Why Has the NHL Traditionally Done Poorly on US TV?

[TMC1982]

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! http://the506.com/yabb/Templates/Forum/default/embarassed.gif 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).

[Wonderwall]

Well its a very Canadian sport, which hurts it along with all the things you said. There are so many teams in the NHL that don't support their teams so why waste the tv time with those games, which are about half their games. Also Gary Bettman has tunnel vision, his dream of being accepted by the US market isn't working, so instead of retooling it and fixing the parts of his plans that don't work he just keeps staying the course. The definition of insanity. On the plus side, the NHL has recovered quite a bit from 04-05. However it's going to take new leadership in order to try and get the NHL to the next level when it comes to US viewership.

[Tanooki]

Guy on the local radio station said it best when he said it's "boring to watch". A big reason why some would tune in to hockey is to see a big fight, which are rare. Also, hockey's on Versus. Not many people get that station. Thirdly, if the game is on, it gets treated just like baseball and golf. It's a good game to take a nap to.

[TheTerror]

Well, the sport is not really interesting, I mean, really it is just a bunch of guys skating around slapping a puck with a stick and I don't see the skill besides maybe aiming the puck toward the goal. I can ice skate, I can hit a puck with a skate, I could try my best to aim it at a goal, can I get $2 a year?

If people here like Hockey then thats cool, but to me it does not serve a purpose and it's a very boring sport, a lot of the times the score is like 3-0 or something like that and even though the same can be said for Baseball (another sport I am not fond of) at least Baseball there is some sense of history and awe towards it.

[ABrown]

Well, to be honest. I find the game to be pretty boring. I don't understand what's going on. And the fans get all excited because someone took a shot at the goal and didn't even make it.

[Hobbes829]

2 reasons:

1) Americans tend to like higher scoring games like football and basketball. In hockey if you're up by 2, that's a damn good lead. Every goal counts.

2) There's not as much ice in america as there is in canada. America's national sport is baseball. Games like football, baseball, and basketball are played by nearly every school kid so there's a physical relationship. We can appreciated the effort and the athleticism of those games. Not so much with hockey.

I will say this though, it's not fun to watch on tv, but if you can get tickets to a live game right up against the glass, then it's really fun.

[Burgundy Ranger]

I'm one of the ones who loves it. It's my number one sport from Jan. 1 through the playoffs. Well, being a Redskins fan lately, it becomes my number one sports around, say, Thanksgiving.


I mean, really it is just a bunch of guys skating around slapping a puck with a stick and I don't see the skill besides maybe aiming the puck toward the goal. I can ice skate, I can hit a puck with a skate,
But can you do them both at the same time, skating at full speed, with someone bearing down on you to knock you into the middle of next week?

Hockey is a sport that has two distinct views -- either you get it or you don't. (And that's not to demean those who don't) If you get it, you LOVE it. And the best way to get it is to see it live and down low. That reference point helps in a big way in your ability to enjoy and follow the game on TV. (HD helps big-time too. No sport's TV presentation is enhanced by HD more than hockey)

[Tay the Cat]

Simply put - very few Americans care about hockey.

Secondly, as said before, most hockey games are on Versus, which few people get. I didn't get Versus until recently, so I couldn't watch my Flames play unless they were going against the Coyotes.

That was no fun.


Well, the sport is not really interesting, I mean, really it is just a bunch of guys skating around slapping a puck with a stick and I don't see the skill besides maybe aiming the puck toward the goal. I can ice skate, I can hit a puck with a skate, I could try my best to aim it at a goal, can I get $2 a year?

If people here like Hockey then thats cool, but to me it does not serve a purpose and it's a very boring sport, a lot of the times the score is like 3-0 or something like that and even though the same can be said for Baseball (another sport I am not fond of) at least Baseball there is some sense of history and awe towards it.
Don't knock it until you try it.

It, like soccer, can be boring to watch, but is very demanding to actually play.

[GWOtaku]

Hockey is MUCH more interesting to watch than baseball. I mean, seriously. No one is even moving most of the time. Baseball rocks for a day out. I enjoy going to see the Washington Nationals on a nice day. I don't enjoy staring at it on TV.

But yeah, Versus is chump change. They need to at least get ESPN back. But the reality is that some time is needed to rebuild the game. No lockout nonsense, and continued adjusting of the rules to streamline the game as necessary. Having a shootout to break ties is a good idea, as was getting rid of the two line pass, which I always thought was stupid.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Well, the sport is not really interesting, I mean, really it is just a bunch of guys skating around slapping a puck with a stick and I don't see the skill besides maybe aiming the puck toward the goal. I can ice skate, I can hit a puck with a skate, I could try my best to aim it at a goal, can I get $2 a year?

.

I'm not a huge fan of hockey but this is a laughable statement. It's much easier to learn how to play basketball and football than hockey IMO. Aside from skating (which in itself is very hard to do at an NHL level), it requires good eye-hand coordination, stamina, fine motor skills and stick handling. Try maneuvering a puck with 2 guys poking and prodding you along the ice as well as trying to bodycheck you. Try getting a quick shot off AND SCORING with 3 or 4 guys in your field of vision AND poking at your stick trying to get your puck.

Learning how to play bball and football is easy. Mastering it is hard.

Learning how to play hockey is hard. Mastering it is even harder.

I can understand not liking the sport, but let's not denigrate the skill level of some of these athletes. It's the same as people making fun of baseball players as being guys who just swing a bat and run a few feet every once in a while. Of course, baseball is a lot more than that and the talent to hit a ball some of these pitchers throw requires a ton of skill and talent.

[ABrown]

Hockey is MUCH more interesting to watch than baseball.

I must be watching a different hockey game than the one that you're watching.

But I mean it's whatever your passion is. A couple of my friends live for hockey. For some people baseball is their life. Other people cry when football season ends. Baseball might not necessarily be my passion, but the Chicago White Sox are, as is rooting against the Cubs.

[Michael24]

Hockey boring? Pffft! I personally find it the most exciting sport to watch. The pacing is much better than something like baseball or basketball, as players can be in constant motion for quite awhile without a stop in play. And of course the crowds get excited even when someone misses a goal, because sometimes it comes very close to scoring, only to get blocked or deflected at the last possible second. And I don't mind the low-scoring factor, as usually the rest of the games' intensities make it just as entertaining to watch. It's currently the only sport I care to watch.

I've been to baseball, football, and hockey games in person, and while I enjoyed them all, hockey was the most fun and exciting to see live. I agree, it requires a lot more skill than some other games, too. I took to baseball and soccer very easily when I was little and played on several times over the years. But hockey was a real trick to get the hang of. It looks easy when you're watching it, but getting out there on the ice and skating around while at the same time working with a little puck on the ground that you can't always keep your eye on, it's much tougher than it looks.

But hockey is carried by other channels isn't it? We get Versus, but we also see NHL games on Comcast Sportsnet.

[Hobbes829]

Hockey boring? Pffft! I personally find it the most exciting sport to watch. The pacing is much better than something like baseball or basketball, as players can be in constant motion for quite awhile without a stop in play. And of course the crowds get excited even when someone misses a goal, because sometimes it comes very close to scoring, only to get blocked or deflected at the last possible second. And I don't mind the low-scoring factor, as usually the rest of the games' intensities make it just as entertaining to watch. It's currently the only sport I care to watch.

I've been to baseball, football, and hockey games in person, and while I enjoyed them all, hockey was the most fun and exciting to see live. I agree, it requires a lot more skill than some other games, too. I took to baseball and soccer very easily when I was little and played on several times over the years. But hockey was a real trick to get the hang of. It looks easy when you're watching it, but getting out there on the ice and skating around while at the same time working with a little puck on the ground that you can't always keep your eye on, it's much tougher than it looks.

But hockey is carried by other channels isn't it? We get Versus, but we also see NHL games on Comcast Sportsnet.
It doesn't matter how much physical skill it takes. People want to watch stuff that they can either physically relate to and/or emotionally connect to. America has a lot less ice, therefor a lot less places to play hockey. Basketball only requires a court and a ball, and most people have played it either in a league, at home or at school. Same thing with football except all you need is a ball and an open field. Baseball all you need are a field, gloves, a ball, and a bat. In places where you have a lot of ice, like canada and alaska, i'm sure it's a far more prevalent sport. This is one of the reasons that pro wrestling has to be a work in order to make money. Most people don't have a physical relationship to what they do, so they have to tell a story and sell.

[Wonderwall]

Well, the sport is not really interesting, I mean, really it is just a bunch of guys skating around slapping a puck with a stick and I don't see the skill besides maybe aiming the puck toward the goal. I can ice skate, I can hit a puck with a skate, I could try my best to aim it at a goal, can I get $2 a year?

That is a very stupid statement. All pro sports take immense amount of skill to play. Why don't you go play even a charity game let's see how long you last:shrug:

[bigddan11]

Simply put, there isn't a demand for it. When the NHL went on lockout, the minor league hockey teams actually thrived as people turned towards them. Those minor league franchises have continued to be successful, and many of them have recorded sellouts during and since the lockout because people decided to turn to local teams instead of worrying about the Pros.

There's also a severe lack of interest thanks to the TV contracts. When it was on ESPN/ ABC, the NHL was getting record numbers up until the lockout. Guess what happened though after the lockout. The World Series of Poker, Battle of the Gridiron Stars, and other replacements thrived and showed ESPN/ ABC they didn't need the NHL to be successful.

Even when they had the contracts, the lack of games on TV really hurt the NHL and continues to do so. NHL Network is mostly available in Canada but is limited in the US. The NBA is at the same time and generates better ratings, so local affiliates that air both decide to air the NBA over the NHL. There's also the fact that the NHL has the most foreign stars, and Americans care about local, not foreign. In the end it leads to bad ratings and not many caring for the game.

[Michael24]

It doesn't matter how much physical skill it takes. People want to watch stuff that they can either physically relate to and/or emotionally connect to.

Wow. That's a new one on me. I've always just watched sports because I found them fun, not because I thought "Hey, they're playing something I could also play in my neighborhood park. I feel a special connection."

[Hobbes829]

Wow. That's a new one on me. I've always just watched sports because I found them fun, not because I thought "Hey, they're playing something I could also play in my neighborhood park. I feel a special connection."
The question isn't about you, it's about why certain people find something more interesting than others. Most people don't know what it's like to be a boxer, but guys like ali were able to draw people in with his gift for gab. He either made the people love him or hate him, but either way people wanted to see it. How boring would Rocky have been had it been a 2 hour movie with a bunch of boxing matches? You got emotionally invested in the characters so when they did fight it mattered. The fight between Ali and Forman drew because you cared one way or the other about ali. People don't watch hockey in this country because they don't have an appreciation for it. Most americans have and never will play it. I'm not sayin that it applies to everyone, but this is the best explaination i've ever heard.

[Lord Dalek]

Because Hockey has always been completely untelegenic, since its so hard to see the puck at times on a tube (its a shame the NHL didn't buy the rights to the FoxTrax Super Puck from News Corp since that helped quite a bit). HDTV broadcasts have eleviated this slightly, but its still a drag to watch.

[Wonderwall]

Because Hockey has always been completely untelegenic, since its so hard to see the puck at times on a tube (its a shame the NHL didn't buy the rights to the FoxTrax Super Puck from News Corp since that helped quite a bit). HDTV broadcasts have eleviated this slightly, but its still a drag to watch.

I hated the stupid puck tracker. Its not that hard to see, its no harder to see than a baseball on TV, so I never understood that.

[jlaking]

It is way better to watch hockey live than to watch it on TV.

[Kitschensyngk]

I'd care a little more about it if we had a team.

[EroSennin]

Hockey is tennis on ice with fights. All you do is watch the puck go back and forth.

[Hobbes829]

Hockey is tennis on ice with fights. All you do is watch the puck go back and forth.
All you do with a lot of sports is watch a ball go back and forth. So What?

[TheTerror]

I'm not a huge fan of hockey but this is a laughable statement. It's much easier to learn how to play basketball and football than hockey IMO. Aside from skating (which in itself is very hard to do at an NHL level), it requires good eye-hand coordination, stamina, fine motor skills and stick handling. Try maneuvering a puck with 2 guys poking and prodding you along the ice as well as trying to bodycheck you. Try getting a quick shot off AND SCORING with 3 or 4 guys in your field of vision AND poking at your stick trying to get your puck.

Learning how to play bball and football is easy. Mastering it is hard.

Learning how to play hockey is hard. Mastering it is even harder.

I can understand not liking the sport, but let's not denigrate the skill level of some of these athletes. It's the same as people making fun of baseball players as being guys who just swing a bat and run a few feet every once in a while. Of course, baseball is a lot more than that and the talent to hit a ball some of these pitchers throw requires a ton of skill and talent.

I played hockey in a league from 1990-1993 and was an all-star in 1991, so I was pretty good. And for the guy that asked, I can skate and I can skate fast and accuratly, I enjoy skating, but I don't like Hockey. In fact I don't like many sports which is funny because I used to play all but Football. I am more into Martial Arts and Boxing which I do very, very well.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I played hockey in a league from 1990-1993 and was an all-star in 1991, so I was pretty good. And for the guy that asked, I can skate and I can skate fast and accuratly, I enjoy skating, but I don't like Hockey. In fact I don't like many sports which is funny because I used to play all but Football. I am more into Martial Arts and Boxing which I do very, very well.

The question then is why you even played that long if you don't like the sport. We can only take your word for it--and can only speculate in our minds that you just put that in to somehow add a piece of weight to your statement.

[TheTerror]

The question then is why you even played that long if you don't like the sport. We can only take your word for it--and can only speculate in our minds that you just put that in to somehow add a piece of weight to your statement.

My father was the kind of guy who wanted his kids to play sports and he would enroll us weather we wanted to or not. And personaly, I could care less if you believe me or not, but don't be jelous of me because I was a superior athlete and still am.

I never liked half the sports I played (Hockey, Soccer, Football and Rugby), but I did enjoy basketball, wrestling, boxing and martial arts.

[Wonderwall]

I could care less if you believe me or not, but don't be jelous of me because I was a superior athlete and still am.

I'm sure you are. I like how you say you could care less yet you feel the need to say how much of a superior athlete you are:shrug:

[Icer]

Same reason why soccer isn't as popular in the USA. There's not much exposure, there's no stars either, but in old cities it still gets plenty of buzz.

You think hockey doesn't get it's fair share in cities like Boston, NY, and Chicago? They do well where there's been teams for a long time. The NHL diluted their talent with the expansion from 24 teams. A terrible move in hindsight, not many of those expansion teams have managed to draw themselves a crowd and just worsened the product.

It can be hard to follow the puck if your new to hockey, but if you watched hockey since you were a little kid you'd be accustomed to it. But for a new fan, I can see how you cant really follow the game. To me, hockey is a very exciting game to watch either live or on TV.

[mumbo]

I think it might be because there's just no room for it in the US. Football, basketball, and baseball are all huge, and, well, four major team sports is too much to support I guess. And the networks don't exactly try to help. ESPN treated the NHL like crap.

Hockey is decently popular in the northern states though, I mean Detroit is Hockeytown after all. Chicago, New York, New Jersey, Boston, Denver (well, maybe not with how the team's doing now :sweat: ), they all have big hockey fanbases there.

It's the idiot Bettman's fault for obsessing over the expansion in the southern US, where I think for fairly obvious reasons ice sports are not popular. The only NHL franchises that are doing poorly financially are the ones like Nashville, Phoenix, Florida, Tampa Bay, and so on.

When it comes to flat-out action hockey can't be beat, so it really is kind of sad that it will never be all that big in the States, but what can you do. One factor that may figure in is that hockey really lacks the big personalities of sports like football and basketball. The league's full of quiet guys and there's a real code of honor that goes around - you're a star in the sport based on skill and that's it. And as soon as someone like Sean Avery creates a minor stir he gets kicked out.


Because Hockey has always been completely untelegenic, since its so hard to see the puck at times on a tube (its a shame the NHL didn't buy the rights to the FoxTrax Super Puck from News Corp since that helped quite a bit). HDTV broadcasts have eleviated this slightly, but its still a drag to watch.
Yet people still watch golf, which half the time is spent staring up at a blue sky with no idea where the ball is.

The puck's easy to see.

The league keeps thinking that more goals are the answer to making hockey more popular in the US, but that's idiocy. The goalies are just plain better nowadays because there's improved training and systems, and really, everyone likes seeing a goalie make an impossible save.

[Tapout]

I'd always heard, even from people who love the sport, that hockey is just not a good TV sport. You have to be there live to appreciate it.

[RayChuang]

The biggest problem with hockey is that until the advent of 16:9 HDTV in North America, hockey was impossible to appreciate on the TV broadcast.

With the arrival of HDTV, not only do you get the wider screen (which DRAMATICALLY improves the coverage of the game as you can see better the strategy of player positioning), but also higher resolution to go along with it. I've seen Versus network HDTV broadcasts of NHL games and the dramatic improvement with HDTV makes it actually watchable at home. :)

[TMC1982]

I've come to notice that the NHL has had at least three "drop the ball" (or puck:anime:) moments in at least, the past 30 years when it came to mass marketing television in the United States:
*1980 - The USA hockey team upsets the Soviets in the "Miracle on Ice" and goes on to win the gold medal at the Lake Placid Olympics. So what happens, the NHL is missing in action from network television for ten years. As I said before, until the 1990 All-Star Game aired on NBC, the last time that a National Hockey League game was broadcast on network American television was Game 6 of the 1980 Stanley Cup Finals on CBS (as part of The CBS Sports Spectacular) As a matter of fact, I'm not entirely sure that all of CBS' affiliates bothered carrying most if not all of the game.

*1988 - Wayne Gretzky (the games greatest player) gets traded to the Los Angeles Kings. This could be argued, helped start the expansion craze of putting teams in sunbelt or unconvential (for ice hockey) areas (a la San Jose, Florida, Phoenix, Anaheim, Dallas, etc.). So what does the NHL do in the mean time, they sign a contract with SportsChannel America, which is seen in about 1/3 the amount of homes at the time that were able to get ESPN (who held the previous American national cable TV contract for the NHL). Being on SportsChannel America was basically the television equivalent to Siberia. And still, the NHL doesn't have an American broadcast network television deal (with the exception of NBC's one shot coverage of the All-Star Game from 1990-1994).

*1994 - The New York Rangers win the Stanley Cup for the first time in 54 years. Major League Baseball had been suffering from a strike, while Michael Jordan was missing in action from the NBA. The NHL managed to sign a contract with FOX, who promised to market the game to the best of their abilities (at the time, all that FOX had going for themselves besides the NHL was the NFL). So what does the NHL do, they enter in a lockout. Furthermore, they proceed to screw FOX over (who seemingly, wanted to air all Stanley Cup Finals games in prime time, a breakthrough for the NHL on American TV) in favor of a contract with ESPN and ABC. As I said before, ESPN only cared about the NHL until it gets to a point in which it grows to become an inconvience for them (which proved to be true when they landed a contract with the NBA in 2002-03). Also, ABC hardly advertised their coverage.

[TMC1982]

Some suggestions for improving interest for American NHL TV coverage:
*NBC and Versus should do heavier cross-promoting.

*Versus, naturally, needs to get wider distrubution. I would suggest a closer working arrangement with the regional Comcast Sports Network affiliates (since Versus is owned by Comcast). The regional CSNs could be a feeder of sorts to Versus and/or vice versa.

*Find an American version of Don Cherry - Somebody who has a colorful, flamboyant personality, can relate to the fans (meaning he doesn't come across as a simple Xs and Os guy), yet is legitimently passionate about the sport.

*NBC must air the All-Star Game and all games of the Stanley Cup Finals. This is the only way that the NHL will gain credibility in the eyes of American viewers. Right now, NBC airs Games 1-2 and 5-7 while Versus airs the others. This means that there is no guarantee that the clinching game will be aired on over-the-air television.

*Put Al Michaels and/or Bob Costas on NBC's Stanley Cup Finals coverage to give viewers a better impression that it's an important event.

*Work on improving the broadcasting technology. For example, one of the biggest problems with hockey when it comes to television is the feeling that the puck is too difficult to follow. The National Football League in recent years, have used a digital yellow line to signify a first down and a blue line to signify the line of scrimmage. NASCAR telecasts now use graphics to help indicate how many laps are left and who's exactly driving what car (and what position that they are at in the moment).

*Put more entertainment in the intermission breaks (instead of simple analyst of what had just happened). But make it in a manner that it doesn't take away from the hockey play itself. In other words, make it entertaining but engaging and educational/informative at the same time.

*The NHL needs to improve their marketing strategy. For example, exploit the fact that the Stanley Cup Playoffs occur at the same time as the NBA Playoffs. So why not create a "playful" rivalry with the NBA?

[Hobbes829]

The biggest problem with hockey is that until the advent of 16:9 HDTV in North America, hockey was impossible to appreciate on the TV broadcast.

With the arrival of HDTV, not only do you get the wider screen (which DRAMATICALLY improves the coverage of the game as you can see better the strategy of player positioning), but also higher resolution to go along with it. I've seen Versus network HDTV broadcasts of NHL games and the dramatic improvement with HDTV makes it actually watchable at home. :)
still doesn't explain the lack of popularity in america, but it's overwhelming popularity in canada.

I think the simplest explanation is that there's less ice in america.

[Bones Justice]

I do watch sometimes but I don't make time for it. My main reasons for not really watching much:


Scoring is too low
Screen isn't wide enough to watch everything that's happening
Too many "accidental" scores combined with low scoring hurts strategy
Too much fighting allowed

[The Penguin]

*Put Al Michaels and/or Bob Costas on NBC's Stanley Cup Finals coverage to give viewers a better impression that it's an important event.I'm not a hockey watcher, but I agree that increasing the profile of the coverage is a great idea as part of the solution. I realize not everyone likes Chris Berman, but they had him on ESPN doing the SportsCenter hockey coverage with another guy and it immediately felt more important to me because Berman is one of the faces of the network.

[tb4000]

Hockey, soccer and baseball bore the crap out of me. Football and basketball are where you can, for lack of a better term, showboat.

[krazymed]

Hockey is soccer on ice. Americans hate soccer.

As for TV, it's a combination of things. Putting the games on a network few people have doesn't help (Versus). The strike also did serious damage. When you give people a year to find something to do other than watch a sport, it takes a long time to recover. The NBA still has not recovered from the 1999 partial strike, even with the rise of the Lakers. MLB almost recovered from the 1994 partial strike with the home run chase, but that has been undone due to the steroid stuff. Hockey had a lockout for the entire year, and it has shown. No one really cared about hockey before, and fewer care about it now.

As for the fights, NHL should run an experiment and ban the fighting for a year. See if the ratings go up or down knowing that players who mix it up will miss games.

[.bg]

Hockey does not translate well to television - it's way too fast and the puck isn't visible enough. Senseless fighting is supposed to be the big draw, but if I wanted to watch that, there's always WWE and MMA.

Football is great for television because it's an action-packed sport and a high-scoring game. Basketball is also high-scoring and the tricks that the players pull off are always fun to watch. Baseball is pretty long and low-scoring, but the moments that happen during games - like Jacoby Ellsbury stealing home, for example - more than make up for that.

Hockey is the odd sport out because it's low-scoring and way too fast.

[Wonderwall]

I really don't see how a ban on fighting would help the NHL or hockey in general. A lot of people who only have a mild interest in hockey like the fighting and hitting.

[Hobbes829]

hockey being fast paced doesn't explain why it's popular in canada but not here.

[stephane dumas]

hockey being fast paced doesn't explain why it's popular in canada but not here.

I get it was a way to hold on against the snow, ice and cold temperature, hockey was associated with Canada since the beginning of the Canadian confederation. There a good documentairy titled "Hockey: A people's history" to know more about it http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0818640/

and I don't mention the popularity of the movie "Slap Shot" here specially the French version.

[Hobbes829]

I get it was a way to hold on against the snow, ice and cold temperature, hockey was associated with Canada since the beginning of the Canadian confederation. There a good documentairy titled "Hockey: A people's history" to know more about it http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0818640/

and I don't mention the popularity of the movie "Slap Shot" here specially the French version.
that was my point, but you said it better. There's less ice here, so people have less of a physical relationship to the game.

[TMC1982]

http://www.multichannel.com/blog/Reynolds_Rap/13184-The_Case_Versus_.php


The fact that none of these games will be televised on NBC is the crux of putting the biscuit in this blog basket.

As a revenue-sharing partner, the Peacock had no use for the puck sport this weekend. Not with the rights fees it pays for the PGA’s The Players Championship that iced this critical series from its Saturday and Sunday afternoon lineup. Certainly, a Tiger in hand is worth a Kid or an Ovechkin in the bush.

Yet, if NBC were truly a linemate to the NHL it could have aired Caps-Penguins on Saturday night. There, the Peacock served up a three-course menu of repeats from Law & Order: SVU, The Heartland and Law & Order.
Now, commercials in the Peacock’s primetime lineup are worth more than even a transcendent moment for the league, which averages around a 1.0 national rating on NBC. But, if Dick Ebersol had any real ties to Gary Bettman’s game (the NHL commissioner along with FS Sports Arizona officials have to be very worried that BlackBerry boss James Balsillie will succeed in his attempt to transport the bankrupt Phoenix Coyotes to Hamilton, Ontario), NBC would have put Benjamin (The O.C.) McKenzie and Heartland on ice Saturday night and presented Game 5.

NBC, which airs limited NHL regular-season and modest post-season schedules, will cap this year’s run with as many as five Stanley Cup Finals games. NBC Sports doesn’t have a contract for next year yet, but will likely renew to gain a promotional platform for its 2010 Olympics hockey coverage — chock full of NHL players — and the sport’s most high-profile contest, The Winter Classic. The third such affair is said to be heading to that hockey arena with that big green wall: Fenway Park on Jan. 1.
But there have been any number of reports about the NHL Players Association longing for the league’s days with The Walt Disney Co. and cries about the sport not getting the exposure it deserves (http://http//www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/BC_Beat/12276-With_Friends_Like_These_.php?rssid=20106&q=NHL+) because Versus’ 75 million sub count is about 20 million short of ESPN2’s base and 23 million light of ESPN’s.

Granted, Versus’ current regular-season and post-season averages lag ESPN’s last go-round with the NHL in 2003-04 by significant double-digits.
Still, Versus has been building with the puck sport, backing up its continued regular-season ratings growth (http://http//www.multichannel.com/article/196029-Versus_Looks_To_Light_NHL_Postseason_Ratings_Lamp.php?q=Versus), with positive playoff performances last season and into the current campaign (http://http//www.multichannel.com/article/231752-Versus_Notches_Most_Watched_NHL_Game_In_Seven_Years.php?rssid=20060&q=Versus). Versus’ Game 3 telecast of Capitals-Penguins drew 1.49 million viewers on May 6, making it the most-viewed second-round NHL playoff game on cable since the Detroit Red Wings-St. Louis Blues skated before 1.77 million viewers on ESPN in 2002. Through last Wednesday, Versus averaged 814,738 viewers for 10 conference semifinal telecasts, 38% more than the 590,229 viewers for the same period last year.

After the lockout wiped out the 2004-05 season, ESPN tried to lowball the NHL and Versus, then OLN, stepped into the breach for about $70 million annually (http://http//www.multichannel.com/article/124661-NHL_Skates_to_OLN.php) over three campaigns. The Comcast-owned service is currently in the first of a three-season extension (http://http//www.multichannel.com/article/131868-Versus_Reaches_Goal_of_Extending_NHL_Rights.php?q=NHL+).

Over that time, the NHL has become a ratings-gainer and signature sport for Versus, which dotes plenty of love, attention, look-ins from Canada and pre- and post-game coverage on it via Hockey Central.

Versus has no comment about whether it has been approached about modifying its contract. For their part, network insiders say they have not been contacted by the league or ESPN about a rink return.

[Strollymonster]

Lack of cheerleaders.

[Supernovametalstar]

I'll probably end up echoing some of the same sentiments as others. For me, I tried watching hockey on tv, but just couldn't get into it.

1. I can't see the puck. It's too small and hard to spot when it's being slapped around most of the time. I'm guessing that's why when Fox did have it on the air, they tried to put that glow around it. So people could follow the device that makes the goal. In baseball, football, and basketball especially, the device is large enough, or enough dynamic things can happen to it, where you are intrigued.

2. Low scoring. One of the games I tried to watch, there was a period of probably a good 10 minutes where a goal wasn't scored. The puck was switched about from one end of the rink to the other. Sure there were attempts at getting it in the net, but they all failed. Also, when a goal is scored, you can't see the moment it happens. In other sports, there is an immediate gratification, or mortification if it's the opposing team you're rooting against, when they score because you can see it as it happened. Usually no replay is necessary.

[TMC1982]

Bob Hunter of the Columbus Dispatch points directly at Versus (http://dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2009/05/12/hunter_5-12.ART_ART_05-12-09_C1_S0DR71Q.html?sid=101) as to why the NHL is irrelevant.

Craig Custance of the Sporting News talks with NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=548140) about a bunch of topics including TV ratings and not going back on ESPN.

[Hobbes829]

I'll probably end up echoing some of the same sentiments as others. For me, I tried watching hockey on tv, but just couldn't get into it.

1. I can't see the puck. It's too small and hard to spot when it's being slapped around most of the time. I'm guessing that's why when Fox did have it on the air, they tried to put that glow around it. So people could follow the device that makes the goal. In baseball, football, and basketball especially, the device is large enough, or enough dynamic things can happen to it, where you are intrigued.

2. Low scoring. One of the games I tried to watch, there was a period of probably a good 10 minutes where a goal wasn't scored. The puck was switched about from one end of the rink to the other. Sure there were attempts at getting it in the net, but they all failed. Also, when a goal is scored, you can't see the moment it happens. In other sports, there is an immediate gratification, or mortification if it's the opposing team you're rooting against, when they score because you can see it as it happened. Usually no replay is necessary.
1. doesn't explain why canadians like it. It seems they have no problem seeing the puck.

2. explains the american lack of interest in the sport. Americans like high scoring games

[krazymed]

Lack of cheerleaders.

They have ice girls, but they are only out there during timeouts and intermissions, so they are rarely seen on TV.

As for the NBC thing, the Player's Championship drew a 4.1 (up from a 3.4 the previous year). The week before, Game 1 of Crosby vs Ovechkin drew a 1.2. It was a no-brainer which event was going to air. And unlike the NBA, Game 7 is in the middle of the week (Wed.), instead of on Saturday or Sunday, which would have put the game on NBC, without question.

[TMC1982]

1. doesn't explain why canadians like it. It seems they have no problem seeing the puck.

2. explains the american lack of interest in the sport. Americans like high scoring games

Canadians was simply been bread to embrace hockey. It's no different to how American's have been bread to embrace baseball (which some would otherwise view as being too slow and plodding). It's also how soccer/futbol is massively popular in other tangents in the world but is considered a fringe sport in America.

[TMC1982]

Bob Hunter of the Columbus Dispatch points directly at Versus (http://dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2009/05/12/hunter_5-12.ART_ART_05-12-09_C1_S0DR71Q.html?sid=101) as to why the NHL is irrelevant.

Craig Custance of the Sporting News talks with NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=548140) about a bunch of topics including TV ratings and not going back on ESPN.

I'm tired of people arguing that the NHL would be better off being on ESPN now a days as opposed to Versus. People need to understand that the NHL was in a lose-lose situation. When ESPN gained the NBA package in 2002-03, the NHL instantly became an afterthough or redheaded stepchild. They reduced the number of regular season coverage and I believe, had a majority of the games relegated to being on ESPN2.

ESPN also has a reputation of not bothering doing a lot of highlights to sports that they don't have a personal stake in (like the NHL). Versus on the other hand, while not as big as ESPN, has been more willing to give more in-depth coverage to the NHL. Versus is basically buidling their channel/network around the NHL. Also, Versus isn't as bad as when the NHL was on SportsChannel America during the late 1980s-early 1990s. SportsChannel America was little more than a glorified regional sports outlet, that failed to build upon having the NHL.

And as previously mentioned before, ESPN pretty much gave the NHL a lowball offer in order to stay on their channel. It was as if, they were goading the NHL to go elsewhere (by throwing them a bone), without wanting to tell them directly.

[Hobbes829]

Canadians was simply been bread to embrace hockey. It's no different to how American's have been bread to embrace baseball (which some would otherwise view as being too slow and plodding). It's also how soccer/futbol is massively popular in other tangents in the world but is considered a fringe sport in America.
maybe so, but in cold weather, which canada has more of, hockey is far more prevalent.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Canadians was simply been bred to embrace hockey. It's no different to how American's have been bred to embrace baseball (which some would otherwise view as being too slow and plodding). It's also how soccer/futbol is massively popular in other tangents in the world but is considered a fringe sport in America.


This is true. A lot of is culture. As a basketball fan in a Canadian city, it's incredibly frustrating to see how everyone over 30 years of age basically pounds it into their kids about how they HAVE to like hockey. And when their kids grow up, they do it to theirs, and etc,.

Many people don't realize that they are often acting under the control of group mentality instead of "free" will.

[Hobbes829]

This is true. A lot of is culture. As a basketball fan in a Canadian city, it's incredibly frustrating to see how everyone over 30 years of age basically pounds it into their kids about how they HAVE to like hockey. And when their kids grow up, they do it to theirs, and etc,.

Many people don't realize that they are often acting under the control of group mentality instead of "free" will.
i think some people will go along with the group but i don't think they've sacrificed free will. You can pound something into somebody but there's very little to make me believe that you can force someone to like anything.

[bigddan11]

I'm tired of people arguing that the NHL would be better off being on ESPN now a days as opposed to Versus. People need to understand that the NHL was in a lose-lose situation. When ESPN gained the NBA package in 2002-03, the NHL instantly became an afterthough or redheaded stepchild. They reduced the number of regular season coverage and I believe, had a majority of the games relegated to being on ESPN2.

ESPN also has a reputation of not bothering doing a lot of highlights to sports that they don't have a personal stake in (like the NHL). Versus on the other hand, while not as big as ESPN, has been more willing to give more in-depth coverage to the NHL. Versus is basically building their channel/network around the NHL. Also, Versus isn't as bad as when the NHL was on SportsChannel America during the late 1980s-early 1990s. SportsChannel America was little more than a glorified regional sports outlet, that failed to build upon having the NHL.

And as previously mentioned before, ESPN pretty much gave the NHL a lowball offer in order to stay on their channel. It was as if, they were goading the NHL to go elsewhere (by throwing them a bone), without wanting to tell them directly.
You fail to understand why ESPN would have been better. Well, let me point out a few things for you.
1) ESPN aired at least 1 game a week. ESPN2 typically aired 4 games a week. They also had ABC air 1 game a week. Now, last time I checked, having 6 games a week on three networks more available than Versus was smart thinking for any company wanting to grow, even if it meant getting paid less (which would have still been more than the current Versus deal is worth). Heck, Versus typically only broadcasts a max of 4 games a week, until the playoffs, meaning they are giving the NHL less coverage than ESPN did. As for them broadcasting fewer games, I fail to see how cutting back from 10 games a week to 6 games a week to broadcast the NBA truly hurt the NHL when Versus only does 4 games a week. Also, the ABC deal was for a game every week whereas NBC only does 12 games in the regular season. Limiting the time on broadcast TV hurts the NHL even more than moving it from ESPN did.

2) ESPN had exclusive cable rights to the NHL. They have always shared the NBA with TNT. That right there silences your redheaded stepchild claim. ESPN was broadcasting the NHL on Tuesday and Thursday with a doubleheader. If a key game came Friday, then they would pick it up from a regional network and give it access on ESPN2. The NBA contract was for Friday nights, Sunday afternoons on ABC, and an occasional Sunday night, Monday night, or Wednesday night match. Right there shows ESPN was showing the NHL more often than the NBA, and while they spent more on the NBA, broadcasting was given more often to the NHL because of the exclusive cable rights deal. When it came to the playoffs, ESPN made sure every game was available, while Versus has to pick and choose which games to broadcast and didn't even start to join other series in progress until the second round this year. ESPN was always ready to switch over as soon as the first game ended and show bonus coverage as part of their NHL postgame show.

3) Last time I checked, Versus wasn't building their network around the NHL in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Last time I checked Versus had the Rodeo rights, WBC, and the Tour De France before the the NHL. They give these events more time than they do the NHL. They have also signed Mountain West, Big 12, Pac 10, and Ivy League Football and Mountain West Conference Basketball, all of which get pre and post game shows and usually get 5 hours of coverage (for football) instead of three. Versus doesn't air a nightly show on hockey while ESPN did (NHL Tonight), and ratings haven't been as good on Versus as they were on ESPN.

4) You mention highlights. Exactly what highlights does Versus show outside of their coverage? ESPN does as many hockey highlights now as they did when they had the contract on SportsCenter, but they showed more hockey highlights when they had the contract with NHL Tonight, which was shown four times a day.

Now yes, the NHL was in a lose-lose situation, but that was because of the stupidity of their owners and players going on strike. When they went on strike, they forced ESPN to find additional entertainment. It cost ESPN and Disney a lot of money to create original entertainment while paying the NHL for being on strike. It's no wonder they wanted to pay less for a sport that was 1) losing ratings, 2) had cost them money, and 3) would be spliting time with the NBA, NFL, and MLB. Still, the NHL Draft would be on one of the ESPN Networks if they had left it there, there would be more games available, and more people would have a chance to watch the games without having to pay the NHL to put them online (thanks to ESPN360). The NHL would be better off on the ESPN family, and the facts back that up. Nothing you feel can skew the truth behind the numbers.

[Jeff Harris]

Why has the NHL traditionally done poorly in the United States on television?

Simple. It doesn't draw in urban, midwestern, and southern viewers, and the League hasn't even tried. Sure, you can say that they tried to reach midwestern and southern viewers by putting teams in markets like Miami, Atlanta, Nashville, and in North Carolina. However, the thing is that in those markets, the NHL has to compete with the end of the high school and college football season and the entire college basketball season, the end and beginning of the NASCAR season (yeah, NASCAR is huge in this country and still growing), the NBA, the NFL, and the MLB postseason.

Although the League has made a lot of in-roads with minorities in the sport in recent years, there's no breakthrough person of color nor a Tiger Woods-like personality in the NHL that urban audiences can look up to or root for.

I do find it funny that people in this thread say that Americans don't like hockey because they don't low-scoring games, especially considering baseball is still considered our national pastine. Baseball can go on and on until somebody scores or nobody breaks the tie.

[dark knight acolyte]

That is a very stupid statement. All pro sports take immense amount of skill to play. Why don't you go play even a charity game let's see how long you last:shrug:

Not to mention that anything, from sports to all complex things, are elementary when broken down to their rudimentary parts or purpose. It's in the finer points that the artistry or complexity of things, hockey included, must be appreciated.

Some people get it. Some take a more shallow perspective. No offense intended there, either. Literally, just a more shallow analysis.



ONE PLACE the league is thriving is in the local markets of its more successful franchise cities. The local broadcasts have been explosively high-rated.

[Burgundy Ranger]

One thing that's a real killer is that NBC will go three straight Saturdays without a playoff game.

Last week, it was the Players Championship golf. This week, it's the Preakness. Next week, it's SENIOR GOLF.

The NHL has its biggest showcase of a series in at least 20 years and the best they can do is get one game on U.S. network TV.

[bigddan11]

One thing that's a real killer is that NBC will go three straight Saturdays without a playoff game.

Last week, it was the Players Championship golf. This week, it's the Preakness. Next week, it's SENIOR GOLF.

The NHL has its biggest showcase of a series in at least 20 years and the best they can do is get one game on U.S. network TV.
Not only that, but the NHL makes very poor choices when it comes to playoff coverage of hockey. For example, Game 7 of Boston and Carolina will only be available in its entirety on NHL Center Ice if you live outside the Boston and Carolina areas. The NHL spent money to create the NHL Network, and it may not be in as many households as even Versus is, but its probably more accessible than NHL Center Ice, which you have to order via PPV. This is a Game 7 for the right to face Pittsburgh in the Eastern Finals. You know Pittsburgh fans will be interested in the result because if Carolina wins, they host the Eastern Finals, but if Boston wins, then they head on the road. Yet, the only way they can catch this game is via PPV until Detroit/ Anaheim ends? What if Detroit/ Anaheim ends up going into OT? Then people won't get to see the game at all unless you have access to FS Carolinas or NESN. The NHL really needs to get another cable partner so the playoffs can be shown in their entirety if they want the game to gain momentum instead of relying on Versus to join it in progress.

[bigddan11]

One thing that's a real killer is that NBC will go three straight Saturdays without a playoff game.

Last week, it was the Players Championship golf. This week, it's the Preakness. Next week, it's SENIOR GOLF.

The NHL has its biggest showcase of a series in at least 20 years and the best they can do is get one game on U.S. network TV.
Well there is no game this Saturday for them to broadcast seeing as the Conference Finals don't start until Sunday, but they are broadcasting two Sunday afternoon games during the Red Wings Ducks series. Since the regular season broadcast was basically once a week, I don't see how this is any different, though frankly they could broadcast those Saturday night games without interferring with their current sports programming on Saturday.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

i think some people will go along with the group but i don't think they've sacrificed free will. You can pound something into somebody but there's very little to make me believe that you can force someone to like anything.

Some people "like" being part of "the group." Thus, they will "like" what the group likes. True, they aren't "forced" to like a particular sport or thing, but their motivations for liking something stem from other issues rather than true joy for the sport itself.

Anyway, most people on the internet are probably not in this group of people. "Groupies" are too busy trying to "fit in" and watching "Friends" to spend time voicing opinions on the internet, so we rarely hear from them.

[Burgundy Ranger]

Since the regular season broadcast was basically once a week, I don't see how this is any different, though frankly they could broadcast those Saturday night games without interferring with their current sports programming on Saturday.
Because it's the PLAYOFFS. They started out with two weeks of two-day coverage (Flyers-Pens and Rangers-Caps) which seemed like a decent precedent.

But as the games get bigger, NBC's presence gets smaller. There was a scenario ready for the conference finals to start Friday. But three 7-game series took care of that.

My placement of fault is not on NBC. It's sqaurely at the feet of the NHL, for accepting and now being underserved by accepting the craptacular TV deals it currently holds.