Toggle sidebar

NHL TV ratings 2023/2024

NextBigThing

Registered User
Feb 25, 2010
798
579
Devine Rink
Reaser said:
FWIW on that Bruins-Celtics debate, I see SMW responded: "Not sure [why they have different numbers,] to be honest. I will say I’m confident in the numbers I posted, though that is not to cast any aspersions on Wyshynski’s reporting."

Wyshynski cited his source as "Nielsen Local Markets."

The only thing confirmed there is that more people in the Boston market watched the Bruins on NESN than watched the Celtics on NBC Sports Boston. That isn't in dispute. How many in Boston watched the respective national broadcasts, differing reports.
Click to expand...
The hockey guy didn’t include the TRU tv numbers. Celtics won the night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bostonzamboni

Reaser

Registered User
May 19, 2021
993
1,866
NextBigThing said:
The hockey guy didn’t include the TRU tv numbers. Celtics won the night.
Click to expand...

Ugh, that isn't the sole difference. Use a little logic.

Remember last season when you trolled the 2022/23 NHL TV Ratings thread all season saying the Celtics were beating the Bruins locally and always beat the Bruins locally in years prior and were proven wrong, over and over, all the way to a mod popping in and saying you're so wrong you need to provide a source and your source ended up being that you "heard it on the radio" and even that was immediately proven a lie, so you backtracked all the way to that you may have heard wrong because you were "hungover." An entire season worth of trolling and your excuse boiled down to that you were "hungover."

Combined Celtics regional/national viewership in the Boston market: Wyshynski had 292k, SMW had 307k. That difference could be/likely is truTV.

But that isn't solely what determines who "won the night."

It's the Bruins combined: Wyshynski has 343k, SMW has 300k.

Which has nothing to do with truTV. Use a little common sense.

So, exactly as I said, the only thing confirmed there is that more people in the Boston market watched the Bruins on NESN than watched the Celtics on NBC Sports Boston. That isn't in dispute. How many in Boston watched the respective national broadcasts, differing reports.

Either could have won, not enough information to make any definitive statements other than more people in Boston watched NESN than NBC Sports Boston.

It's also not that big of a deal. One game. It was shared without commentary for the local market numbers, which is the interest.

We already know that in at least the last half-decade the Bruins beat the Celtics in local ratings and share in the market in the regular season more often than not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bostonzamboni, Anisimovs AK, Kirk Van Houten and 2 others

Reaser

Registered User
May 19, 2021
993
1,866
Anisimovs AK said:
That Stars-Knights number is really interesting. I wonder what is driving that?
Click to expand...

My theory was that for Game 1's and 2's of the late games that overlap in recent years, they have a combined viewership of roughly 1.0M to a little over 1.2M.

So it was just going to be about how the numbers were distributed between the two games. Once we saw the VGK-DAL number it was obvious LAK-EDM wasn't going to be good because there wasn't much viewership left over, majority was at the VGK-DAL game, which was helped by lead-in of BOS-TOR and being part of the ESPN doubleheader.

The slight positive, to me, was that the late games combined did about 40-50k more than I had projected.

Of course, finding VGK-DAL as an interesting series plays some part, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bostonzamboni

Reaser

Registered User
May 19, 2021
993
1,866
^ Should say "First round" Game 1's & 2's.

Regardless, taking the teams out of it to show the math, here is last years playoffs:

First Round Game 1's & 2's:
Overlapping 9:30pmET & 10pmET weeknight windows:

Game 1: 561k & 483k
Game 1: 267k & 737k
Game 2: 527k & 595k
Game 2: 875k & 338k

So there's basically a range there what those games -combined- are going to do.

edit to add: This year, the Game 1's & 2's in the overlapping 9:30pmET & 10pmET weeknight windows:

Game 1: 777k & 362k
Game 2: 700k & 327k
Game 2: 1.003M & 272k

Small sample size but a pretty consistent combined average viewership range.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bostonzamboni, Anisimovs AK and Kirk Van Houten
S E P H

S E P H

Cloud IX
Mar 5, 2010
31,022
16,548
Toruń, PL
Vegas is a villain and people want to see villains slain, that is why Dallas Cowboys get very high viewers, that's because rival teams want to see them lose. That's one of the theories I have for the Vegas series numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bostonzamboni and Jets4Life
Kirk Van Houten

Kirk Van Houten

Registered User
May 7, 2019
1,192
1,372
Meh if the league is smart with the schedule they go with Rangers @ Canes/Isles and then the all Canada west semis. They get a good lead in and the numbers won't crash.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anisimovs AK

BMOK33

Registered User
Oct 5, 2005
26,960
4,520
Sounds like TNT could be at risk of losing the NBA to NBC. You wonder if NBC is gonna come after the NHL too again, if they do I'd suspect TNT won't want to lose both so probably ESPN could be in trouble
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bostonzamboni
jkrdevil

jkrdevil

UnRegistered User
Apr 24, 2006
42,850
12,744
Miami
BMOK33 said:
Sounds like TNT could be at risk of losing the NBA to NBC. You wonder if NBC is gonna come after the NHL too again, if they do I'd suspect TNT won't want to lose both so probably ESPN could be in trouble
Click to expand...
If NBC spends $2.5 billion a year for NBA rights they aren’t going to want to spend anymore for NHL rights. Now TNT will be desperate keep their MLB and NHL rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bostonzamboni, DaBadGuy7, Kirk Van Houten and 2 others
jkrdevil

jkrdevil

UnRegistered User
Apr 24, 2006
42,850
12,744
Miami
joelef said:
That’s what happen when your don’t market your biggest star in the league.
Click to expand...
What specifically do you suggest? Because they market McDavid a lot. Edmonton is on US tv quite a bit given they have no local audience in the US and their games start late in the eastern part of the country where most people live.

I feel like a lot of people always throw out “market the stars better” as a solution but have no clue what that actually means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Farkas, TheOrganist, Anisimovs AK and 1 other person

joelef

Registered User
Nov 22, 2011
1,818
677
jkrdevil said:
What specifically do you suggest? Because they market McDavid a lot. Edmonton is on US tv quite a bit given they have no local audience in the US and their games start late in the eastern part of the country where most people live.

I feel like a lot of people always throw out “market the stars better” as a solution but have no clue what that actually means.
Click to expand...
Commercials , billiards , talk shows etc..
 
  • Like
Reactions: NextBigThing
jkrdevil

jkrdevil

UnRegistered User
Apr 24, 2006
42,850
12,744
Miami
joelef said:
Commercials , billiards , talk shows etc..
Click to expand...
1.) commercials don’t have the reach they used to.

2.) In terms of outside league commercials…whose is putting him or other players in there. A lot people on here confuse correlation with causation. Athletes for the most part get endorsement because the sport they play, not the sport they play get popular form their endorsement.

3.) sure they could do more on the appearance show front, but you still run into the “it’s hockey problem”. The use of minute by minute data over the past 20 years have only hurt the time hockey (and baseball) get on these shows.

I’ve set it many times the sport hierarchy got set in stone 60-70 years ago. Hockey’s leadership at the time wasn’t forward looking. You can dislodge it at this point. And the structure of having significant presence in two countries makes it harder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bostonzamboni and Anisimovs AK
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom