Hockey is dying!!

[Drewr15]

I think the initial point that NBA attendance really didn't catch up to hockey until some time in the late 80s/early 90s is a solid one, but everyone can draw their own conclusions. There's no question, IMHO, that hockey has lost serious ground to basketball since the early 70s.

I don't dispute that the NBA has passed the NHL, I disagree with how far ahead the NHL was. Your original post you said the NHL was way ahead in major cities in the 60s 70s and 80s. I think the only time that is proven true is the 70s and even then it seems to have more to do with the success of the team back then, ie Knicks outdrawing Rangers and Bruins outdrawing Celtics.

Edit: I would also add that the comparison above neglects the fact at how popular college basketball was in the 60s and 70s, more popular than the NBA. So there was a good foundation for the NBA to grow on. College hockey was not as popular except for in Boston as college basketball back then so again I don't feel the sport was that far ahead of basketball to begin with.

 

[Greschner4]

I found the Atlanta Flames/Hawks attendance comparison interesting, too. The Flames didn't actually draw that poorly; in fact, they drew WAY better than the Hawks. The teams overlapped from 1973 to 1980 and it's landslide Flames:

12,516 to 7,434
14,612 to 7,613
13,444 to 5,008
11,963 to 5,556
12,259 to 5,238
10,501 to 7,416
11,441 to 8,026
10,024 to 10,792.

It's interesting that the Flames couldn't make it with those numbers. The Bulls and Pistons drew worse during that era than the Flames, yet stayed put. Different sports, I guess. A big part of it must have been that the Flames had Calgary to move to, which I see as a pro-Canada lesson for today. The Flames 70s numbers are essentially the Predators 00s numbers, though I'm sure that will stir many to argue.

 

[Greschner4]

I don't dispute that the NBA has passed the NHL, I disagree with how far ahead the NHL was. Your original post you said the NHL was way ahead in major cities in the 60s 70s and 80s. I think the only time that is proven true is the 70s and even then it seems to have more to do with the success of the team back then, ie Knicks outdrawing Rangers and Bruins outdrawing Celtics.

Edit: I would also add that the comparison above neglects the fact at how popular college basketball was in the 60s and 70s, more popular than the NBA. So there was a good foundation for the NBA to grow on. College hockey was not as popular except for in Boston as college basketball back then so again I don't feel the sport was that far ahead of basketball to begin with.

The college basketball/college hockey point is excellent.

I think you're giving a little short shrift to the NHL vs. NBA figures, but the quality of your other observation far outweighs that.

 

[Drewr15]

The college basketball/college hockey point is excellent.

I think you're giving a little short shrift to the NHL vs. NBA figures, but the quality of your other observation far outweighs that.

Fair enough, I guess I'm more going from personal experience as kid growing up in NYC, I never knew hockey until the US olympic team but I sure knew basketball. Its had for me to remember the 70s to well so I guess my mental image is more jaded by the 80s where they were on an even keel yet I watched basketball slowly pull away. Believe me it frustrates me as well and I still feel it all starts with that damn sportschannel contract.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Fair enough -- you seem to dispute practically everything I say rather tersely and don't seem to concede things I thought wouldn't really be in dispute. I'll assume you're truly a "show me" person and that's all you mean.

Fair enough as well. Around here, I am definitely a "show me" person, since about 90% of posts around here are based on hoary old cliches that are part of the received "wisdom" of hockey fans and are demonstrably false (particularly when the topic is Bettman or the Pejorative Slured '94 SI "hockey>basketball" article that is soon to be deconstructed by kdb209).

Frankly, when you mentioned that I did not think it was wrong per se. I see where you may have inferred that, though, since i have challenged your views many times on other topics. I wanted to see the data. Certainly in the '70s and early '80s basketball was at its nadir with drug scandals galore and challenges from the ABA. The NBA picked up when it was blessed with a number of charismatic superduperstars at the same time and/or overlapping eras, from Erving to Bird to Magic to Jordan and onward. Curiously, as well there are numerous factors at play on an individual city basis. Philly, for example, had a cup-winning Flyer team at around the same time as the Sixers were going 9-73 and setting records for futility.

I would think that the NBA did pass hockey as a spectator sport at some point after being behind. They arguably did so on the wings of a number of superstars marketed very deftly - more deftly than the NHL did in the 80's with their two megastars. The NBA developed an aura of coolness through those guys. The NHL in the '80s was terribly hidebound, which is in line with the preferences of a number of their fans who are resistant to the slightest change.

Those two NHL guys have had no real successors, either, whereas the NBA has marketed Iverson, Shaq and McGrady and others using the template they developed earlier.

 

[Greschner4]

Fair enough as well. Around here, I am definitely a "show me" person, since about 90% of posts around here are based on hoary old cliches that are part of the received "wisdom" of hockey fans and are demonstrably false (particularly when the topic is Bettman or the Pejorative Slured '94 SI "hockey>basketball" article that is soon to be deconstructed by kdb209).

Frankly, when you mentioned that I did not think it was wrong per se. I see where you may have inferred that, though, since i have challenged your views many times on other topics. I wanted to see the data. Certainly in the '70s and early '80s basketball was at its nadir with drug scandals galore and challenges from the ABA. The NBA picked up when it was blessed with a number of charismatic superduperstars at the same time and/or overlapping eras, from Erving to Bird to Magic to Jordan and onward. Curiously, as well there are numerous factors at play on an individual city basis. Philly, for example, had a cup-winning Flyer team at around the same time as the Sixers were going 9-73 and setting records for futility.

I would think that the NBA did pass hockey as a spectator sport at some point after being behind. They arguably did so on the wings of a number of superstars marketed very deftly - more deftly than the NHL did in the 80's with their two megastars. The NBA developed an aura of coolness through those guys. The NHL in the '80s was terribly hidebound, which is in line with the preferences of a number of their fans who are resistant to the slightest change.

Those two NHL guys have had no real successors, either, whereas the NBA has marketed Iverson, Shaq and McGrady and others using the template they developed earlier.

I too have always thought the '94 SI article was way overplayed, in the same way the "Ripken/McGuire/Sosa saved baseball" idea was way overplayed. Nor am I going to be silly about the NHL's appeal, since it was off national network TV in the states from 1975-94.

Even the Bird/Magic/Jordan saved the NBA idea is mildly overplayed, at least in immediate impact. Attendance in Philly stunk even with Dr. J; attendance in LA wasn't gangbusters even with Magic; attendance in Chicago was still under 12K MJ's rookie year; Finals games were on tape delay the first two years of Bird/Magic even though they were in the Finals; and the 70s weren't as bad as people think (see, e.g., the Knicks from 1970-75).

But certainly over time, as you insightfully say, the NBA took the talents and charisma of their stars and combined them with marketing skill to create a template that continues to grow the league even with stars who aren't as appealing (at least to this fan). Throwing out new fans in new cities (which we shouldn't underestimate), it's hard to see any real growth or enhanced appeal of the NHL while sports like NASCAR and the NBA have grown by leaps and bounds.

 

[kdb209]

First off great site, thanks for posting it. It was to much work to look on there but I found a site called kenn.com that had average attendance and the difference is not what you think at all. Unfortunately the Bruins attendance is not available until 78-79 but here they are with links

Boston Bruins 1978-79 40 519,444 12,986
Boston Bruins 1979-80 40 494,633 12,366
Boston Bruins 1980-81 40 446,903 11,173
Boston Bruins 1981-82 40 480,989 12,025
Boston Bruins 1982-83 40 530,870 13,272
Boston Bruins 1983-84 40 543,534 13,588
Boston Bruins 1984-85 40 530,297 13,257
Boston Bruins 1985-86 40 497,277 12,432
Boston Bruins 1986-87 40 485,159 12,129
Boston Bruins 1987-88 40 548,301 13,708
Boston Bruins 1988-89 40 563,730 14,093
Boston Bruins 1989-90 40 572,571 14,314

http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_bos_attendance.html

Boston Celtics 1978-79 41 417,926 10,193
Boston Celtics 1979-80 41 596,349 14,545
Boston Celtics 1980-81 41 595,444 14,523
Boston Celtics 1981-82 41 0
Boston Celtics 1982-83 41 621,829 15,167
Boston Celtics 1983-84 41 606,857 14,801
Boston Celtics 1984-85 41 610,727 14,896
Boston Celtics 1985-86 41 610,581 14,892
Boston Celtics 1986-87 41 611,222 14,908
Boston Celtics 1987-88 41 611,222 14,908
Boston Celtics 1988-89 41 611,537 14,916
Boston Celtics 1989-90 41 611,537 14,916

http://www.kenn.com/sports/basketball/nba/nba_bos_attendance.html

Not regarding the 81 82 season where for some reason Celtics info is not shown, the Bruins only outdrew the Celtics for the 78-79 season in that period. So i'm sorry but I again disagree that the NHL was light years ahead of the NBA in major cities back then.

I can persoanlly atest that from '80 to '85 it was MUCH easier to get B's tickets than for the Celts' and there was significntly more Celtics' coverage in the Boston Globe than Bruins'.

 

[Wooty]

One thing about the NBA is that the "rise" occured with the rise of Magic Johnson and the Lakers. Magic joining the Lakers gave a great team and player to one of the big 2 cities. The other 2 teams that grew at the same time were the Celtics (Bird) and the 76'ers (Doctor J), who played foil to the Lakers.

The Rivalries for the Lakers evolved into the Pistons and later to the Bulls but a core point was that the Los Angeles franchise was always king and everyone else was gunning for them. Even the years LA lost in the playoffs, it was controversial or based on injuries - even if it wasn't true, everyone talked about it.

The Bulls took the Lakers spot as king of the hill after Magic's retirement and continued the Dynasty model. Chicago is not the big 2 but they are a strong 3 (or 4?).

I think dynasties help leagues as long as other teams have a chance to knock off the dynasty. The idea of the league out to get the number 1 team is what wins.

The NFL has dynasties even though people claim there is parity. MLB has the Yankees, even if they dont' win it all, they are always the hated ones.

Make the Kings and Ranger play for the Stanley Cup for 3 straight years - The NHL will climb the popularity ratings

Just my observations

 

[Drewr15]

One thing about the NBA is that the "rise" occured with the rise of Magic Johnson and the Lakers. Magic joining the Lakers gave a great team and player to one of the big 2 cities. The other 2 teams that grew at the same time were the Celtics (Bird) and the 76'ers (Doctor J), who played foil to the Lakers.

The Rivalries for the Lakers evolved into the Pistons and later to the Bulls but a core point was that the Los Angeles franchise was always king and everyone else was gunning for them. Even the years LA lost in the playoffs, it was controversial or based on injuries - even if it wasn't true, everyone talked about it.

The Bulls took the Lakers spot as king of the hill after Magic's retirement and continued the Dynasty model. Chicago is not the big 2 but they are a strong 3 (or 4?).

I think dynasties help leagues as long as other teams have a chance to knock off the dynasty. The idea of the league out to get the number 1 team is what wins.

The NFL has dynasties even though people claim there is parity. MLB has the Yankees, even if they dont' win it all, they are always the hated ones.

Make the Kings and Ranger play for the Stanley Cup for 3 straight years - The NHL will climb the popularity ratings

Just my observations

I disagree with that simply because there hasn't been a team in LA and the NY teams have been average for most of the past decade and yet the NFL has grown well beyond baseball in popularity.

Not to mention how low the Yankees Mets World Series ratings were. The number one city, the underdogs against the dynasty, and the ratings outside of NY were terrible.

That's falling into the same trap SI did when they wrote their article, the Kings and Rangers were in back to back Cups so the NHL is poised to explode. Based on what?

I'd also point out that Nascar did not build itself into what it is today by targeting NY and LA. In fact quite the opposite I'd say, NY and LA got pulled along for the ride after it grew...no pun intended.

 

[Wooty]

I disagree with that simply because there hasn't been a team in LA and the NY teams have been average for most of the past decade and yet the NFL has grown well beyond baseball in popularity.

Not to mention how low the Yankees Mets World Series ratings were. The number one city, the underdogs against the dynasty, and the ratings outside of NY were terrible.

That's falling into the same trap SI did when they wrote their article, the Kings and Rangers were in back to back Cups so the NHL is poised to explode. Based on what?

I'd also point out that Nascar did not build itself into what it is today by targeting NY and LA. In fact quite the opposite I'd say, NY and LA got pulled along for the ride after it grew...no pun intended.

You have good points and maybe totally right.

I think that we are generally discussing catching up to the NBA though. Personally I don't think the NBA is very far ahead of the NHL. The NBA has one huge advantage and that is March Madness.

- I think that NBA and NHL are similar audiences though. The NBA grew out of needing the Lakers so much.
- The NFL has dynasties as does Nascar. Actually Nascar is terrible for dynasty domination
- Yankees vs mets was terrible - who cares about it. I mention 2 Cities fighting it out, not one. The Dodgers vs Angels would be boring too.
- I base that on NY and LA setting the trends. They are the 2 key cities. You must have them popular to get ahead.

I am not saying that the Kings must be the top team forever. Let LA and NY build a love of the sport, that love will spread.

 

[capta]

Still -32 in Edmonton though.

Umm...no, we haven't seen -32 this year, and for the last few years our Winters have been really mild.

 

[Drewr15]

You have good points and maybe totally right.

I think that we are generally discussing catching up to the NBA though. Personally I don't think the NBA is very far ahead of the NHL. The NBA has one huge advantage and that is March Madness.

- I think that NBA and NHL are similar audiences though. The NBA grew out of needing the Lakers so much.
- The NFL has dynasties as does Nascar. Actually Nascar is terrible for dynasty domination
- Yankees vs mets was terrible - who cares about it. I mention 2 Cities fighting it out, not one. The Dodgers vs Angels would be boring too.
- I base that on NY and LA setting the trends. They are the 2 key cities. You must have them popular to get ahead.

I am not saying that the Kings must be the top team forever. Let LA and NY build a love of the sport, that love will spread.

I just think that's a false assumption given the success of the NFL and Nascar without the NY LA presence or NY LA superbowl. If anything I think they're success has more to do with TV visibility and how TV friendly both sports are so the networks love to push them on the public.

I don't disagree about the dynasties in the NFL. I also agree that the NBA has a HUGE advantadge in March Madness. As a matter of fact, most basketball fans I know prefer that to the NBA, I wish hockey had something like that. But again, how often are the top teams in march madness from the NY or LA area? Promoting it properly and making it seem like something you don't want to miss I think is more important. I hate basketball but don't want to miss March madness. The brainwashing has worked on me, the NHL needs to learn this trick.

 

[Cawz]

Umm...no, we haven't seen -32 this year, and for the last few years our Winters have been really mild.

With all due respect, bull ****. You guys got down to -35 last month (and -36 in november). Its pretty easy to look up. Here: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html

Could be worse. Winnipeg dropped below -40 a couple days ago. Global warming what?!?

Dont worry, its mother****ing cold here in Calgary too (not quite -30 cold though).

 

[Drewr15]

You have good points and maybe totally right.

I think that we are generally discussing catching up to the NBA though. Personally I don't think the NBA is very far ahead of the NHL. The NBA has one huge advantage and that is March Madness.

- I think that NBA and NHL are similar audiences though. The NBA grew out of needing the Lakers so much.
- The NFL has dynasties as does Nascar. Actually Nascar is terrible for dynasty domination
- Yankees vs mets was terrible - who cares about it. I mention 2 Cities fighting it out, not one. The Dodgers vs Angels would be boring too.
- I base that on NY and LA setting the trends. They are the 2 key cities. You must have them popular to get ahead.

I am not saying that the Kings must be the top team forever. Let LA and NY build a love of the sport, that love will spread.

One thing supporting your argument though, the highest rated Cup final game since the NHL got back on network TV, game 7 of the Devils and Ducks, as close to LA vs NY in the final as we've gotten.

 

[Morris Wanchuk]

I can persoanlly atest that from '80 to '85 it was MUCH easier to get B's tickets than for the Celts' and there was significntly more Celtics' coverage in the Boston Globe than Bruins'.

yea but the celtics won championships during that time.. the bruins did not even make the finals. they lost to montreal 3 years in a row. the garden was packed in the late 80s-early 90s when the b's were in the finals

 

[OG6ix]

The Celtics local television ratings are up, and this with a team that tonight lost their 18th straight game. Imagine if the Bs lost that many? There would be even less people at the games.

 

[YogiCanucks]

Hockey will take a big deep breath of fresh air once Bettman is gone. (in 1012 =(. )

 

[GSC2k2*]

I found the Atlanta Flames/Hawks attendance comparison interesting, too. The Flames didn't actually draw that poorly; in fact, they drew WAY better than the Hawks. The teams overlapped from 1973 to 1980 and it's landslide Flames:

12,516 to 7,434
14,612 to 7,613
13,444 to 5,008
11,963 to 5,556
12,259 to 5,238
10,501 to 7,416
11,441 to 8,026
10,024 to 10,792.

It's interesting that the Flames couldn't make it with those numbers. The Bulls and Pistons drew worse during that era than the Flames, yet stayed put. Different sports, I guess. A big part of it must have been that the Flames had Calgary to move to, which I see as a pro-Canada lesson for today. The Flames 70s numbers are essentially the Predators 00s numbers, though I'm sure that will stir many to argue.

I think it has ben said elsewhere on the board (not familiar myself) that the Flames relocated solely because the owners decided they wanted to sell and the winning bid was from Calgary.

 

[EbencoyE]

Hockey will take a big deep breath of fresh air once Bettman is gone. (in 1012 =(. )

Yes, because Bettman is behind all problems hockey related. [/sarcasm]

The owners would just elect a guy exactly like him if he left. The owners are the ones with the real power anyway and are at far more fault than Bettman ever has been. Especially guys like Jacobs and Wirtz who just stand by while their teams decay into nothing.

 

[MayDay]

The popularity of sports in the U.S. is cyclical. None of them are going to "die" anytime soon, they'll just become more or less popular.

The NFL was not always the 800 pound gorilla it is today. For many decades, baseball was the undisputed king of American sports. The national pasttime. Not anymore. Likewise, I don't think it's a given that the NFL will *always* be #1. "Always" is a long time, and it hasn't in the past always been #1.

The NBA in the 80s was serious tailspin, and probably ranked below hockey at that time in the American sports landscape. They had a renaissance in the 90's with Jordan and the Bulls, and really surged. I think the NBA is back on a downward trend now. Ratings for NBA playoff games last season were abysmal, and many franchises get horrible attendance. Even in sunny Florida, the two NHL teams get far better attendance than the two NBA teams.

Hockey has also had its cycles. It was once a truly regional niche sport in America, only played in a few places in the northeast and Upper Midwest. It really exploded with expansion of the late 60s/70s, the Broad Street Bullies, the Miracle on Ice, the Isles' dynasty, then Gretzky (especially after getting traded to the Kings), and then Mario Lemieux and the Pens dynasty. In the 80s, hockey was seen by everybody as a top U.S. sport, probably more popular than the NBA at the time.

I think the Rangers Stanley Cup win (Messier's guarantee) marked the end of that era, the last moment hockey was really popular at a national level. The NHL tried to capitalize on it, but their reach exceeded their grasp, they overexpanded too quickly, and have slid a little back to earth. Combine that with the trapping style of the 90s, the relative lack of marketable stars, and some bad management and labor decisions, and NHL was bound to suffer a "market correction."

But just because it's been in a slough for the past decade, is no reason to think it won't rebound again. I fully expect it too, like I said, sports is cyclical. The major sports in America will wax and wane over the decades. We're just at a low point right now. If this were the stock market, now would be a good time to buy.

It will be a lot tougher for soccer to catch on, I think. Soccer was never part of this cycle, it's never been really popular nation-wide in any era. It doesn't have the roots in America, even that hockey has. The other sports have roots and traditions to draw upon, and though each of them may slide down the ladder from time to time, they can always climb back up. Soccer, OTOH, will have to create a following from scratch in a country with no traditions in the sport. That is far more difficult, I think.

 

[MayDay]

Why not? In Europe: Hockey is very popular in Sweden, but soccer is even more popular and in Russia hockey is semi popular but soccer is much more popular etc.. So in European countries where you can choose hockey or soccer, easily over 50% chose soccer.

Not to pick on this post in particular, but reading through the thread, this seems to be your common argument.

I think it's based on a mistaken assumption. You can't simply look at trends in Europe and project them to North America. North America is not Europe. The sports culture and landscape is very different. Their fans have different tastes.

I'm not saying that soccer will never be popular in the U.S. (never is a long time), but I think it is unlikely to happen for some time. That said, you can't say that because soccer is becoming more popular in Northern Europe, therefore the same will happen in North America. That's a logical fallacy known as a non sequiter.

You guys need two things that are called:

1. Passion
2. Sports betting

Oh, Americans definitely have both those things. Those (especially #2) are what has driven the NFL to become the most financially successful sports league in the world (yes, more than any soccer league).

These factors aren't solely the province of soccer; they can be directed at whatever sport is popular for any reason.

 

[Rocket]

It will be a lot tougher for soccer to catch on, I think. Soccer was never part of this cycle, it's never been really popular nation-wide in any era. It doesn't have the roots in America, even that hockey has. The other sports have roots and traditions to draw upon, and though each of them may slide down the ladder from time to time, they can always climb back up. Soccer, OTOH, will have to create a following from scratch in a country with no traditions in the sport. That is far more difficult, I think.

Soccer actually has more fans in this country than hockey does, believe it or not. It's just that the soccer audience is split into many fractions. Some of them watch nothing but European soccer (mostly the English Premier League). Some only follow the Mexican league or one of the top South American leagues. Unlike NHL which attracts almost all the hockey fans in the country, there's not one particular league (not counting the World Cup) that draws in all the soccer fans. MLS probably gets about 15-20% share of the total number. My prediction is that you will see that number rise dramatically after few years when MLS fires on all cylinders.

 

[Drewr15]

The popularity of sports in the U.S. is cyclical. None of them are going to "die" anytime soon, they'll just become more or less popular.

The NFL was not always the 800 pound gorilla it is today. For many decades, baseball was the undisputed king of American sports. The national pasttime. Not anymore. Likewise, I don't think it's a given that the NFL will *always* be #1. "Always" is a long time, and it hasn't in the past always been #1.

The NBA in the 80s was serious tailspin, and probably ranked below hockey at that time in the American sports landscape. They had a renaissance in the 90's with Jordan and the Bulls, and really surged. I think the NBA is back on a downward trend now. Ratings for NBA playoff games last season were abysmal, and many franchises get horrible attendance. Even in sunny Florida, the two NHL teams get far better attendance than the two NBA teams.

Hockey has also had its cycles. It was once a truly regional niche sport in America, only played in a few places in the northeast and Upper Midwest. It really exploded with expansion of the late 60s/70s, the Broad Street Bullies, the Miracle on Ice, the Isles' dynasty, then Gretzky (especially after getting traded to the Kings), and then Mario Lemieux and the Pens dynasty. In the 80s, hockey was seen by everybody as a top U.S. sport, probably more popular than the NBA at the time.

I think the Rangers Stanley Cup win (Messier's guarantee) marked the end of that era, the last moment hockey was really popular at a national level. The NHL tried to capitalize on it, but their reach exceeded their grasp, they overexpanded too quickly, and have slid a little back to earth. Combine that with the trapping style of the 90s, the relative lack of marketable stars, and some bad management and labor decisions, and NHL was bound to suffer a "market correction."

But just because it's been in a slough for the past decade, is no reason to think it won't rebound again. I fully expect it too, like I said, sports is cyclical. The major sports in America will wax and wane over the decades. We're just at a low point right now. If this were the stock market, now would be a good time to buy.

It will be a lot tougher for soccer to catch on, I think. Soccer was never part of this cycle, it's never been really popular nation-wide in any era. It doesn't have the roots in America, even that hockey has. The other sports have roots and traditions to draw upon, and though each of them may slide down the ladder from time to time, they can always climb back up. Soccer, OTOH, will have to create a following from scratch in a country with no traditions in the sport. That is far more difficult, I think.

I agree it will rebound but I think you have your cycles wrong. I think the thought that hockey was more popular in the 80s than basketball is pretty untrue, especially considering that basketball was on national TV and hockey was not in the US. Coming into that decade I'd say the NHL was ahead but by the end of it, the NBA was well on its way past it.

And again I will point out, who saw the Rangers stanley cup? it wasn't on national TV. Everyone assumes it did great but does anyone have any national numbers on this? This is the same assumption SI made in their article, NY was in so hockey had to be popular and on its way up. It may have been in NY but the rest of the country? No proof. Just because NY was into it doesn't mean the rest of America was. And all those great Oiles Cup finals, who saw them in America? Only the handful of us that had sportschannel. I think you guys are really overinflating what you think the NHL's popularity was going into the 90s.

I have to say Greschner has changed my mind going into the 70s that the NHL was more popular than the NBA but by the mid 80s, one was on national TV with popular stars and one was buried on a network in less homes than Versus. Hardly popular at a national level,

 

[kdb209]

I agree it will rebound but I think you have your cycles wrong. I think the thought that hockey was more popular in the 80s than basketball is pretty untrue, especially considering that basketball was on national TV and hockey was not in the US. Coming into that decade I'd say the NHL was ahead but by the end of it, the NBA was well on its way past it.

And again I will point out, who saw the Rangers stanley cup? it wasn't on national TV. Everyone assumes it did great but does anyone have any national numbers on this? This is the same assumption SI made in their article, NY was in so hockey had to be popular and on its way up. It may have been in NY but the rest of the country? No proof. Just because NY was into it doesn't mean the rest of America was. And all those great Oiles Cup finals, who saw them in America? Only the handful of us that had sportschannel. I think you guys are really overinflating what you think the NHL's popularity was going into the 90s.

I have to say Greschner has changed my mind going into the 70s that the NHL was more popular than the NBA but by the mid 80s, one was on national TV with popular stars and one was buried on a network in less homes than Versus. Hardly popular at a national level,

I still haven't fully transcribed and deconstructed that SI piece yet - patience, patience. It was short on any hard numbers, but it does give some TV ratings for both the NBA & NHL finals.

Actually it encourages the average fan to change channels, if he hasn't done so already. Even with the inclusion of a team from New York – the nation's largest media market, at 6.68 million TV homes – NBC's ratings for the first game of the Finals fell 35%, to 12.6, from a year ago, when Chicago faced the Phoenix Suns. Imagine what they would have been had the Pacers, with their market of only 850,000 TV homes, made it to the league's showcase event. “We expected our ratings to drop,” says McIntyre. Last year's average rating was the highest ever, 17.9. It was the third straight year the Bulls and Michael Jordan were in the Finals, people knew them, and they were playing against Charles Barkley. We had a lot of dynamics in our favor.”

As yet ESPN's ratings do not reflect this surge in hockey interest. With all the Rangers' games contractually not available on ESPN in the New York market (the MSG Network carries the games there), ESPN has averaged a 1.8 rating, miniscule by NBA standards. “Nobody should read too much into the ratings,” says Bettman. “We were off TV so many years, we're in the rebuilding process. If we were still getting those numbers in five years, I'd be disappointed.”

The NBA, at it's absolute nadir, with an ugly playoffs, still got a 12.6 on network television. The hot NHL, only a 1.8 on ESPN.

 

[OG6ix]

What article the Farber one in SI? "Why the NHL is hot and the NBA is not?"

That one? Farber is a puckhead, so take that article with a grain of salt. The NHL (television wise) has never been able to keep up with the NBA.