Why Has the NHL Traditionally Done Poorly on US TV?

[TMC1982 0]

From (after Game 6 of the 1980 Stanley Cup Finals on "The CBS Sports Spectacular") 1981-1989 (prior to the 1990 All-Star Game on NBC), there wasn't a single National Hockey League game that was nationally televised on broadcast, over-the-air television. Even so, from 1990-1994, only the All-Star Game on NBC and a selected number of Sunday afternoon games on ABC (which were basically, time buys from ESPN) marked the only occasions in which the NHL was on broadcast, national TV.

 

In the mean time, after losing their network contract with NBC in 1975 (they're last legitimate network deal before the 1994-95 deal with FOX), the NHL had to piece together their "own network" with the help of the Hughes Television Network, in a syndication package known as "The NHL Network". After The NHL Network disbanded in I believe, 1979, the NHL's only national TV deals came via the USA Network, ESPN, and SportsChannel America respectively. The SportsChannel deal beginning in 1988 was pretty much a step down because even though they paid more in rights fees than ESPN, SportsChannel was only available in about 1/3 the amount of homes that ESPN was at the time. Even worse, SportsChannel America didn't have a whole lot of real programming beyond the NHL.

 

One of the biggest mistakes ever made during the John Zeigler (who was the NHL Commissioner from 1975-1992) regime besides not fully capitalizing on Wayne Gretzky's prime/popularity via major national TV contracts was not capitalizing on the renewed interest in hockey in the United States post-Miracle on Ice. All that the NHL really did immediately after the 1980 Winter Olympics was get the sixth game of the 1980 Stanley Cup Finals on "The CBS Sports Spectacular" (as I had previously mentioned).

 

The NHL pretty much shot themselves in the foot in 1994-95. They were coming off the heels of the New York Rangers' historic Stanley Cup victory, they had just received a major TV contract with FOX (who promised to advertise the hell out of the NHL), and they could've really filled in the void left by Major League Baseball when they went on strike. So what happens, the NHL has a lockout! They pretty much wound up blowing their big shot with FOX (it was rumored that FOX was willing to broadcast every single Stanley Cup Finals game). The next TV contract with ABC/ESPN, wound up getting them lost in the shuffle so to speak. ABC hardly promoted the game (the NHL seemed to expect their sister chanel ESPN to do much of the dirty work). Plus, it seemed quite evident that it would be only a matter of time before ESPN would deem hockey irrelevant once it seemed apparent that they didn't really need them anymore (which turned out to be the case once they got the NBA in 2002-03).

 

The NHL sank even further into the abyss by going through another lockout, which canceled the entire season! When it was finally time to get back to work, all that they could muster was a revenue sharing deal with NBC (in which the NHL virtually has little power or say over) and a cable deal with an otherwise obscure (albeit still growing) channel known as OLN (now Versus).

 

[the max 0]

People in America just aren't interested in hockey.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

[bob_barron 0]

No, the NFL has nothing to do with it.

 

The problem is that hockey is an acquired taste on TV, and it's not a game that you can just up and play in your backyard like the other three sports.

 

Plus, much of the US lives in warm weather climates and probably can't immediately identify with a game being played on ice

[HarleyQuinn 0]

People say it's the best sport to watch live generally for a reason... The TV broadcasts just can't match the live feel for a couple reasons I think.

 

1: The cameras are too zoomed in and as a result, you'll see the camera often "jerk" to catch up with the puck. I saw it with the most recent Bruins game and even as a hockey fan, it's hard to stay with a game when the camera loses the puck a bit, meaning you, the viewer also lose the puck. This also limits the ability to catch long feed passes (a breakaway pass was largely missed and the camera just barely caught up to the shooter in the Bruins game). The few times they have panned back from the action/zoomed out, it's given it more of that live feel.

 

2: Because of #1 coupled with the constant action, it's hard to follow just one player. In other sports, you can usually see where Player X is at all times whereas in hockey, between the unannounced line shifts and speed, it's nearly impossible to figure out if your favorite player is on the ice (unless you can catch a glimpse of all of the jersey numbers) and where he is at all times so it's harder to market a guy when the fan struggles to follow them the entire game.

 

The few times a camera would zoom in on a defenseman's face after an outlet pass, I found myself annoyed that I couldn't see the action that was going on for 1-2 seconds. It's really not the kind of sport set up (on TV anyway) to isolate individual players like basketball because the speed is just too constant for that to work.

 

3: There's almost no downtime for broadcasters to "analyze" a play or explain to casual fans small things/strategy going on outside of brief penalties and icing calls. This is all largely done during the intermissions when most fans do other things until the game gets back on. Unlike every other sport, the NHL can't "stop" and have a broadcaster diagram how Player X swung around on a centering pass, dodged Player Y, and hit the crossbar all in slow motion from multiple angles. It's hard for the casual fan to get in and understand a bit of the intricacies in comparison to say the NFL, where John Madden is honestly a great broadcaster for a casual fan watching his first ever NFL game.

[migoli 0]

People say it's the best sport to watch live generally for a reason... The TV broadcasts just can't match the live feel for a couple reasons I think.

 

1: The cameras are too zoomed in and as a result, you'll see the camera often "jerk" to catch up with the puck. I saw it with the most recent Bruins game and even as a hockey fan, it's hard to stay with a game when the camera loses the puck a bit, meaning you, the viewer also lose the puck. This also limits the ability to catch long feed passes (a breakaway pass was largely missed and the camera just barely caught up to the shooter in the Bruins game). The few times they have panned back from the action/zoomed out, it's given it more of that live feel.

 

2: Because of #1 coupled with the constant action, it's hard to follow just one player. In other sports, you can usually see where Player X is at all times whereas in hockey, between the unannounced line shifts and speed, it's nearly impossible to figure out if your favorite player is on the ice (unless you can catch a glimpse of all of the jersey numbers) and where he is at all times so it's harder to market a guy when the fan struggles to follow them the entire game.The few times a camera would zoom in on a defenseman's face after an outlet pass, I found myself annoyed that I couldn't see the action that was going on for 1-2 seconds. It's really not the kind of sport set up (on TV anyway) to isolate individual players like basketball because the speed is just too constant for that to work.

 

3: There's almost no downtime for broadcasters to "analyze" a play or explain to casual fans small things/strategy going on outside of brief penalties and icing calls. This is all largely done during the intermissions when most fans do other things until the game gets back on. Unlike every other sport, the NHL can't "stop" and have a broadcaster diagram how Player X swung around on a centering pass, dodged Player Y, and hit the crossbar all in slow motion from multiple angles. It's hard for the casual fan to get in and understand a bit of the intricacies in comparison to say the NFL, where John Madden is honestly a great broadcaster for a casual fan watching his first ever NFL game.

 

 

Living in Minnesota hockey is alot bigger here then other parts of America but your second point is something i've had conversations with many friends about. The best way I personally have found to track players is their body. Seems like their number rarely gets seen on TV so if i'm watching a Wild game if i'm looking for Gaborik is just look for the little shifty dude. Overall all though I think you wrapped it all up in a neat little bow on why its hard for most Americans to get into hockey.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

It's all Bettman's faul...

 

The truth that I don't like watching hockey on tv. I would rather be in an arena watching it. My other theory is that in other sports, Americans can connect better with athletes. A lot of college football players go to the NFL and they have built fan bases and a following. A lot of Americans can't connect with Canadian or European players.

[Zetterberg is God 0]

A lot of Americans can't connect with Canadian or European players.

 

That's definitely part of it. Detroit is a perfect example of that.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

Are you being serious? I know if the economy wasn't bad in Detroit, the Red Wings could sell out every game. I know their TV ratings are high.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Buffalo has had an embarassing economy for decades and we sell out our games. People in buffalo love them some hockey.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Here's an article about ratings and attendance trending up in the US.

 

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/61172

 

Here's the local ratings that teams are doing this season in the US for those who don't want to click:

 

Buffalo - 8.87

Pittsburgh - 6.14

Detroit - 3.7

Minnesota - 2.22

Philadelphia - 2.22

Boston - 2.16

Colorado - 1.65

Colombus - 1.43

St. Louis - 1.32

San Jose - 1.25

Washington - 1.2

Chicago - 1.07

NYR - 1.03

Dallas - .52

Phoenix - .5

Tampa Bay - .49

LA - .38

New Jersey - .38

Anaheim - .29

Atlanta - .23

NYI - .17

Florida - .15

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

It's all Bettman's faul...

 

The fact that the NHL doesn't do well on TV isn't Bettman's fault. Trying to force it upon Americans is.

[Zetterberg is God 0]

Are you being serious? I know if the economy wasn't bad in Detroit, the Red Wings could sell out every game. I know their TV ratings are high.

 

I am. Just go on to the Detroit boards and see how many people say that they can't get into this team because of the amount of Europeans on it. Their TV ratings are actually down 21% this year.

[Nightwing 0]

Are you being serious? I know if the economy wasn't bad in Detroit, the Red Wings could sell out every game. I know their TV ratings are high.

 

I am. Just go on to the Detroit boards and see how many people say that they can't get into this team because of the amount of Europeans on it. Their TV ratings are actually down 21% this year.

 

Our ratings are admittedly lower than most people would peg us. Then again, we have much more against us than Buffalo and Pittsburgh (Which is only recently high. It helps when you have Hockey Jesus in your town...). Being in the Western Conference is the biggest drain, especially since we're only one of two teams that are still in the Eastern Standard Timezone. I'm as much a fan as anyone, but I have trouble staying up on the West Coast runs that start at 9 and 10 PM. Especially now, when I have to get up at around 5 to get ready for work. I daresay that no US Team could do better than how the Red Wings are right now.

 

We're also the top city that actually has the one sport that directly competes with Hockey: Basketball. Sure, the Pistons suck right now, but it's that unpredictable suck that people are willing to tune in to see what happens next. Buffalo has the Sabres and the Bills; that's about it. There's no other major regular team that you can follow on a daily basis (Which is why the NFL doesn't affect the NHL... or anything else, really. Two real days a week for games, and only 8 home games a year isn't going to hurt or help anyone. It simply on a different level of competition...), what else is there to do? The Pistons used to be pretty good, and even now people are watching just to see what the hell is going to happen.

 

The way I'd interpret this year's rating drop is two ways:

 

1) "I'll watch in the playoffs." Of course, this is true just about every year now, but with the addition of Hossa, people aren't as excited for the regular season. There's simply no doubt as to how things are going to end up before the playoffs.

 

2) The trainwreck that is the Detroit Pistons. Why would people watch that more often than the Pistons? Because they honestly want to see what the hell is going to happen. That team is in its death throes, and with such desperation it is a bit more interesting than watching the Wings play well enough to win.

 

I don't buy the European explanation, either. Plenty of people love the Euros, and you'd be surprised at the patience that they showed with Datsyuk. While I'll agree there isn't the same connection there was when Stevie Y was leading things, I think it's because we haven't truly attached ourselves to the new team yet.

 

Of course, the celebration parade this last year was much bigger than any of the previous ones. So take it as you will...

[Matt Young 0]

Well, I tried watching hockey several times over the years, but I never understood it. It took multiple games with a friend explaining the rules, and even more of a factor was NHL 08 for the Xbox 360 which taught me rules as well as the names of players and etrms used in the sport.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Buffalo has the Sabres and the Bills; that's about it. There's no other major regular team that you can follow on a daily basis (Which is why the NFL doesn't affect the NHL... or anything else, really. Two real days a week for games, and only 8 home games a year isn't going to hurt or help anyone. It simply on a different level of competition...), what else is there to do?

 

 

Sure, but Buffalo was also the third highest ratings watcher for the NHL playoffs last year behind only Pittsburgh and Detroit (who both made the finals) and we didn't even make the playoffs.

 

We were also the third highest to watch the Winter Classic (behind Chicago and Detroit...who played in it).

 

So it's not simply that theyre's nothing else on. We watch any hockey more than everyone else.

[Guest Vitamin X]

 

+

 

 

In fact, more so because NBA's season overlaps NHL's, starting and ending only a month later. Add to bob barron's point about much of the U.S. living in warm weather climates where it's difficult to identify with hockey, and then take a look at where a good chunk of the NBA's franchises are:

 

 

And then take a look at where the NHL has their franchises:

 

 

The ONLY hockey team in the Pacific Northwest, a region of a few million people, is actually located up in Canada so it's hard to get into that here... the closest American team to us is in San Jose, CA. Everywhere else they're competing with attention with successful NBA teams and for at least the first couple months of the NFL season, that as well. And then you've got baseball starting during the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

 

I actually really enjoy hockey, but not having any sort of reason to support any of these teams keeps me away from having more than a casual interest in it. I was an Avs fan when the NHL got more coverage, but after the strike I've just kind of lost interest.

[Mike wanna be 0]

People say it's the best sport to watch live generally for a reason... The TV broadcasts just can't match the live feel for a couple reasons I think.

 

1: The cameras are too zoomed in and as a result, you'll see the camera often "jerk" to catch up with the puck. I saw it with the most recent Bruins game and even as a hockey fan, it's hard to stay with a game when the camera loses the puck a bit, meaning you, the viewer also lose the puck. This also limits the ability to catch long feed passes (a breakaway pass was largely missed and the camera just barely caught up to the shooter in the Bruins game). The few times they have panned back from the action/zoomed out, it's given it more of that live feel.

 

2: Because of #1 coupled with the constant action, it's hard to follow just one player. In other sports, you can usually see where Player X is at all times whereas in hockey, between the unannounced line shifts and speed, it's nearly impossible to figure out if your favorite player is on the ice (unless you can catch a glimpse of all of the jersey numbers) and where he is at all times so it's harder to market a guy when the fan struggles to follow them the entire game.

 

The few times a camera would zoom in on a defenseman's face after an outlet pass, I found myself annoyed that I couldn't see the action that was going on for 1-2 seconds. It's really not the kind of sport set up (on TV anyway) to isolate individual players like basketball because the speed is just too constant for that to work.

 

3: There's almost no downtime for broadcasters to "analyze" a play or explain to casual fans small things/strategy going on outside of brief penalties and icing calls. This is all largely done during the intermissions when most fans do other things until the game gets back on. Unlike every other sport, the NHL can't "stop" and have a broadcaster diagram how Player X swung around on a centering pass, dodged Player Y, and hit the crossbar all in slow motion from multiple angles. It's hard for the casual fan to get in and understand a bit of the intricacies in comparison to say the NFL, where John Madden is honestly a great broadcaster for a casual fan watching his first ever NFL game.

I'd say it's more #2 than #3, because soccer has tons of downtime by comparison and most Americans still don't give a shit about that.

 

Americans like pinning hopes on one person, one position, and in big sprawling soccer and fast-paced in-and-out hockey it's virtually impossible to find the player you're looking for (unless you're a fan of the goalie).

[bob_barron 0]

The NFL has nothing to do with the NHL's popularity. Hockey's a niche sport and always will be. That's why Bettman's attempts to make it up there with the NBA have been so stupid and counterproductive.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I know, I was citing the NBA as a primary competitor for that reason.

 

Is it true that hockey's always going to be a niche sport, though? It was fairly popular in the early 90's from what I remember.

[Mike wanna be 0]

As long as the only non-Versus televised games are Stanley Cup Finals matches and the yearly Outdoor Classic, then yes, it's going to be/stay a niche sport.

[the max 0]

As long as the only non-Versus televised games are Stanley Cup Finals matches and the yearly Outdoor Classic, then yes, it's going to be/stay a niche sport.

 

They have games on NBC every sunday too.

[bob_barron 0]

I know, I was citing the NBA as a primary competitor for that reason.

 

Is it true that hockey's always going to be a niche sport, though? It was fairly popular in the early 90's from what I remember.

 

I wouldn't say the NBA really hampers it either.

 

It got pretty popular in the early 90s with Gretzky, Lemieux and Jagr and then the awesome playoffs, but the lockout and the rise of the neutral trap that caused a reduce in scoring hurt. Also, overexpansion caused the NHL to flood the market with too many teams that too few people cared about and it really hurt the league.

 

But at its core, it might experience some popularity, but it's always going to be a niche sport. Which is fine by me.

[Grenouille 0]

I love hockey, but I do have trouble wrapping myself up more in televised games rather than being there live. Regular season games seem so ho hum to me, unless it's a big rivalry game such as the B's and Canadiens.

 

For instance today I went to the Bruins-Rangers game at the Garden. Being in the atmosphere of the arena was great with most of the action was near where I sat and game seemed heated. Would I say the same thing if I watched at home on TV? Probably not. If anything it would have been something on in the background and wouldn't have seemed like anything other than a boring low scoring game.

[Red Baron 0]

Buffalo has had an embarassing economy for decades and we sell out our games. People in buffalo love them some hockey.

 

Ya it must be those Canadians that come over to watch their team play.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Which explains why they sell out Wednesday Night games against... well last I went it was St. Louis.

 

It has nothing to do with Canada. Canada are just the idiots that the season ticket holders sell their Toronto and Montreal games to for high prices.

[Red Baron 0]

Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa. Good fan base in the surrounding areas, plus there are a lot of Buffalo fans in the Niagara/Hamilton area as well. It's cheaper to see these teams in Buffalo then go to Toronto to catch a hockey game. Also Buffalo has less traffic, easier to get to, parking is cheaper and the benefits of getting cheaper goods like tobacco and gasoline. Buffalo needs the Canadian dollar to stay roughly around 75 cents to maintain any sort of profit. If the Canadian dollar goes below that and in these times, expect Buffalo to be seeing some empty seats like in the late 90's early 2000's.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

You know there are thousands of people on the waiting list for season tickets right now, right?

 

And how can our 5 dollar cigarettes be cheaper than anywhere? And almost the whole last two years gas was 4 and a half dollars a gallon.

 

Those are CHEAP compared to Canada?

[Red Baron 0]

You know there are thousands of people on the waiting list for season tickets right now, right?

 

And how can our 5 dollar cigarettes be cheaper than anywhere? And almost the whole last two years gas was 4 and a half dollars a gallon.

 

Those are CHEAP compared to Canada?

 

 

And I wont doubt that a good chunk of them are Canadian.

 

also, yes and yes.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

So that highest ratings in the country for hockey is meaningless and we only have a franchise because of Canada, whose cigarettes are over 5 dollars american and gas is just as much. Now I know.