Does winning matter?

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

 

You guys are forgetting basically 0 for the 80s (I know Taro, its not quite that, but 0 for the 80s is easier to type out), and the Aud was puny.  There were stretches of half filled seats between games against Adams division foes and games against Pittsburgh. Darth Sator, anyone?

You always needed to provide base level entertainment to get the fans to come.

idk, and it's been a long time since I lived around there so times and type of ticket buyers does change. If Buffalo is like Canada though (and to some extent I think it is) then they should sell out with a winner. Canucks are not much better than Sabres and they don't provide much extra entertainment and yet that's a really hard to come by ticket. Is it really that different?

[kas23]

I think perspective matters. 
 

For the league, having a team win on the ice doesn’t matter. It’s a zero-sum game and someone is always going to win. “Winning” to the league means are revenues rising. 
 

For owners, winning probably means something. Mostly as a status symbol. They usually make money anyways (see TOR). 
 

For players, until they get older, yes, winning is almost everything. If we had a winning team, they would flock here, palm trees or not. 
 

For fans, I think entertainment is higher on the list, but winning gives you that warm feeling, even though you had nothing to do with it. 
 

For Pegula, no, winning doesn’t matter. 

[Weave]

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

idk, and it's been a long time since I lived around there so times and type of ticket buyers does change. If Buffalo is like Canada though (and to some extent I think it is) then they should sell out with a winner. Canucks are not much better than Sabres and they don't provide much extra entertainment and yet that's a really hard to come by ticket. Is it really that different?

I was responding to “the old days” and the idea that the aud sold out every game for years. It did that when the team was good, and entertaining. But there were significant stretches where the team was mediocre to bad, and there were plenty if seats available for walk up sales during those times. Today, the difference isnt the fans. Its that the significant stretch is old enough to be entering high school.

[DarthEbriate]

As long as EEE is the mandate, winning doesn't matter.

We are at 5 years + 4 days since Pegula's statement that the Sabres would be EEE (no such limitations on the Bills, naturally). He has not made a public Sabres statement  that they're attempting to win since. Well... except that the Taylor Hall signing wasn't just playoff, but Stanley Cup contenders (which wasn't a public statement, simply released video).

[bob_sauve28]

13 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Really?  
 

I have not seen a Sabres home game victory in about 12 years. I have not attended a Sabres sellout since 2007-08.   Most Sabres games feature dejected fans, cursing and complaining , and are not fun at all.  Good players do not want to be there, even most average players do not want to be there.  But you can get out the door and get home faster, as you drive home you wonder why you spend any money on them.  I made a decision to stop going to their home games last year, no regrets.   
 

Bills home games are massive events and require a full day commitment.  Fans attend from all over the country.  The Bills and their fans get positive national media attention.    They win almost every home game and they are an NFL powerhouse.   It’s a team good players want to be on   

No comparison.  

I agree there is no comparison, I'll take a Sabres game any day of the week over a football game to go to. 

[spndnchz]

This is a very bad question 

[7+6=13]

7 hours ago, spndnchz said:

This is a very bad question 

I totally agree.  Who cares if winning matters to the tourist or visiting fan.  I'm a Yankees fan, if I visit Fenway should they worry about entertaining me?  The only main focus in any arena, for that arena, should be winning for the people that are fans of the team playing in said arena.

Yeah I'm good with making it fun for the kids and different "levels" of food options, rich people/poor people, everyone in between.

But asking if winning matters to a person not a fan of the two teams playing?  Who cares! One they're already there, so you already got 'em and two they'll enjoy it more if the home team goes bananas. 

How could any organization spend time caring if that person or people come back, next time they're in the area?

[Archie Lee]

I think there has been an obvious concerted effort by most pro-sports teams to homogenize the game-day experience so that a typical fan can say they had a good time, regardless of the outcome. Teams want you buying merch and $12 popcorn and $14 beers. And at the last TV timeout they want to run a promotion and to then play the latest pop-hit and show people in the crowd smiling and dancing, regardless of the score. 

I don’t live near an NHL city. In the last couple of years I saw a game in Edmonton and in Calgary. Night and day experiences (in part because of the actual teams on the ice). The Oiler game was a complete and non-stop assault on one’s senses. Not a moment of time between whistles that was not filled with a fan promotion or loud music and shots of happy fans on the video screens. You could not have a meaningful discussion with the person beside you. The Flames game was more sedate. Still a lot of promotions and music, but toned down a bit. The crowd seemed a little older. For a single game experience, the Oiler game was a ton of fun, but I don’t think I would enjoy it 40 times a year. The Flames game was more to my liking and seemed like fan engagement in the game would be a bit more organic, if the team was actually good.  

Anyway, back to the initial post. The Oilers are certainly committed to winning. No team does up the game day stuff more than Vegas. If there is a connection between the game day experience and a commitment to winning, then I think that the more a franchise commits to the game day experience probably also reflects a greater commitment to the on ice product, rather than the other way around. If they are cheaping-out on one, they are more likely to be cheaping-out on the other. 

[inkman]

On 6/17/2025 at 10:57 PM, PerreaultForever said:

Winning is all that matters. 

In war, yes. In professional sports?  It’s the goal but clearly not the only thing that matters. It may be what matters to you personally.  To the league, the teams, the players?  It’s a job.  A great job. Earn enough for generational wealth. 
 

Winning is fun, it makes everything better. It’s also not always easy to do.  The Sabres being example A.  Leagues set up their pay scale to promote parity and give seemingly everyone, a perceived equal chance of success. No one team can hoard all the best players in a salary cap system.  
 

The Sabres have found a loophole for continued failure. Put people in change with no reprecussions for job performance.  The players and GM have no recourse for poor performance. 

[Sabre The Cup]

Winning doesn’t matter when your goal is to tank the team fanbase in order to make 10x as much money selling the team to another city. 

[Gatorman0519]

The strangest thing about all of this is that the average fan on here probably could of fielded a playoff team by now. lol ...Complete incompetence

[Sabre The Cup]

10 minutes ago, Gatorman0519 said:

The strangest thing about all of this is that the average fan on here probably could of fielded a playoff team by now. lol ...Complete incompetence

People always say that GMs and coaches know better than the average fan, and that’s true. 
 

But in this case? If you’re a somewhat competent person, you would’ve hired decent people by now and learned your lessons. 

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, inkman said:

In war, yes. In professional sports?  It’s the goal but clearly not the only thing that matters. It may be what matters to you personally.  To the league, the teams, the players?  It’s a job.  A great job. Earn enough for generational wealth. 
 

Winning is fun, it makes everything better. It’s also not always easy to do.  The Sabres being example A.  Leagues set up their pay scale to promote parity and give seemingly everyone, a perceived equal chance of success. No one team can hoard all the best players in a salary cap system.  
 

The Sabres have found a loophole for continued failure. Put people in change with no reprecussions for job performance.  The players and GM have no recourse for poor performance. 

and as such the building is far from full isn't it? Merchandise sales? I imagine Sabres are near league bottom. Playoff revenue? They got none. 

The league can market just about anything but if your players are just there for the money you have a problem. There's that whole culture thing that I talk about too much and others bring up now and again but if your team culture isn't all about winning and hating to lose then you end up with a bunch of lazy mercenaries who have a good time and go home early in the summer. The term used here has been country club attitude. That becomes the culture and makes the team okay with losing. It's not what you want, and it's hard to change once it's taken hold.