Wet blanketing
>> Tuesday
Two years ago, it was, "Hoc... key...??" Now it's all, "The Cubs? That was so 2007."
This rejuvenated interest in the 'Hawks seems to have exceeded any reasonable expectation, almost to the point of seeming... phony. I have my own ideas, but I'd like to hear others' explanations for this phenomenon.
Posts
1 comments:
I think that Chicago's status as a hockey town never "went away" but shifted to the other hockey team in town, well...in Rosemont.
Part of the reason why I think the Chicago Wolves achieved so much success at the gate over the past 10 years (sometimes even outdrawing the Blackhawks) was due in large part to drawing a segment of disaffected Blackhawks fans. It's hard to argue that the ownership's approach to the Blackhawks' state over the last decade was something other than chronic neglect. Combine that with rising ticket prices (not corrected untill after the lockout), no games on TV, an ownership mindset stuck in the 1960s, and a team that was just a disaster is going to drive away some fans.
The Wolves' success on the ice (Four Turner/Calder Cups in 10 seasons: 1998, 2000, 2002, 2008) only further satisfied an appetite for championship-level professional hockey.
Now the Blackhawks are back on the national scene, that is natural to attract some bandwagon-jumpers (Just like the Cubs in '84 and '03, or the White Sox in '05), and some people likely are phonies, but watching the game last night was light years away from what the UC was when I'd go to games only two or three years ago.
Post a Comment