What is the best Stanley Cup final possible from a business of the NHL perspective?

David Puddy

Registered User
Nov 15, 2003
5,824
2
New Jersey, USA
Visit site
GWhale said:
You mean San Francisco-Oak-San Jose which is not the same thing. San Jose is pretty far from San Francisco, thus there may not be an abundance of Sharks fans in that whole market.
I know perfectly well that San Hose is in the media market with San Francisco and Oakland. I originally had a note at the bottom of my post saying saying such and that Raleigh shares a media market with Durham and Fayetteville. I opted to remove it because I was linking to the list anyway.

It still offers the greatest media exposure.
 

LazRNN

Registered User
Dec 17, 2003
5,060
31
There not much interest in the Sharks outside of San Jose itself. I used to live in Oakland, and I'm willing to bet that every individual Bonds at bat gets more coverage and sports talk attention than the Sharks as a whole. Maybe the whole national anthem booing thing might have got a bit more attention... probably more attention than they would get by making it to the SCF.
 

detredWINgs

Registered User
Jan 1, 2004
17,966
0
Michigan
Visit site
The best final would be one Canada team and a US team, keeping both countries interested. It would be amazing from a Canadian standpoint if the finals featured two canadian teams, but that even further eliminates US viewers which SHOULD (although they dont) comprise a majority of viewers.

Thus, Detroit/NYR/Colorado v Any Canadian team would be good. Preferably any combination fo Detroit/NYR v Toronto/Montreal
 

LazRNN

Registered User
Dec 17, 2003
5,060
31
If the discussion has become what would be the best final out of all possible teams from a business standpoint, it's clearly the Kings vs. the Rangers. There's not much benefit to a Canadian team making it to the finals because interest in the NHL is high in Canada regardless. A Kings vs. Rangers final has the potential to draw attention in the two most influential media markets. You might have Jay Leno/Conan O'Brien types talking about it. You might even have national sports talk radio guys giving it some attention.
 

puckhead103*

Guest
rwilson99 said:
puckhead103 said:
must be a winnipeg jet fan from this website--->www.jetsowner.com

however, that bloke does have a point.....a canadian team against US team or a canadian final will result in low TV ratings in the US...

{QUOTE]


Not if it's an exciting series that goes 7 games.

Game 7 of CGY v TBL drew a 4.3, or the largest NHL game audience ever in the US.
game 7 games tend to have higher ratings..... :shakehead
 

Hadoop

Registered User
Aug 13, 2002
5,603
627
Mississauga
None of them... the reality is that the business of the NHL during these playoffs have been disappointing. There is NO WAY an Edmonton/Anaheim vs. Buffalo/Carolina final will attract many casual (and neutral) hockey fans. But should we really care?
 

Hadoop

Registered User
Aug 13, 2002
5,603
627
Mississauga
darkboy said:
If the discussion has become what would be the best final out of all possible teams from a business standpoint, it's clearly the Kings vs. the Rangers. There's not much benefit to a Canadian team making it to the finals because interest in the NHL is high in Canada regardless. A Kings vs. Rangers final has the potential to draw attention in the two most influential media markets. You might have Jay Leno/Conan O'Brien types talking about it. You might even have national sports talk radio guys giving it some attention.

Agreed.
 

Creative Destruction

Registered User
May 17, 2006
1
0
Toronto/Rangers/Boston/Philly vs Detroit/Colorado/Los Angeles/Chicago would all be good for the league. Those are all big media markets. I left out Montreal in spite of the Habs being the team with the most tradition etc. because their core market is Quebec which limits the marketing potential quite severely.

None of the teams left in the playoffs at this point present a good marketing opportunity. Anaheim might be based in a huge market in Southern California but I think there's a bit of a New Jersey/Islanders factor here, suburban team that by choice only appeals to part of the market. Buffalo is a small market in the Rust Belt, draws mostly from an area that has a bad reputation and is generally considered to be in decay. Edmonton is a relatively small market in Northern Alberta and whilst they might fly as Canada's team in these playoffs it's not exactly something that's marketable in the U.S. Carolina is a small market team in an area where hockey is a general non-factor, it lives off a rabid local fanbase mostly consisting of transplants and it's unlikely even a Carolina Cup triumph would convert college basketball/NASCAR country to the NHL - as many people likely wouldn't even take notice.
 

HFNHL Commish

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,355
8
Cruiser008 said:
None of them... the reality is that the business of the NHL during these playoffs have been disappointing. There is NO WAY an Edmonton/Anaheim vs. Buffalo/Carolina final will attract many casual (and neutral) hockey fans. But should we really care?

Should you care? Only if you have an interest in the NHL continuing to exist as a 30-team league.

Hockey continues to be very much a regional sport in the US. At this juncture, the NHL is going to struggle to attract the non-fan, or even the casual fan, no matter what the match-ups are. The Stanley Cup Finals could feature Detroit and Toronto, but you're still not going to get anyone in Lawrence, Kansas to watch.

Short-term, the NHL would obviously be best served, from a ratings perspective, by having Edmonton in the Finals.

Long-term, however, I think the NHL would be best served by having Anaheim and Carolina in the Finals. If the league's current business model is to work, the NHL needs to build and nurture relationships in its non-traditional markets. A Stanley Cup victory for either the Ducks or the Canes would go a long way towards fomenting goodwill in a non-traditional market.
 

Hadoop

Registered User
Aug 13, 2002
5,603
627
Mississauga
HFNHL Commish said:
Should you care? Only if you have an interest in the NHL continuing to exist as a 30-team league.

Hockey continues to be very much a regional sport in the US. At this juncture, the NHL is going to struggle to attract the non-fan, or even the casual fan, no matter what the match-ups are. The Stanley Cup Finals could feature Detroit and Toronto, but you're still not going to get anyone in Lawrence, Kansas to watch.

Short-term, the NHL would obviously be best served, from a ratings perspective, by having Edmonton in the Finals.

Long-term, however, I think the NHL would be best served by having Anaheim and Carolina in the Finals. If the league's current business model is to work, the NHL needs to build and nurture relationships in its non-traditional markets. A Stanley Cup victory for either the Ducks or the Canes would go a long way towards fomenting goodwill in a non-traditional market.

Thanks (I actually mean it) because I do care and was hoping someone would answer that question.

However what you've said is easier MUCH easier said then done. It's somewhat flawed to look at individual markets; more appropriate to look at the BIG picture, which is the league wide popularity. Anaheim or Carolina winning isn't gonna do squat for non-Anaheim/Carolina fans. Apart from the big market/small market issue, people want to see STARS and compelling stories (that's just the way it is). And frankly none of these teams is particularly intriguing to the casual fan.
 

HFNHL Commish

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,355
8
Cruiser008 said:
Thanks (I actually mean it) because I do care and was hoping someone would answer that question.

However what you've said is easier MUCH easier said then done. It's somewhat flawed to look at individual markets; more appropriate to look at the BIG picture, which is the league wide popularity. Anaheim or Carolina winning isn't gonna do squat for non-Anaheim/Carolina fans. Apart from the big market/small market issue, people want to see STARS and compelling stories (that's just the way it is). And frankly none of these teams is particularly intriguing to the casual fan.

Playing devil's advocate, I'd argue that, aside from Gretzky, the NHL has done a horrible job of marketing its stars in the US. Hopefully, the Crosby/Ovechkin generation can break that trend. That said, if Olympic hockey wasn't a big sell in the States, I fail to see how the NHL can increase its fanbase solely by pushing star power.

As for marketing compelling stories to fans...people are always hungry for a good human interest story. That said, stories like Jonathan Cheechoo's and Jordin Tootoo's don't resonate strongly in the US because...well, no one has a clue where Moose Factory is. ;)

Seriously though, stories about good hockey moms, or stories like the Sutters' and the Staals' play better in Canada than they do in the US. Now, if a guy like Sheldon Kennedy could've become a superstar...

Basicially, I feel that hockey hasn't been successful selling itself in the US from a macro perspective, which is why I suggested going with the grassroots model of winning over one market at a time.
 

slapsht25

Registered User
Aug 3, 2005
366
12
reej said:
NBC Wishes the Flyers were in the western conference so they could have a Philly/NY Final.
That's why they changed it from 1 vs 16 in the 80's, and the travel remember Isles vs Flyers. I know the 1vs 16 won't work but it shoudl be 1vs 8 in the conference no freebies in points, also you need a balanced conference schedule for that.
 

OG6ix

Registered User
Apr 11, 2006
4,476
1,385
Toronto
They need to cut the schedule short, and start in mid september and end in may. There are too many options during that time and hockey in June? Come on!
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad