Larry Brooks lockout column 9/19

[Sotnos]

But the team with the biggest region is the Rangers. Hence, they would draw more fans and revenues if they were successful.

How is their region so large? They are surrounded by other teams, some of them not very far at all.

Point is, this wouldn't affect the entire US, which is what someone is claiming here.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Thank you, that's my point exactly.


Good job! Now let's see the other side come up with some stats that back their viewpoint. Think I'll be waiting a long time for that...

Bottom line is, the rest of the country isn't as enamored of NY teams as some (especially those who don't even live here) might think. People care about their own local or regional teams, or they care about whatever team is driving the biggest bandwagon right now (still the Red Wings IMO).

The Yanks are the most watched road team though. It's been that way for the last 3 years. Mainly because they are the hated yankees. I dont know if the Rangers would be like that. But i know if i want to see the yankees play in Detroit i better get my tickets early or else they'll be sold out.

2004
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance?sort=away_avg&year=2004&seasonType=2

2003
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance?sort=away_avg&year=2003&seasonType=2

2002
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance?sort=away_avg&year=2002&seasonType=2


Now i'm not saying it would happen in the NHL. Mainly because most MLB fans have hated the Yanks for years, decades etc.

I do think though if the Rangers were better the National Media would ride them more than lets say Tampa or some of the mid level markets.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

it hasn't been good for the league that the three biggest markets in the nhl (new york, la, chicago - probably 10% of the US population right there) have been so lackluster the last decade. hockey was at an all time high in 1994, i don't think that can be denied. i was in 5th grade back then, and everyone would be talking about the nhl playoffs that year.

what's disturbing now is that a recent espn poll showed that 56% of the espn.com viewers don't care at all that the nhl is being locked out. people in the US these days care more about poker, golf, nascar, tennis, than they do hockey. it's sad to think that hockey is probably the 7th or 8th most popular sport in the US. at least people were angry when baseball lost its world series. i'd definitely take outrage over apathy.

 

[RangerBoy]

Larry Brooks interview on WFAN

http://wfan.com/benignoreplay/

Third interview down

Check listen to him with an open mind

 

[Terrier]

Is Larry Brooks in bed with Goodenow by any chance. He's so anti-league. It's like he's on an island all to himself compared to most of the Hockey journalists out there.

Tell me about it. While we are all angry at the owners for adding too many damn teams in the first place, sentiment is tilting against the players(it's hard to be "for" anybody in this situation). On Sunday morning, John Saunders said that he can no longer defend the whopping percentage of revenues going to the players. One of my own hockey teammates said he wants the NHL to eventually break the players union, declare the impasse, open the doors and say "come and get it!". Every poll I've seen, from TSN to CNBC, places blame mostly on the players.

 

[Legolas]

Tell me about it. While we are all angry at the owners for adding too many damn teams in the first place, sentiment is tilting against the players(it's hard to be "for" anybody in this situation). On Sunday morning, John Saunders said that he can no longer defend the whopping percentage of revenues going to the players. One of my own hockey teammates said he wants the NHL to eventually break the players union, declare the impasse, open the doors and say "come and get it!". Every poll I've seen, from TSN to CNBC, places blame mostly on the players.

It's easy to blame the players. What hockey fan can relate to Ted Leonsis, or MSG or MLSE, or any other faceless corporation? It's much easier to look at a guy like Martin Lapointe, or Eric Lindros or [insert overpaid player here] and say "How the hell is that guy making $5 million a year to score 10 goals?" I don't put too much stock in polls of any kind slanted against the players. Anyone can say "They shouldn't be making so much money because I don't make that much money." Nobody has sufficient information on particular teams to comment on whether the owners are being greedy or not. All they think about is that there aren't a lot of sold out arenas, all they hear about is the super low ratings, all they therefore assume is that the Leavitt report is correct and all the teams are losing money, therefore it's the players' fault. I think they certainly share blame, but I'm more behind the players than the owners.

 

[Legolas]

One more thing - Larry Brooks and the NY Post may be super super annoying, but anyone with a passion for hockey can talk to me anyday.

 

[Randall Graves*]

Why do people (particularly those who aren't even from the US) think the Rangers have some kind of mystical sway over the whole country? I find it hard to believe that hockey's popularity in the US rests solely on the shoulders of the Rangers, you'd really have to prove it to me with some facts, either that or plainly state that this is only your opinion.

Because they are from new york...and surprise surprise most of the US sports media is based in or around New York.

It would generate more interest because ESPN would be talking about the game alot more, and exposing more people too it. Nobody cares about small markets in the media...the Minnesota twins are a prime example.

 

[Randall Graves*]

The idea that the whole of the US is fascinated by what goes on in New York is very popular...

...in New York.



Well, we're not sure it's a fact. It's an interesting theory... perhaps we could look at some other sport to see how well a dominating New York team has paid off in national viewership. How about baseball?

5 of the 6 all-time worst-rated World Series featured the dominant New York Yankees.

1999 Yankees/Braves averaged 16.0
2001 Yankees/Diamondbacks averaged 15.7
1998 Yankees/Padres averaged 14.1
2003 Yankees/Marlins averaged 13.9
The 2000 Mets-Yankees "Subway Series" was at the time by far the worst-ever rated World Series, drawing 12.4. (It was surpassed by the 2002 Angels/Giants World Series, which drew 11.9... although, time zones may have been a factor there.)

Prior to 1998, the lowest rated World Series had been the Giants/A's series in 1989; the one that was overshadowed by the earthquaked.

Has a dominant New York team been good for ratings in baseball? There may have been other factors, but the evidence doesn't seem to suggest the Yankees have been much of a boost to MLB... and maybe the opposite.

TV ratings are falling, they've been in decline for years. Aside from that most of those teams they played were small/mid market teams.

Boston+NewYork=ratings because of the large markets.
LA+Cubs=ratings because of large markets.
Marlins+New York=mediocre ratings because of one large and one small market.

TV ratings are down for the superbowl too.

 

[oilers_guy_eddie]

TV ratings are falling, they've been in decline for years. Aside from that most of those teams they played were small/mid market teams.

The fact that this ratings decline has occured *during* a New York Yankees dynasty itself is a pretty strong counter to the theory that a Rangers dynasty would get the NHL big ratings and that big TV contract.

Boston+NewYork=ratings because of the large markets.
LA+Cubs=ratings because of large markets.
Marlins+New York=mediocre ratings because of one large and one small market.

For baseball, you can go back 20 years and find that the best-rated series have featured the Braves, Indians, or Cardinals, with the Yankees/Red Sox series being the one exception. You can make a much better argument that West Coast teams are bad for ratings than that New York is good for ratings.

 

[Sotnos]

It's easy to blame the players. What hockey fan can relate to Ted Leonsis, or MSG or MLSE, or any other faceless corporation? It's much easier to look at a guy like Martin Lapointe, or Eric Lindros or [insert overpaid player here] and say "How the hell is that guy making $5 million a year to score 10 goals?" I don't put too much stock in polls of any kind slanted against the players. Anyone can say "They shouldn't be making so much money because I don't make that much money."

What makes people think that those who favor the owners position do so because they're jealous of the players? I'm interested in what's best for the game, and the status quo with the players making a HUGE chunk of revenue is not it.

You can make a much better argument that West Coast teams are bad for ratings than that New York is good for ratings.

You are probably right on that, it's been seen time and time again in different sports, and like you said before, a lot of it may be due to the time zones.

 

[YellHockey*]

I'm interested in what's best for the game, and the status quo with the players making a HUGE chunk of revenue is not it.

Who gets what chunk of the revenue makes no difference on the game. And even if it did, how can anything be worse then no hockey at all which is the current situation?

 

[Legolas]

What makes people think that those who favor the owners position do so because they're jealous of the players? I'm interested in what's best for the game, and the status quo with the players making a HUGE chunk of revenue is not it.

Players are overpaid. That's a fact. Having said that, I don't particularly care how much the players make because if they made less, I highly doubt the ticket prices would go down, or the costs of merchandise would be lowered. I just don't think that the fact the players are overpaid is sufficient reason to blame the players for the lockout or the current state of the game. I just don't see how capping payroll will translate into improving the product on the ice or the popularity of the game in the USA which seems so important. That's why when people mention that players are paid too much and the lockout is necessary to lower salaries, I don't see the end result being making the game better, I just see the owners making more money. That's okay, I don't begrudge owners their profits, but I don't make the mistake of thinking that siding with the owners is what's right for hockey, because sadly, hockey has very little to do with this labour problem.