In my opinion, those are all perfectly valid reasons storyteller0910. In fact I have said that to my friends when they have asked why hockey is not more popular, it is the lack of breaks in action. During football breaks, for example, you have the ability to arm-chair quarterback it and talk about what plays you would run in a certain team’s position; or why you would not have done what they did on a previous play. Those types of conversations during a game can really enhance the viewing experience, and it can add to the bonding that takes place during a sporting event.
In hockey, it takes someone who really understands the game to break it down like that, and even then you rarely have the time to do so. The fluidity and creativity of the players are more instrumental to the outcome in hockey, so things like coaching strategy do not have as much of an impact when compared to the other big sports. Mistakes and brilliant plays can fly under the radar more often because 30 seconds later they may not even matter as the game evolves; but in other sports mistakes or brilliant plays often mean your making the highlight reel.
I loved playing hockey as a kid, because we lived near a pond and all the kids would help shovel it off after a freeze, spray water from the utility hose to make it slick, and in an hour we were carving it up with a frenzy of hocky stops and turns.
But all spectator sports are dull to my taste. Like be forced to watch instead of play when the big kids arrived and took over.
When I first started watching hockey in 1986, I could understand the frustration that you might not be able to see a 6 oz. piece of frozen rubber being propelled up to a speed of 100 mph, creating a force that can kill a person and yet elude fans. The trick to know where the puck is is to watch the players themselves…the puck-carrier trying to split the defensemen to get a decent shot on the goalie is really no different than a football being tucked under the arm of a running back trying to out-maneuver the secondary in football. You really don’t need to see the ball (puck), you just need to learn to uncannily identify the player with ball (puck) by the way he moves against the defense. Passing…same way…a little faster than football, but you should be quite able to identify the passer and the receiver.
Another thing about hockey players…they are tough. Sometimes, one hit changes the whole game. I only have to go to yesterdays Sharks v. Flames game where a big hit led to a retaliation to a power play to a goal to the beginning of a come from behind win.
But sometimes a big hit can inspire a comeback of a personal kind.
I could go on and on…but I think you get the point.
Personally, I think the sport of Hockey has a conglomeration of the best things seen in other sports and more:
The hitting and all out sprint speed in football.
The quick passing and cycling for a shot in basketball.
The timely hitting and clutch catches in baseball.
Penalty shot in soccer.
Bonuses? Plenty of them:
Special teams play…a clutch power play goal with less than a minute left to tie the game.
Killing a 5-3 power play and then scoring a goal after killing it.
Killing a 6-3 (goalie pulled near the end) to preserve the win.
Seen them all…live…and I’ve seen live football, baseball, and basketball…sorry…they just can’t compare.
Come to Alberta when the Oilers and/or Flames are in the playoffs, and see if you don’t change your assessment of the situation. Heck, I like hockey, but I’m getting tired of all-hockey-all-the-time in my local sports bar, which like all local sports bars, is packed with hockey fans cheering on their team in the playoffs right now. If hockey is not too popular, nobody told these folks. I know you were talking about the state of hockey in the US, but had to mention that hockey is far from dying up here.
Oh, and Bob Baun was mentioned above? He did score a goal on a broken ankle, but it wasn’t a Cup winning goal. Rather, his goal won the game that tied the series at three games apiece and forced a Game 7, which the Leafs won. BTW, it was in 1964.
I had a friend in college, oh about 1987 or so, who REALLY NEEDED to watch some hockey playoff game. Since I was the only one in my section of the dorm who sprang for cable TV, he begged, pleaded me to allow him to watch this Saturday night game.
It was the overtime game between the NY Islanders and the Washington Capitals, an overtime that went a full 69 minutes. Apparently, looking at Wiki, the damn game was given its own name… the Easter Epic.
Epic? Sure. Whatever. Boring? Definitely!
The next day I went to church and asked God for forgiveness for all my sins for I had apparently pissed the old boy off to no end!
I’ve been to games. Both the Icecaps and the Hurricanes. Every time, it was like watching a bunch of guys skating up and down the ice, stopping only when the disembodied voice calls out “ICING!!” or “OFFSIDES”.
I once said that to me Hockey and Baseball are polar opposites. In baseball, there’s not much action, but there’s a lot going on. In hockey, there’s a lot of action, but not much going on.
Hockey is a great game that does not translate to TV well. Go to a live game and then slam it. It is a fast paced ,rough game.
It also is pretty in real life. The ice is cool The uniforms are the best in sports.
Wow…begrudging hockey fans 5 minutes out of 30 during the first round of the NHL playoffs…all I can say is that it’s got to be a first for someone to say that ESPN has too much coverage of hockey.
Hey, all I can say is wait until next week, when they stuff the NBA playoffs down your throat 20 minutes per show…you won’t have to complain about hockey anymore!
If you need a disembodied voice to tell you that it’s an icing call, or an offside then you don’t know the game.
Also, if you can’t figure out where the puck is, you don’t know the game. I don’t watch the puck. I know where it is by following the play, as someone alluded to earlier, you don’t watch the damned football, you watch the players.
Hockey is the single most exciting sport to watch on TV. Nothing else comes close.
Baseball - A nice relaxing afternoon spectator sport to have on in the background.
Football - 7 seconds of play, followed by 45 seconds of nothing. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Basketball - Too many baskets! I can’t get interested until there’s one minute left and the (inevitible) score is 103 to 101.
Soccer - Too slow. Not enough scoring.
NASCAR - Put a brick on the accelerator and cable tie the steering wheel for left turns.
Formula 1 - Good. I like it. Especially since Schumacher retired.
Golf - Great sport to watch on TV for lazy Sunday afternoons. See Baseball above.
Hockey is typically edge of seat entertainment for me. There’s very little else I’d rather watch than playoff hockey. (And for those in the know, no Leaf comments please!)
Er… maybe hockey is dying out in Arizona. It certainly is not dying out in Canada, where it remains a sort of unofficial national religion.
If every single US-based team in the NHL were to go belly up tomorrow, the six Canadian teams would go happily marching on playing for the Stanley Cup, and would likely be joined by additional Canadian franchises. The popularity of the NHL, and the game in general, wouldn’t drop one bit. Might even improve.
The 4 largest metropolitan areas in Canada without a hockey team (as of 2006, from
Quebec CMA 715,515
Winnipeg Manitoba 694,668
Hamilton (Burlington) Ontario 692,911
London 457,720
Total 2,560,814
From a similar article (Metropolitan statistical area - Wikipedia),
roughly 50% of the population of the United States (we’ll estimate 150 million people) live in the top 40 metro areas.
2.560 million / 150 million = 1.7%, which is assuming that none of the people in the 4 Canadian cities support hockey.
OK, but what of it? You wouldn’t be able to pay, say, Alex Ovechkin $10 million a year to play hockey if there were no American franchises, but the surprising thing is that the salaries probably wouldn’t drop all that much. The six Canadian franchises provide a full one-third of the revenue of the NHL.
Well, given that out of 22,219,560 Canadians in 1972 (cite), 15,000,000 of them were tuned into one hockey game (cite, last paragraph), I’d say that would probably be an inaccurate assumption, especially with expansion into other Canadian markets post-1972. Have two-thirds of Americans ever watched one sports game at the same time?
Yeah, I’ve tried to watch hockey a few times, I don’t dig it. It’s a fast game, sure, but it’s like a basketball game where 98% of the attempts to score hit the bottom of the rim. It also bugs me that fighting is actually encouraged (by being permitted). This, to me, is antithetical to sport.
I will say that the players are great athletes and that the one live pro game I went to was much better. For some odd reason, there was a ton of great looking girls in the stands. Other than that, I’d rather watch curling.
