Jaded-Fan said:
The question is not the current ratings. I think that everyone can agree they suck big time.
I wasn't using ratings to justify that college basketball, college football, golf, and NASCAR are more popular. I was using ratings to show that bowling, gynastics, and the like are 'inflated' because they aren't on every week.
Jaded-Fan said:
The question is whether the fundementals of the sport will allow growth, isn't it?
It is. And frankly, the growth of hockey is limited due to the prices of equipment and rink time. Sure, there's street hockey but that's still more expensive than football and basketball. How limited is up for debate, but it's easier to get a few friends together for a game of football or basketball than for a game of hockey. Of course, baseball has a similar problem in that there is a greater need for equipment, but diamonds are abundant at playgrounds, street hockey rinks aren't.
Jaded-Fan said:
In the early to mid-90's the NHL was the hot up and coming sport. There was an excitement about the sport, and it was growing. Hell, I even remember Snoop Doggie Dog used to wear a Pens sweater in his videos. I think that those calling for contraction and similar have pretty much in their minds relegated the sport to perpetual second class statue, believing that the fundementals will never translate nationally.
Well, the NHL IS a second tier sport in the US right now. I wish it weren't, but that's the reality of it. When you have a no pay national TV contract, (realatively) little public outcry for a season cancellation, and franchises that the average sports fan doesn't know, you're a second tier sport. I don't like it, but that's the reality.
I disagree, fix the fundementals league wide with a viable salary cap, then fix the game as other successful sports do. The recipe is pretty simple, allow scoring and lots of it. Change rules as needed to accomplish that. NFL and NBA has done that for years.
Completely agree. Hockey can become a first rate sport in the eyes of the public with the proper adjustments. But it's going to take time. The NBA and NFL didn't become so popular overnight. And also, there is some degree of luck in terms of having the right players. The NBA took off with Bird and Magic, the Super Bowl got big because of Joe Namath, the NHL needs something like another Wayne/Mario tandem, hopefully Crosby/Ovechkin can be that if the hype is real. But they can't force it, they can't sell us two star players as being more than they really are.
Jaded-Fan said:
Now I may be wrong, those who relegate the NHL to second class sport forever may be right, but isn't it worth doing the above and giving it a five year try to see if it works?
If you're looking for an argument, you've got the wrong guy. Shocking, I know!
Jaded-Fan said:
As a ps, I was thinking recently of cities where there are baseball teams that really have been relegated to virtual perpetual second class teams, about half the teams in baseball actually. I think that if hockey does get its act together they could cut into baseball, at least when the seasons overlap. If your team is going nowhere and the local hockey team is in the midst of a nice run, in April, May, I could very well see hockey winning the battle for your entertainment $$$ in those months. Which would the average fan want to see? A baseball team with a $35 million or $40 million payroll (or less) who has no chance to get into or beat a Yankees team with 8 times their payroll or a hockey team that actually can compete. Long term I do not see how hockey can not pick up fans at baseball's expense if hockey gets its act together and baseball does not.
A good point, but one that requires a lot of things out of people's control. Nice post JF.