Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-06-2019, 11:57 AM
Trom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,556
Hockey rinks per capita by state. Also consider, this is just indoor rinks. I grew up playing hockey in rural Minnesota. My town had an indoor rink and two outdoor rinks. It has to be below freezing for long stretches of time to maintain outdoor ice, and even a little further south it isn't feasible. Hockey is popular in places where it's easy to play and there's a strong culture surrounding it. That doesn't exist in most of the US.

NHL players by state of birth

Last edited by Trom; 11-06-2019 at 12:01 PM.
  #52  
Old 11-06-2019, 12:15 PM
Balance is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 8,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
There are six rinks? I would have guessed fewer. And at least two of those are related to the Stars (local Dallas NHL team).
I may have actually undercounted, because there are multiple facilities with variations of "Starcenter" as their name. Google's insistence on including roller rinks in the result further confuses matters. In the interest of correcting the exaggeration in my previous post:

2 x Children's Health Starcenter
Starcenter
Starcenter McKinney
Starcenter Community Ice Rink
Richardson Stars Center
Allen Community Ice Rink
Comerica Center (This is an arena with a Stars practice rink. Not sure if the rink is ever open to the public.)
Galleria Ice Skating Center
Nytex Sports Center
ICE at The Parks
Panther Island Ice (Outdoor rink open only from late November through late January.)
Classic Holiday Ice Rink Rentals (Which is a weird one. They rent portable "ice rinks" with plastic "ice".)

I think that's an exhaustive list, so there are 12 in the metroplex. (Not counting the rental place, which I don't think factors in a discussion of hockey exposure.) Some may not be open to the public, and one is closed all but 2 months of the year, but there's somewhere around 1.5 accessible rinks per million people. That doesn't make for a lot of opportunity to get hands-on with hockey.
  #53  
Old 11-06-2019, 12:24 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balance View Post
I think that's an exhaustive list, so there are 12 in the metroplex. (Not counting the rental place, which I don't think factors in a discussion of hockey exposure.) Some may not be open to the public, and one is closed all but 2 months of the year, but there's somewhere around 1.5 accessible rinks per million people. That doesn't make for a lot of opportunity to get hands-on with hockey.
And all that spread out over about 9300 square miles. I can't imagine that it's not a massive undertaking for a DFW kid to play youth hockey.
  #54  
Old 11-06-2019, 02:29 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Witt View Post
Look at the stats. Fighting numbers have been in a steady decline for years. Cite from last year.

The main thing is that hockey translates terribly to TV. But, if you get people out to see live action hockey they get hooked.
This is my opinion as well. I LOVE going to hockey games, but you can't follow that little puck very well on television, even with HD. The same issue occurs in baseball, but at least you know where the ball is going 85% of the time - towards the plate. Even then, you have all kinds of TV imagery to show where the ball crossed the plate, the strike zone, and the path of the ball for replays.
  #55  
Old 11-06-2019, 02:37 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,904
Individual games are nearly meaningless. Winning or losing a particular game doesn’t matter until in, or at least near, playoffs.
  #56  
Old 11-06-2019, 09:45 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
This is my opinion as well. I LOVE going to hockey games, but you can't follow that little puck very well on television, even with HD. The same issue occurs in baseball, but at least you know where the ball is going 85% of the time - towards the plate. Even then, you have all kinds of TV imagery to show where the ball crossed the plate, the strike zone, and the path of the ball for replays.
This as well.

It is probably good to go to a hockey arena or stadium and watch a game, instead of watching it on TV.

You cannot see the puck.

You can see the football.
You can see the basketball.
You can see the soccer ball.
You can see the baseball.

Also, not to cause any controversy, but the game of hockey is overwhelmingly white. Other than Evander Kane and PK Subban, not much black hockey players are well-known.

The game may be isolated towards America because of the diversity thing.
  #57  
Old 11-06-2019, 10:04 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by racepug View Post
I have a hard time believing that baseball typically has "20 minutes of action" packed into 3 hours.
I am not sure if you meant it should have more or less than 20 minutes.

Baseball: 18 minutes of action per game.
NFL Football: 11 minutes of action per game.

Hockey and Basketball at least are constant action with the exception of time-outs and commercial breaks.

IMHO Hockey has not flourished as much as the other three top sports due to limited television coverage - maybe one game per week nationally televised, and less advertising dollars, compared to the other sports. The two are dependent on one another, and I think have high impact to hockey's popularity and general awareness outside cities that have a team. Also, as stated, the difficulty of casually watching the game on TV (being at a game in-person is great, tho!).
  #58  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:01 AM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
Also, not to cause any controversy, but the game of hockey is overwhelmingly white. Other than Evander Kane and PK Subban, not much black hockey players are well-known.

The game may be isolated towards America because of the diversity thing.
It's true that the NHL player base is very white, though I suspect that, if the lack of diversity does play a role in the sport's comparatively low popularity in the U.S., it's probably not among the biggest drivers. I strongly suspect that some of the other factors listed in this thread (e.g., relatively few Americans ever play the sport themselves, the sport traditionally had only been popular in certain regions in the U.S., lower TV exposure for the sport in the U.S., particularly in the past) play substantially bigger roles.

Also, a big factor in the NHL's lack of players of color is where hockey players come from. This page shows the breakdown on NHL players from last season -- 44% are from Canada, a country with a substantially lower percentage of black citizens (about 3%) than in the U.S., in addition, about 30% of the NHL's players are European, mostly from Scandanavian, Germanic, and Slavic countries, which also have comparatively low black populations.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 11-07-2019 at 02:03 AM.
  #59  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:13 AM
pulykamell is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 48,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowthx View Post
I am not sure if you meant it should have more or less than 20 minutes.
I love baseball, but I was also wondering whether the poster thought that estimate was too high or too low.
  #60  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:37 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
This is a common refrain but is in defiance of the facts and common sense:

1. Fighting in hockey is WAY down. There is far, far less fighting in hockey than there used to be; it's now a fairly unusual event, and it basically never happens in the playoffs, and yet hockey hasn't become substantially more popular.

2. The idea that Americans won't love sports with fighting and violence is bizarrely at odds with the plain facts. People love sports where fighting is the literal entire sport, like MMA and boxing. They even love professional wrestling where people just PRETEND to fight.

3. There just is not any real evidence fighting inhibits the sports' popularity. No one has been able to find a cohort of sports fans who would like hockey if not for the fighting.
They'll never get it. Hockey is a full contact sport. You can break a guy's back with a legal check, blind guys with high stick, slice their face open with an errant skate, but a little fist fight between guys slipping around on the ice is the violence that scares the powers that be... at the TV networks. That's who cared about the fighting. Hockey had a hard enough time getting network coverage, the whole league depends on that revenue. So right about the time hockey was about to consider 'goon' an official position, they went along with the networks and turned the sport into a version of the Ice Capades.

Last edited by TriPolar; 11-07-2019 at 10:37 AM.
  #61  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:44 AM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
Individual games are nearly meaningless. Winning or losing a particular game doesn’t matter until in, or at least near, playoffs.
I've been telling myself (and others) that for YEARS (although a strong argument can be made that individual regular season games mean a LOT more in the N.F.L. than they do in other North American professional sports leagues).
  #62  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:56 AM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by racepug View Post
I've been telling myself (and others) that for YEARS (although a strong argument can be made that individual regular season games mean a LOT more in the N.F.L. than they do in other North American professional sports leagues).
Absolutely so. One game in the NFL is 6.25% of the total season (16 games); one game in the NHL or NBA (which both play 82-game schedules) is 1.2% of their season, and one game in MLB (162 game schedule) is 0.6% of the season.

So, as far as net impact on a team's success, one NFL game is about 5 times more important than one NHL or NBA game, and about 10 times more important than one MLB game.
  #63  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:46 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
Absolutely so. One game in the NFL is 6.25% of the total season (16 games); one game in the NHL or NBA (which both play 82-game schedules) is 1.2% of their season, and one game in MLB (162 game schedule) is 0.6% of the season.

So, as far as net impact on a team's success, one NFL game is about 5 times more important than one NHL or NBA game, and about 10 times more important than one MLB game.
This is why NFL “power rankings” come out every week, and a team that’s considered near the top might suddenly be considered mediocre or even bad after a single loss, or suddenly great.
  #64  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:08 PM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
They'll never get it. Hockey is a full contact sport. You can break a guy's back with a legal check, blind guys with high stick, slice their face open with an errant skate, but a little fist fight between guys slipping around on the ice is the violence that scares the powers that be... at the TV networks. That's who cared about the fighting. Hockey had a hard enough time getting network coverage, the whole league depends on that revenue. So right about the time hockey was about to consider 'goon' an official position, they went along with the networks and turned the sport into a version of the Ice Capades.
And it's a better sport for it. Fighting was a waste of time, really. I want to see good hockey players play hockey.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #65  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:11 PM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
Absolutely so. One game in the NFL is 6.25% of the total season (16 games); one game in the NHL or NBA (which both play 82-game schedules) is 1.2% of their season, and one game in MLB (162 game schedule) is 0.6% of the season.

So, as far as net impact on a team's success, one NFL game is about 5 times more important than one NHL or NBA game, and about 10 times more important than one MLB game.
Well, sure, but that doesn't at all explain why basketball has more fans than hockey in the USA; the season is exactly the same length, and exactly the same number of teams make the playoffs. Nor does it explain why baseball, with fewer playoff teams but twice as many games, still ranks above hockey. It's not the length of the season.

It doesn't really explain the NFL, either. The NFL has more important individual games, yes, but then it always did, and was not as big a deal as it is now until the 1960s. What put football on top was their understanding of the importance of TV.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #66  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:14 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
And it's a better sport for it. Fighting was a waste of time, really. I want to see good hockey players play hockey.
I'm with you 100%. If I want to see guys slugging it out I'll watch MMA or boxing.
  #67  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:17 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulykamell View Post
I love baseball, but I was also wondering whether the poster thought that estimate was too high or too low.
For the record, my earlier comment was meant to suggest that 20 minutes seemed too high. I'm a little surprised that baseball has more "action" than football does but that doesn't change my mind, at all, about which sport I prefer.
  #68  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:20 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Well, sure, but that doesn't at all explain why basketball has more fans than hockey in the USA; the season is exactly the same length, and exactly the same number of teams make the playoffs. Nor does it explain why baseball, with fewer playoff teams but twice as many games, still ranks above hockey. It's not the length of the season.
No, it doesn't; I had posted that in reply to the tangent, started by isosleepy, who said "Individual games are nearly meaningless," and racepug, noting that he generally agreed, but not in the case of the NFL.

In my post, I had neglected to follow through with the point you've made (and with which I agree) that season length / meaningfulness of individual games isn't a distingushing factor for hockey, and thus, probably not a reason why it is comparatively less popular.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 11-07-2019 at 04:22 PM.
  #69  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:23 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
Absolutely so. One game in the NFL is 6.25% of the total season (16 games); one game in the NHL or NBA (which both play 82-game schedules) is 1.2% of their season, and one game in MLB (162 game schedule) is 0.6% of the season.

So, as far as net impact on a team's success, one NFL game is about 5 times more important than one NHL or NBA game, and about 10 times more important than one MLB game.
Not only that, look at the net effect that the result of a single game, such as last Sunday's Baltimore win over N.E., can have. Now all the Ravens have to do is draw even with the Patriots by the end of the season and they, and not N.E., will have home field advantage. On the basis of ONE regular season meeting between the two teams. You sure can't say that very often (if ever) about any other professional sports league on this continent.
  #70  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:29 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowthx View Post
Baseball: 18 minutes of action per game.
NFL Football: 11 minutes of action per game.

Hockey and Basketball at least are constant action with the exception of time-outs and commercial breaks.
I always hate those articles because they basically define action as "ball in play," implying that nothing else is going on in between. But a basketball player slowly dribbling his way to half court counts as "action."

I think hockey almost has too much action for such a low scoring game. I've said this before but the main reason I like baseball and football is you can visibly see progression towards scoring. Moving down the field or getting runners on base. Compared to hockey where you have 30 shots on the goal per game but only getting 3 points. So much is going on all the time that I can't tell what's actually important.
  #71  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:56 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by racepug View Post
Not only that, look at the net effect that the result of a single game, such as last Sunday's Baltimore win over N.E., can have. Now all the Ravens have to do is draw even with the Patriots by the end of the season and they, and not N.E., will have home field advantage. On the basis of ONE regular season meeting between the two teams. You sure can't say that very often (if ever) about any other professional sports league on this continent.
Unless it’s the Seattle Mariners and they fall one game short of making the playoffs, which they seemed to do every year.

Be just good enough to have bad draft position but not good enough to be that relevant late in the year.
  #72  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:03 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,156
As for why ice hockey doesn't capture the imagination with people the way football, baseball, and basketball do? I have no idea, but maybe one clue is that the N.H.L. was confined to the upper Midwest/Northeast (and Canada) for nearly 50 years. The sport seems that it's a "natural" for those parts of the country; not so much in other places. I mean, do you think that Olympic ice hockey is covered/talked about much in places like Central or South America, Africa, Asia, or Oceania?
  #73  
Old 11-07-2019, 08:53 PM
RealityChuck's Avatar
RealityChuck is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 42,942
Going back to the six-team NHL days, hockey was extremely popular. They sold out the building for every game. But it was a small percentage of the city's population; it didn't have the attendance boxing had (pre-NBA) and the NBA quickly surpassed it. There is also little hockey infrastructure in the US, and the need to run the zambonis between periods -- adding 40 minutes to the length of the game -- made too many dead sports for TV. Plus it wasn't easy to follow the puck.

After expansion, it was still popular, but the NBA and college basketball surpassed it (I'm not counting football and baseball, which were less of a competition).

Hockey is not a big college sport outside of Minnesota and Boston, and most colleges don't have a varsity hockey team, meaning people don't see it. High school hockey is even more limited.

So hockey in the US is too obscure for most fans.
__________________
"If a person saying he was something was all there was to it, this country'd be full of rich men and good-looking women. Too bad it isn't that easy.... In short, when someone else says you're a writer, that's when you're a writer... not before."
Purveyor of fine science fiction since 1982.
  #74  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:20 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,730
Good thread, and I agree with a lot of what's been said including fighting becoming almost non-existent.

One thing I wanted to mention about the puck being hard to follow, it really isn't. If you grew up watching hockey, or if you became a fan later and started watching many games, you'll find out that you don't really follow the puck. That is, you know instinctively where the puck is by the way the play is developing. You don't stare at the black dot during the game. Does that make sense?
  #75  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:28 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
Going back to the six-team NHL days, hockey was extremely popular. They sold out the building for every game. But it was a small percentage of the city's population; it didn't have the attendance boxing had (pre-NBA) and the NBA quickly surpassed it.
Just to build on this:

The NHL only had six teams until the '66-'67 season; thus, there were only four U.S. cities which had an NHL team: Boston, New York, Detroit, and Chicago. (The other two teams in the "Original Six" were in Toronto and Montreal.)

The NHL began expanding at that point, and then absorbed several teams from the defunct WHA in the 1970s. But, up until the 1990s, there had been only one southern team (the Atlanta Flames, which wound up moving to Calgary in 1980), and only one team west of St. Louis and Minneapolis (the Los Angeles Kings).

In other words, hockey remained a sport with a regional appeal for decades after the other three big pro team sports had become national.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 11-07-2019 at 10:28 PM.
  #76  
Old 11-07-2019, 11:43 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
Just to build on this:

The NHL only had six teams until the '66-'67 season; thus, there were only four U.S. cities which had an NHL team: Boston, New York, Detroit, and Chicago. (The other two teams in the "Original Six" were in Toronto and Montreal.)

The NHL began expanding at that point, and then absorbed several teams from the defunct WHA in the 1970s. But, up until the 1990s, there had been only one southern team (the Atlanta Flames, which wound up moving to Calgary in 1980), and only one team west of St. Louis and Minneapolis (the Los Angeles Kings).

In other words, hockey remained a sport with a regional appeal for decades after the other three big pro team sports had become national.
Thank you. That was my point, exactly.
  #77  
Old 11-07-2019, 11:56 PM
Gatopescado is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 22,671
No enough fighting.
  #78  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:33 AM
Trom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
Good thread, and I agree with a lot of what's been said including fighting becoming almost non-existent.

One thing I wanted to mention about the puck being hard to follow, it really isn't. If you grew up watching hockey, or if you became a fan later and started watching many games, you'll find out that you don't really follow the puck. That is, you know instinctively where the puck is by the way the play is developing. You don't stare at the black dot during the game. Does that make sense?
I agree regarding following the puck on TV. I'm pretty sure I could look at an individual still frame with no puck and be able to guess where the puck was. That said, I understand that is because I've been exposed to hockey my whole life.

Much of the world could probably do the same looking at a soccer game, and I wouldn't have a clue.
  #79  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:39 PM
Limmin's Avatar
Limmin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
When I was growing up, hockey was only played in the northern U.S. and in Canada - basically in the places where kids would have grown up with ice skates and skated (and played hockey) on icy ponds in the winter.

While it's been quite some time since hockey moved to the more temperate climes in the U.S. (not to mention the downright hot climes ), it takes more time than one would think for a spectator sport to really take root with a fan base.
This. I think this gets at the heart of this issue. How can people be interested in a sport if there is no way to participate in it? Anyone can buy a football, baseball and mitt or soccer ball and start playing. To do hockey you need skates, stick, pads (knee pads at least) and .... ice.

Not everyone lives near a rink, and most of the US is simply too warm to have outdoor ice, even in the winter.
  #80  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:49 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Limmin View Post
This. I think this gets at the heart of this issue. How can people be interested in a sport if there is no way to participate in it?
Well, to be fair, one can become a fan of a sport even if you've never played it. I've become a rugby fan in the past few years, and I've never played the sport; I know several people who are huge fans of sports like baseball or football, but due to disabilities, have never actually been able to play the sports themselves.

But, I do suspect that, broadly speaking, there's a relationship between sports that one follows as a fan, and that one has played (even casually).
  #81  
Old 11-08-2019, 01:12 PM
Spoons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 18,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Limmin View Post
This. I think this gets at the heart of this issue. How can people be interested in a sport if there is no way to participate in it? Anyone can buy a football, baseball and mitt or soccer ball and start playing. To do hockey you need skates, stick, pads (knee pads at least) and .... ice.
Not necessarily. Generations of kids in Canada played some sort of hockey without ever strapping on skates and getting on the ice. Simple, basic, and inexpensive sticks (compared to what the pros use, anyway) are available in any sporting goods store, and all you need after that is a ball of some sort, and something to delineate a goal. Then, you can play anywhere: the schoolyard, an empty parking lot, or a quiet residential street (hence the name "road hockey"). No ice, skates, helmets or pads necessary.

There are a number of other forms of games where the object is to use a stick to put an object in a goal, none of which use ice or skates, but all of which resemble hockey. I remember playing something called cosom hockey in the gym at elementary school, and floor hockey in the gym at high school. Another variation is ringette--hockey sticks with the blades cut off, where you try to put a ring of some sort (we used an old car air filter) into the goal. And then there's broomball, as well: brooms, not sticks, and a ball the size of a dodgeball, but broomball is recognizably a hockey-like game. None of the above absolutely require ice or skates, and can be played in a gym, though ringette and broomball can be played on ice also.

Participating in hockey is surprisingly easy and inexpensive if you can get away from the "requires skates and pads and ice" mindset.
  #82  
Old 11-08-2019, 01:19 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,590
I played touch and tackle football a handful of times as a kid, informally, with friends/classmates in elementary school. That’s my only playing experience.

I played soccer for a number of years in a formal setting, up to and including high school.

I played quite a bit of baseball as a kid, informally (neighborhood games) and was usually the pitcher because nobody else could pitch even close to a strike zone.

Ironically for me, I follow sports to the inverse of my participation. I’m mostly a football fan, casually a baseball fan, and very rarely catch a pro soccer match. (I may have watched a half dozen soccer matches ever in my entire lifetime.)

I guess that there are sports I play and sports I watch, and they are mutually exclusive.
  #83  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:00 PM
jz78817 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
Not necessarily. Generations of kids in Canada played some sort of hockey without ever strapping on skates and getting on the ice. Simple, basic, and inexpensive sticks (compared to what the pros use, anyway) are available in any sporting goods store, and all you need after that is a ball of some sort, and something to delineate a goal. Then, you can play anywhere: the schoolyard, an empty parking lot, or a quiet residential street (hence the name "road hockey"). No ice, skates, helmets or pads necessary.

There are a number of other forms of games where the object is to use a stick to put an object in a goal, none of which use ice or skates, but all of which resemble hockey. I remember playing something called cosom hockey in the gym at elementary school, and floor hockey in the gym at high school. Another variation is ringette--hockey sticks with the blades cut off, where you try to put a ring of some sort (we used an old car air filter) into the goal. And then there's broomball, as well: brooms, not sticks, and a ball the size of a dodgeball, but broomball is recognizably a hockey-like game. None of the above absolutely require ice or skates, and can be played in a gym, though ringette and broomball can be played on ice also.

Participating in hockey is surprisingly easy and inexpensive if you can get away from the "requires skates and pads and ice" mindset.
floor hockey was my favorite part of gym class in grade school.
  #84  
Old 11-09-2019, 12:55 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,510
I agree with Leaffan that you can still watch and enjoy hockey without following the puck - just by watching the players as plays develop. They are drawn to the puck like magnets. However, this sort of viewing is a skill and I would gather casual viewers not knowing much about the game (2-line pass, icing, offside, etc.), on top of the quick pace of play, are going to lose patience swiftly.

As for not having access to a rink or not actually playing organized hockey, as Spoons says, my father grew up in Brooklyn and played street hockey with the neighborhood kids. Generations of New Yorkers got exposed to hockey this way and became rabid Rangers fans as a result. Having a hometown team is a big boost to hockey awareness.

But, as others are saying, the regional nature of the sport, limited league play at early ages and high school and college, and limited TV exposure seem to keep hockey on a lower tier than other sports. That doesn't make it less important, in my mind, since the traditions around the Stanley Cup exceed anything the other sports have.

All that said, soccer is easily available to kids of all ages, in any city. However, something seems to happen around high school and college where interest seems to wane, and for some reason it never seems to have caught-on at a professional level the way baseball, basketball, and football have. I know MLS has been making inroads with expansion and TV exposure - but it still seems to be behind the big-3.
  #85  
Old 11-09-2019, 02:14 PM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,810
The relationship between sport participation and fandom is not really that firm. Soccer is a huge participation sport in the USA and Canada, but is a B-level professional sport.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #86  
Old 11-11-2019, 02:47 AM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,951
Maybe they could try putting a light or something on the puck?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kopek View Post
But you have to admit, even here its a secondary subject and more around certain circles of people. Your General Issue person may not be able to name any player except maybe Sid. And most people have no idea Mario isn't still playing.

In other words I agree with the OP mostly and I always wrote it off to the wide range of climate here in the US and hockey only catching in with youth leagues and schools nationwide (note that world before hitting reply and frying my ass) lately. For those of us say over 30 we can talk baseball or football or basketball with anyone from anywhere because we grew up not just watching but playing as well. Hockey? Around us high school teams didn't show up until the 70s and even then they were rare. 1974 when I played the entire WPIAL roster was like 6 schools? PeeWee and such was maybe the 90s? Give it another 20 years and then grab a ouija board and let me know how it worked out.
Well, like I said, the Steelers will always be at the top, but the Penguins aren't that far behind.*

And I remember when I was in high school, because THOSE were the days of Mario and Jagr, (I was in 7th and 8th grade when we won our first 2 Cups)

Maybe I just have a lot of hockey fans in my family. (My cousin used to play for the Penguins youth hockey affiliate)


*Either way, they BOTH get more attention than the Pirates -- fuck Bob Nutting.
  #87  
Old 11-11-2019, 05:41 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Maybe they could try putting a light or something on the puck?
They did just that: FoxTrax

Here is a sample.

The FoxTrax system was widely criticized by hockey fans, who felt that the graphics were distracting and meant to make the broadcasts cater towards casual viewers; sportswriter Greg Wyshynski stated that FoxTrax was "cheesy enough that it looked like hockey by way of a Mighty Morphin Power Rangers production budget", and considered it "a sad commentary on what outsiders thought of both hockey and American hockey fans". Acknowledging that Canadian-born journalist Peter Jennings (who was interviewed as a guest during the 1996 All-Star Game that introduced the technology) stated on-air that Canadians would "probably hate it", Wyshynski suggested that FoxTrax was an admission that American viewers were "too hockey-stupid to follow the play" or "need to be distracted by shiny new toys in order to watch the sport."

I remember this because I worked at the company that developed the technology (but in another area).

Last edited by snowthx; 11-11-2019 at 05:41 PM.
  #88  
Old 11-11-2019, 05:45 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowthx View Post
They did just that: FoxTrax

Here is a sample.

The FoxTrax system was widely criticized by hockey fans, who felt that the graphics were distracting and meant to make the broadcasts cater towards casual viewers; sportswriter Greg Wyshynski stated that FoxTrax was "cheesy enough that it looked like hockey by way of a Mighty Morphin Power Rangers production budget", and considered it "a sad commentary on what outsiders thought of both hockey and American hockey fans". Acknowledging that Canadian-born journalist Peter Jennings (who was interviewed as a guest during the 1996 All-Star Game that introduced the technology) stated on-air that Canadians would "probably hate it", Wyshynski suggested that FoxTrax was an admission that American viewers were "too hockey-stupid to follow the play" or "need to be distracted by shiny new toys in order to watch the sport."

I remember this because I worked at the company that developed the technology (but in another area).
Whooooosh!!!!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017