DevsMan84 Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Even when they were "jerseys team" no one went to the games. They still had NJ on their uniforms when they went to back to back finals and look at how their attendance was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouse Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Hell, we're Jersey's team, and fat lot of good that's done our attendance. Obviously, there's a difference between hockey and basketball as far as popularity goes, but a lot of New Jerseyans identify as Philly or NY sports fans, and are loyal to their teams, convenient or not. I grew up a Knicks fan because of my dad, and nothing was changing that. We occasionally went to Nets games because they were close and comparatively affordable, but Jersey loyalty wasn't enough to make me change my allegiance. IMO Brooklyn will be a success. It is part of Ling Island, and while it'll be tougher for Sussex people to get there, driving to the Mausoleum wasn't exactly a picnic. The team and LIRR need to get their sh!t together, because driving and parking are a nightmare at Barclay's, but it's a good venue on a transportation hub. Plus the Isles are an exciting young team with cheaper tickets than the Rags, so they'll draw some NYC fans as well. If Isles are smart, they'll black off some seats. Don't see them selling out the venue anyway most games (it's big) so they might as well try to get people in good seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I'm not a basketball fan but didn't they remove New Jersey from the uniforms and basically everything? I remember a lot of people being turned off by that. I don't care if we get another NBA team or not but I imagine it would be a lot different if the team had actually had intentions of being New Jerseys team.Yep. That torqued me something fierce. The Nets were dead to me the minute they announced they were going to Brooklyn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewarkDevil5 Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Yep. That torqued me something fierce. The Nets were dead to me the minute they announced they were going to Brooklyn. Me too. It was just as they were starting to draw the interest of NJ fans too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Me too. It was just as they were starting to draw the interest of NJ fans too.Yep. The timing of it all sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted September 18, 2015 Author Share Posted September 18, 2015 You know if they played their cards right the Nets may have been able to sort of salvage something of their Jersey fan base and still do well in Brooklyn. Jets and Giants did it, only in reverse (it also helped that they kept NY in their name, though the Giants took it off their helmet much like the Nets took it off their jersey) Pay respect to New Jersey, keep NJ on the uniforms until the very end. Play 2-3 games a year in NJ, continue with a NJ outreach. Instead they burned that bridge, and they're still a major 2nd fiddle to the Knicks...only now they're east of them instead of west, and play in an overrated rusting arena in hipsterland. Bravo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoffeecake Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 The couple of years where they were 19th and barely considered the middle of the pack? 2001: 26th 2002: 26th (Finals year) 2003: 23rd (Finals year) 2004: 26th (Bruce Ratner buys team with intention on moving them to Brooklyn) 2005: 26th 2006: 19th 2007: 19th 2008: 21st 2009: 25th 2010: 30th (First year in Prudential Center) 2011: 28th 2012: 30th 2013: 16th (First year at Barclays) 2014: 17th Seems like the move to Brooklyn was more of a blessing than a curse. This isn't an issue you can look at strictly with attendance numbers. You need to consider the factors that aren't illustrated by looking at these figures. Consider the Meadowlands, and what playing in the middle of nowhere did to developing fan bases for both the Nets and Devils. Consider that by the time the Nets went to prudential center, the team was torn down, and a lot of people had stopped going to games. Consider the ridiculous marketing blitz they did when the team moved to Brooklyn. Consider the novelty of a new team in a new place and the novelty of major professional sports in Brooklyn. Consider the brand new $1 billion building they play in that ratner just wanted the Nets to fill. Statistics like this tell you the result of a lot of circumstances. Not one. Things don't work in black and white like that. And quite frankly, considering all of the factors, and considering they play in one of the most densely populated places on earth, and that they fielded some decent teams with some major stars, that 16th and 17th is actually pretty awful. And unless they're competing for a title, because we all know there is no bigger bandwagon town than New York, those numbers are going to drop significantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 This isn't an issue you can look at strictly with attendance numbers. You need to consider the factors that aren't illustrated by looking at these figures. Consider the Meadowlands, and what playing in the middle of nowhere did to developing fan bases for both the Nets and Devils. Consider that by the time the Nets went to prudential center, the team was torn down, and a lot of people had stopped going to games. Consider the ridiculous marketing blitz they did when the team moved to Brooklyn. Consider the novelty of a new team in a new place and the novelty of major professional sports in Brooklyn. Consider the brand new $1 billion building they play in that ratner just wanted the Nets to fill. Statistics like this tell you the result of a lot of circumstances. Not one. Things don't work in black and white like that. And quite frankly, considering all of the factors, and considering they play in one of the most densely populated places on earth, and that they fielded some decent teams with some major stars, that 16th and 17th is actually pretty awful. And unless they're competing for a title, because we all know there is no bigger bandwagon town than New York, those numbers are going to drop significantly. They are 16th and 17th in raw attendance per game, but they went from the Izod which had 20,000+ capacity for basketball to Barclays, which holds 17,732. If you look at %, the Nets averaged about where the raw attendance was (which was mostly in the mid 70''s %) compared to the rest of the league while Brooklyn is in the 90% and above. They are doing quite well. The Devils had the same issues as the Nets for a lot of those years playing at the Meadowlands, but the Nets attendance were always dismal compared to the Devils. Again even when the Nets were going to the finals in back to back years they were in the bottom 5 teams in attendance. No excuse for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoffeecake Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 They are 16th and 17th in raw attendance per game, but they went from the Izod which had 20,000+ capacity for basketball to Barclays, which holds 17,732. If you look at %, the Nets averaged about where the raw attendance was (which was mostly in the mid 70''s %) compared to the rest of the league while Brooklyn is in the 90% and above. They are doing quite well. The Devils had the same issues as the Nets for a lot of those years playing at the Meadowlands, but the Nets attendance were always dismal compared to the Devils. Again even when the Nets were going to the finals in back to back years they were in the bottom 5 teams in attendance. No excuse for that. They're doing quite well if they were playing in Milwaukee or Sacramento. In a place like Brooklyn with all the hype and the rebranding and the brand new billion dollar stadium, those numbers are abysmal. Brooklyn alone has what, 2.5 million people? Concentrated in an extremely small area. The borough alone would be the fourth largest sports market in the country. And what's going to happen when the Nets are as bad as they were 5 years ago and the novelty wears off? You'll have a team in the biggest city on her continent drawing in the bottom third.The Nets have nothing to do with a team coming back to Jersey. I'm assuming you live here. You know there was zero marketing and the team had virtually no visibility in the area. They spent the last decade in Jersey being intentionally run into the ground. You absolutely cannot use attendance figures to support your points here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobilly45 Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Hell, we're Jersey's team, and fat lot of good that's done our attendance. Obviously, there's a difference between hockey and basketball as far as popularity goes, but a lot of New Jerseyans identify as Philly or NY sports fans, and are loyal to their teams, convenient or not. I grew up a Knicks fan because of my dad, and nothing was changing that. We occasionally went to Nets games because they were close and comparatively affordable, but Jersey loyalty wasn't enough to make me change my allegiance. IMO Brooklyn will be a success. It is part of Ling Island, and while it'll be tougher for Sussex people to get there, driving to the Mausoleum wasn't exactly a picnic. The team and LIRR need to get their sh!t together, because driving and parking are a nightmare at Barclay's, but it's a good venue on a transportation hub. Plus the Isles are an exciting young team with cheaper tickets than the Rags, so they'll draw some NYC fans as well. If Isles are smart, they'll black off some seats. Don't see them selling out the venue anyway most games (it's big) so they might as well try to get people in good seats. I'm from LI and like "jersey's team" so for hockey I have no state loyalty. As for the Islanders, I think Barclay's will fail miserably. Yes its more convenient for those living in the city or jersey, but they moved away from there main fan base (yes, its still technically on li, but queens/brooklyn are part of the city, and they don't like to be considered LI, and likewise for us nassau / suffolk countiers. we don't consider queens/ brooklyn long island. For instance, a family of 4 from wading river, isn't going to more then 1 (if they even go to one, its over an hr to get to uniondale from there) game bc you have an expensive round trip train ticket, then the expensive isles tickets (esp if you choose a non-obstructed seat), then wait for the train to take an 1hr 30ish min trip to ronkonkama, only to drive back home another 20 mins.. Also, unless you're on the south shore, most will have to transfer to a second train to get to Barclays, which is a pain (plus you;d need a ticket for another train)...and then you have to deal with the LIRR which is horrible on sunny days. Also many casual fans would rather go see the rangers at msg then go to Brooklyn with hipsters. I'll go to 1 devils vs Islanders game...which is going to cost a small fortune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouse Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 The hipster thing is overblown IMO. While hipsters are vocal, Brooklyn is one of the most diverse places in the country. There are still a ton of old school New York cops and fire fighters, the kind of people who play men's league every Friday. There are also a ton of young families. Those are the people who will fill Barclay's (or not, but there will be more of them than hipsters). Will some hipsters show up once in awhile for novelty? Sure. Byt they'll be a mi Ortiz, kinda like the college kids who show up on discount nights at the Rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort4345 Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 I do kind of wish that the Devils would have a predominately black uniform as a rare third option. I think you could design something pretty badass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Im more curious to see how they do with their new price structure. It's a dramatic leap from what people were paying in the old building. And the Nets were giving away playoff tickers last year on several ticket comp subscription websites. Edited September 19, 2015 by Satans Hockey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 They're doing quite well if they were playing in Milwaukee or Sacramento. In a place like Brooklyn with all the hype and the rebranding and the brand new billion dollar stadium, those numbers are abysmal. Brooklyn alone has what, 2.5 million people? Concentrated in an extremely small area. The borough alone would be the fourth largest sports market in the country. And what's going to happen when the Nets are as bad as they were 5 years ago and the novelty wears off? You'll have a team in the biggest city on her continent drawing in the bottom third. The Nets have nothing to do with a team coming back to Jersey. I'm assuming you live here. You know there was zero marketing and the team had virtually no visibility in the area. They spent the last decade in Jersey being intentionally run into the ground. You absolutely cannot use attendance figures to support your points here. Yeah, go ahead and tell hockey fans in Atlanta attendance figures don't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoffeecake Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Yeah, go ahead and tell hockey fans in Atlanta attendance figures don't matter.I didn't say they don't matter. I'm saying past attendance numbers aren't an accurate gauge of how a Jersey team would do, and don't illustrate any kind of success in Brooklyn. There's more to these attendance numbers than Jersey against Brooklyn. They didn't take the same team and same building and same brand and marketing strategies and put them all in Brooklyn and saw attendance get marginally better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDfan1711 Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 FYI, apparently the Coliseum is being renovated over the next two years, and this is a proposed concept: If that does happen, I think they move back once it opens. They would definitely play the "our team has come home" card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLLYWOOD Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Bring back the fisherman... at least the marketing/sales folk can have Gorton's Fisherman "FISH STICK" nights at the concession stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoffeecake Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 FYI, apparently the Coliseum is being renovated over the next two years, and this is a proposed concept: If that does happen, I think they move back once it opens. They would definitely play the "our team has come home" card. I read somewhere that planned capacity is between 9,000 and 13,000. Just another one of Ratner's prestige projects, I'm pretty sure he's behind it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck the Duck Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 FYI, apparently the Coliseum is being renovated over the next two years, and this is a proposed concept: If that does happen, I think they move back once it opens. They would definitely play the "our team has come home" card. The rendering looks nice, but the renovated NVMC is going to have a capacity under 13,000. That's way too small for a professional sports franchise. Plus, they signed a 25 year lease with Barclays Center during which they are getting paid at least $50 million per year to play at the arena. Apparently, Barclays keeps all revenue from ticket and suite sales and concessions, and pays the NYI more than the $50 million guaranteed minimum if certain target numbers are met. The Isles apparently no longer have a marketing and ticket sales staff as that part of their operation has been taken over by Barclays. It's a really strange set-up, but I doubt the team moves back to Long Island anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDfan1711 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 The rendering looks nice, but the renovated NVMC is going to have a capacity under 13,000. That's way too small for a professional sports franchise. Plus, they signed a 25 year lease with Barclays Center during which they are getting paid at least $50 million per year to play at the arena. Apparently, Barclays keeps all revenue from ticket and suite sales and concessions, and pays the NYI more than the $50 million guaranteed minimum if certain target numbers are met. The Isles apparently no longer have a marketing and ticket sales staff as that part of their operation has been taken over by Barclays. It's a really strange set-up, but I doubt the team moves back to Long Island anytime soon. Interesting. I hadn't heard that. The lease and money thing isn't what I think would keep them in Brooklyn, since those things can be gotten out of all the time, but the arena having just 13,000 seats or less is a much more permanent problem since you couldn't simply change or expand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted September 30, 2015 Author Share Posted September 30, 2015 My question is how many good non obstructed seats does Barclays have for hockey? Wikipedia has the hockey capacity there at 15,795. I would guess maybe only 11,000 or so are unobstructed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck the Duck Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 My question is how many good non obstructed seats does Barclays have for hockey? Wikipedia has the hockey capacity there at 15,795. I would guess maybe only 11,000 or so are unobstructed That's a good question that Barclays will never reveal the true answer to. They contend that only a few hundred seats have obstructed views, but it seems like way more than that based upon reports and what people have said about their experiences at hockey games there. The best part is that they are selling those seats for $20, and people actually buy them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoffeecake Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 That's a good question that Barclays will never reveal the true answer to. They contend that only a few hundred seats have obstructed views, but it seems like way more than that based upon reports and what people have said about their experiences at hockey games there. The best part is that they are selling those seats for $20, and people actually buy them. I'll probably make a game there for $20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck the Duck Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I'll probably make a game there for $20. I've never been there, so I don't know how the arena is laid out. However, even at a "cheap" price of $20, I can't justify buying a ticket knowing I can't see anything around the near side goal. I'd rather watch it on TV unless I could get in for the $20 then watch from open areas behind a section like they have in the Rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I've been there 3 times and here are tips when buying tickets: 1) Upper level (200's) suck, except at the end where there is no limited view. The sides suck as they are dark and the seating arrangement makes it where if the person in front of you is a lean forward type, you will have a ton of trouble watching it. 2) Upper levels also suck because of the upper concourse. The sections around the ends of the rink are particularly narrow and form slow-moving choke points. 3) Lower level and middle level (100's) is good from almost anyplace that is not limited view. 4) The limited view seats differ greatly from whichever seat you pick. If you choose the limited view in the lower level (sections like level 4), these can be pretty limited but probably the best "limited view" seats in the house. Another tip is in these sections try to sit in the upper rows as the lower you go to the ice the worse it is. 5) Upper level limited view is terrible. This isn't like 10 or 20% you miss, its a solid 1/3 of the rink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.