, someone call me when things like this don't happen anymore, thanks.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=2281644
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top