Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Video description: "Saturday's Condors game started with a brawl off the opening faceoff."

That is so mind-blowingly dumb. I can't wrap my head around why any player with a brain would agree to start fighting after the puck is dropped. All that does is enforce a stereotype that drives away potential fans, because it's a joke. Of course, according to many in hockey media, I haven't played at a high enough level to hold an opinion worth anything. What a shame for a great game. At least I get to play pond hockey tomorrow (and hopefully later in the week).

Not arguing for or against it, but there are more fans to be gained/retained from a line brawl like that than there are be gained if fighting was taken out of the game. There aren't any casual fans that are going to be induced to attend more games because fighting is gone. On the contrary, many casual fans that go for the hitting and fights will likely be turned away.

Again, not saying I'm against fighting or for it, but that's the nature of minor league hockey.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Video description: "Saturday's Condors game started with a brawl off the opening faceoff."

That is so mind-blowingly dumb. I can't wrap my head around why any player with a brain would agree to start fighting after the puck is dropped. All that does is enforce a stereotype that drives away potential fans, because it's a joke. Of course, according to many in hockey media, I haven't played at a high enough level to hold an opinion worth anything. What a shame for a great game. At least I get to play pond hockey tomorrow (and hopefully later in the week).

Well, to be fair, they did wait four seconds.

Opinions certainly vary on fighting in hockey and less is good by me, but as of right now, the ECHL can be a pretty rough league. I go to a fair number of Everblades games and periods rarely go by without pausing for a few fisticuffs. The teams see each other a lot, so I imagine the quick start to this one is a carryover from the last time they played. Or somebody's mother was involved. Regardless, here Ryan is after the third guy in, who should have known better then to jump in. That's going to get you a face full of fists in any league.

 

[WiscDC]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Not arguing for or against it, but there are more fans to be gained/retained from a line brawl like that than there are be gained if fighting was taken out of the game. There aren't any casual fans that are going to be induced to attend more games because fighting is gone. On the contrary, many casual fans that go for the hitting and fights will likely be turned away.

Again, not saying I'm against fighting or for it, but that's the nature of minor league hockey.

Even some casual observers who might eagerly look up if there's a fight are repelled by the fights that happen outside of the immediate context of the game (obviously, fights would happen even with stiffer penalties). Regardless of how entertaining fights can be, if people tie it so closely with what hockey is, they see the sport as a joke, and it gets in the way of appreciating the whole sport and those people potentially becoming fans.

I think it's rather sad that seems to be the nature of minor league hockey, seeing as there's objectively some pretty darn hockey to be played at those levels lower than the NHL. Instead, it seems like some guys think, "oh well, we're not in the NHL, might as well drop the gloves more often!" Maybe it has a little to do with how few ECHL or CHL (the minor pro league) players actually end up in the NHL compared to AA baseball players. There's still 60 minutes of hockey each game, and even in the goonier leagues, only about 1 fight. Nobody watches strictly for the fights, at least not for very long. People won't give hockey a chance because of the fights, though, and that includes people who would go nuts for a fight. Also, it leads to ignorant parents.

Edit: I suppose it's also possible that there's a high ratio of level of play to officiating quality. In theory, this would lead to more missed calls than a league with better refs or slower/worse players. It doesn't account for all the boring off-the-faceoff fights where they pretend to be boxers, but I thought of it and felt like writing it.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Not arguing for or against it, but there are more fans to be gained/retained from a line brawl like that than there are be gained if fighting was taken out of the game. There aren't any casual fans that are going to be induced to attend more games because fighting is gone. On the contrary, many casual fans that go for the hitting and fights will likely be turned away.

Again, not saying I'm against fighting or for it, but that's the nature of minor league hockey.

As I said, I go to a fair number of Everblades games, and I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. I'm not certain of course, it's a rough crowd at times and there's certainly fans that go for the fights, but I'm not convinced that it's not on it's way out. From a business standpoint they have difficulty attracting the family outing money, even though they effort marketing it that way. I know several families that have been to games and like the hockey and the atmosphere but are opposed to taking their kids to the games because of excessive fighting. Which is too bad because there's often some pretty good hockey on the ice in between.
Also you have the concussion issues being litigated which could force the various league's hands. And then you have stuff like Shawn Thornton doing something on the ice, that if it happened on the street, he'd do jail time. I think DC has a legitimate point that it is preventing a whole demographic from becoming fans.

Remains to be seen if litigation or bad publicity or economics will drive any change, but I think it might continue down that path.

 

[WiscDC]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

As I said, I go to a fair number of Everblades games, and I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. I'm not certain of course, it's a rough crowd at times and there's certainly fans that go for the fights, but I'm not convinced that it's not on it's way out. From a business standpoint they have difficulty attracting the family outing money, even though they effort marketing it that way. I know several families that have been to games and like the hockey and the atmosphere but are opposed to taking their kids to the games because of excessive fighting. Which is too bad because there's often some pretty good hockey on the ice in between.
Also you have the concussion issues being litigated which could force the various league's hands. And then you have stuff like Shawn Thornton doing something on the ice, that if it happened on the street, he'd do jail time. I think DC has a legitimate point that it is preventing a whole demographic from becoming fans.

Remains to be seen if litigation or bad publicity or economics will drive any change, but I think it might continue down that path.

The small rule changes in the NHL are headed in the direction away from the traditional "five for fighting." I don't think that means players will stop standing up for one another. (I don't need to tell other college hockey fans that.)

Anecdotal point - I have a friend from central Illinois who plays hockey, and he told me that the crowd at Peoria Rivermen games largely consisted of "rednecks who want to see fights." That kind of fits the minor league hockey stereotype.

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

The small rule changes in the NHL are headed in the direction away from the traditional "five for fighting." I don't think that means players will stop standing up for one another. (I don't need to tell other college hockey fans that.)

Anecdotal point - I have a friend from central Illinois who plays hockey, and he told me that the crowd at Peoria Rivermen games largely consisted of "rednecks who want to see fights." That kind of fits the minor league hockey stereotype.

Why do you think Iowa is a hotbed for junior hockey? Beer and rednecks who like fights.

 

[WiscDC]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Why do you think Iowa is a hotbed for junior hockey? Beer and rednecks who like fights.

I find that weird, though. I knew it was a five-for-fighting league, but I was surprised when a friend told me the USHL has a ton of fights. Plenty of top prospects play in that league and and advance to NCAA hockey!

 

[Badger Booster]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

You know it's been a good week for Badger hockey when the hottest topics on this thread are which of Barnes' behind-the-back goals was the nicest and fighting in junior/minor league hockey. That's what taking care of business at home does.

Went Saturday night and was my first mens game in 2-3 years. While not shocked, was still surprised to see all the opens seats, especially on the student end of the arena (2nd and 3rd decks). I've never been to a men's event at Kohl with that few people and I know this was one of the bigger crowds of the season. If that's the crowd for a Saturday night game in early December against a former WCHA rival, is it pretty much a given that the crowds against UAH will be the smallest ever for games at Kohl Center?

I'm glad the coaching staff pushed for maintaining the main championship banners. I can't believe the athletic department would have been OK with just having those years on the removable ring signage. Don't think for a second that if the basketball team won a national title (or even gets back to the Final Four) that Bo wouldn't want a huge banner in the rafters.

Not sure how many more games I'll attend this year. I'm interested to see what promotions they may run. If the athletic department just stands pat, it's going to be ugly (attendance-wise) for all games besides Minnesota or Michigan.

 

[TUSCHWI]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

You know it's been a good week for Badger hockey when the hottest topics on this thread are which of Barnes' behind-the-back goals was the nicest and fighting in junior/minor league hockey. That's what taking care of business at home does.

Went Saturday night and was my first mens game in 2-3 years. While not shocked, was still surprised to see all the opens seats, especially on the student end of the arena (2nd and 3rd decks). I've never been to a men's event at Kohl with that few people and I know this was one of the bigger crowds of the season. If that's the crowd for a Saturday night game in early December against a former WCHA rival, is it pretty much a given that the crowds against UAH will be the smallest ever for games at Kohl Center?

I'm glad the coaching staff pushed for maintaining the main championship banners. I can't believe the athletic department would have been OK with just having those years on the removable ring signage. Don't think for a second that if the basketball team won a national title (or even gets back to the Final Four) that Bo wouldn't want a huge banner in the rafters.

Not sure how many more games I'll attend this year. I'm interested to see what promotions they may run. If the athletic department just stands pat, it's going to be ugly (attendance-wise) for all games besides Minnesota or Michigan.

It has been a good week on the board. They seem, from what I saw on TV Friday, and the weekend before, to be getting into a good groove and almost tenacious at times. The attendance problem is a concern for me too..assuming the Badgers take care of business with AA and Huntsville (am I missing one?) the place SHOULD be packed for the Michigan series. I'll be there and I'm already getting jacked up for it. But I'm not confident that it will be, especially since the students wont be back from break yet.

A big promotion from the Athletic Dept. to fill those seats in advance would be a great idea - but these days great ideas and the AD are an oxymoron (see initial banners decision, vendor decision for football games, etc.)

 

[TUSCHWI]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

I'm not sure I can quantify this but not showing the home games on tape-delay on statewide WPT has been a mistake and part of the problem. I'm sure there are contractual reasons and all that but those games built a generation(s) of fans who grew up watching those games. Don't get me wrong; I'm glad they are showing more games on FSW and the Wisconsin Channel but many people who do not live around Dane County, and would not be able to come to the games anyway, would be able to see the games and keep building that fan base statewide.

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

I'm not sure I can quantify this but not showing the home games on tape-delay on statewide WPT has been a mistake and part of the problem. I'm sure there are contractual reasons and all that but those games built a generation(s) of fans who grew up watching those games. Don't get me wrong; I'm glad they are showing more games on FSW and the Wisconsin Channel but many people who do not live around Dane County, and would not be able to come to the games anyway, would be able to see the games and keep building that fan base statewide.

If the games are on Fox Sports Wisconsin or Big Ten anyways, is not having a tape delayed broadcast really that big of a deal?

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

If the games are on Fox Sports Wisconsin or Big Ten anyways, is not having a tape delayed broadcast really that big of a deal?

I, for one, did not have cable growing up. The tape delay was the only way I could watch badger hockey at all, save going to the game.

 

[TUSCHWI]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

If the games are on Fox Sports Wisconsin or Big Ten anyways, is not having a tape delayed broadcast really that big of a deal?

I'm not sure Chuck...it's not a big deal for me...I have DirecTV and I assume local cable offers the same. I guess it was more of a philosophical question or yammering on my part. I certainly understand that football and Bball are the elephants in the room and I'm just as much to blame for that, well with football at least. I just don't like how the hockey team (a tradition rich hockey program) as an entity has been allowed to decline in importance to the AD - in my opinion - and into mediocrity in a number of ways. So showing games (from a state run university) at 10:30 on the state university's TV network would be a simple way to broaden exposure.
Like I said, just my thoughts.

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

I, for one, did not have cable growing up. The tape delay was the only way I could watch badger hockey at all, save going to the game.

I get that, but it's 2013. I'm asking why tape delayed games are relevant now?

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

I get that, but it's 2013. I'm asking why tape delayed games are relevant now?

I would guess there are a fair portion of residents of the state who still rely on antenna and do not have cable or dish due to availability or cost respectively. I think it allows the rural residents around the state to follow the team easier and to feel like UW's team is their team. There sure as hell is not any local coverage in the newspaper.

It may be 1, it may be 1000 but I think the exposure would entice a few fans from the rural area to make the trip to Madison for a few games. My parents, for example, used to make at least 1 game every year and all the games when my sister and I were students. Now that we are retired crease creatures, they do not feel connected to the team and I think that is why they no longer make the effort to go to games. They still do not have cable and I would guarantee my dad would still stay up to watch the re-broadcast of the games.

I know the plural of anecdote is not data, just some thoughts.

 

[WiscDC]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

I guarantee the student section (even this year's allotted area) won't be packed for Michigan. It's smack-dab in the middle of winter break. I've seen plenty of tickets for that series change hands, so fewer will go to waste than UA-H and UAA, but it'll be a holiday student crowd.

 

[WiscDC]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Getting games on tape delay will help, but only because it cannot hurt. It's negligible compared to live TV.

 

[WiscTJK]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

I get that, but it's 2013. I'm asking why tape delayed games are relevant now?

Because there are people that would watch the games even late. It can't hurt.

This past Saturday, the game wasn't on regular TV or tape delay. That is unacceptable. I had my company Christmas party, so I had to give up my tickets. No regular TV, so I go to WPT for tape delay, and nothing. I would have watched the game on DVR if it was available.

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Because there are people that would watch the games even late. It can't hurt.

This past Saturday, the game wasn't on regular TV or tape delay. That is unacceptable. I had my company Christmas party, so I had to give up my tickets. No regular TV, so I go to WPT for tape delay, and nothing. I would have watched the game on DVR if it was available.

16 of Wisconsin's final 20 regular season games are on TV, including every home game the rest of the season. If people want to watch later, that's what DVR was created for. I guess if people don't have cable that's a problem, but if you want to watch the games, you can certainly pay for cable or order the webcast. Saturday's game was also available on webcast.

I'm certainly not advocating for the WPT broadcasts to go away, but there's always a way to watch the game. If I can watch every game living in another state, I'm sure locals can figure it out.

 

[TUSCHWI]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

I would guess there are a fair portion of residents of the state who still rely on antenna and do not have cable or dish due to availability or cost respectively. I think it allows the rural residents around the state to follow the team easier and to feel like UW's team is their team. There sure as hell is not any local coverage in the newspaper.

It may be 1, it may be 1000 but I think the exposure would entice a few fans from the rural area to make the trip to Madison for a few games. My parents, for example, used to make at least 1 game every year and all the games when my sister and I were students. Now that we are retired crease creatures, they do not feel connected to the team and I think that is why they no longer make the effort to go to games. They still do not have cable and I would guarantee my dad would still stay up to watch the re-broadcast of the games.

I know the plural of anecdote is not data, just some thoughts.

Thank you Wildcard. This was basically what I was alluding to. Any additional exposure is a good thing, especially when interest and as you noted "a connection to the team" has fallen off in certain segments of the population-perfect description. Even though it's 2013 I know there are people who do not have cable, or maybe just very basic cable, nor DVR's. Wildcard is right, they may live in the very rural areas but they do exist and any exposure is good exposure.

I'm not trying to argue with you Chuck..I'm not even sure we're arguing about the same thing. I love the hockey team and will always go to games and/or pay whatever I have to watch/DVR them on TV. But not everybody can do that. And I am pleased as punch (I can't believe I just used that term...sheesh) that many if not most of the remaining games are going to be televised. My initial comment was tossed out there about the macro problem (hockey having been allowed to slide into mediocrity); not this year in particular.