SDS Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/spo...ey/14783954.htm He suggests the league find "ways" to make sure the traditional cities remain strong, even at the expense of others, to attract viewers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/spo...ey/14783954.htm He suggests the league find "ways" to make sure the traditional cities remain strong, even at the expense of others, to attract viewers... Awwww, my Dead Things don't get an automatic bid to the Conference Finals anymore. :( The league should fix it so that they always play Filly for the SC because that's what my wife wants to see. :o What a jackass. <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCSabresFan! Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Problem is the most talent doesn't always win. Look at Detroit and Philly this year for example. Dumb article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 You gotta be f$@%ing kidding me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 What a complete joke. By his "logic" then why not just fold 28 teams? That way, we can make sure that the best players are always in the finals, and guess what - we can also have a final every month. Oh and BTW in case the writer in question missed it - hockey is a team sport, and your team just wasn't good enough. On a sidenote, he knows jack about economics. Nobody in their right mind will own an NHL team, if the league is doctored towards favoring a few teams over everyone else cause it'll mean less chance of making a buck. And THAT my friends, means less teams, less games, less exposure, less fans. To hell with his wife. How this arcticle made it through the editor's office is beyond me, it's stupidity personified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyHavlatismyGOD Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 I don't know if i've ever read anything more ridiculous in my life... No offense to you folks, but i think its reasons like these that i don't appreciate American hockey fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCSabresFan! Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 I don't know if i've ever read anything more ridiculous in my life... No offense to you folks, but i think its reasons like these that i don't appreciate American hockey fans. I'm very offended. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 I don't know if i've ever read anything more ridiculous in my life... No offense to you folks, but i think its reasons like these that i don't appreciate American hockey fans. I don't know what's more ridiculous, the article or following it up with posts like this one. You won't see this writer's opinion coming out of anywhere other than Boston, Detroit, New York, Chicago, Philly, and Toronto, yet you want to throw an entire country or hockey fans under the bus? Wait, what's that? Did you notice the last city I mentioned? Yeah, last time I checked they're north of the border (I won't include Montreal because I really don't know the typical mindset of a Habs fan). What you have just shown here is the typical elitist mindset of Canadian hockey fans. The irony is that you're really no different than the guy who wrote this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Wow. Good thing he respects "traditional" markets with multiple championships, like Edmonton and Nassau. Oh, he didn't. And he has a job as a hockey reporter? Where do I sign up again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyHavlatismyGOD Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 What you have just shown here is the typical elitist mindset of Canadian hockey fans. The irony is that you're really no different than the guy who wrote this article. Shows what you know, Toronto fans arent Canadians - they are savages! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 And he has a job as a hockey reporter? Where do I sign up again? Agreed - I've made multiple attempts in the past at trying to get my foot in the door covering the NHL, and have had no luck, yet this a$$hat gets to write this kind of garbage? If I were the NHL's Director of Media Relations, I would be suggesting Gary make a phone call to this idiot...I guess this guy really doesn't like covering the NHL that much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Shows what you know, Toronto fans arent Canadians - they are savages! I was seated on a plane this weekend next to a couple of Leaf fans. I was wearing my Sabres hat and boy were they happy Buffalo beat Ottawa! They went on an on how Pominville beat Alfie, and how Alfie 'deserved' it. Man did they hate you guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyHavlatismyGOD Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 The Hate is very much mutual. They don't like Alfie for the hit on Tucker, and for making fun of Sundin that one time half throwing his stick. Just like i don't like TUcker for being a whining diver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 ANYONE who hits Tucker is ok in my book. If ever there was a guy who should be banned for life..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topshelfcookies Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Obviously the guys article was stupid, but he does have a point that for the league to draw in the casual fan it needs to be more successful at marketing itself. I think his only legitimate point in the article is that his wife knows no one playing for the Cup. Right now I think few people outside of Raliegh and Canada can name more than maybe 3 players on either Stanley Cup roster right now. I think to a degree, this is to be expected however. America is all about "What have you done for me lately", and there simply was NO NHL last fall/winter/spring. For a league to go away for an entire year, come back with tons of roster changes and lose it's TV contract it's no wonder that ratings were going to take a dive. The answer however, isn't making sure that Detroit and NY get stars on their teams, the answer is continuing to ensure a free-flowing, fast game where skill players can thrive, yet physical play is still an importatn aspect of the game. As for TV ratings...sure, having a Canadian team in the finals is bad for US ratings, but it's a dream for most hockey fans in general. How you can watch a game broadcast from Edmonton and not root for the Oilers is beyond me. After losing last night, as the players exited the ice, the fans started up the "Let's Go Oilers" as loud as they had all night. Anyways...the NHL doesn't need to have a fantasy draft among the biggest TV markets, but it sure would help if those big market cities became tuned in to what it takes to succeed in the new NHL. Part of the problem is the futility that organizations in big TV markets have shown in the past 5 years, and this spring especially. New York - (Rangers -swept in the 1st round, Isles - no playoffs) The Rangers have been a joke franchise since about 1995, but FINALLY seem to be back on track. Jagr is probably the biggest "name" player in the NHL and Lundquist is an up and coming star. Meanwhile, the Islanders have been a joke franchise since when? 1984? Maybe that's a bit harsh...but again, they are moving in the right direction with Nolan and Patty having a say in how things are done. Chicago - (No playoffs) Horrible. Just horrible. Chicago hockey fans practically support their AHL team, the Chicago Wolves more than they do the Blackhawks, and I can't blame them. I think any given night the Wolves really could beat the Blackhawks. Also, to show what a joke of an article this was, has anyone ever heard of Nikolai Khabibulin? Yeah, how'd that work out Chicago? Boston - (No playoffs) A team that's been such a mess the last 3 years that the finally traded away Thorton, their captain, face of the franchise and biggest offensive talent. Toronto - (No playoffs) obviously not a US city, but a huge market none-the less. I hate the Leafs and everyone knows what their problems are. Detriot - (Out in the 1st round) Whine, whine, whine and whine. So your team was old and got upended in the playoffs by a team that could skate faster, hit more and had better goaltending. Jeez...that's never happened before. Maybe you should go spend another couple million on Chelios and Yzerman...those guys won't wear down come May. Philly - (Out in the 1st round) Old, slow, stupid, fat, emotional ... oh sorry, I was thinking of their coach. The Flyers are old and slow and stupid though. They have no reliable goalie (and haven't since Bernie Parent left) but they do have a "name" player. Who will be out until 2007. Dallas - (Out in 1st round) Huge market, recognizable player in Modano, chokes in the playoffs. Stuff happens. Colorado - (Out in 1st round) I would qualify Colorado as a hockey market, as long as the Broncos aren't playing. At least the folks in Denver watch the games, and it's a decent size TV market. Also, I think it's important to note that two of the most marketable young players, Crosby and Ovechkin, put the NHL in a tough spot. Both play in markets where hockey is clearly the 3rd or 4th sport (Pittsburgh has the Steelers, then Pirates then Penguins - DC has the Skins, then 'Nats, well...I guess the Wizards are pretty lame too). Who even knows where the franchise Crosby plays for will be in 2 years? It's a tough bind. This guy's argument doesn't hold water, because almost every original 6 city DOES have a name player. What he fails to recognize though, is that most orignial 6 cities/ teams in large markets have been mis-managed and have been pretty bad so far this century. He's right that the NHL needs big market teams to succeed in the playoffs to get some high ratings, but making sure that big markets land big names ensures nothing. Look at the final 4 teams this season...few of them had more than 1 or 2 recognizable names on their rosters...yet they played great as a TEAM. The NHL has already done enough to fix the game...it's up to the owners/GM's/Coaches of teams to adapt to it. Once they do, it'll be great and the league will have something to market again. For people to watch, it helps to have places where hockey is viewed as a legit sport be successful, and that simply hasn't been the case for most of the 2000's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 First off, the writer is truly an idiot. What he proposes would kill the sport, except in those cities he chooses to bless (the original six... plus Philly haha). Can you imagine what would happen to attendance in those "second class" cities like Buffalo if you were to "fix" the league in favor of a few big market teams? Plummet would not be too strong a word. To the bigger point of fan interest in the United States. I don't think the low ratings can be explained by the lockout. Ratings were very low for ESPN in previous years. Soccer's a great sport, too, and is played by tons of kids (has been for years), but it has only a small following in the US. Hockey is in the same boat. I know it frustrates the hell out of the hockey establishment that it can't get its fingers into this fat sports pie of billions upon billions of dollars. But that's just the way it is. The braintrust of this sport should be thinking long term. Just keep improving the sport, keep its loyal longstanding fan base happy and hope the sport becomes more popular down the road in the US. I think it can happen. The league is banking that high definition TV will be the answer. It is currently a terrible thing to watch on the tube, but HD can change that. (Maybe those who have seen games on HD can fill us poor folks in.) But if hockey never becomes popular -- who cares? Owners and players will still make millions, and fans will be entertained beyond belief. We might never be Coke or Pepsi, but RC Cola tastes pretty good. (I might be dating myself on that reference. Do they still make RC Cola?) Just my .02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddaryl Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 as long as money is "All-Mighty" in the world then ratings, market share are the only things that matter. As much as this idea sucks, it still demonstrates how poor the NHL is, and how far it has to go to regain the recognition the sport had back inthe 70's and early 80's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottnc Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 The league is banking that high definition TV will be the answer. It is currently a terrible thing to watch on the tube, but HD can change that. (Maybe those who have seen games on HD can fill us poor folks in.) I saw a few games in HD this year. It is in a word... "amazing". The widescreen alone give the game a different look as you can see a lot more of the ice. The added details, like being able to see every scratch in the ice, is just icing on the cake. Unfortunately none of the games I saw were Sabre's games. Hopefully that will change next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Obviously the guys article was stupid, but he does have a point that for the league to draw in the casual fan it needs to be more successful at marketing itself. I think his only legitimate point in the article is that his wife knows no one playing for the Cup. Right now I think few people outside of Raliegh and Canada can name more than maybe 3 players on either Stanley Cup roster right now. I think to a degree, this is to be expected however. America is all about "What have you done for me lately", and there simply was NO NHL last fall/winter/spring. For a league to go away for an entire year, come back with tons of roster changes and lose it's TV contract it's no wonder that ratings were going to take a dive. The answer however, isn't making sure that Detroit and NY get stars on their teams, the answer is continuing to ensure a free-flowing, fast game where skill players can thrive, yet physical play is still an importatn aspect of the game. As for TV ratings...sure, having a Canadian team in the finals is bad for US ratings, but it's a dream for most hockey fans in general. How you can watch a game broadcast from Edmonton and not root for the Oilers is beyond me. After losing last night, as the players exited the ice, the fans started up the "Let's Go Oilers" as loud as they had all night. Anyways...the NHL doesn't need to have a fantasy draft among the biggest TV markets, but it sure would help if those big market cities became tuned in to what it takes to succeed in the new NHL. Part of the problem is the futility that organizations in big TV markets have shown in the past 5 years, and this spring especially. New York - (Rangers -swept in the 1st round, Isles - no playoffs) The Rangers have been a joke franchise since about 1995, but FINALLY seem to be back on track. Jagr is probably the biggest "name" player in the NHL and Lundquist is an up and coming star. Meanwhile, the Islanders have been a joke franchise since when? 1984? Maybe that's a bit harsh...but again, they are moving in the right direction with Nolan and Patty having a say in how things are done. Chicago - (No playoffs) Horrible. Just horrible. Chicago hockey fans practically support their AHL team, the Chicago Wolves more than they do the Blackhawks, and I can't blame them. I think any given night the Wolves really could beat the Blackhawks. Also, to show what a joke of an article this was, has anyone ever heard of Nikolai Khabibulin? Yeah, how'd that work out Chicago? Boston - (No playoffs) A team that's been such a mess the last 3 years that the finally traded away Thorton, their captain, face of the franchise and biggest offensive talent. Toronto - (No playoffs) obviously not a US city, but a huge market none-the less. I hate the Leafs and everyone knows what their problems are. Detriot - (Out in the 1st round) Whine, whine, whine and whine. So your team was old and got upended in the playoffs by a team that could skate faster, hit more and had better goaltending. Jeez...that's never happened before. Maybe you should go spend another couple million on Chelios and Yzerman...those guys won't wear down come May. Philly - (Out in the 1st round) Old, slow, stupid, fat, emotional ... oh sorry, I was thinking of their coach. The Flyers are old and slow and stupid though. They have no reliable goalie (and haven't since Bernie Parent left) but they do have a "name" player. Who will be out until 2007. Dallas - (Out in 1st round) Huge market, recognizable player in Modano, chokes in the playoffs. Stuff happens. Colorado - (Out in 1st round) I would qualify Colorado as a hockey market, as long as the Broncos aren't playing. At least the folks in Denver watch the games, and it's a decent size TV market. Also, I think it's important to note that two of the most marketable young players, Crosby and Ovechkin, put the NHL in a tough spot. Both play in markets where hockey is clearly the 3rd or 4th sport (Pittsburgh has the Steelers, then Pirates then Penguins - DC has the Skins, then 'Nats, well...I guess the Wizards are pretty lame too). Who even knows where the franchise Crosby plays for will be in 2 years? It's a tough bind. This guy's argument doesn't hold water, because almost every original 6 city DOES have a name player. What he fails to recognize though, is that most orignial 6 cities/ teams in large markets have been mis-managed and have been pretty bad so far this century. He's right that the NHL needs big market teams to succeed in the playoffs to get some high ratings, but making sure that big markets land big names ensures nothing. Look at the final 4 teams this season...few of them had more than 1 or 2 recognizable names on their rosters...yet they played great as a TEAM. The NHL has already done enough to fix the game...it's up to the owners/GM's/Coaches of teams to adapt to it. Once they do, it'll be great and the league will have something to market again. For people to watch, it helps to have places where hockey is viewed as a legit sport be successful, and that simply hasn't been the case for most of the 2000's. FANTASTIC READ! The braintrust of this sport should be thinking long term. Just keep improving the sport, keep its loyal longstanding fan base happy and hope the sport becomes more popular down the road in the US. I think it can happen. The league is banking that high definition TV will be the answer. It is currently a terrible thing to watch on the tube, but HD can change that. (Maybe those who have seen games on HD can fill us poor folks in.) Just my .02. Hockey in HD is an awesome, beautiful, wonderful thing. If everything was in HD, then perhaps Billy Bob and Mollie Sue could stop saying, "I can't see the puck, so I won't watch it". HD could definitely help the game get better ratings. Now we need to find a way to get HD TV's into every trailer park in America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Colorado - (Out in 1st round) I would qualify Colorado as a hockey market, as long as the Broncos aren't playing. At least the folks in Denver watch the games, and it's a decent size TV market. They lost in the 2nd round. Anyway, this is one of the markets that interests me. They had no team for ~15 years and then all of a sudden they were handed a winner. Has this happened anywhere else? These fans were spoiled beyond belief. I want to see how this market would respond if they end up going through a few years of mediocrity. Will they still show up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Did American sports fans care more about hockey in the 70s and early 80s than they do now? I honestly don't remember. It would be interesting to research NBC's ratings for nationally televised games back in the 70s (think Peter Puck). I bet the ratings weren't great. I have a feeling the only reason the casual sports fan in the United States had any exposure to the NHL back then was because of all the fighting and brawling. as long as money is "All-Mighty" in the world then ratings, market share are the only things that matter. As much as this idea sucks, it still demonstrates how poor the NHL is, and how far it has to go to regain the recognition the sport had back inthe 70's and early 80's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 They lost in the 2nd round. Anyway, this is one of the markets that interests me. They had no team for ~15 years and then all of a sudden they were handed a winner. Has this happened anywhere else? These fans were spoiled beyond belief. I want to see how this market would respond if they end up going through a few years of mediocrity. Will they still show up? Mediocrity is the one level the Denver market hasn't tested. They've had very good (the Avs) and VERY bad (the Rockies) but never anything that was "mediocre". My guess is the team would still do well, but would not be selling out every night, which is basically the same as any other solid US "hockey" town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swedesessed Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/spo...ey/14783954.htm He suggests the league find "ways" to make sure the traditional cities remain strong, even at the expense of others, to attract viewers... Maybe if this Red Wing$ did not keep resigning a 144 year old defenseman who is done, maybe I would actually feel some sympahty for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.