Buffalo ranked 8th best hockey market in the US according to wallethub

[matter2003]

Behind Newark and Anaheim...what a joke.

Boston #1

https://sports.yahoo.com/boston-best-hockey-city-america-190500199.html

[LGR4GM]

They have a terrible methodology. They calculated wins into their final scores. They also add in stanley cup and division championships into their final score. They also had number of hall of fame head coaches in their metric. Just an odd way of doing this. 

Quote

NHL – Total Points: 80

• Number of NHL Team(s): Full Weight (~9.41 Points)
• Performance Level of NHL Team(s): Full Weight (~9.41 Points)
  Note: This metric was calculated by dividing the number of wins by the total games played. We used the past three seasons’ average for this calculation.
• Number of Stanley Cup Wins: Full Weight (~9.41 Points)
• Number of NHL Division Championship Wins: Half Weight (~4.71 Points)
• Number of Hall of Fame Head Coaches: Half Weight (~4.71 Points)
• Franchise Value: Half Weight (~4.71 Points)
  Note: This metric measures the team’s estimated value in millions of dollars.
• Average Ticket Price for NHL Game: Full Weight (~9.41 Points)
• NHL Fan Engagement: Full Weight (~9.41 Points)
  Note: This metric was calculated by adding the number of Twitter followers to the number of Facebook “Likes” per capita.
• Number of Coaches in Past 10 Seasons (Seasons 2009-10 to 2018-19): Half Weight (~4.71 Points)
• NHL Stadium Capacity: Half Weight (~4.71 Points)
  Note: This metric was calculated by dividing stadium capacity by city population.
• Attendance: Half Weight (~4.71 Points)
  Note: This metric was calculated by dividing average home-fan attendance by stadium capacity.
• Popularity Ranking: Half Weight (~4.71 Points)

 

[inkman]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

They have a terrible methodology. They calculated wins into their final scores. They also add in stanley cup and division championships into their final score. They also had number of hall of fame head coaches in their metric. Just an odd way of doing this. 

Not to mention heavily weighing college hockey, which for cities with little to no D1 hockey is a problem. 

[#freejame]

39 minutes ago, inkman said:

Not to mention heavily weighing college hockey, which for cities with little to no D1 hockey is a problem. 

Especially when you consider all of the Title IX issues surrounding hockey. It’s not like schools/areas wouldn’t want D1 hockey, it’s that most can’t because of BS political reasons. 

Edited May 29, 2019 by #freejame
Cant spell

[Taro T]

6 minutes ago, #freejame said:

Especially when you consider all of the Title IX issues surrounding hockey. It’s not like schools/areas wouldn’t want D1 hockey, it’s that most can’t because of BS political reasons. 

What "Title IX issues" does hockey face that other college sports don't face?

Also, doesn't the fact that schools can have a hockey program slated at a level other than the rest of the schools other sports teams (being one of the very few sports that schools can elect to have participate at Div 1 when the other programs are Div 3) actually expand the opportunities for college hockey programs?

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, Taro T said:

What "Title IX issues" does hockey face that other college sports don't face?

Also, doesn't the fact that schools can have a hockey program slated at a level other than the rest of the schools other sports teams (being one of the very few sports that schools can elect to have participate at Div 1 when the other programs are Div 3) actually expand the opportunities for college hockey programs?

I can't think of any. 

[shrader]

48 minutes ago, inkman said:

Not to mention heavily weighing college hockey, which for cities with little to no D1 hockey is a problem. 

That one is at least perfectly reasonable to include in their scoring.  More teams = more opportunities to watch.  A lot of the rest of their list seems to be thrown in there at random.  Much of it relies heavily on population alone, so the list isn't much of a surprise.  Let's face it, the whole thing is nothing more than click bait.

[inkman]

7 minutes ago, shrader said:

That one is at least perfectly reasonable to include in their scoring.  More teams = more opportunities to watch.  A lot of the rest of their list seems to be thrown in there at random.  Much of it relies heavily on population alone, so the list isn't much of a surprise.  Let's face it, the whole thing is nothing more than click bait.

Not that it needs saying but credibility left the building long ago for journalism. 

[#freejame]

18 minutes ago, Taro T said:

What "Title IX issues" does hockey face that other college sports don't face?

Also, doesn't the fact that schools can have a hockey program slated at a level other than the rest of the schools other sports teams (being one of the very few sports that schools can elect to have participate at Div 1 when the other programs are Div 3) actually expand the opportunities for college hockey programs?

 

14 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I can't think of any. 

The issues aren’t unique to hockey, it’s mens sports in general. There’s more than enough academic papers out there showing the negative effects of title ix on men’s athletics. So yes, you’re right. The issues aren’t unique to hockey, I just care significantly more about that sport than say wrestling or crew. One could argue that (men’s) football programs are part of the reason for lack of scholarship hockey, but reducing the opportunities for men to make a situation equal isn’t equality, especially when the numbers support far more men being interested collegiate athletics. Several papers mentioned that an appropriate solution would be to account for this difference in desires, but obviously that hasn’t been the case. It’s an issue that should be thought of as supply and demand. Women’s athletics should get all the scholarships they demand, with the supply limited by sport. Men’s athletics should get all the scholarships they demand, with the supply limited by support. 

[North Buffalo]

4 minutes ago, #freejame said:

 

The issues aren’t unique to hockey, it’s mens sports in general. There’s more than enough academic papers out there showing the negative effects of title ix on men’s athletics. So yes, you’re right. The issues aren’t unique to hockey, I just care significantly more about that sport than say wrestling or crew. One could argue that (men’s) football programs are part of the reason for lack of scholarship hockey, but reducing the opportunities for men to make a situation equal isn’t equality, especially when the numbers support far more men being interested collegiate athletics. Several papers mentioned that an appropriate solution would be to account for this difference in desires, but obviously that hasn’t been the case. It’s an issue that should be thought of as supply and demand. Women’s athletics should get all the scholarships they demand, with the supply limited by sport. Men’s athletics should get all the scholarships they demand, with the supply limited by support. 

In a perfect world I agree, but you seeking a free market solution to a manipulated oligopoly that only rules like title ix partially regulate and make fairer, left without, women would and did have few sports to participate in.  Supply and demand numbers are too easily manipulated... i.e,. statistics.

[shrader]

14 minutes ago, inkman said:

Not that it needs saying but credibility left the building long ago for journalism. 

The mistake is anyone expecting journalism out of an internet ranking of hockey markets, or any other ranking.  Those are probably the same people who fall for the bleacher report slideshow format over and over.  These things are filler, nothing more.

[Taro T]

33 minutes ago, #freejame said:

 

The issues aren’t unique to hockey, it’s mens sports in general. There’s more than enough academic papers out there showing the negative effects of title ix on men’s athletics. So yes, you’re right. The issues aren’t unique to hockey, I just care significantly more about that sport than say wrestling or crew. One could argue that (men’s) football programs are part of the reason for lack of scholarship hockey, but reducing the opportunities for men to make a situation equal isn’t equality, especially when the numbers support far more men being interested collegiate athletics. Several papers mentioned that an appropriate solution would be to account for this difference in desires, but obviously that hasn’t been the case. It’s an issue that should be thought of as supply and demand. Women’s athletics should get all the scholarships they demand, with the supply limited by sport. Men’s athletics should get all the scholarships they demand, with the supply limited by support. 

With all due respect, you seem to be barking up the wrong tree on this one.

In '92 there were 38 Div 1 hockey programs.  Today there are 59.  (Note: neither # includes independents, if any.)

So, since the Clinton administration, scholarship eligible programs increased by over 50%.  Not saying there necessarily aren't Title IX effects on men's hockey, but am not seeing them.

[#freejame]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

With all due respect, you seem to be barking up the wrong tree on this one.

In '92 there were 38 Div 1 hockey programs.  Today there are 59.  (Note: neither # includes independents, if any.)

So, since the Clinton administration, scholarship eligible programs increased by over 50%.  Not saying there necessarily aren't Title IX effects on men's hockey, but am not seeing them.

To be fair, the NHL has also seen an almost 33% expansion since that time, adding 12 teams. Hockey in general has grown, as has college sports. Obviously hockey is more of a niche sport, but it still greatly trails the other three big sports in terms of scholarship. 

Either way, it’s nice to be able to have discussions like this with civility. It seems like the board has been doing a good job with that as of late. I would be interested in taking a look at the data you found and seeing how the increase relates to increases or decreases in other sports. I’m very much open to changing my views towards the issue, I just don’t like to see anyone losing out on opportunities, regardless of sex. However, as @North Buffalo said, that’s not always a possibility. 

[LGR4GM]

37 minutes ago, #freejame said:

To be fair, the NHL has also seen an almost 33% expansion since that time, adding 12 teams. Hockey in general has grown, as has college sports. Obviously hockey is more of a niche sport, but it still greatly trails the other three big sports in terms of scholarship. 

Either way, it’s nice to be able to have discussions like this with civility. It seems like the board has been doing a good job with that as of late. I would be interested in taking a look at the data you found and seeing how the increase relates to increases or decreases in other sports. I’m very much open to changing my views towards the issue, I just don’t like to see anyone losing out on opportunities, regardless of sex. However, as @North Buffalo said, that’s not always a possibility. 

The cost a University would incur to start a hockey program even if there was interest is very high. Hockey will trail for many reasons but price is a major factor. More so than Title IX. 

Edited May 29, 2019 by LGR4GM

[#freejame]

43 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

The cost a University would incur to start a hockey program even if there was interest is very high. Hockey will trail for many reasons but price is a major factor. More so than Title IX. 

Believe me, playing in the mountains of NC and having to drive two hours both ways for every practice, I totally understand this. Title IX doesn’t prohibit my school from having a hockey team, operations cost do. However, we played plenty of schools with very nice rinks and high interest who this was not the case for. 

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, #freejame said:

Believe me, playing in the mountains of NC and having to drive two hours both ways for every practice, I totally understand this. Title IX doesn’t prohibit my school from having a hockey team, operations cost do. However, we played plenty of schools with very nice rinks and high interest who this was not the case for. 

What's the purpose of college sports? 

[#freejame]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

What's the purpose of college sports? 

For some (myself included) the opportunity to continue playing competitive sports. For others, a chance to prove Olympic merit; to showcase what one believes is professional caliber talent; it could be camaraderie; it could be the only possible way to pay for an education. There’s many reasons. I would think that last one would resonate with many on this board. 

[shrader]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

With all due respect, you seem to be barking up the wrong tree on this one.

In '92 there were 38 Div 1 hockey programs.  Today there are 59.  (Note: neither # includes independents, if any.)

So, since the Clinton administration, scholarship eligible programs increased by over 50%.  Not saying there necessarily aren't Title IX effects on men's hockey, but am not seeing them.

Independents as in not playing in any conference?  You can bump that up to 60 teams then thanks to Arizona State.  They're an interesting case too as this discussion goes towards the cost of starting a team.  Their travel budget has to be absurd since there is no other team anywhere near them (a trip to Colorado at a minimum). 

 

But anyway, looking back at the actual article where the rankings are done, it actually states "best places for hockey enthusiast", so it's not a ranking of hockey markets.  That terminology was added in by NBC Sports' Boston-based page.  There's a group that will want to frame the discussion in a much different way for their audience.  If you're going to talk about the so called enthusiast, bringing that mix of factors that LGR questioned starts to make a little more sense.  It still misses out on things like the access to the junior hockey market that is limited mainly to the border towns, but you can start to see some reason to it.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, #freejame said:

To be fair, the NHL has also seen an almost 33% expansion since that time, adding 12 teams. Hockey in general has grown, as has college sports. Obviously hockey is more of a niche sport, but it still greatly trails the other three big sports in terms of scholarship. 

Either way, it’s nice to be able to have discussions like this with civility. It seems like the board has been doing a good job with that as of late. I would be interested in taking a look at the data you found and seeing how the increase relates to increases or decreases in other sports. I’m very much open to changing my views towards the issue, I just don’t like to see anyone losing out on opportunities, regardless of sex. However, as @North Buffalo said, that’s not always a possibility. 

Took the data from hockey reference texts I have.  Imagine the data for other sports is out there, but I wouldn't hunt for it myself.  Too many other sports and too much work / time to track down that data, & a lot of those that aren't profitable did fall to the Title IX axe. 

Would be interested to know whether cheerleading is now officially a sport and whether that has had an effect on stemming men's sports losses.

49 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

The cost a University would incur to start a hockey program even if there was interest is very high. Hockey will trail for many reasons but price is a major factor. More so than Title IX. 

The cost to start is high.  But hockey remains one of the EXTREMELY few NCAA sports to be profitable.  Which helps to explain the proliferation (relatively speaking) of programs.

[#freejame]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Took the data from hockey reference texts I have.  Imagine the data for other sports is out there, but I wouldn't hunt for it myself.  Too many other sports and too much work / time to track down that data, & a lot of those that aren't profitable did fall to the Title IX axe. 

Would be interested to know whether cheerleading is now officially a sport and whether that has had an effect on stemming men's sports losses.

The cost to start is high.  But hockey remains one of the EXTREMELY few NCAA sports to be profitable.  Which helps to explain the proliferation (relatively speaking) of programs.

I would hope cheerleading is scholarship at this point, but it would not surprise me if it weren’t. The more scholarships the better, regardless of sex or sport. 

[pi2000]

9 hours ago, matter2003 said:

Behind Newark and Anaheim...what a joke.

Boston #1

https://sports.yahoo.com/boston-best-hockey-city-america-190500199.html

soCal represent!

[IKnowPhysics]

Bad methodology is bad.

[Kruppstahl]

The term "BEST" is incredibly vague and in this context needs to be defined, or else the analysis has no meaning.

The article only mentions that the analysis is based on "21 key indicators that include team performance, ticket prices, fan engagement and more."

So that little blurb in the link never really explains what the hell is being rated.

If "team performance" is part of the analysis, I can see why Buffalo was as low as 8th.   We've been solidly one of the worst franchises in the league for nearly a decade now and haven't won a Cup in 50 years of trying.

I think some people commenting here are bent out of shape because they are reading into the term "BEST" and ascribing a meaning to it that is inconsistent with the intentions of the people doing the study.

 

 

 

 

[North Buffalo]

22 hours ago, matter2003 said:

Behind Newark and Anaheim...what a joke.

Boston #1

https://sports.yahoo.com/boston-best-hockey-city-america-190500199.html

And that my friends is how you use statistics to say anything you damn want to... 

[Winston]

*notices Toronto isn’t high on the list...

”Take that, Toronto! You aren’t even top 5!!”

*realizes this is a list of American cities...

”Take that, Toronto! You aren’t even in the top 50!!!”