Now I admit I haven’t watched hardly any of it, but that’s because I dislike both teams (if Detroit and Buffalo had gotten in I’d be riveted). What is it about hockey exactly which doesn’t energize Americans? Too Canadian? Tiny puck on the screen? Rules too obtuse? No marquee names?
I think TPTB (NHL and ESPN both share blame) fumbled the ball when the Edmonton Oilers were dominating in the 80’s; if a hugely talented team like that, with one of the best all-time players (two really) can’t catch my fellow Americans’ attention, then there is no hope now I guess. Maybe if that kind of talent accumulated in LA or NY, yeah then maybe. But in the 1990 Finals I had to find a sports bar to watch them win their 5th Cup because no major cable or broadcast network wanted to pay for the rights.
I think it’s the markets of the SC finalists this year. Both relatively small, and as far as Americans watching a Canadian team in the finals, I just don’t think there’s much interest in Ottawa. Maybe the Leafs or Canadiens would draw some interest, but just not the Senators.
I also think it is that there’s no real marquee names. Plus, very, very, very, very, very poor marketing by the NHL and the networks. Americans don’t give a rip about hockey, because no ones told them to give a rip. We’re a very impressionable people, and easily marketable. Someone just needs to step up and tell us that we love hockey. Gary Bettman should give David Stern a call for some tips.
Well, it’s hard to like a sport you can’t play. Most Americans grew up playing football, basketball, baseball, and even soccer. However, most of the lower 48 never get sufficiently cold temperatures to freeze lakes. You could go to an ice rink, but that costs money every time, plus equipment you can only use there, plus actually getting people there. You can play street hockey if you have roller blades and sticks and pucks.
Or you can buy a 10$ football and play in your backyard. Not fair, but it’s true.
I have a theory, which I stole from smiling bandit, that Americans aren’t going to watch sports they don’t play. (Mind you, this theory does not explain the reverse, as in soccer.) American cities are an agglomeration of people from all places, and thus can find enough people to fill a stadium, but the people 200 miles from Atlanta, or Tampa, or L.A. couldn’t care less, and aren’t going to watch it on TV.
I believe the NHL would be better off to abandon the southern U.S., put teams back into the smaller metropolises, such as Winnipeg and Quebec, put new teams into places like Hamilton and Albany, and rely on local media money. Hockey will never crack the big three in the U.S. as a whole.
Yes, this may involve some loss of income, for all involved. But it’ll be more steady and stable, and everyone involved will still make a living.
(P.S. I’ve never seen street hockey played anywhere below the freeze line.)
Gosh, ** John **, I know Jacksonville is at the other end of the state but are there really no Lightning fans up there? Hockey is very big down in the Tampa Bay area. I’m not a big fan myself, but the few games I’ve been to have all been sold out.
For me personally, its the tiny, lightining fast puck- you have to really pay attention to see who has the puck, and the shots are so fast you usually can’t tell that someone has scored until the fans go nuts or the announcers confirms it. Its sort of anticlimactic- the excitement of seeing a score is part of the fun, and that is lessened when you usually can’t see it- guy fires a shot from 20 feet, where’s the puck? Oh, its in the net.
I don’t understand why you can’t follow the puck. Are you watching on a small screen?
I wish the NHL would realize that it is a regional sport. Though the last 2 champions were from warm climates, it’s essentially only popular in the northeast and Great Lakes. Many states have no high school hockey. Even here in Michigan , many but not most high schools have hockey teams. It’s a tremendously expensive sport for a school to put on so not many schools in the US, even in hockey country, can field a team. Few players = few fans.
So NHL, let’s get rid of about half the teams. South of the Ohio River and west of the Mississippi just aren’t fertile soil, give it up.
The NHL’s attempt to become a truly continental league was admirable but it’s largely been a failure. Hopefully, Nashville will be moved to western Ontario soon, where there are millions of hockey fans, and the success will prevail on the NHL to allow itself to become a more geographically limited (and perhaps smaller) league.
Hockey will be popular when the NHL replaces the best of seven Stanley Cup final with the one-game only STANLEY BOWL!
The game will have to take place on a Sunday in April at 6 pm (you know, when it’s still cold outside). Avril Lavigne will perform during the pre-game show, Beyoncé can sing/dance during between the first and second periods, and U2 will perform during the second break.
The players will not be allowed to grow those dumbass beards, and will have to make sure they are wearing all their teeth during public appearances/on the ice (Hello! America! Invented braces and teeth whitening! Only homeless people are missing teeth!).
I think the NHL had finally built up a good head of steam in the US and was rapidly gaining in popularity. Then they went on strike for a couple seasons and learned what Major League Baseball learned from 1994–The rabid crowd are quickly cured when millionaires who make a living playing a game start whining about their paychecks. Hockey’s hosed here for another 10 years. Possibly more if they don’t take a cue from the NFL and start giving the commentators amphetamines before the game and incorporate wild (if distracting) computer graphics into the broadcast.
Just my opinion here, but I agree with the fact that there’s less interest because fewer Americans have played it than other more popular sports. This is probably the reason the sport just hasn’t caught on in the south & west despite the berst efforts at promotion, and I think the NHL would be smart to realize that (for now) it is a regional sport and franchises like Atlanta and LA are albatrosses.
But I believe there are other reasons why the sport hasn’t caught on with a TV audience–which in this day and age is essential for the survival of a nationwide professional league. Hockey is just not a very TV friendly sport, and if I were the NHL comissioner and had unlimited authority to make changes, these are the 6 I would make immediately:
[ol]
[li]Reduce the intermission time. This could be accomplished in several ways, but personally I’d be for breaking the game into 4 15-minute periods with only enough time for a resurfacing between 1-2 and 3-4.[/li][li]Eliminate on-the-fly substitutions; I never know who the hell is on the ice half the time. Change players only at stoppages, and if necessary develop a rule whereby a player on the ice can initiate a stoppage automatically.[/li][li]Develop a better TV-timeout regimen. Right now I think there is only one scheduled per period (at the 10-minute mark). If it were me I’d mandate TV timeouts before any power play starts, but in general I’d be open to any ideas that allow more, shorter breaks in the action rather than long periods of action followed by long periods of inaction.[/li][li]Allow the linesmen to call penalties; it is utterly ridiculous that blantant penalties can occur directly in front of an official and nobody do anything about it.[/li][li]Change the way a period ends; if time expires while the puck is in an offensive zone, the period is not over until a goal is scored or the puck is cleared.[/li][/ol]
Purist would immediately balk at these changes, but basically they are intended to sacrifice some of the traditional “grind it out” endurance/marathon character of the sport for a TV audience more accustomed to watching sports in shorter chunks with plenty of opportunities to go to the bathroom/grab a beer. They’re also intended to develop more “last-minute/game-changing” possibilities, particularly in the way the period ends. Casual fans love this sort of stuff–it’s the reason the NBA lets a team take the ball out of bounds at mid-court if they call time out in the final seconds of a quarter.
I’m admittedly only a casual fan of the sport, and I’m not saying the above would be an acceptable compromise for full-fledged hockey fans, but even they have to realize their sport is in danger of dying if the ratings don’t improve. Many would no doubt not care and get their hockey fix somewhere else, but there are a lot more casual/semi-serious fans who wouldn’t bother. That would be a little sad, since I’ve seen some truly exciting sports moments watching hockey, and I personally think at least considering some of the changes above would help preserve that fan base.
I’m a hockey fan already, and I don’t think I’d watch that…
I think hockey has caught on as much as it was ever going to, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The salary cap was a necessity, and they need to control prices badly. Part of the appeal of hockey (and what hooked me) was actually seeing it live, and they have really priced the common fan - or potential new fan - out of the arena.
Do you think the ubiquitous fighting turns off many people? Sure, there are a few who watch hockey for the fisticuffs, but I bet a lot of people see the fighting, and the NHL’s tolerance of it, as evidence of hockey’s bush league status.
It has great regional popularity, like Polka music and mustard barbeque. Put it this way: Will surfing ever become popular in all 50 states? Yet there’s somehow money to be made off of the paraphernalia.
What I don’t get is how NHL player salaries are comparable to the big 3 sports, yet it is nowhere near as popular. Its popularity is similar to Major League Soccer, and most of those guys make less than 100k.