NHL still isn't must-see tv for Americans

[GoodKiwi]

What the heck does football have to do with this thread? Way to derail an interesting conversation.

 

[NormRod]

It's also difficult to nuture new fans to the game because of the expenses of actually playing hockey. Think of the costs incurred to get a kid to play hockey compared to football, baseball or basketball.
That alone makes it hard to get kids interested in the sport. The key to long term popularity and increased television revenue is getting (and keeping) life long fans and in my mind, you have to start with the kids. They get interested, they play, they become passionate about the game and then they stay fans for the rest of their lives.
That's the thing that hockey needs to do most. Look 10-20 years down the road. That fan grows up, has kids, those kids become fans and so on. Just like my dad turned me onto hockey.

 

[Oilers Chick]

Jazz: Yes, but the topic of discussion here is hockey NOT football. My answer was geared toward the topic at hand.

Good stuff.

When it comes to NHL hockey, Americans often accuse Canadians of being provincial, and on rare occasions, it is merited. However, it is Americans - US media specifcially - who are terribly provincial when it come the the NHL. A naive, perjorative (not to mention terribly outdated) stereotype exists when it comes to the topic of NHL hockey among mass media in the States. I've seen it evolve through the decades from the "they are all a bunch of lughead goons" to today's condescending mindset of "We don't talk hockey on this sports show/station."

This is exactly my point of refusing to educate. The NHL wants to grow in the US but doesn't want to educate the masses, which includes dispelling the myths...and just because the myths exist in the US does NOT mean they don't exist in Canada. They do and I can say that from personal experience.

For that and other reasons, I personally do not think that the NHL will ever be "popular" in the U.S. and I gave up worrying about it long ago. I wish it was, but not at the price of selling the sport out. That is, no lacross-size nets, no tricycles on ice and no pining for more "dynamic" personalities, thank you.

The latter is my biggest annoyance - because you hear/read such superficial observations from time to time from so called "fans" of this sport, those who should know better, but instead mimic what pop culture (ESPN) instructs them is "cool". Specifically, per your observation above, the insufferable and misguided wish for modest, well spoken and respectful NHLers to morph into egotistical reprobates....in order to better "sell the sport to casual fan". As if.

Just me, but I prefer an athlete who can look the interviewer in the eye and articulate a sincere (if not tabloid) response. It may not be "ghetto" or "controversial" enough for some lilly white suburban 13 y/os.

But it's real and works for me.

This is a beautiful sport with devoted and appreciative athletes. (The sterotyping of NHLers with select athletes of other sports who give off the air of entitlement is way off base, IMO.)

Much of the US does not appreciate that fact, nor ever will.

As such, waiting for good US TV ratings for the NHL is a fan's equivalent of Waiting for Godot.

This is what I referred to in my earlier post as being "gimmicky" and the media attention as "sensationalism" or "controversial". You're absolutely right that there are great athletes in this sport. It's just a pity that the media wants to focus on the "less flattering" ones (without naming names) than players such as Joe Sakic, who are not only the class acts of the league but are great ambassadors of this wonderful sport.

Again, it's all about educating the masses. Educating people, will not only help them understand the game better, but it also helps to dispell the myths that currently exist (and there are LOTS of them!). If the NHL doesn't want to nor feels that they do not have to do that, then it will continue to lag far behind the NFLs, MLBs and so forth on the American sports landscape.

I think the bigger question here is do Americans who currently do not follow hockey want to and/or is willing to be educated about the sport or do they simply want to keep a closed mind about it.

 

[grego]

Do kids all have to play organized hockey to learn to love the sport.

It doesn't cost much if kids want to play street hockey with their friends. Assuming wood sticks of course.

I know to some people having the organized leagues available to more people only does so much.

Baseball is a cheap organized sport to play in Canada along with soccer but we don't put out a ton of those.

 

[grego]

It is all media hype that portrays hockey to be a goon sport.

I have never heard baseball made fun of because an errant pitch hits a batter and next thing you know everyone is out there. And they don't even fight well when they do.

fighting has always had a purpose in hockey and it is not like the goons go out looking for small guys. In many cases heavyweights will give slack to small guys

 

[Trottier]

I think the bigger question here is do Americans who currently do not follow hockey want to and/or is willing to be educated about the sport or do they simply want to keep a closed mind about it.

Well, I'm temped to rant about the "closing" of the modern mind in general, but I'll resist.

We're in agreement. As I've stated before I believe firmly that the best thing this league could do is inve$t significant marketing dollars in grassroots youth hockey programs (ice, inline, street) in the US. I know that individual teams partake in youth programs, but the league has to spearhead a meaningful leaguewide grassroots effort, IMO.

(As a marketing professional, it annoys me to no end that the NHL has, far as I know, not pursued this strategy aggresively. It's not rocket science. It will take work and $$$, but it will work. But an effort like that has to be run out of "NHL Corporate", with execution on the ground by each franchise.)

Clearly, there is no single marketing tactic that will win the day for the league in the States. And any progress will be incremental. But the idea that a snappy ad campaign or increasing scoring, etc. is going to be a shortcut to increased popularity is mythology.

Get kids playing the sport early and often and it helps brand the league. And, as you suggest, you are cultivating a larger generation of future US fans who will be "pulling" (demanding) your "product", as opposed to simply trying to "push" it on them, amidst a sea of other, more popular and well entrenched entertainment options.

 

[joshjull]

This debate has always annoyed me. Especially the digs at Americans and why they don't like hockey. In the US there is much more competition for the sports dollar. What competition do the various Canadian franchises have? Virtually none. Depending on the American city an NHL team could be competing with an NBA, NFL, MLB or major college team or some combination of them or even all of them.

There is no comparable competition in Canada. NHL is top dog in Canada but what else is there that could compete. The US has more high level domestic pro leagues than almost any other nation. Thats not to belittle or attack anyone thats just stating the realities. Then throw in major college programs that in some parts of the US are more popular than pro teams. That the NHL , a sport not native to this country, can pull in 2+billion in revenue and support 24 teams is pretty impressive.
So spare me the comments about the ignorant Americans that can't follow hockey.

 

[Injektilo]

People with magic bullet answers (more talkative players! free tickets! shootouts! more black players!) should ask themselves would it would take to turn them into fans of soccer or basketball or cricket or whatever sport they don't particularily care for.


People in the US know what hockey is, it's been around for a long long time. It's not gonna get popular through gimmicks or overnight.

 

[Danny__K]

\

If you're not good enough for the NFL or if you have serious drug problems (Ricky Williams) you simply head up north where the talent is much inferior.

have you looked at Ricky Williams numbers? pathetic is a understatement
]

 

[Jazz]

Jazz: Yes, but the topic of discussion here is hockey NOT football. My answer was geared toward the topic at hand.....

Yes, I know.

My point was it football's liberal free-agency and annual off-season mass-movement has not had a detrimental effect on that sport's fans from following their players, so why should it hurt hockey?

 

[Jazz]

Well, I'm temped to rant about the "closing" of the modern mind in general, but I'll resist.

We're in agreement. As I've stated before I believe firmly that the best thing this league could do is inve$t significant marketing dollars in grassroots youth hockey programs (ice, inline, street) in the US. I know that individual teams partake in youth programs, but the league has to spearhead a meaningful leaguewide grassroots effort, IMO.

(As a marketing professional, it annoys me to no end that the NHL has, far as I know, not pursued this strategy aggresively. It's not rocket science. It will take work and $$$, but it will work. But an effort like that has to be run out of "NHL Corporate", with execution on the ground by each franchise.)

Clearly, there is no single marketing tactic that will win the day for the league in the States. And any progress will be incremental. But the idea that a snappy ad campaign or increasing scoring, etc. is going to be a shortcut to increased popularity is mythology.

Get kids playing the sport early and often and it helps brand the league. And, as you suggest, you are cultivating a larger generation of future US fans who will be "pulling" (demanding) your "product", as opposed to simply trying to "push" it on them, amidst a sea of other, more popular and well entrenched entertainment options.

I would take this one step further and have the NHL work this in cooperation with every possible league out there (AHL, USHL, College, ECHL etc) to not only cover the NHL markets, but a wider area in general.

But I do agree that the main push should be to get into the culture of the area, and that starts by getting kids and the younger adult demographic interested in the sport, have them grow up with it, and then have them take their kids and eventually grandkids to games.
But (proper) marketing of it's stars is also needed to compliment this.

As an aside, I still find it incredible that Mario Lemieux's comeback from cancer to win the scoring title and league MVP in 1993 did not resonate in the American sports landscape, despite all misconceptions there are with hockey.

 

[Oilers Chick]

I would take this one step further and have the NHL work this in cooperation with every possible league out there (AHL, USHL, College, ECHL etc) to not only cover the NHL markets, but a wider area in general.

I agree but that's suppose to be USA Hockey's job, and as much as it pains me to say this, it's a medicocre job done at best. But, I agree the NHL can do more.

But I do agree that the main push should be to get into the culture of the area, and that starts by getting kids and the younger adult demographic interested in the sport, have them grow up with it, and then have them take their kids and eventually grandkids to games.
But (proper) marketing of it's stars is also needed to compliment this.

As an aside, I still find it incredible that Mario Lemieux's comeback from cancer to win the scoring title and league MVP in 1993 did not resonate in the American sports landscape, despite all misconceptions there are with hockey.

There are two reasons (that I can think of offhand) why it didn't:

1) Timing

2) Mario Lemieux is Canadian


If look back at the Miracle on Ice and why it became an icon of American sports history is not just the fact that the Americans beat the Russians in a hockey game, but they had beaten a super power...and a super power that wasn't just in politics, made even more remarkable by the fact that it was achieved by a bunch of college players that were unknown outside of the mainly Minnesota and Boston areas and not NHL players. Americans needed something to feel good about, to lift up their spirits. I remember quite vividly when it happened. At the time, the news would report day in and day out how poorly things were going for the US and how national morale was low. When news broke about how the unknown (and upstart) American college kids beat the mighty Soviets, it became the feel good story that most Americans had been waiting for. It gave the nation a reason to not only cheer but something that they could all be proud of.

...in all of the celebrations, etc. what almost everyone seemed to forget was that the Americans still had to beat Finland to win the gold medal, which they did.

My point here is that while cancer survivors and hockey fans here in the US were very proud of Mario's achievement (I know I was), it also wasn't reported very much. Sure ESPN made mention of it, but it sadly, didn't get not nearly as much publicity as the Bertuzzi/Moore incident or the Rick Tocchet gambling scandal did. The information age as it is now and what the so-called "sports reporters" and "networks" would rather focus on is sensationalism or controversy rather than a feel good story. Heck, the Steve Yzerman retirement announcement barely got a blurb on ESPN News and to me, that's just pathetic and wrong!

 

[nags]

The CFL champ would have a tough time beating Ohio State, let alone the worst NFL team in the league.

The first quote was a joke.

The second one is just plain ignorant.

A CFL team would likely beat a Divison I football team by 50 points if not more. There is a big difference between a bunch of boys playing a game, and men who make a living at it.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Please stop the CFL vs NFL debate, it really is laughable. Before the NFL got a tv contract a debate could have been warranted, but not anymore. I know if the NFL wanted to expand into Canada you football fans would be ecstatic (see Toronto for instance). A part of me believes that a lot of Canadians want to believe that the CFL is comparable to the NFL because they know they aren't going to get anything better.

You've completely missed the point of the debate.

 

[Transported Upstater]

So, let's take a look at some of the reasons.

First, ask any American sports fan who is not a hockey fan why they don't follow hockey and these are some of the answers you'll get:

1) The sport is too violent (this seems to be a very popular answer)

That's beyond hypocritical.

For a country in which an even more violent game is the real national pastime, the only way someone can justify the above POV is if they don't like our national pastime either.

 

[Sotnos]

That's beyond hypocritical.

For a country in which an even more violent game is the real national pastime, the only way someone can justify the above POV is if they don't like our national pastime either.

IMO, the only way you can justify it is by knowing nothing about hockey.

People do still think like this. I remember a distant cousin of mine lamenting the brawls that were becoming more frequent in baseball by saying "it's getting to be like hockey". Probably saw some old clips from the 70s and that settled her opinion (and this was someone from New England too).

 

[bcrt2000]

if basketball can sell on tv, then hockey can sell


mlb and nfl are american pastime behemoths so theres no point comparing

but cummon, the nba isnt fun to watch at all. its largely being filled with non-americans and has struggled its fair bit as well.

if the NBA can be a top sport, then so can hockey

Best post on this topic I've seen in a while.

Its true, don't try to compare MLB and the NFL to the NHL. Its ingrained in American culture to play and watch Baseball and Football, thats something that will never change.

 

[Alpine]

From a Canadian's viewpoint. The biggiest difference is when comparing sport to sport is that Americans are used to Basketball, Football, and Baseball (to some extent) future players coming out of NCAA. NCAA does not have an ownership of hockey future players, like the other games, thus no American ownership of the game.
Personally I think Basketball especially would benefit greatlly from a Junior programme and maybe Football too. Then NCAA wouldn't have to invent classes like Ball Room dancing (sorry) so players can qualify for NCAA teams.
I just think untill parochial thinking of Americans dies or NCAA becomes to hockey what it is to Basketball and Football nothing will change much.
I dare any NBA fan to go to a coffee shop in Canada (outside of Toronto) and start talking basketball and see what reactions they get.
There was a number of years ago a CAN-AM Bowl played between NCAA and at the time CIAU (now CIS) played under Canadian Rules but it was stopped because CIAU won too often.

 

[BringBackHakstol]

That's beyond hypocritical.

For a country in which an even more violent game is the real national pastime, the only way someone can justify the above POV is if they don't like our national pastime either.

well, im not certain that this is a fact. I have many, many friends that i try to get into hockey, same with my parents but i have NEVER heard someone give the reason that the sport is "too violent"

 

[mfw13]

I think that one of the main reasons that TV ratings the NHL are so low is that the teams in the major TV markets have generally done very poorly over the last ten years.

In New York, the #1 TV market, the Rangers missed the playoffs eight straight years before getting swept in the first round last year and the Islanders haven't won a playoff series since 92-93. Only the Devils have done well, and they have the smallest fan base of the three NY teams.

In Los Angeles, the #2 TV market, the Kings have won only one playoff series in the last twelve seasons and missed the payoffs entirely eight of those seasons. The less popular Ducks have made long postseason runs two of the last three years, but have a much smaller fan base than the Kings due to their more abbreviated history.

In Chicago, the #3 TV market, the Blackhawks have made the playoffs only two of the past nine seasons and lost in the first round both times.

When you consider that the Rangers, Islanders, Kings, and Blackhawks have won a combined 15 playoff games in the last eight years, its no wonder that the overall TV ratings suck.

 

[Bringit*]

One reason why football and baseball are so popular in the US. Its called

GAMBLING

Maybe the U.S. should adopt what we have here in Canada.. It's called ProLine ( www.proline.ca ) .. I can walk into any convenience store and bet on hockey games.. You just fill a game ticket like you do for a regular lottery.. I just bet 3 games an hour before tonight's games started at my corner store. ..

I think the US can take a page out of Canada on how we market the great sport of hockey.

-

 

[jkrdevil]

I think that one of the main reasons that TV ratings the NHL are so low is that the teams in the major TV markets have generally done very poorly over the last ten years.

In New York, the #1 TV market, the Rangers missed the playoffs eight straight years before getting swept in the first round last year and the Islanders haven't won a playoff series since 92-93. Only the Devils have done well, and they have the smallest fan base of the three NY teams.

In Los Angeles, the #2 TV market, the Kings have won only one playoff series in the last twelve seasons and missed the payoffs entirely eight of those seasons. The less popular Ducks have made long postseason runs two of the last three years, but have a much smaller fan base than the Kings due to their more abbreviated history.

In Chicago, the #3 TV market, the Blackhawks have made the playoffs only two of the past nine seasons and lost in the first round both times.

When you consider that the Rangers, Islanders, Kings, and Blackhawks have won a combined 15 playoff games in the last eight years, its no wonder that the overall TV ratings suck.

The thing is ratings weren't much better when the Kings and Rangers were in back to back finals. Although they both played Canadian teams in which that market wasn't factored into ratings.

As for NCAA point NCAA Baseball isn't popular at all. It's a lot like hockey in that many players don't play in College they go straight to pros. Plus they usually play a few years in the minors.

That said I do agree the NHL needs a grass root effort to build up participation in the game. I also think a part of should be to help build up the college game. I think the NHL should try to promote players to go through the NCAA system and help schools in NHL markets to get a hockey program started. This does a few things one it gets the best prospects in the US where they are more visible and builds a little more hype for them coming in. Also this also can help get a younger audience exposed to live hockey (which is the best way to get new fans). The might go see their schools team live because it's cheaper than an NHL or minor league game. Sure it might come at the expence of the Canadian Junior system but building up the collge game is a must.

 

[Oilers Chick]

The thing is ratings weren't much better when the Kings and Rangers were in back to back finals. Although they both played Canadian teams in which that market wasn't factored into ratings.

As for NCAA point NCAA Baseball isn't popular at all. It's a lot like hockey in that many players don't play in College they go straight to pros. Plus they usually play a few years in the minors.

Actually when you look at how many now former collegians are playing in the NHL, whether they played just one year or played all four years, the number has grown, just in the last decade alone. I can't give you exact numbers offhand but I assure you the number has grown from what it was back in the mid-90s.

That said I do agree the NHL needs a grass root effort to build up participation in the game. I also think a part of should be to help build up the college game. I think the NHL should try to promote players to go through the NCAA system and help schools in NHL markets to get a hockey program started. This does a few things one it gets the best prospects in the US where they are more visible and builds a little more hype for them coming in. Also this also can help get a younger audience exposed to live hockey (which is the best way to get new fans). The might go see their schools team live because it's cheaper than an NHL or minor league game. Sure it might come at the expence of the Canadian Junior system but building up the collge game is a must.

It's very complex and way too long to explain here but I'll try and give just some major points on the NCAA part.

First off, you have to understand that NCAA schools are either public or private institutions. Many of your most recognizable schools such as Michigan and Minnesota are public schools. While schools such as Harvard and Notre Dame are private schools. The funding varies greatly from institution to institution, especially public ones and even more greatly depending upon the sport. For example, as well-funded as Michigan hockey is (and believe me when I say they are well-funded!), the hockey program has nothing on its football program when comes to incoming revenue and popularity. Now, look at a school such as the University of North Dakota. It's smaller than Michigan (enrollment-wise) and it's just the opposite.

There are also things such as scholarships or lack thereof that are offered (18 is the max for all schools, although not all offer 18 scholarships and scholarships vary as far how many of them are "full rides" and so forth), meeting academic standards (after all this is college, if you don't have the grades, no matter how great your hockey skills are, you don't get in) etc. that also come into play.

While NCAA recruit in the US, they also actively recruit up in Canada, just like the CHL does here in the US. Leagues such as the BCHL and AJHL are very, very popular recruiting grounds for virtually every D-I and most of the D-III schools in the nation. It is important to note here that not all players recruited from these Canadian junior "A" and "B" leagues are Canadians, although the numbers of non-Canadians on these teams are very small. Still, you have many Canadians who dot the NCAA landscape...whether they are players or coaches. So if your suggestion is to diminish the number of Canadian-born players playing in the NCAA, then the a huge chunk of the NCAA hockey recruiting system will need to be overhauled/changed to accommodate more Americans. Frankly, I just don't see that happening nor would I want it to because the NCAAs should be able to actively recruit the best players available no matter WHERE they're from. I feel the same way about the CHL in that regard as well.

All of that said, one trend that has already begun to happen, and you see this especially in the WCHA, is the increase in recruiting home grown talent. Minnesota, Wisconsin and Denver have many players on their rosters who are local kids, that is from the respective states that these programs are located in. This is NOT to say that they have nor will ever stop recruiting outside of their home states, but merely they are taking advantage of going after the wealth of talent that is in their backyard.

So as you can see it's very complex, but as I've stated earlier, in order for the sport to grow in popularity here in the US it has to appeal to more people and the only way you're going to appeal to them is to make it more accessible and to educate them about the sport. Hockey is the best sport in the world and whenever I'm given the opportunity, I try to educate people on the great things about this sport and at the same time try to dispell the myths associated with it.

 

[gwilled]

Wow... This is just a stupid mistake to make. They even link it wrong, making it worse.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-worldseries-ratings&prov=ap&type=lgns

NBC televised the final five games of the Carolina Panthers '4-3 victory over the Edmonton Oilers in June's Stanley Cup finals, averaging a 2.3/4.

I don't know, but Steve Smith is a speedy little devil with soft hands; he might make a good winger. Throw one of those O-lineman in net and you have the core for a Cup team.

 

[jkrdevil]

Wow... This is just a stupid mistake to make. They even link it wrong, making it worse.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-worldseries-ratings&prov=ap&type=lgns


I don't know, but Steve Smith is a speedy little devil with soft hands; he might make a good winger. Throw one of those O-lineman in net and you have the core for a Cup team.

Looks like they fixed it.