The NHL

[Guest Eraser2K2]

Well I think the title says all.  Why does the National Hockey League have the least amount of viewers?  I really don't get it.  The USA-Canada hockey game drew a 10 rating, yet the Stanley Cup Finals drew in the 3s last year.  Is it the marketing by the NHL, ESPN and ABC?  Is it that the game just isn't that enjoyable?  What is it?  Im a very big fan of hockey, but even I tend not to watch until the playoffs.  Maybe its that there isn't enough games, compared to the NBA (at least 4 games a week, I think) or MLB.  I dunno.  Any thoughts?

[Guest starvenger]

>Why does the National Hockey League have the least amount of viewers?

 

That's a good question.  

 

>The USA-Canada hockey game drew a 10 rating, yet the Stanley Cup Finals drew in the 3s last year.  Is it the marketing by the NHL, ESPN and ABC?  

 

I think that's part of it.  How much NHL hype do you actually see on ABC?  And these guys (through Disney) actually OWN a team!!  NBC pulled in some impressive numbers for the men's finals, but I dunno how much hype there actually was, as I was tuned into CBC/TSN most of the time.  Here's hoping that the ratings carry over somewhat to the ABC games, since their ratings are dipping to XFL levels...

 

Is it that the game just isn't that enjoyable?  What is it?  

 

Here's some thoughts:

- It's percieved as a winter sport due to being played on ice (go fig).  Most people in the southern states can't really relate to a game that is played on a below-freezing surface.

 

- It's not an American game, so people don't care as much.  It kinda explains the popularity of baseball and football.

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

That darn puck is so hard to follow.  If only there was some way to make it glow.....

 

 

(just kidding)

[Guest treble charged]

The only time I've ever seen hype for an NHL game on ABC is when they play some other sporting event, and show clips of all the sports they have, they'll show someone holding the Stanley Cup (last year it was Martin Brodeur).  Another time is when I'm watching the local news guy talk about the sports, since my ABC affiliate is from Detroit (WXYZ), and that's one of the few markets where hockey is big.  I'm expecting ABC to start showing it even less, considering they have the NBA now, too, starting next year.

 

On another note, I don't think that the NHL has the lowest overall attendance for all 4 of the major leagues, I'm pretty sure they're about the NBA in that department, though that is helped by teams in Toronto, Detroit, Montreal and Colorado that are pretty much guarantees to get almost 19,000 a game.

[Guest converge241]

Let me preface this by saying I have the utmost respect for hockey players. It seems like the hardest to play and as physical as the NFL.

Myself I just cant get into the games. I follow results on espn/newspapers, but I cant sit and get into a whole game.

I think myself, and americans, are bred to watch the big score, offense minded games. Hockey is the most low scoring, defensive game out of "the big four". i think soccer suffers from the same fate. All the low scoring games, ties, etc. I'm not ripping on either!! I just think those are the reasons those sports are not more popular.

It would be great if there was some way for it to gain more acceptance and not be the bastard of the big 4. I like it more than basketball cause b-ball seems like two much offense, i cant watch a team run down the floor, score,the other team drives and does the same, and repeat for a few hours. The last few minutes are good wehn time is going to expire.

[Guest Choken One]

The reason for such low ratings and interest is not the amount of hype it gets. It's the fact it's boring by NHL rules and Hockey suffers from a lack of Major names (Gretzky is the only TRUE known hockey star in a America and that's it. )...it also hurts because of the lack of importance it recieves from Newspapers and Mags and Sportscenter.

 

 It also lacks because of Oversaturation...They have FAR to many teams. I live about 20 miles from Columbus and I just found out they had a Professional Hockey team (I hear they suck as well) the other day. They have 32 teams and 16 of them go to the playoffs...That's utterly stupid...dump your shitty markets like Atlanta, Pheniox, Tampa and Columbus and shorten the field from 32 to 24.

 

I'd like playing Hockey although It's not as physically demanding as Soccer or Racing.

[Guest redbaron51]

Here are some reasons on why hockey is so crappy (even though I like it):

 

1. No compitition, it just seems like where ever the money is, go towards it. Teams like Carolina, LA, Chicago suffer.

 

2. Canadian teams: Its hard for Canadian teams to compete with a poor dollar and paying taxes. (Montreal pays 11 million dollars in taxes last year).

 

3. Too many teams: It seems like almost anybody can be on a team, and there is no skill involved. There is no talent pool.

 

4. Style: The style of a fast hard hitting game has now become, a defensive game.

 

5. Olympics: The olympics had different rules, no touch icing, no red line, hurry-up face offs. The casual fans think hockey does indeed suck.

 

There are many other reasons, but if you wanted too watch hockey, watch older games (72 Summit Series, 76 Montreal vs USSR [greatest game of all time])

 

Also the ratings, those might be American because of regional coverage, but in Canada those would probably be a six

[Guest Eraser2K2]

Well first, the NBA and the NHL have expressed the idea of working together on the ABC/ESPN networks, not exactly doing a NHL vs. NBA thing, but advertising and promoting each other.  I think that would really help.

 

You're right, hockey is incredibly hard to play well.  Its not just skating around and shooting, it takes a lot of skill that takes years to practice.  But I dont know if the score has a lot to do with it.  Its more the "defensive minded" thing.  That may sound the same, but its not, because if teams started opening it up (which would require the "no red-line" rule), the game would be much more exciting, whether its a 2-1 game or 5-4.  But maybe if the games started being 7-6 all the time, it would generate interest.  Who knows.

 

I dont think the "too many teams" thing is a problem from the point that there aren't enough good players.  There are thousands of incredible players in juniors just waiting for their chance to be called up.  Yes, thousands.  It might be a problem, though, from the playoff perspective.  There are some really undeserving teams going to the playoffs in the NHL, especially with the 3 divisions.  Carolina is just horrible, yet they lead their division and will be a 3 seed no less.  Go back to 2 divisions, get rid of maybe 4, at least 2 teams.  It could be better.  

 

Whatever it takes.

[Guest treble charged]

A low score doesn't nescessarily mean a boring game.  I am a minor hockey official, and the other day I was a linesman for an Atom Rep game.  I know it's not exactly the NHL, but my point will still make sense.  The score was 0-0, yet there were many scoring chances, solid back and forth play, and good goaltending.  It was one of the best games I'd done all year.  I personally enjoy those games more than 9-7 games, or whatever high score they come up with.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

"- It's not an American game, so people don't care as much.  It kinda explains the popularity of baseball and football. "

 

So is basketball but the Americans love it more than anything.

 

A lot of the problem is that the NHL does suck and has for the past 10 years or so.  I'm a Canadian, and I like hockey, but the NHL just doesn't do it for me.  The OHL has been a lot more entertaining lately.  Go 67s!

[Guest redbaron51]

Hockey has been in decline since the strike back in the 94-95 season.

 

Basically money is the biggest problem as there's only a select few teams that can compete for the cup

[Guest starvenger]

>So is basketball but the Americans love it more than anything.

 

Yes, Naismith was a Canadian, but he created the game at a US college, thus I think that we can call it an American game.

[Guest Brooding Genius]

The problems the NHL faces in the U.S.

 

These are just a few things I encountered while I tried convincing my friends that hockey was the Greatest Sport in the Known Universe (©).

 

1. "Who the hell has the puck?"

 

Despite every effort to make the puck more "visible" on television, this is the biggest problem, especially when the puck gets jammed into the nearboards on TV and people wonder what the hell kind of dance those two guys are doing.

 

The Fox glow-puck was an abject failure because they decided to attach too many bells and whistles to it.  The only good idea they had was making it glow white when it was hidden behind the nearboards.  The idea of making the puck glow when it hit 70 MPH was awful, because that made some passes change color.  It was just a distraction.  I think the only person that liked it was my dad.

 

2. "Why was THAT a penalty and not the one before it?"

 

Explaining penalties is impossible, because even I get baffled by the calls on a regular basis, and when the refs just flat-out swallow their whistles in the third period, it gives the impression that anything goes.  It just seems rather "bush-league," to quote one of them.

 

Nobody likes to see the officials decide a game, but consistency throughout a game is important.

 

3. "Hey, check out what's happening on..."

 

In the age of the short attention span, just watching a hockey game from start to finish is an arduous task, no matter how fast-paced the game-play is.  Hell, I've flipped channels just to see what other games are on and missed key goals/penalties more times than I could ever count.  Baseball and football don't really have this problem, as there's always a discernible dead-time in the action at regular intervals.

 

4. "Where the hell did HE come from?"

 

There's nothing in the world like watching a hockey game in person.  You can see the whole ice and watch the play unfold.  On TV, you get maybe 70 feet of ice showing at any one time, since the focus is always on the man with the puck and what's ahead of him.  You don't get to see plays develop at all.

 

I guarantee you that hockey's ratings within the U.S. will double once HDTV becomes more widely available.

 

5. "Are they going to try to score anytime soon?"

 

Expansion has caused a lot of problems in every sport, and hockey's no exception.  The talent level has dropped noticably since the league expanded to 24 teams in 1992, and with each new team it's gotten worse.  The number of natural scorers hasn't increased, and there's more and more players who don't belong in the NHL playing on teams' third and fourth lines.  Hence, coaches have to devise schemes to allow their "talent" to win, leading to dull, defensive styles that lead to boring 1-1 ties.

 

I'm not saying there needs to be a scoring increase.  There are some damned exciting 1-1 games, and some really dull 6-5 games.  There just needs to be more skill involved.

 

------------

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

And by the way, any basketball fan who complains that "everyone makes the playoffs in hockey" has no leg to stand on, as a 16 teams make the playoffs in hoop and there are even fewer teams.

 

That is all.

[Guest converge241]

Yes, the few times Ive gone in person I have enjoyed it much more with that full view of the ice.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

"Yes, Naismith was a Canadian, but he created the game at a US college, thus I think that we can call it an American game. "

 

We'll let you have it.  90% of Canadians could care less about basketball.  We do like American Football though.

[Guest redbaron51]

Though the CFL is way better than the NFL in my own opinion

[Guest Kingpk]

<<Though the CFL is way better than the NFL in my own opinion>>

 

Skewering the rules in favor of high scoring games and playing every game indoors helps that.  

 

Anyway, I don't know why I don't watch more NHL, I highly enjoy the physicality and the hitting, even the 1-0 games are exciting.  I guess it's because the pace of the game is totally screwed up by the commercials.  I watched as much Olympic hockey as I could though (most I've ever watched CNBC, that's for sure), I just wish the NHL would adapt those rules.  They could compensate the time by possibly extending intermissions a few minutes.

[Guest treble charged]

Did anyone watch the Leafs/Habs game on Saturday night?  1-1 game, yet it was AWESOME!  This proves my point that a low scoring game doesn't have to be boring.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

-The games become defensive minded. Back when Wayne Gretzky and the Oilers dominated the NHL was an up tempo exiting game. When the Devils introduced the Neutral Zone trap in 1995, the NHL has been unwatchable.

 

-The goalies equipment is alot bigger. If you watch highlights of the 1980 Olympics or any game from the early to mid 80's the goalies padding doesn't even cover their legs. Know the padding is so big, it make scoring on the goalies more difficult.

[Guest redbaron51]

Did anyone watch the Leafs/Habs game on Saturday night?  1-1 game, yet it was AWESOME!  This proves my point that a low scoring game doesn't have to be boring.

Are you kidding me? That was a horrible game. The NHL right now sucks.

 

Cut down a few teams, place a salary cap, and change some of the rules it'll be 100 times better

[Guest Brooding Genius]

The games become defensive minded. Back when Wayne Gretzky and the Oilers dominated the NHL was an up tempo exiting game. When the Devils introduced the Neutral Zone trap in 1995, the NHL has been unwatchable.

 

First off, the Devils didn't "introduce" the NZT.  Their coach at the time, Jacques Lemaire, learned the system playing for the great Montreal Canadiens teams of the 1950s and '60s, and nobody complained when they used it.

 

Secondly, the Devils of 1995 actually had enough talent to play high-scoring hockey and used the trap as a rather effective counter-attacking system to rack up goals.  The problems arose when the Florida Panthers used it to clutch-and-grab their way to the '96 Cup Finals... you remember, the Year of the Rat?

 

Thirdly, if you watch tapes from the 1980s, you could argue that the tempo of games has never been faster.

 

The goalies equipment is alot bigger. If you watch highlights of the 1980 Olympics or any game from the early to mid 80's the goalies padding doesn't even cover their legs. Now the padding is so big, it make scoring on the goalies more difficult.

 

No argument here.  The goalie helmets are literally bulletproof.  The pads are a foot wide, dry, and when they start soaking they expand to nearly 14 inches.

 

John Buccigross has suggested widening the goal by six inches to a foot, which doesn't sound bad considering how big the players have gotten and how big the equipment is.

 

Cut down a few teams, place a salary cap, and change some of the rules it'll be 100 times better.

 

No major pro league should have more than 24 teams.  Ever.  Just my opinion.

 

Salary caps are a horrible idea.  They hamstring a team's ability to make deals because they always have to worry about staying under an imaginary line.  Sharing local TV revenue would be a better idea.

[Guest redbaron51]

Salary caps are a horrible idea.  They hamstring a team's ability to make deals because they always have to worry about staying under an imaginary line.  Sharing local TV revenue would be a better idea.

Salary caps are needed in the NHL. With out them lots of teams will fold, especially the Canadian teams. Only six teams out of thirty can compete. You want only: Detroit, Colorado, Toronto, Phildelphia, St. Louis and New York Rangers too have all the talent in the leauge, sorry that isn't right. Every team should be able to keep the necessary players to build a championship team, instead of stacking your team, and dismantle the team after the Stanley Cup.

 

Without a Salary Cap, the ratings will suffer more, as high prized players are on a select few while others are just struggling to keep there team.

[Guest Eraser2K2]

Every team should be able to keep the necessary players to build a championship team, instead of stacking your team, and dismantle the team after the Stanley Cup.

 

Name one team in the last 10 years that has "dismantled" after winning the Stanley Cup.  Losing a free agent or two isn't "dismantling."

 

Widening the goal could be a good idea, or it could be a bad idea.  It takes away ice area on one hand, and gives the goalies less of an advantage.  But it would probably increase scoring.

 

The NFL has made it work with, what, 30 teams?  There is incredible parity in the NFL, and people still watch it more than any other sport.  

 

The way the NBA became so popular in the 1980s was advertising the Lakers vs Celtics.  Magic vs Bird in particular.  The NHL needs two teams (preferably in seperate conferences) that have a similarity to that.  All I can think of is the Avalance vs the Red Wings, but they of course are both in the West.  The Red Wings vs Flyers would have to do.  Its a strong possibility thats who will be in the Stanley Cup, and maybe if they have another game this season, they can advertise that, and hype a Stanley Cup showdown.  They both have tremendous (sp?) players.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

It seems that the NHL is a regional sport. Fans in many of the teams' cities cheer them on, but outside of these 30+ areas, most of America could care less. Maybe the names are too hard to pronounce, who knows?

 

The point about ABC not promoting the games was a good one that I haven't even considered before, yet it was so freakin' obvious.

[Guest redbaron51]

Name one team in the last 10 years that has "dismantled" after winning the Stanley Cup.  Losing a free agent or two isn't "dismantling."

I can't name one team, because it has never happened in the NHL in the past 10 years.

 

It'll happen, after a few years, people leave there team in order to go on another team who has more money, and yet they are getting 5 million for doing jack shit?

 

Give me a team of nobodies over a team of ego maniacs

[Guest Brooding Genius]

Salary caps are needed in the NHL. With out them lots of teams will fold, especially the Canadian teams. Only six teams out of thirty can compete. You want only: Detroit, Colorado, Toronto, Phildelphia, St. Louis and New York Rangers too have all the talent in the leauge, sorry that isn't right. Every team should be able to keep the necessary players to build a championship team, instead of stacking your team, and dismantle the team after the Stanley Cup.

 

Without a Salary Cap, the ratings will suffer more, as high prized players are on a select few while others are just struggling to keep there team.

 

Salary caps aren't needed ANYWHERE.  Local revenue sharing, yes.  An artificial restriction on how much a team can spend, no.

 

The reason the salary cap "works" in the NFL is because the only TV deal they have is a national deal, so all the teams benefit equally from it.  Since the TV revenue accounts for almost all of each team's revenue, every team has about the same amount of money to spend anyways.  Using that logic, why does the NFL need a salary cap?  They're all making about the same amount of money, so let the teams decide how much they want to spend.

 

The NHL, on the other hand, requires its teams to get their own local television contracts and has a rather pedestrian American TV deal... in other words, very little revenue sharing.  A salary cap would just lead to the larger-market teams spending up to the limit, while the smaller-market teams still struggled along.  In the meantime, the money the large-market teams didn't spend on players' salary would go into other things, like scouting, or marketing, or the owner's pocket.  Either way, it's no help, and you'd probably end up with a strike by the players.

 

The only reasonable solution for hockey is to convince the teams to share some of their local TV revenue... say, 50% is taken and redistributed evenly.  Then, and ONLY then, would it be a fair system: teams in large markets aren't completely punished for their good fortune, and teams in small markets aren't rewarded for their misfortune.

 

If you still think this isn't fair, remember this:

 

All of these teams are private companies.  The people who own these teams know the situation and the risks involved.  If they can't figure out a way to make the team profitable and successful, then maybe they shouldn't be in this business.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

You can make the net bigger, but you can't make a coach play a certain style.The ratings would be higher if the games where more high scoring. That's not what some people like, but judging by the ratings more people would rather see 5-4, than 1-0.