Friedman 31 Thoughts (Jets)

[tbcwpg]

The Leafs-Bruins averaged 2.3M viewers on CBC through game 6 and the Jets-Wild got 1.17M views on premium cable Rogers. So a population 7x the city of Winnipeg in a province 17x the population of Manitoba got only 2x the viewers in a series against a rival 06 team, where at least 10% of the viewers would have been Bruins fans.

Based on the proportion of coverage they get, you'd expect the Leafs to have 10x the viewers that the Jets get but its just not the case. The media in this country have very little imagination - they assign 60% of their content to the Leafs, win or lose because thats the way it is and thats the way it always will be. If the Leafs won, I suspect Friedman's 31 thoughts would have been dedicated to the Leafs and advancing teams. They lost, so the theme was offseason and eliminated teams.

And further to Ducky10's post, I used to like Friedman, but I find that his Jets coverage has always just been random token one-liner which provides no insight into anything.

Well I can't really debate an unsupported suspicion you have so I guess we'll have to stop here.

 

[SLAYER]

Friedman has been pathetic for ages now. Completely coasting, he's been sucked into the Sportsnet vortex of suckitude.

Agreed. Used to really like Friedge, but he has been on a steady decline for awhile now.

EDIT: That being said, I've really enjoyed my subscription to the Athletic. Murat Ates is the reporter we deserve.

 

[cheswick]

Good point. Its far more original to regurgitate the Leafs offseason question marks and player issues that everyone has heard several times a day on every TV, print and radio outlet in Canada.

2 of the 31 thoughts related to the Leafs roster. An additional one to do with where Lamoriello might end up and one in regards to the Toronto van attack. Yeah hes way over boards on the Leafs....

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Well I can't really debate an unsupported suspicion you have so I guess we'll have to stop here.

Good, beat it then. You seem to have narrowly focussed on one hypothetical rather than the larger philosophical question I was asking. I posted the TV ratings of each series and asked whether the disparity in coverage makes any sense. Some of us think its odd that one team in Canada gets all the attention from our national broadcasters win or lose because we just don't see it happen in the NFL/NBA/MLB. The Yankees, Nets and Giants don't get much if any more coverage than the Green Bay Packers, Cleveland Cavaliers or Kansas City Royals. What do Canadian hockey broadcasters know that US networks don't about growing their sports?

 

[Blue Shakehead]

2 of the 31 thoughts related to the Leafs roster. An additional one to do with where Lamoriello might end up and one in regards to the Toronto van attack. Yeah hes way over boards on the Leafs....

Nice audit. I guess you missed the opening 12 paragraphs?

 

[TorJet]

If you look this thread Friedman has actually had a lot of Jets coverage this year.

They were a relevant team, so not surprising.

People tend to talk about what they know best and, like it or not, the majority of the national hockey media is based in Toronto, has Toronto friends, connections and sources and the majority of hockey talk in a Toronto is about (surprise) Toronto.

Same thing for Winnipeg really.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Good, beat it then. You seem to have narrowly focussed on one hypothetical rather than the larger philosophical question I was asking. I posted the TV ratings of each series and asked whether the disparity in coverage makes any sense. Some of us think its odd that one team in Canada gets all the attention from our national broadcasters win or lose because we just don't see it happen in the NFL/NBA/MLB. The Yankees, Nets and Giants don't get much if any more coverage than the Green Bay Packers, Cleveland Cavaliers or Kansas City Royals. What do Canadian hockey broadcasters know that US networks don't about growing their sports?

NFL is a little bit different, as it truly has a kind of "national" appeal.

But in MLB and NBA? The Yankees and Knicks get tons of coverage even when the team itself is lousy and not relevant. And a team like the Cavs, or the Royals a couple of years ago, will get coverage if the team is doing extremely well (much like our Jets are now getting) that coverage lasts only as long as the team is threatening to be a contender.

 

[cheswick]

Nice audit. I guess you missed the opening 12 paragraphs?

Oh I thought the complaint was that the 31 thoughts was too leaf focused, not that the article he wrote about the Leafs was too Leafs focused.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

NFL is a little bit different, as it truly has a kind of "national" appeal.

But in MLB and NBA? The Yankees and Knicks get tons of coverage even when the team itself is lousy and not relevant. And a team like the Cavs, or the Royals a couple of years ago, will get coverage if the team is doing extremely well (much like our Jets are now getting) that coverage lasts only as long as the team is threatening to be a contender.

I'd agree that the NFL is a different animal than the NBA and MLB but when you are comparing it to hockey in Canada - is it really? This is supposedly our national pastime. US broadcasters cover college football, college basketball and professional baseball, football and basketball. They have a lot of ground to cover and so it makes sense that you don't hear about the Pittsburgh Pirates unless they are winning or doing something interesting.

But for hockey in Canada? There are 7 teams in one sport, with 3 national broadcasters and all 3 choose to spend the lion's share of their coverage on one team. (And for bonus points, 2 of the broadcasters own the team they spend all their time covering). Its just silly to me.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Oh I thought the complaint was that the 31 thoughts was too leaf focused, not that the article he wrote about the Leafs was too Leafs focused.

Actually, the original complaint was that there were zero out of 31 thoughts on the Jets - the only team in Canada advancing in the Playoffs. You don't have a degree in fact checking, I take it.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I'd agree that the NFL is a different animal than the NBA and MLB but when you are comparing it to hockey in Canada - is it really? This is supposedly our national pastime. US broadcasters cover college football, college basketball and professional baseball, football and basketball. They have a lot of ground to cover and so it makes sense that you don't hear about the Pittsburgh Pirates unless they are winning or doing something interesting.

But for hockey in Canada? There are 7 teams in one sport, with 3 national broadcasters and all 3 choose to spend the lion's share of their coverage on one team. Its silly to me.

First of all - 3 national broadcasters? I only count two - Bell/TSN/CTV, and Rogers/Sportsnet/CBC. CBC does not have its own sports content - they just allow Rogers to run their sports on their channel.

But my point was - in the US certain big market teams will always get coverage, even when they are terrible. Knicks and Yankees being perhaps the most obvious examples.

Besides - I don't know if I like getting more national attention. I've been struck by how Sportsnet's Mark Spector, who lives in Edmonton and covers the Oilers all year round, is suddenly in every single Winnipeg media scrum. I'm like "where were you in October, Spec?"

 

[HannuJ]

If you look this thread Friedman has actually had a lot of Jets coverage this year.

They were a relevant team, so not surprising.

People tend to talk about what they know best and, like it or not, the majority of the national hockey media is based in Toronto, has Toronto friends, connections and sources and the majority of hockey talk in a Toronto is about (surprise) Toronto.

Same thing for Winnipeg really.

lately he's been Leaf heavy, Canucks heavy and Canes heavy.
he's always been light on the Jets. considering that they and Toronto were the most positive hockey stories (in Canada), i'd expect more.
did he ever touch on Vesalainen doing well overseas? or delve into Appleton and Niku in the minors? maybe he has, but i can't remember. anyways, he sometimes has nuggest. othertimes...not so much

 

[cheswick]

Actually, the original complaint was that there were zero out of 31 thoughts on the Jets - the only team in Canada advancing in the Playoffs. You don't have a degree in fact checking, I take it.

I replied to a comment on Leafs coverage, not to one on Jets coverage. And you replied to my comment by mentioning his Leafs discussion, not noting anything to do with lack of Jets coverage. Which I again replied to in regards to Leafs discussion. And suddenly it's an issue I didn't talk about his Jets coverage which was in no part of any discussion point I made. What university did you get your degree in fact checking?

 

[Blue Shakehead]

First of all - 3 national broadcasters? I only count two - Bell/TSN/CTV, and Rogers/Sportsnet/CBC. CBC does not have its own sports content - they just allow Rogers to run their sports on their channel.

But my point was - in the US certain big market teams will always get coverage, even when they are terrible. Knicks and Yankees being perhaps the most obvious examples.

Besides - I don't know if I like getting more national attention. I've been struck by how Sportsnet's Mark Spector, who lives in Edmonton and covers the Oilers all year round, is suddenly in every single Winnipeg media scrum. I'm like "where were you in October, Spec?"

I understand your point on the bolded, but I don't think its a comparable. Sure, ESPN will run a segment on the Yankees even when they suck where they won't the same segment on the Mariners when they suck, but its not even close to what is happening here. The only comparable in US broadcasting to how the Leafs are covered in Canada I can think of would be Tiger Woods. Until very recently, he was the main focus of all golf broadcasts - whether he was dominating or awful or not even playing.

To your second point, I am not sure I really care for more attention on the Jets either. I'm mostly in favor of restoring some semblance of balance - seeing as we are only talking about 1 sport and 7 teams, it shouldn't be that hard. I am just as interested in Canucks/Flames/Habs/Oilers/Sens coverage as I am of the Leafs and I suspect people in those cities would agree.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

I replied to a comment on Leafs coverage, not to one on Jets coverage. And you replied to my comment by mentioning his Leafs discussion, not noting anything to do with lack of Jets coverage. Which I again replied to in regards to Leafs discussion. And suddenly it's an issue I didn't talk about his Jets coverage which was in no part of any discussion point I made. What university did you get your degree in fact checking?

 

[Steenager]

A lot of the classic Winnipeg insecurity showing in this thread.

Also, always fun to see multiple posts arguing about what exactly is being argued about.

 

[cheswick]

Attached Files:

 

[Afterburner]

Agreed. Used to really like Friedge, but he has been on a steady decline for awhile now.

EDIT: That being said, I've really enjoyed my subscription to the Athletic. Murat Ates is the reporter we deserve.

Agree totally, Murat Ates is worth the subscription of the Athletic alone. His articles are amazing

 

[csk]

Agree totally, Murat Ates is worth the subscription of the Athletic alone. His articles are amazing

Following him on Twitter was enough to convince me to get an athletic sub

 

[Aavco Cup]

First of all - 3 national broadcasters? I only count two - Bell/TSN/CTV, and Rogers/Sportsnet/CBC. CBC does not have its own sports content - they just allow Rogers to run their sports on their channel.

But my point was - in the US certain big market teams will always get coverage, even when they are terrible. Knicks and Yankees being perhaps the most obvious examples.

Besides - I don't know if I like getting more national attention. I've been struck by how Sportsnet's Mark Spector, who lives in Edmonton and covers the Oilers all year round, is suddenly in every single Winnipeg media scrum. I'm like "where were you in October, Spec?"

Some of your post is untrue. CBC does have plenty of Sports content including Summer and Winter Olympics.

 

[HannuJ]

Agree totally, Murat Ates is worth the subscription of the Athletic alone. His articles are amazing

someone has to tell me what i'm doing wrong. i subscribe and i only get email summaries of Leaf articles. never Jets articles

 

[GeorgeJETson]

I'd agree that the NFL is a different animal than the NBA and MLB but when you are comparing it to hockey in Canada - is it really? This is supposedly our national pastime. US broadcasters cover college football, college basketball and professional baseball, football and basketball. They have a lot of ground to cover and so it makes sense that you don't hear about the Pittsburgh Pirates unless they are winning or doing something interesting.

But for hockey in Canada? There are 7 teams in one sport, with 3 national broadcasters and all 3 choose to spend the lion's share of their coverage on one team. (And for bonus points, 2 of the broadcasters own the team they spend all their time covering). Its just silly to me.

As an aside, officially, our national sport is lacrosse.

Unofficially, it's hockey/curling/football (no idea on percentages).

If only I could find an NBC The More You Know gif...

 

[tbcwpg]

Good, beat it then. You seem to have narrowly focussed on one hypothetical rather than the larger philosophical question I was asking. I posted the TV ratings of each series and asked whether the disparity in coverage makes any sense. Some of us think its odd that one team in Canada gets all the attention from our national broadcasters win or lose because we just don't see it happen in the NFL/NBA/MLB. The Yankees, Nets and Giants don't get much if any more coverage than the Green Bay Packers, Cleveland Cavaliers or Kansas City Royals. What do Canadian hockey broadcasters know that US networks don't about growing their sports?

My comment was that this 31 Thoughts article was all about the teams who are now out after the 1st round. Yours was about how you knew that it would be about the Leafs even if they had won the series. The disparity in coverage makes sense when viewed with that lens of off season plans instead of the unfortunate Winnipeg insecurity about how much coverage one team gets over the other. Some of us don't need the validation that others do I guess.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Good, beat it then. You seem to have narrowly focussed on one hypothetical rather than the larger philosophical question I was asking. I posted the TV ratings of each series and asked whether the disparity in coverage makes any sense. Some of us think its odd that one team in Canada gets all the attention from our national broadcasters win or lose because we just don't see it happen in the NFL/NBA/MLB. The Yankees, Nets and Giants don't get much if any more coverage than the Green Bay Packers, Cleveland Cavaliers or Kansas City Royals. What do Canadian hockey broadcasters know that US networks don't about growing their sports?

The comparison to the US doesn't stand because they don't have a population distribution so heavily weighted to one small part of the country.

Your initial question is certainly worth considering though. A question that needs to be asked is what would the ratings difference have been if the coverage was routinely the same? We can't answer that question but I think it is safe to assume that more coverage (hype) does produce somewhat higher ratings.

Besides all the ongoing coverage, regular season, playoff and off-season, the leafs are given the best time slots and the network with the widest coverage. They have 10x the population in their immediate viewing area but only managed double the viewership.

It doesn't look to me like they earned, or lived up to all the advantages they were given by default.

It also appears to me that the policies of the so called 'national' networks tends to be self-perpetuating and possibly self defeating. While they service their largest audience at the expense of the rest of their audience they may actually be inhibiting their opportunity for the greatest total audience.

That is speculative of course but certainly plausible.

 

[pucka lucka]

The comparison to the US doesn't stand because they don't have a population distribution so heavily weighted to one small part of the country.

Your initial question is certainly worth considering though. A question that needs to be asked is what would the ratings difference have been if the coverage was routinely the same? We can't answer that question but I think it is safe to assume that more coverage (hype) does produce somewhat higher ratings.

Besides all the ongoing coverage, regular season, playoff and off-season, the leafs are given the best time slots and the network with the widest coverage. They have 10x the population in their immediate viewing area but only managed double the viewership.

It doesn't look to me like they earned, or lived up to all the advantages they were given by default.

It also appears to me that the policies of the so called 'national' networks tends to be self-perpetuating and possibly self defeating. While they service their largest audience at the expense of the rest of their audience they may actually be inhibiting their opportunity for the greatest total audience.

That is speculative of course but certainly plausible.

The bold part is the issue. Why are they so desperate to have the Leafs playoff games on Saturday nights? If the Leafs are such a massive draw why not put them on a Friday and get the bonus bump putting a Jets game on Saturday? it all seems very unsophisticated. I'd love to see some numbers that supports this model.