One set of boundaries - Parity on the Ice - Close but no Cigar

[Macman]

That superleague is a pipedream with very little chances of happening in the next 5-10 years. You have to understand that over here teams have long tradition & history, local rivalries that keep the game going. Going against some foreign team isn't going to generate lots of interest.

I'm not talking about NHL teams playing European teams. I'm talking about an all-European superleague. There was an excellent article in the Globe and Mail, I think it was, over the winter that suggested that very thing; that there are deep pockets in Europe who are waiting to see how the 'new' NHL will look before moving ahead with their own league; that there are bigger arenas opening up in Europe, for instance an 18,000-seater in Prague, and TV contracts have been lined up. The birth of the WHA in the 1970s proved that the history and tradition of the NHL don't mean squat to some players. The NHL was arrogant in its belief 30 years ago that players wouldn't jump leagues and it was wrong. I see the same thing happening again unless it's careful.

 

[Hoss]

Chubarov is not a 2nd liner and will not really be missed even if he goes (which I doubt very much).

Lonny Bohonos, Steve Kariya and Corey Hirsch are perfect examples of players who earn more money in Europe than in NHL so try again.

Chubarov is 3rd string for the Canucks. I am saying when players on your 2nd & 3rd line face the new fiscal reality they will displace the Dennis Pederson's and Steve Kariya's of the world leaving holes in the NHL which will be filled by cheaper AHL and displaced players from the Euro leagues.

 

[Macman]

Chubarov is 3rd string for the Canucks. I am saying when players on your 2nd & 3rd line face the new fiscal reality they will displace the Dennis Pederson's and Steve Kariya's of the world leaving holes in the NHL which will be filled by cheaper AHL and displaced players from the Euro leagues.

Exactly. We saw it in the NHL of the 70s when career minor leaguers like Claire Alexander, Joe Lundrigan and guys like that were suddenly playing for the Leafs after guys like Rick Ley, Paul Henderson and Dave Keon jumped to the WHA. For those of you who weren't there, it wasn't a pretty sight.

 

[HSHS]

I'm not talking about NHL teams playing European teams. I'm talking about an all-European superleague. There was an excellent article in the Globe and Mail, I think it was, over the winter that suggested that very thing; that there are deep pockets in Europe who are waiting to see how the 'new' NHL will look before moving ahead with their own league; that there are bigger arenas opening up in Europe, for instance an 18,000-seater in Prague, and TV contracts have been lined up. The birth of the WHA in the 1970s proved that the history and tradition of the NHL don't mean squat to some players. The NHL was arrogant in its belief 30 years ago that players wouldn't jump leagues and it was wrong. I see the same thing happening again unless it's careful.

You may not believe this, but Finland actually considers Russia a foreign nation... and so does The Czech Republic...

 

[Macman]

You may not believe this, but Finland actually considers Russia a foreign nation... and so does The Czech Republic...

Sorry, but you've lost me there.

 

[NYIsles1*]

And if you include the last two, but not the first two, you get 12.5 for non Wings finals. Its a stupid way to measure ratings. You need to look at averages

Ok, we can look at averages.

Not counting the last two seasons the Wings involvement in four finals between
95-02 produced a 3.57 average rating as you pointed out. Without Detroit the average ratings for the other four finals between 95-02 were 3.50

You make some good points on the local ratings, we would have to compare them with local numbers in other markets for finals games to judge anything, however the point stands nationally the Wings produced little in terms of ratings by participating in the finals.

Your comments on the Wings ABC regular season games are nothing more than guesswork that do not reflect the numbers we have been provided with.

 

[HSHS]

Sorry, but you've lost me there.

When Pepper mentioned that there are local rivalries in Europe and the fans are not warm to foreign match-ups, you automatically assumed he/she meant NHL/Europe. But the term "foreign" to Czech's, Fins, Russians, etc includes playing other countries in Europe. This is his/her argument against a Euro-SuperLeague.

As for my personal opinion, I agree that one day there may be a Champion's League type tournament, but no individual league that would rival the NHL on a grand scale. But that's just my humble opinion.

 

[Macman]

When Pepper mentioned that there are local rivalries in Europe and the fans are not warm to foreign match-ups, you automatically assumed he/she meant NHL/Europe. But the term "foreign" to Czech's, Fins, Russians, etc includes playing other countries in Europe. This is his/her argument against a Euro-SuperLeague.

As for my personal opinion, I agree that one day there may be a Champion's League type tournament, but no individual league that would rival the NHL on a grand scale. But that's just my humble opinion.

I gotcha. Thanks.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Ok, we can look at averages.

Not counting the last two seasons the Wings involvement in four finals between
95-02 produced a 3.57 average rating as you pointed out. Without Detroit the average ratings for the other four finals between 95-02 were 3.50

You make some good points on the local ratings, we would have to compare them with local numbers in other markets for finals games to judge anything, however the point stands nationally the Wings produced little in terms of ratings by participating in the finals.

Your comments on the Wings ABC regular season games are nothing more than guesswork that do not reflect the numbers we have been provided with.

Actually, averages are a fatally flawed way of looking at ratings over a ten year period.

Each year, the number of households and viewers increases. This commensureately affects the value of a rating point. In essence, what is a rating point today substantially exceeds what a rating point was worth in 1995.

Furthermore, as the world of television has proliferated exponentially over the past ten years, the viewing aduience has become dramatically more fragmented. What was a horrible rating number ten years ago is a decent number now, even after you back out the above differences in the value of rating points. In short, a 3.5 may have been a very poor number in 1995 but is a much more solid number now.

Bottom line, pulling together ratings and averaging them out over ten years produces data of absolutely no value whatsoever.

 

[hockeytown9321]

You make some good points on the local ratings, we would have to compare them with local numbers in other markets for finals games to judge anything, however the point stands nationally the Wings produced little in terms of ratings by participating in the finals.

There's nothing to compare. The only other American market with CBC access was Buffalo.

Dallas or Colorado or New Jersey or Anaheim and everybody else *only* had one choice if they wanted to watch. The national numbers for those teams and series are as close to accurate as ratings can be. Detroit's aren't. If Detroit didn't have CBC, its reasonable to expect the national numbers would have been half a point higher, for an average of 4.1. Even adding in 500,000 viewers for Buffalo's series, and not including last years, you have a non Red Wings realistic average of 3.48. You also need to remember that in 1997 and 1998, 3 of the 4 finals games were on ESPN. 1997's 4.0 number is for just the first game, as is 1998's 3.3.

 

[Mess]

I don't have figures for their European salaries (do you?), but they earn more in Europe than in the NHL simply because they have a job in Europe. I doubt you'd see either of those three over there if there was an NHL job waiting for them.

New NHL min Salary is now going to be 400K ..

Now all Lonny Bohonos, Steve Kariya and Corey Hirsch have to do is wait till the NHL GM's hand out some bad contracts like they always do and offer their services to fill rosters at league min and we get to see the new CBA is full bloom ..

Welcome home boys I second the sentiment ..

The new NHL motto .. No longer are they allowed to say the best league in the world .. now they are forced to change the motto to the best league in the world that under 36 mil can buy you ..

 

[hockeytown9321]

Actually, averages are a fatally flawed way of looking at ratings over a ten year period.

Each year, the number of households and viewers increases. This commensureately affects the value of a rating point. In essence, what is a rating point today substantially exceeds what a rating point was worth in 1995.

Furthermore, as the world of television has proliferated exponentially over the past ten years, the viewing aduience has become dramatically more fragmented. What was a horrible rating number ten years ago is a decent number now, even after you back out the above differences in the value of rating points. In short, a 3.5 may have been a very poor number in 1995 but is a much more solid number now.

Bottom line, pulling together ratings and averaging them out over ten years produces data of absolutely no value whatsoever.

A network ratings point was worth about 954,000 in 1995. In 2005, its worth about 1.1 million.

http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/mediatrendstrack/tvbasics/02_TVHouseholds.asp

here's the total number of viewers for the Stanley Cup Finals since 1995:

1995: 954,000*3.4=3.24 million+500,000 CBC viewers=3.74 million total viewers

1996: 959,000*3.6=3.45 million

1997: 970,000*4.0=3.88 million+500,000 CBC viewers=4.38 million total viewers

1998: 980,000*3.3=3.23 million+500,000 CBC viewers=3.73 million total viewers

1999: 994,000*3.4=3.37 million+500,000 CBC viewers=3.87 million total viewers

2000: 1,000,000*3.7=3.7 million

2001: 1,020,000*3.3=3.36 million

2002: 1,050,000*3.6=3.78 million+500,000 CBC viewers=4.28 million total viewers

2003: 1,060,000*2.9=3.07 million

Now, in order, highest to lowest by year:
1997 (4.38)
2002 (4.28)
1999 (3.87)
1995 (3.74)
1998 (3.73)
2000 (3.70)
1996 (3.45)
2001 (3.36)
2003 (3.07)

So, four of the top five largest viewerships came with the Red Wings in the Finals. It aint a coincidence.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

A network ratings point was worth about 954,000 in 1995. In 2005, its worth about 1.1 million.

http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/mediatrendstrack/tvbasics/02_TVHouseholds.asp

here's the total number of viewers for the Stanley Cup Finals since 1995:

1995: 954,000*3.4=3.24 million+500,000 CBC viewers=3.74 million total viewers

1996: 959,000*3.6=3.45 million

1997: 970,000*4.0=3.88 million+500,000 CBC viewers=4.38 million total viewers

1998: 980,000*3.3=3.23 million+500,000 CBC viewers=3.73 million total viewers

1999: 994,000*3.4=3.37 million+500,000 CBC viewers=3.87 million total viewers

2000: 1,000,000*3.7=3.7 million

2001: 1,020,000*3.3=3.36 million

2002: 1,050,000*3.6=3.78 million+500,000 CBC viewers=4.28 million total viewers

2003: 1,060,000*2.9=3.07 million

Now, in order, highest to lowest by year:
1997 (4.38)
2002 (4.28)
1999 (3.87)
1995 (3.74)
1998 (3.73)
2000 (3.70)
1996 (3.45)
2001 (3.36)
2003 (3.07)

So, four of the top five largest viewerships came with the Red Wings in the Finals. It aint a coincidence.

NBA FINALS ON ABC-GM 7(S) on ABC had 18,997,000 viewers.

http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272|||weekly,00.html

The point is not to increase pathetic ratings in one market by a couple of hundred households but to grow the sport long term so that we outdraw 'Trading Spaces' on PBS for the stanley cup finals.

 

[Timmy]

1 NBA FINALS ON ABC-GM 7(S) on ABC had 18,997,000 viewers. The point is not to increase pathetic ratings in one market by a couple of hundred households but to grow the sport long term so that we outdraw 'Trading Spaces' on PBS for ther stanley cup finals.
http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272|||weekly,00.html

We need another Rangers/Canucks final.







With a different outcome, of course.

 

[hockeytown9321]

NBA FINALS ON ABC-GM 7(S) on ABC had 18,997,000 viewers.

http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272|||weekly,00.html

The point is not to increase pathetic ratings in one market by a couple of hundred households but to grow the sport long term so that we outdraw 'Trading Spaces' on PBS for the stanley cup finals.

But, the fact remains, Detroit has been the NHL's best ratings draw, and when they're in the Finals, there's a clear incrase in viewership.

 

[Kritter471]

But, the fact remains, Detroit has been the NHL's best ratings draw, and when they're in the Finals, there's a clear incrase in viewership.

Detroit and Dallas, apparently.

That boggles me. I wouldn't think Dallas-Buffalo would a.) draw better than Dallas-New Jersey and b.) draw better than the "vaunted" Avs series.

Is that total viewership or viewship for a single game? If it's for a whole series, you need to go through and divide by number of games to get a true sense of which series drew best.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Detroit and Dallas, apparently.

That boggles me. I wouldn't think Dallas-Buffalo would a.) draw better than Dallas-New Jersey and b.) draw better than the "vaunted" Avs series.

Is that total viewership or viewship for a single game? If it's for a whole series, you need to go through and divide by number of games to get a true sense of which series drew best.

Its the average viewership for each network televised game of that series. Some of those series only had a game or 2 on Fox or ABC, which probably lowers the average.

The Buffalo-Dallas series is that high because I added in 500,000 CBC viewers from Buffalo.

 

[Pepper]

I don't have figures for their European salaries (do you?), but they earn more in Europe than in the NHL simply because they have a job in Europe. I doubt you'd see either of those three over there if there was an NHL job waiting for them.

Max salary in FEL & SEL is under €300K per year, that's what $360K.

Those who earn more in FEL & SEL than in north-america, are not real NHLers. If you have a permanent job in NHL, you will ALWAYS make more money than in FEL or SEL, no matter what.

Russia is different but even they can't come even close to competing against NHL when it comes to 1st and 2nd line players. If you're a bonafide 2nd liner in NHL, you WILL make more money in north-america than in Russia, that's just a fact.

 

[Pepper]

I'm not talking about NHL teams playing European teams. I'm talking about an all-European superleague. There was an excellent article in the Globe and Mail, I think it was, over the winter that suggested that very thing; that there are deep pockets in Europe who are waiting to see how the 'new' NHL will look before moving ahead with their own league; that there are bigger arenas opening up in Europe, for instance an 18,000-seater in Prague, and TV contracts have been lined up. .

1st of all, I was talking about all-european superleague. It doesn't work because of the reasons I listed earlier.

Secondly, that article was complete bogus, it was written by someone who doesn't have a clue abotu European hockey scene. There have been several attempts of forming a euroleague from top euro teams but all of them died because the people just didn't care about them! Most likely there is no team in Europe which would fill that 18.000-seater arena in Prague.

And that TV-deal is just pure fantasy.

 

[PecaFan]

Wait a minute this can't be! I was assured by the most knowledgeable pro-owner types that no way could Russia or Europe lure away NHL players from the league. Even told they'd play for less in the "best league in the world"! Please don't post anymore such rubbish. Next thing you'll tell me Turek is walking away from the NHL!

Um, you do know that players have been heading over to Europe for years, right? Even under the old CBA? No one said the the new CBA would stop that. Some useless slugs with questionable NHL possibilities will take any job offered, and some Euros will always want to play closer to home.

No one claimed this wouldn't still happen. What was said was this sort of thing won't increase, there's not going to be a mass exodus.

 

[Hoss]

Um, you do know that players have been heading over to Europe for years, right? Even under the old CBA? No one said the the new CBA would stop that. Some useless slugs with questionable NHL possibilities will take any job offered, and some Euros will always want to play closer to home.

No one claimed this wouldn't still happen. What was said was this sort of thing won't increase, there's not going to be a mass exodus.

Time will tell I suppose. The lockout has shown us that Europe/Russia can be a welcome place for displaced NHL'ers.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Back to the original arguement!

I don't think this CBA is a "perfect" solution, but it goes a long way in the right direction. Didn't CLM GM McLean say that he would be thrilled if the big markets could only outspend him by 30%? That's the situation we will be in.

A big market will be able to have up to 60% more payroll than the minimum, and will likely only less than a 25% premium on the teams that spend at the luxury limit. Compare that to last years first round match-up between DET & NASH, where the Red Wings payroll was almost 3x the Preds.

For any poster to come on the board and rip the potential deal because it doesn't go far enough is just ludicrous. We had to lose an entire season to get this far - and nothing is signed yet.

 

[NYIsles1*]

here's the total number of viewers for the Stanley Cup Finals since 1995:

1995: 954,000*3.4=3.24 million+500,000 CBC viewers=3.74 million total viewers

1996: 959,000*3.6=3.45 million

1997: 970,000*4.0=3.88 million+500,000 CBC viewers=4.38 million total viewers

1998: 980,000*3.3=3.23 million+500,000 CBC viewers=3.73 million total viewers

1999: 994,000*3.4=3.37 million+500,000 CBC viewers=3.87 million total viewers

2000: 1,000,000*3.7=3.7 million

2001: 1,020,000*3.3=3.36 million

2002: 1,050,000*3.6=3.78 million+500,000 CBC viewers=4.28 million total viewers

2003: 1,060,000*2.9=3.07 million

Now, in order, highest to lowest by year:
1997 (4.38)
2002 (4.28)
1999 (3.87)
1995 (3.74)
1998 (3.73)
2000 (3.70)
1996 (3.45)
2001 (3.36)
2003 (3.07)

So, four of the top five largest viewerships came with the Red Wings in the Finals. It aint a coincidence.

So basically your saying CBC CH9 out of Canada only televises Wings or Sabres finals and this automatically adds your estimate of 500k viewers in Michigan (not Canada) to the numbers? They do not televise any other finals on that station without Detroit or Buffalo involvement.

 

[ryz]

The new NHL motto .. No longer are they allowed to say the best league in the world .. now they are forced to change the motto to the best league in the world that under 36 mil can buy you ..

Is that not a whole lot more than any other hockey league in the world can say?

 

[hockeytown9321]

So basically your saying CBC CH9 out of Canada only televises Wings or Sabres finals and this automatically adds your estimate of 500k viewers in Michigan (not Canada) to the numbers? They do not televise any other finals on that station without Detroit or Buffalo involvement.

Uh, no that's not what I'm saying, and quite frankly, if you read what I've written, you'd understand that. When Detroit and Buffalo are in the Finals, their home town fans have two choices: watch the ESPN\ABC\Fox coverage, or watch CBC. As was pointed out in the Detroit Free Press article I linked earlier, well over half of the Detroit fans choose CBC. I'd assume Buffalo's numbers are similar. Since those viewers are not watching the US coverage, they are not represented in the national ratings. When Dallas or New Jersey or Colorado are in, their fans can only watch on ABC or ESPN or Fox, so the numbers for those series are a true representation of their audience.

In other words, if Detroit didn't have CBC access, their fans would have to watch on ESPN, ABC or Fox, and those numbers would be about half a point higher.

I estimate 500,000 viewers because of the Detroit local numbers CBC has gotten for Wings finals games, taking into account the number of TV households in the market. I used the same number for Buffalo because I don't have their local numbers, or their market size handy. In reality, Buffalo's CBC audience in 1999 was probably in the 3-400K range.