Man, there is plenty of ignorance on this message board. I don't know ANYONE who actually likes to hear T.O or Ron Artest talk, but they like basketball/football and it's a story. The bottom line is they are in the media, and hockey just isn't because it's a lack of interest for the sport overall. What about the days of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Jordan, they weren't egotistical, but basketball was popular. When has the NHL ever seen that?
1. Well, not many people like T.O. and Artest. In fact, most people are tired of them. And for a good reason. There are plenty of other, less-controversial guys who are getting a lot of TV time for things they have to say. Not to mention that T.O., as annoying as he is, is a good "recurring" story for the NFL in terms of giving the sport more air-time.
2. The days of Bird, Johnson, and Jordan came after the years of stagnation and boredom in the NBA. The 70s were a terrible time for sport. But, hey, a few stars can carry the game, YES. That is true. That brings me back to my point - Bird, Johnson, and Jordan all carried their teams to championships. They created rivalries. Think back of Johnson-Bird seven-game finals in 1984. We don't have that lately in hockey. The NHL tries to alleviate the issue by awarding the Conne Smythe to younger players lately, like Ward, Richards, Giguere, etc. - but it's not going to work until guys like Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin make it to the cup and generate some legitimate excitement that will bring in the fringe-fans. These are the guys whom we can depend on actually being long-term stars in this league - but they aren't playing where it matters. Instead we have the "goalie-of-the-moment" type players. It's okay to have one once-in-a-while, but this is a sad recurring story in itself; Giguere, Ward, Roloson, Bryzgalov, etc. And then guys like Khabibulin and Theodore, and a little bit earler - Jim Carrey (aha!) - disappearing. And let me repeat - I like all this intrigue. It's just bad for popularity because it doesn't carry the message of who is really good in the sport and who isn't.
3. The basketball three you mentioned, while being much classier than current basketball elite, were nonetheless good in front of the camera.
Let's be realistic, Hockey has more major flaws than those other three sports in terms of TV, equipment, surface etc. I'm sure a lot of people think of speed skating/snow boarding as niche sports, but hockey really is no different.
I agree. TV will never do the sport any good, the equipment is too costly, etc. But marketability (if that's a word) is also important in today's pro sports. By expanding to 30 teams, many in cities like Miami, Atlanta, Phoenix, and others, and by relying on ESPN to market it, Bettman was hoping that hockey would stay in top-4. But it turns out that it can't, the days of Detroit-Colorado rivalry are now gone, the sport lived through years of low scoring, inconsistent stardom, hard-to-pronounce names, and players that don't have much interesting to say. It can't be sustained as a top-4 sport simply because it's not one anymore no matter how much scoring is added and how many more people we put into the penalty box. What a travesty - and poor marketability also plays a part in this.