Boycott

One of the things that is floating around this lockout is the idea of some kind of retributive strike on the part of the fans when the league returns. A particular variation is along the lines of "a game for a game" -- that is, the fans would boycott the league one game after the return for each game that has been cancelled.

My first reaction is that this is a stupid idea -- along the lines of "you won't take my money when I want to spend it on you, so I'll stop spending money on you for longer!"

But on reflection, I think this is a great idea.  Think about it.  What's going to happen when the league comes back?  Faux-apologetic pricing discounts!  ie tickets which are marginally cheaper than normal!  And if the hard-core fans boycott the league, that'll mean there is less demand for them, which means A) I'll be more likely to afford to go, and B) I'll be more likely to get a good seat when I go.

And if the boycott really does have an effect, then at the very least the pricing will be extended -- if not reduced to actual-apologetic pricing!  Thus improving the chance that I'll be able to go more than once!

So I say on with the boycott!  Thanks for the seats!

But really, we know that the majority of those loudly proclaiming that they'll boycott will have their bums firmly in seats one the league resumes play next fall, and those who actually stop paying their money will be in a minority, so the net effect on attendance will be minimal.

Lockout Mythbusting

PuckDaddy explores the myth of the career-ending lockout.  Nice headline pic of Alfredsson in action.

Personally I don't see why everyone's hung up on Alfie's "last season" getting stolen by the lockout.  If last year wasn't a victory lap, what the heck is?

Just Shut Up

What do you mean, I'm not
the center of the universe?

One of the things I don't understand is the feeling of entitlement that some fans seem to have.

Exhibit A: Flyers fan and all-around entitled misfit Jaymes Hall.  Mr. Hall crashed a press conference that Mr. Bettman was giving, and demanded to know why they didn't just implement his overly simplistic band-aid and continue playing.

"Why not freeze the revenue generated from those sources that are still in dispute?" he screamed. "What about an escrow account or something so we can get back to playing? Let's get back to playing! The fans are angry!"

First of all, no, nobody in business is going to leave money on the table without applying a certain amount of leverage to get at it. That's what this lockout is -- leverage. The idea is that by denying the players money for playing, you'll put pressure on them to settle faster than if they just did their jobs. The players applied pressure back on the owners by offering to continue to play under the old CBA, but that would mean the owners would be on the hook for potential losses incurred under the old CBA. Now the whole lockout thing has horribly backfired on the owners under this strategy, and the losses the league will incur are now much higher than if they'd just played under the old CBA, but that ship has been quite thoroughly sunk in the harbor. No sense even thinking about it anymore.

So yeah, no. Shut up.

Second, if hockey is so important to your life that it encourages you to show up places where you shouldn't be and yell half-assed bandaid suggestions at people, then frankly your life is more than a little sad. If the strike really made you angry at hockey you'd give up on it and wouldn't care any more.

Going off on a rant like that makes me think that you are acting more like a spoiled kid who isn't getting to see his favorite bedtime show because the TV is broken, and is having a temper tantrum because his parents won't take him down to Best Buy every night to watch it while the parents work out financing a replacement.

So yeah, shut up.

I can understand the entitlement from the media. They are paid to cover this circus, and if the circus isn't running the articles can get repetitious and boring. I can even understand* anger from the people who would be working the games in the arena, and even sympathize with anger from people who work in the wider secondary markets (like restaurants and sporting memorabilia stores) because there isn't the same driver of business that there usually is.

But Mr. Hall doesn't seem to be either of these. He's just an entitled "fan".

In any case, I'd bet real money that when hockey resumes in January or in October, Mr. Hall will be more than happy to pay good money to park his butt in the arena again.

---
*= even if I think their anger is misguided -- when you pick a pilot fish industry to work in, you end up in trouble if the shark dies.

Economic Impact

There was a lot of hand-wringing in the Ottawa Citizen on the weekend about the NHL strike, and the spin-off economic impact that said strike was going to have.

Personally I don't see the problem in the larger picture.  I have faith that my hockey fan citizens can dig deep and find other things to spend their money on: different bars and restaurants, gadgets, family, whatever.  I seriously doubt that the typical hockey fan will save their money or reduce their debts this year.

In the large view, all that money will get funneled into different parts of the economy, parts that will undoubtedly experience a return to long term norms once hockey returns.