why is hockey the red-headed step child of american sports?

[Dude!]

i like it second only to baseball

what's wrong with americans
that they don't go gaga
over hockey?

it is the most exciting game

nothing better than being
in the stands at a college
hockey game

but here we put it in the same
category as soccer

why is that?

[underdog]

Year long lockout.

[styckx]

Bettman

[Dude!]

Year long lockout.


well, even before that
it was under-appreciated

and baseball recovered
from a strike

[ToiletCrusher]

The Nordiques, Whalers, and Jets.

Also, the North Stars.

[pittphantoms]

Worst TV sport...

Best live action sport IMO...

It also is on the least known network and is shunned by ESPN.

If they were on ESPN and Crosby was playing better - this would be a much bigger event.

[TooLowBrow]

no one gets into it young cause skates cost 200-300.

a kid can get a mitt for 20 bucks

[spoon]

Worst TV sport...

Best live action sport IMO...

It also is on the least known network and is shunned by ESPN.

If they were on ESPN and Crosby was playing better - this would be a much bigger event.

I agree with everything but the worst tv sport. I LOVE hockey on tv and truly don't understand the logic with this one. Of course it's not the first time I've heard this, but I just don't understand it, especially now with HD.

[spoon]

no one gets into it young cause skates cost 200-300.

a kid can get a mitt for 20 bucks

Oh, it's fucking worth the coin.

[TooLowBrow]

Oh, it's fucking worth the coin.

tell my mom that in 1988

[underdog]

No one wants to watch a bunch of fags floating around on skates.

[Gvac]

Because most Americans are pussies and would rather watch and play basketball.

"He touched me!!! That's a FOUL!!!"

They couldn't tolerate being slammed into a wall by someone skating 30mph.

Repeatedly.

And maybe (God FORBID!) having to drop their gloves and defend themselves once in awhile.

Buncha fairies I tell ya.

[underdog]

being slammed into a wall by someone

Repeatedly.

Buncha fairies I tell ya.

I agree.

[ToiletCrusher]

I agree with everything but the worst tv sport. I LOVE hockey on tv and truly don't understand the logic with this one. Of course it's not the first time I've heard this, but I just don't understand it, especially now with HD.

Yeah, hockey on TV is great. Just not on NBC. Their coverage is terrible. I have the play by play.

It's more local than what can be offered by networks. You need your announcers, color guys and all that jazz.

[HBox]

I think it's partly because the quality of hockey games is more volatile than any other sport. It can be vastly more exciting or boring than any other sport. A fast back and forth shoot out or a goalie duel full of scoring chances can easily be more exciting than any other sport in person or on TV. However, a sloppy bore fest in which half the game is wrapped up in long scrums along the boards can be unwatchable.

But mostly it's......

VERSUS.

[spoon]

Yeah, hockey on TV is great. Just not on NBC. Their coverage is terrible. I have the play by play.

It's more local than what can be offered by networks. You need your announcers, color guys and all that jazz.

Oh that's an entirely different subject, yet most sports have terrible announcers we have to endure.

[Crossweird]

"Who wants to go outside for a pick-up hockey game?"

Maybe that's why.

[ToiletCrusher]

Oh that's an entirely different subject, yet most sports have terrible announcers we have to endure.

But it adds to the lack of mass appeal when you have a lack of network backing.

[pittphantoms]

I agree with everything but the worst tv sport. I LOVE hockey on tv and truly don't understand the logic with this one. Of course it's not the first time I've heard this, but I just don't understand it, especially now with HD.

One, the hits dont translate to the TV nearly as much as they do in the NFL because the fans are so close they drown out a lot of the crunching...

Second, people cant follow the puck. I know its stupid, but people are stupid. The boards obstruct the view too much. HD can help bring the game to life more, and it does, but the boards are a problem.

Third, hockey is best viewed for the skill from very high up. I have sat on the glass, I have sat in the top of the arena - I LOVE sitting at the top of the arena because you see EVERYTHING... The cameras are generally too close to show how much goes into setting up a play etc... it doesnt hurt football as much because 50% of the plays are runs - and even on passes you get to watch the rush. I think the NBA struggles with this as well... hell they cant even get it completely correct in the video games!

[spoon]

The bottom line is it will never be as big as the other sports due simply to access and how expensive it is. Still, nobody play nascar as a kid and it doesn't have any effect on it's popularity. To me, I'd rather hockey keep it's core group of fans and it stay where it's at only adding a few fans due to a network change back to espn. The worst thing they can do is cater to the fringe fan and take out the fighting and other elements to the game. I could give a fuck if it ranks ahead of MLB, NFL or NBA. Yet losing Bettman would be another good move.

[spoon]

"Who wants to go outside for a pick-up hockey game?"

Maybe that's why.

Seriously though, this happens a ton now due to deck and roller hockey. So to me this isn't so far off.

[ToiletCrusher]

I agree. I have played more pick up hockey games than I have any other sport.

[Crossweird]

Seriously though, this happens a ton now due to deck and roller hockey. So to me this isn't so far off.

Your NASCAR comparison seems valid, too.

[STC-Dub]

They really screwed themselves with the lockout.

[TheMojoPin]

Too many Canadians.

[TheMojoPin]

I agree with everything but the worst tv sport. I LOVE hockey on tv and truly don't understand the logic with this one. Of course it's not the first time I've heard this, but I just don't understand it, especially now with HD.

That's because you're a hockey fan.

I'm not, and I simply cannot watch the game on TV. I've had a blast when I've seen the games live, but the numerous hockey games I've tried to watch on TV have bored me to tears.

I also agree with the point that the game can be wildly divergent between being an incredibly boring one or a crazy one, much like soccer. Baseball, football and basketball you're know what you're getting going into it. On any given game, soccer or hockey can be the most boring fucking thing in the world because nothing happens except a shitload of passing.

[hammersavage]

Phoenix, Atlanta, Nashville, Florida, etc. You can get rid of 5 or 6 teams. Relocate to cities that make sense.


Its way better in person. I was around it for 7 years and really learned the game from up close like I never did watching it on TV.


The lockout hurt. When it came back, the Devils winning was the single worst thing that could have happened to them. People didn't want to watch and when they did, that's what they saw.


Bettman does a terrible job. Scheduling is a disaster.

[spoon]

That's because you're a hockey fan.

I'm not, and I simply cannot watch the game on TV. I've had a blast when I've seen the games live, but the numerous hockey games I've tried to watch on TV have bored me to tears.

I also agree with the point that the game can be wildly divergent between being an incredibly boring one or a crazy one, much like soccer. Baseball, football and basketball you're know what you're getting going into it. On any given game, soccer or hockey can be the most boring fucking thing in the world because nothing happens except a shitload of passing.

There is a MAJOR dif bt soccer and hockey, and it's called shot total. While in soccer you'd be lucky to see double digits in a defensive struggle, a good old fashioned tight game in hockey you'll see huge hits, fights, and some just incredible saves. Even the lightest shot totals bt both teams will equal somewhere close to 35 shots or more.

[TheMojoPin]

There is a MAJOR dif bt soccer and hockey, and it's called shot total. While in soccer you'd be lucky to see double digits in a defensive struggle, a good old fashioned tight game in hockey you'll see huge hits, fights, and some just incredible saves. Even the lightest shot totals bt both teams will equal somewhere close to 35 shots or more.

The only comparison I was making between soccer and hockey is that they're both sports where the offenses can be completely shut down and it's boring as fuck for the casual viewer.

If I want to just watch fights I'll watch MMA or boxing instead of waiting for a bunch of goons on skates to get pissy with each other.

I mean, it's a fun part of hockey, but I'm not going to watch a game in the off chance some fights break out. It's just incredibly boring on TV for people who aren't devoted to the sport. I'm not a fan of golf by any means but I find that much more interesting to watch on TV on a regular basis than hockey.

[Gvac]

The only comparison I was making between soccer and hockey is that they're both sports where the offenses can be completely shut down and it's boring as fuck for the casual viewer.


Do you know how many people I know who say the same thing about a 1-0 baseball game?

[spoon]

If I want to just watch fights I'll watch MMA or boxing instead of waiting for a bunch of goons on skates to get pissy with each other.

I mean, it's a fun part of hockey, but I'm not going to watch a game in the off chance some fights break out. It's just incredibly boring on TV for people who aren't devoted to the sport. I'm not a fan of golf by any means but I find that much more interesting to watch on TV on a regular basis than hockey.

It's not just some goon starting random fights, most of the time it has plenty of context to the game and rivalry at hand. It's a key element to the game and to simply sum it up as goons on skates (especially today) is simply wrong. Think of it as a purpose pitch in baseball coming inside.

[spoon]

Do you know how many people I know who say the same thing about a 1-0 baseball game?

They too are 100% wrong.

[Gvac]

They too are 100% wrong.

Exactly.

The parallels between baseball and hockey are amazing.

[TheMojoPin]

It's not just some goon starting random fights, most of the time it has plenty of context to the game and rivalry at hand. It's a key element to the game and to simply sum it up as goons on skates (especially today) is simply wrong. Think of it as a purpose pitch in baseball coming inside.

I'm not slamming hokcey for having fights. I'm just saying I have no desire to go out of my way to watch it just because of the fights.

[spoon]

Exactly.

The parallels between baseball and hockey are amazing.

If you want pure offense, watch the nba clowns shot 200 shots a game and still miss more than the schlubs at the local Y. Ooo, I shot 45.8% while they shot 42.4%....we win by 2 and the 4th qtr took 14 hours. Boring, that's the definition.

[ToiletCrusher]

It's fast paced and that usually can keep the casual viewer.

Perhaps it the long set of rules that people are unfamiliar with and the stops in play that seem more frequent than say, football.

[spoon]

I'm not slamming hokcey for having fights. I'm just saying I have no desire to go out of my way to watch it just because of the fights.

And I'd never promote it that way to be honest, but it's part of a beautiful package and I'm selling time shares. You game~?

[DolaMight]

it's that ice shit. Askin peeps to watch a game played on something alien to them is like tryin to get siberans to watch slamball.

what's a tramampoline?

[TheMojoPin]

Exactly.

The parallels between baseball and hockey are amazing.

That's ridiculous. They're incredibly different. Just the fact that baseball is essentially a one on one game for most of it and hockey involves two teams where everyone is playing against each other at all times makes them completely different games. The inherrent structres of both are very different, hence why it makes perfect sense why you have people who love one and have zero interest in the other. It would be like saying that people who love golf should automatically love lacrosse and vice versa.

[Crossweird]

what's a tramampoline?

Don't know, but it sounds AWESOME.

[Gvac]

The main reason, in all seriousness, is because most Americans have never played the game.

Everyone grows up playing baseball, football, and basketball. Kids that play hockey are rare, even today.

[TheMojoPin]

If you want pure offense, watch the nba clowns shot 200 shots a game and still miss more than the schlubs at the local Y. Ooo, I shot 45.8% while they shot 42.4%....we win by 2 and the 4th qtr took 14 hours. Boring, that's the definition.

Yeah, because they're facing the same level of defense and pace of game as the guys at the Y. Perfect analogy.

[Gvac]

That's ridiculous. They're incredibly different. Just the fact that baseball is essentially a one on one game for most of it and hockey involves two teams where everyone is playing against each other at all times makes them completely different games. The inherrent structres of both are very different, hence why it makes perfect sense why you have people who love one and have zero interest in the other. It would be like saying that people who love golf should automatically love lacrosse and vice versa.

No, it's not ridiculous.

The two games are remarkably similar.

How can you know if you've never played or understood hockey?

[ToiletCrusher]

That's ridiculous. They're incredibly different. Just the fact that baseball is essentially a one on one game for most of it and hockey involves two teams where everyone is playing against each other at all times makes them completely different games. The inherrent structres of both are very different, hence why it makes perfect sense why you have people who love one and have zero interest in the other. It would be like saying that people who love golf should automatically love lacrosse and vice versa.

Not true in every case. Look at a breakaway. By definition, that is a single player going one on one to make a play happen.

[TheMojoPin]

Do you know how many people I know who say the same thing about a 1-0 baseball game?

And those people aren't baseball fans, just like you have people who aren't hockey fans. Big deal.

[TheMojoPin]

No, it's not ridiculous.

The two games are remarkably similar.

How can you know if you've never played or understood hockey?

Because I'm not an idiot and I understand the main aspects of hockey. If you have to get into the sleective intricacies to show how they're "alike," you're not really proving how the games are similar.

The basic foundations of both are completely different. It's not like we're comparing football to rugby or cricket to baseball here...the two have zero to do with each other and are vastly different.

[Crossweird]

I think baseball has a statistics angle that's very different from most other sports, making up for its boringness.

[Suspect Chin]

The bottom line is it will never be as big as the other sports due simply to access and how expensive it is. Still, nobody play nascar as a kid and it doesn't have any effect on it's popularity.

No one plays Nascar directly, but every kid loves fast cars and once they get their license, every kid wants a fast car and pretends he is racing from time to time. I mean who didn't try to lay a patch in their parents' V6 Buick? I think this American love of fast cars breeds the love of Nascar.

Hockey is not as popular because it is too difficult to recreate at home. You can play catch with any random ball. Hockey requires sticks and a puck at minimum and it isn't much fun to just hit a puck back and forth between friends. Furthermore, getting into a youth league is nearly impossible for many kids with pads, helmet, stick, gloves, skates, etc. adding up quickly. You can join a kids baseball, soccer, or basketball league with nothing more than a mitt or shin guards.

I think soccer is gaining popularity in this country because you can suck at sports and have no coordination and it won't be as evident on a soccer field. You can just run around in circles the entire game and if you never score a goal, you are the same as 90% of the rest of your team.

[Gvac]

Because I'm not an idiot

Don't be so sure.

One day I will spank you.

But then I will hold you and cuddle you to my bosom.

Until then, you know nothing.

[TheMojoPin]

Not true in every case. Look at a breakaway. By definition, that is a single player going one on one to make a play happen.

That's still almost nothing like the matchup between a pitcher and hitter. The two games are not similar.

Honestly, if hockey and baseball were even remotely similar, I would fucking adore hockey.

[ToiletCrusher]

That's still almost nothing like the matchup between a pitcher and hitter. The two games are not similar.

Honestly, if hockey and baseball were even remotely similar, I would fucking adore hockey.

It doesn't? How so?

It is an one on one match up. One player has to do something not knowing what the other player may do in response.

The same way a batter needs to prepare for any pitch that may be thrown at them and swing accordingly, you see your shooter facing the goalie.

Not knowing the pitch until it happens is like not seeing the poke check until last second and compensating for it.

[Suspect Chin]

It all comes down to your understanding of the game. The more you understand the intricacies of the game and why players are doing what they are doing and when, the more you will love it.

That is why a 1-0 baseball game is exciting to big baseball fans, we understand the pitchers duel, the efforts to manufacture a run late in the game, pinch hitters, double switches, etc.

I've gotten into hockey a little this year, but once I understood the rules and nuances of hockey better, I'm sure I will be a bigger fan.

[TheMojoPin]

It doesn't? How so?

It is an one on one match up. One player has to do something not knowing what the other player may do in response.

The same way a batter needs to prepare for any pitch that may be thrown at them and swing accordingly, you see your shooter facing the goalie.

Not knowing the pitch until it happens is like not seeing the poke check until last second and compensating for it.

In those broad terms you can say any one on one matchup, no matter how brief or in what context, is the same.

For one, the shooter has a huge range of motion available to him that neither the pitcher or hitter has. Secondly, the shooter is trying to accomplish the job of both the pitcher and the hitter (get the puck past the goalie/score a goal). The hitter is ideally going to score a run by hitting a home run, but they also are trying to just get on base either by a hit or a walk. The shooter only has one task: score a goal. The goalie also only has one task: stop the puck. The pitcher's goal is get the batter out, but they have several means to try and do so (flyout, ground out, strike out) and more things they're trying to avoid (home run, hit, walk, balk, someone stealing a base). Compunded with that the batter and pitcher are never truly just one on one. The catcher is an inherrent and necessary part of that dynamic, and then you have the ump to boot.

I'm not slamming hockey at all with this. The shootout is great and one of the few things I like tuning in for when I can. I just don't see the two sports being similar at all.

[ToiletCrusher]

In those broad terms you can say any one on one matchup, no matter how brief or in what context, is the same.

For one, the shooter has a huge range of motion available to him that neither the pitcher or hitter has. Secondly, the shooter is trying to accomplish the job of both the pitcher and the hitter (get the puck past the goalie/score a goal). The hitter is ideally going to score a run by hitting a home run, but they also are trying to just get on base either by a hit or a walk. The shooter only has one task: score a goal. The goalie also only has one task: stop the puck. The pitcher's goal is get the batter out, but they have several means to try and do so (flyout, ground out, strike out) and more things they're trying to avoid (home run, hit, walk, balk, someone stealing a base). Compunded with that the batter and pitcher are never truly just one on one. The catcher is an inherrent and necessary part of that dynamic, and then you have the ump to boot.

Not always the case as well and you know that. Now, very broadly - yes the shooter is looking to score a goal. But in the event they do not because the goalie offers up a solid defense, there is the opportunity for a teammate to capitalize on the missed shot. I'd compare that to an opportunity like stealing a base when there is a split second of the guard being down.

[DolaMight]

I've seen 1-0 games and they were shit or they were the most intense 60+ minutes of sports I've ever seen. like basketball the problem is 82 game seasons where they rape the fans of money at the expense of drama. A 1-0 game in the playoffs, every shove, hit, move or play is a gamebreaker. In the regular season it's meaningless until the playoff race, and a total bore to the fans.

NHL hockey's other main problem is the small rink, in a tight game it's shit to see a game called by a bad bounce off the boards that ends up in the net or a mad scramble in front of the net and the puck goes in off a limb and in. The game suffers more from chance than any other major sport.

make the rink bigger you speed up the game and you reduce the fluke goals.

[TheMojoPin]

Not always the case as well and you know that. Now, very broadly - yes the shooter is looking to score a goal. But in the event they do not because the goalie offers up a solid defense, there is the opportunity for a teammate to capitalize on the missed shot. I'd compare that to an opportunity like stealing a base when there is a split second of the guard being down.

Wait, you were talking about the shootout, or I was assuming you were since that's the only thing even remotely close to the pitcher/hitter dynamic. If you weren't, then the games just get even more different. The baserunner is still restricted only on the basepath and can only run. The hockey teammate has a much more free range of motion and an array of options available.

[TheMojoPin]

NHL hockey's other main problem is the small rink, in a tight game it's shit to see a game called by a bad bounce off the boards that ends up in the net or a mad scramble in front of the net and the puck goes in off a limb and in. The game suffers more from chance than any other major sport.

Very true.

[TripleSkeet]

There are two main reasons, one of which I know has been said...

1. Its too expensive for kids to play. As kids my friends loved hockey. But hockey for us was a stick and a roll of electrical tape. No pads. No skates. No ice time. Nobody could afford all that shit around my neighborhood. The kid whos family actually had some money was the one that had goalie pads and a mask.

2. It lost its popularity because once again, the stupid fucking corporate suits from the NHL noticed it was getting popular in the 90's and decided to try and market it to families. They basically started changing the rules because they didnt give a fuck about the diehard fans anymore, they wanted to cater to new fans.

Their biggest mistake? Cutting out the violence. When Im watching a hockey game I want huge hits and fights thrown in. Nowadays guys can barely throw a punch without getting jumped by refs, and the instigator rule has cutback on fighting alot. They also give out penalties for clean checks they deem "too hard". Nobody wants to watch a sport become pussified. To me, all the quick skating and crisp passing doesnt mean shit without the violence. I dont find it nearly as entertaining.

Their new marketing strategy cost them plenty of diehards and then the new fans didnt give a fuck either. They should be embarrassed at having to play games on the VS. network.

Just another case of corporate strategy ruining something that was great.

[ToiletCrusher]

Wait, you were talking about the shootout, or I was asusming you were since that's the only thing even remotely close to the pitcher/hitter dynamic. If you weren't, then the games just get even more different. The baserunner is still restricted only on the basepath and can only run. The hockey teammate has a much more free range of motion and an array of options available.

I feel like I am having a hard time articulating my thoughts into words right now.

Mostly because I am drinking. But, I still think there are obvious similarities between the games but that comes with their differences too.

I will gracefully bow out of this as it is too late for me to try.

[TheMojoPin]

I feel like I am having a hard time articulating my thoughts into words right now.

Mostly because I am drinking. But, I still think there are obvious similarities between the games but that comes with their differences too.

I will gracefully bow out of this as it is too late for me to try.

Yeah, I'm not trying to be a dick about it. I don't have anything against hockey at all, and I just think if it was very similar to baseball I'd be all over it since I love baseball so freakin' much.

[ToiletCrusher]

Yeah, I'm not trying to be a dick about it. I don't have anything against hockey at all, and I just think if it was very similar to baseball I'd be all over it since I love baseball so freakin' much.

I know you aren't. And usually, I get apathetic. Today, more so because I am tired.

[Death Metal Moe]

I don't watch sports but even I know Hockey should be more popular, especially more popular than the snorefest that is Basketball.

You have impacts, lots of shots on goal and it's a reasonably short game. There are shoot outs to help with ties.(so it doesn't suck like soccer)

It should really beat out baseball and basketball but it doesn't seem to.

[KC2OSO]

The only comparison I was making between soccer and hockey is that they're both sports where the offenses can be completely shut down and it's boring as fuck for the casual viewer.

If I want to just watch fights I'll watch MMA or boxing instead of waiting for a bunch of goons on skates to get pissy with each other.

I mean, it's a fun part of hockey, but I'm not going to watch a game in the off chance some fights break out. It's just incredibly boring on TV for people who aren't devoted to the sport. I'm not a fan of golf by any means but I find that much more interesting to watch on TV on a regular basis than hockey.
Good. Watch golf.

[Suspect Chin]

You have impacts, lots of shots on goal and it's a reasonably short game.

Good point. I would contend that hockey is the perfect length game.

[TheMojoPin]

Good. Watch golf.

No thanks. It's almost as boring as hockey on TV.

[meanmrbill]

Why does one sport have to be better than another sport??? If you like hockey then fucking watch it. If you like soccer then fucking watch it. Football, baseball, basketball...all the same. Quit thinking that everything is on a "top ten" list. If you like it, then watch it! Enough, already!!

[Suspect Chin]

Why does one sport have to be better than another sport??? If you like hockey then fucking watch it. If you like soccer then fucking watch it. Football, baseball, basketball...all the same. Quit thinking that everything is on a "top ten" list. If you like it, then watch it! Enough, already!!

You're right lets just shut down this entire site and agree to disagree!

[KC2OSO]

No thanks. It's almost as boring as hockey on TV.
Fuck that.
If you've played it, you may disagree. I agree the uptake on watching it is a long curve but...hockey is a great sport. TV hasn't done it justice.

[DolaMight]

Why does one sport have to be better than another sport??? If you like hockey then fucking watch it. If you like soccer then fucking watch it. Football, baseball, basketball...all the same. Quit thinking that everything is on a "top ten" list. If you like it, then watch it! Enough, already!!

sure, I like teens but i'd be in trouble if i followed you pedo logic

[KC2OSO]

sure, I like teens but i'd be in trouble if i followed you pedo logic
lal

[NickyL0885]

I think soccer is gaining popularity in this country because you can suck at sports and have no coordination and it won't be as evident on a soccer field. You can just run around in circles the entire game and if you never score a goal, you are the same as 90% of the rest of your team.

Soccer is the most played sports by kids in the US. Its a lot more then running in circles. Its very strategy based and you have to pick and choose when you want to attack. MLS was boring but its getting better. In the English Premier League, the game is much faster and more exciting. Big reason is b/c that is where lots of the top players play. I think I read somewhere that soccer was getting better tv ratings then NBA and NHL games. Its clearly a rating draws for International matches. ESPN broadcasts all USA games and other tournaments. The Confederations Cup is next week and I bet it does huge ratings.

[Suspect Chin]

Soccer is the most played sports by kids in the US. Its a lot more then running in circles. Its very strategy based and you have to pick and choose when you want to attack. MLS was boring but its getting better. In the English Premier League, the game is much faster and more exciting. Big reason is b/c that is where lots of the top players play. I think I read somewhere that soccer was getting better tv ratings then NBA and NHL games. Its clearly a rating draws for International matches. ESPN broadcasts all USA games and other tournaments. The Confederations Cup is next week and I bet it does huge ratings.

Yeah I know soccer is doing well in America and obviously on a higher level there is a lot of strategy and skill involved. My point was that for kids deciding which sport to pursue, soccer works well because it doesn't take a lot of skill initially and it is more difficult to be singled out for failing.

For many kids, the first strike out, dropped fly ball, or hard tackle is the end of their career simply because the embarrassment is too much to handle.

[TheMojoPin]

Fuck that.
If you've played it, you may disagree. I agree the uptake on watching it is a long curve but...hockey is a great sport. TV hasn't done it justice.

I love watching hockey in person.

[spoon]

I don't watch sports but even I know Hockey should be more popular, especially more popular than the snorefest that is Basketball.

You have impacts, lots of shots on goal and it's a reasonably short game. There are shoot outs to help with ties.(so it doesn't suck like soccer)

It should really beat out baseball and basketball but it doesn't seem to.

Seriously!? Come on asshole, how can I keep hating you if you keep this up!?

[spoon]

Soccer is the most played sports by kids in the US. Its a lot more then running in circles. Its very strategy based and you have to pick and choose when you want to attack. MLS was boring but its getting better. In the English Premier League, the game is much faster and more exciting. Big reason is b/c that is where lots of the top players play. I think I read somewhere that soccer was getting better tv ratings then NBA and NHL games. Its clearly a rating draws for International matches. ESPN broadcasts all USA games and other tournaments. The Confederations Cup is next week and I bet it does huge ratings.

Oof, sorry nicky, soccer lives up to the description Mojo gave it in my mind. I have played and now plenty of kids in my family do as well and it's soooo fucking boring and awful.

It's one person's op and i get that, but I'd rather watch the NBA and or Grey's Anatomy. Ooof indeed.

[Brillionaire]

I've tried to watch hockey a few times, but I always end up feeling like a cat following a spastic laser pointed at the wall with the puck panning back and forth across the screen at 60mph.

and besides, hockey is a poor man's soccer

and why don't we just make NASCAR more like horse racing? One time around and you're done.

[spoon]

I've tried to watch hockey a few times, but I always end up feeling like a cat following a spastic laser pointed at the wall with the puck panning back and forth across the screen at 60mph.

and besides, hockey is a poor man's soccer

and why don't we just make NASCAR more like horse racing? One time around and you're done.

oof, soccer again...really

i can't name a more pussified sport that is harder to watch in any capacity

sorry u couldn't handle action and some shots on net

[Brillionaire]

oof, soccer again...really

i can't name a more pussified sport that is harder to watch in any capacity

sorry u couldn't handle action and some shots on net

"some" being the key word

[El Mudo]

Shitty TV contract with NBC.

Bad decisions like NBC not allowing Civic Arena or the Joe to show the games outside of the arenas on big screens


Everyone says that the NHL should go back on ESPN, but i'm not so sure that's the whole "solution"

Jack Edwards:

PTM: Following up, because of that, are you kind of glad that ESPN doesn't cover hockey anymore?

JE: Well, I think that all you need to know is - for those who wish that hockey was back on ESPN - last Saturday, which was probably the single most amazing night of the NHL season. Just in terms of teams switching places, dramatic things happening, crazy games, that kind of thing.

We went from Toronto to Philadelphia, we were in (Bruins radio play-by-play man) Dave Goucher's room, having a couple cold ones. Now, the Sweet 16 is going on in college basketball at the same time, the only hockey we saw in the entire sportscast of "SportsCenter" was about 45 seconds of the UNH-North Dakota game, which was the one UNH tied with one-tenth of a second to go, that went into Overtime. That was 56 minutes into the telecast. There was nothing on the NHL in the entire show.

So, for those of you that hope that hockey gets back on ESPN, that's what you're gonna' get.

That's where it belongs in ESPN's hierarchy, because there are some bozos sitting in the accounting department in a bunker in Burbank, California running Disney, who look at the numbers and completely ignore the passion of hockey fans. They say "Poker gets better ratings because we can attract more compulsive gamblers to the screen than we can passionate hockey fans, so just for the sake of that number, we're gonna' run poker instead of hockey. We're gonna run women's basketball instead of hockey."

We saw highlights of the Division II NCAA basketball championship, we didn't see a single NHL highlight in that entire "SportsCenter". Case closed.

PTM: Well Jack, you're gonna' be a big hero to a lot of hockey fans when this goes up...

JE: I'm not a hero, I'm just telling you the facts. I mean, that's what it is and you know, this whole idea that hockey will do better if you put it back on ESPN is a delusion. It is completely delusionary. It's more convenient, certainly. But it's not going to be better for the sport, because it's going to be behind golf, it's going to be behind women's basketball and, you know, I'm not dissing those sports.


Versus has some muscle behind it (its owned by Comcast), and I think its far from the fly by night network that everyone makes it out to be (it gets out to over 70 million people). Is it perfect for the NHL? Absolutely not...but does it get the league on TV and make it marketable to the point where when the contract's up, they can get themselves a more lucrative deal, especially with all the big young stars they can market? Sure does...

Besides....ESPN didnt WANT the NHL, at least not at the 70 million a year Comcast was offering...where else could they have gone?

Plus, look at these things in the original deal:

OLN's deal mandates that Comcast carry the NHL Network, which is now only available in Canada, on its digital sports tier. If certain subscriber levels for the network are not reached after two years, Comcast would have to pay the league $15 million, said a television executive who is familiar with the OLN deal, but would not speak for attribution because the contract has not been signed.

OLN must pay the league $15 million more if it exceeds 80 million subscribers, the executive said. It now has 64 million, well below ESPN's 90 million.


And between the massive deal ESPN just signed with the SEC, the NBA, Golf, college football and basketball, where exactly does the NHL fit into the TV schedule there?


I've seen 1-0 games and they were shit or they were the most intense 60+ minutes of sports I've ever seen. like basketball the problem is 82 game seasons where they rape the fans of money at the expense of drama. A 1-0 game in the playoffs, every shove, hit, move or play is a gamebreaker. In the regular season it's meaningless until the playoff race, and a total bore to the fans.

NHL hockey's other main problem is the small rink, in a tight game it's shit to see a game called by a bad bounce off the boards that ends up in the net or a mad scramble in front of the net and the puck goes in off a limb and in. The game suffers more from chance than any other major sport.

make the rink bigger you speed up the game and you reduce the fluke goals.


I disagree...you make the rink bigger, you take checking completely out of the game

[yojimbo7248]

great thread, I didn't know it existed. I never understood why hockey has never had a bigger US audience. I will go back and read what El Mudo wrote...

someone with more time on his/her hands should start an identical thread for soccer.

[El Mudo]

You also can't have the league propping up failing franchises to the point where it becomes detrimental to the whole business..especially in this Balsillie thing.

They won't let this guy own a team because they don't want him to move it to Hamilton, but they'll "steer" the Predators to a guy like Boots Del Biaggio who has shitty financing and is crooked to boot...it just makes everyone look bad.

[yojimbo7248]

Now that we can watch hockey on HD, hopefully that will get rid of that American complaint of not being able to see the puck. I think it was Fox that put some glowing circle around the puck so people could spot it easier.

[El Mudo]

Here's something interesting... (http://puckthemedia.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/more-people-find-versus-than-obscure-networks-like-espn-comedy-central-and-cnn-last-week/)

While a 15th-place finish might not seem like a big deal to many people, it may likely have been the highest weekly finish in VERSUS history as far as primetime viewers go. Propped up by two Stanley Cup Final games as well as Faber/Brown II, VERSUS averaged 1.14 million viewers in primetime for the week of June 1-7. It outdrew networks such as Lifetime, AMC, and oh yeah… a little channel called ESPN (1.076 million).

[nate1000]

The main reason, in all seriousness, is because most Americans have never played the game.

Everyone grows up playing baseball, football, and basketball. Kids that play hockey are rare, even today.

This. Plus the learning curve is steep in ice hockey. Most of the prettiest nuances of the game are unreachable until you become a really good skater.

And BTW, for the record: No contact=not a sport. Yeah. I'm looking right at you, baseball.

[blakenWYO]

yaaa, probably because nobody likes it. If people wanted to watch or follow it they could.Easily.... like you said soccer is the red headed step child of american sports... which is puzzleing cause the rest of the world loves it, unlike hockey; where say ten countries like hockey. and you cant include america in that..

[Suspect Chin]

This. Plus the learning curve is steep in ice hockey. Most of the prettiest nuances of the game are unreachable until you become a really good skater.

And BTW, for the record: No contact=not a sport. Yeah. I'm looking right at you, baseball.

Do you consider brush backs, hard slides, or taking out the catcher contact?

[Donnie Iris]

Since when has popularity or ratings equated to anything of quality in this country?

Any sport that allows the arenas to play the Black Eyed Peas and/or any other top 40 bullshit DURING PLAY, more specifically the fucking PLAYOFFS/FINALS is immediately cheapened.

I don't care how many people watch or listen or read or experience what I enjoy.

[nate1000]

Do you consider brush backs, hard slides, or taking out the catcher contact?

Not when it happens once a game.

[Donnie Iris]

Do you consider brush backs, hard slides, or taking out the catcher contact?

I guess. But how often do they occur? And how many weeks are they on the DL following?

[Suspect Chin]

I guess. But how often do they occur? And how many weeks are they on the DL following?

Ha you know I was thinking this same thing the other day. Seems like baseball is one of the lowest contact sports but they are always getting injured. I'm sure the every day play contributes to that.

Overall you're right, hockey players sustain the most day in day out abuse and are toughest about playing through the pain.

[Death Metal Moe]

I've tried to watch hockey a few times, but I always end up feeling like a cat following a spastic laser pointed at the wall with the puck panning back and forth across the screen at 60mph.

and besides, hockey is a poor man's soccer

and why don't we just make NASCAR more like horse racing? One time around and you're done.

Dude, you may have the worst opinions about sports I've ever heard.

And I REALLY TRY to watch soccer, even still. My father played in the army he served in overseas so it's in his blood. Europe and Asia love the sport, obviously. He will usually have a game on a satellite channel on the weekends and I've sat down to check it out many times but it's just not that great to watch.

I'm sorry, it's just not that easy to follow. The Refs call certain fouls and not other obvious ones. I hate the card system, it leaves far too much up to each Ref and I feel it is an easy path to pay offs. The game drags WAY too much, unless you have 2 attacking teams there's LOTS of defensive passing and holding the ball too long. The shots on goal are always rushed and usually right to the goalie or outside the net by a mile. Injury time REALLY confuses you at 1st, again, leaving a lot up to the Refs. And I know it's clique but any game that can go on for over and hour and end in a 0-0 tie is fucking lame, and that happens a lot to evenly matched teams.

I'm sure Soccer is fun as hell to play at that professional level especially, but it's torture to watch.

NASCAR is another topic all on it's own.

[Death Metal Moe]

Now that we can watch hockey on HD, hopefully that will get rid of that American complaint of not being able to see the puck. I think it was Fox that put some glowing circle around the puck so people could spot it easier.

I never understood that one. I can't see the puck all the time but guess what, there's only 10 fucking guys on the ice and the other team is going for the one guy with the puck. Unless they pass the thing way down ice to get rid of it you are hardly ever unaware of it's position.

If the camera guy can keep an eye on it 99% of the time from behind that huge piece of machinery you should have no problem.

[Death Metal Moe]

"some" being the key word

Dude, what are you talking about? Shots on Net don't ALWAYS equal a better game but it sure spices things up. Ya know, that whole "Score more points than your opponent in the allotted time" thing. You wanna talk about low goal shots, I'm sure the last place ranked NHL team's combined shots on goal last year is 10 times the number taken by the last World Cup winner's year.

[TripleSkeet]

I hate soccer, but I love World Cup. Once every 4 years and I get really into it.

[TheMojoPin]

Ha you know I was thinking this same thing the other day. Seems like baseball is one of the lowest contact sports but they are always getting injured. I'm sure the every day play contributes to that.

That, the lack of protection and how so much of the play uses so much of their bodies. Pitching and hitting use so many parts of a person that everything is easily thrown out of whack by an injury. Hockey obviously requires a ton of skill and power, but there's also the huge X-factor of the ice being there to propel the puck along plus the physical play as a way to stay in the game. Baseball players have to basically put everything they have into just moving that ball, as a pitcher, fielder or hitter, 162 games a year, and something just even being tweeked is magnified so much by that because that's what everything revolves around. It's not like a guy with a bum shoulder can fall back on playing defense and knocking guys around.

Again, this isn't saying one is better than the other...I'm just pointing out how the sports are different. They all challenege different abilities and skillsets and different combinations of those abilities.

I don't expect Albert Pujols to be able to strap on some skates and be able to play hockey without looking like a fool just like I don't expect some comparable hockey player to be able to step onto a baseball field and not look like a complete schmuck.

[spoon]

I don't expect Albert Pujols to be able to strap on some skates and be able to play hockey without looking like a fool just like I don't expect some comparable hockey player to be able to step onto a baseball field and not look like a complete schmuck.

I'm looking at your Tom Glavine, Larry Walker and Matt Stairs.

[Death Metal Moe]

Eh, I don't think baseball players are using their bodies anymore than hockey players. Hockey players are constantly skating. In baseball you get 1/2 an inning to sit unless you're rocking the pitcher and then you're on base.

I'd still give it to hockey, unless the act of skating isn't as physical as I think it is, which I think it is very tiring and probably good cardio. But even if the constant motion isn't that big a deal you're constantly roughing guys up and all that shit.

[DOHO@HOME]

This country is full of fuckin pussy eating fags.
all they do is say how violent hockey is why don't they take fighting out it and we don't want our star players to get hurt, FUCK YOU it's hockey and it's great to watch star players skating around with their heads on a swivel.

[TheMojoPin]

Eh, I don't think baseball players are using their bodies anymore than hockey players. Hockey players are constantly skating. In baseball you get 1/2 an inning to sit unless you're rocking the pitcher and then you're on base.

I'd still give it to hockey, unless the act of skating isn't as physical as I think it is, which I think it is very tiring and probably good cardio. But even if the constant motion isn't that big a deal you're constantly roughing guys up and all that shit.

It's not a matter of "giving it" to either. I wasn't arguing that baseball is tougher on the players than hockey or vice versa: I was pointing out how the sports impact the players' bodies differently based on the how differently the players are using their bodies to play each particular sport.

[nate1000]

I'd still give it to hockey, unless the act of skating isn't as physical as I think it is, which I think it is very tiring and probably good cardio. But even if the constant motion isn't that big a deal you're constantly roughing guys up and all that shit.

It is not so much the skating, but spend 15-20 seconds in the corner mid shift digging for a puck while fending off 2 or 3 other players who are pushing and scrapping for it and you are whupped.

[blakenWYO]

I hate soccer, but I love World Cup. Once every 4 years and I get really into it.


yaaa, that makes sense... wait isnt soccer what they play during the world cup....:wallbash:

[Donnie Iris]

Watching soccer played at the highest level is infinitely more exciting than the same degree of play in baseball.

To my think anyway.

[styckx]

Hockey is just plain hard for someone to pick up on as a newcomer. As much as we'd all like it to become mainstream and uber popular, I just don't ever see it ever happening. Ever try watching a girls field hockey game in high school or college? Pretty fucking boring right cause the first thing you wonder is "why the fuck are there so many god damn whistles"?. No matter how hot the chick with big tits jogging down the lawn is, the shit is fucking boring as hell and tons of stoppages.

Basketball you can clearly see defense setting up, strategies being worked out and team work. Football same deal.

Even during stoppages during the games above, your imagination kicks in of how each team will come out and try to get a needed shot, or that 3 yards they need for a first down.

In hockey after a stoppage, there is none of that (to the naked eye). 5 guys get in the same position on each side of the puck then just skate around chasing a puck.

The Onion did a bang up job making fun of showing what hockey is all about and what Bettman wants hockey to be like to make it more appealing.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I7mekhFTrXM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I7mekhFTrXM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Donnie Iris]

Hockey is just plain hard for someone to pick up on as a newcomer. As much as we'd all like it to become mainstream and uber popular, I just don't ever see it ever happening. Ever try watching a girls field hockey game in high school or college? Pretty fucking boring right cause the first thing you wonder is "why the fuck are there so many god damn whistles"?. No matter how hot the chick with big tits jogging down the lawn is, the shit is fucking boring as hell and tons of stoppages.

Basketball you can clearly see defense setting up, strategies being worked out and team work. Football same deal.

Even during stoppages during the games above, your imagination kicks in of how each team will come out and try to get a needed shot, or that 3 yards they need for a first down.

In hockey after a stoppage, there is none of that (to the naked eye). 5 guys get in the same position on each side of the puck then just skate around chasing a puck.

The Onion did a bang up job making fun of showing what hockey is all about and what Bettman wants hockey to be like to make it more appealing.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I7mekhFTrXM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I7mekhFTrXM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


1. Ice Hockey is a different sport with different rules than girls field hockey.

2. Your reason for not liking the sport is an over abundance of whistles and basketball and football are your examples of the opposite? There are easily 4-5 times the amount of whistles/stoppages in those two sports.

3. As for being able to analyze strategy and such, well that is just a lack of knowledge in the sport. Someone who watches football and basketball as much as it sounds like you watch hockey, would have no idea about a pick and roll or a certain defensive scheme in football.

I understand not liking a sport. I don't understand why you would not like it for the reasons you mentioned. To me the NBA is barely even watchable basketball until the playoffs and even then it can be a stretch. Somehow having the local bullshit top 40 radio station spinning the hits during play (in the fucking finals for that matter) cheapens the sport.

By the by, that Onion video is quite good. I had already seen it but definitely worth another watch.

[styckx]

I am a hockey fan by the way. They are just my opinions stepping out of the box of being a hockey fan for a seconds and looking at it from a new comers perspective.

Also, a huge reason why hockey isn't popular is there is no huge names to market the game around. It has no "heroes" per say. I blame Eric Lindros for that. He fucked up the hockey hero mass market thing and was the last time I remember there ever being a huge push behind a single player to prop the NHL on their shoulders and carry the sport.

[Donnie Iris]

I am a hockey fan by the way. They are just my opinions stepping out of the box of being a hockey fan for a seconds and looking at it from a new comers perspective.

Also, a huge reason why hockey isn't popular is there is no huge names to market the game around. It has no "heroes" per say. I blame Eric Lindros for that. He fucked up the hockey hero mass market thing and was the last time I remember there ever being a huge push behind a single player to prop the NHL on their shoulders and carry the sport.

Yeah, there may be some truth to that. I think there are a number of factors. The coverage is shite on ESPN where most casual sports fans get there sports news. Once they stopped airing the games, their coverage became almost non-existent. Somehow it became hip to bash the sport and its short comings. Notice the increase in Nascar coverage around the same time they bought the rights to air the races? It's very formulaic.

Also, a good portion of the best players are not from here or speak with an accent. Middle America has a tough time with this.

As far as the NHL marketing a hero, the NHL admittedly seems to jerk off Crosby and then Ovechkin and even Malkin to a lesser degree. Either way, there definitely seems to be an effort being made by the NHL to have these young guys carry the league. Maybe it does not resonate everywhere but it certainly does here. Although, this is a hockey city that has sold out at home for two and a half seasons in a row so maybe it is market specific. Regardless, I think it's hard to argue that an effort is not being made to make these guys iconic.

[King Hippos Bandaid]

I blame this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FoxTrax)

[Donnie Iris]

I blame this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FoxTrax)

The fact that is exists or the lack thereof in today's coverage?

[King Hippos Bandaid]

The fact that is exists or the lack thereof in today's coverage?


existence, FOX's blatant kowtowing to the Joe 6 Pack and it failed

[styckx]

Yeah, there may be some truth to that. I think there are a number of factors. The coverage is shite on ESPN where most casual sports fans get there sports news. Once they stopped airing the games, their coverage became almost non-existent. Somehow it became hip to bash the sport and its short comings. Notice the increase in Nascar coverage around the same time they bought the rights to air the races? It's very formulaic.

Also, a good portion of the best players are not from here or speak with an accent. Middle America has a tough time with this.

As far as the NHL marketing a hero, the NHL admittedly seems to jerk off Crosby and then Ovechkin and even Malkin to a lesser degree. Either way, there definitely seems to be an effort being made by the NHL to have these young guys carry the league. Maybe it does not resonate everywhere but it certainly does here. Although, this is a hockey city that has sold out at home for two and a half seasons in a row so maybe it is market specific. Regardless, I think it's hard to argue that an effort is not being made to make these guys iconic.

Very good point here.

I think sometimes also that the purists really ruin any push to make hockey more mainstream.

Remember Foxtrax?

http://frozenwater.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/foxtrax.jpg

This whole thing was actually a great way to attract new fans. They had HUGE coverage on Fox, an easy way for newbies to follow the puck and the announcing teams were more educational about the game and in a vague way "taught the game".

Ahh, but the hockey purists had a shit fit over the glowing puck. News media and others (like ESPN) started jumping on the bashing Foxtrax bandwagon and it was taken away. Along w/ the Fox coverage of hockey. The Fox coverage in my opinion was the NHL's big chance to break into the mainstream for good. Too bad they listened to hockeys equivalent of Apple fan boys. I'm a purist to a point but I understand if hockey is going to be more mainstream some changes must be made as long as they aren't drastic and ruin the overall integrity of the game.

[underdog]

I blame this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FoxTrax)

Very good point here.

I think sometimes also that the purists really ruin any push to make hockey more mainstream.

Remember Foxtrax?

I enjoy watching other people get ignored.

[styckx]

I enjoy watching other people get ignored.

Wasn't ignored, just didn't see it

[underdog]

Wasn't ignored, just didn't see it

Please don't ruin the specialness.

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah, there may be some truth to that. I think there are a number of factors. The coverage is shite on ESPN where most casual sports fans get there sports news. Once they stopped airing the games, their coverage became almost non-existent. Somehow it became hip to bash the sport and its short comings.

It became "hip" to bash hockey?

What?

People just didn't watch it in the same numbers as the other sports when it was broadcast on ESPN. When it went away it just went away and the same people who didn't watch or rarely watched it before didn't watch it afterwards. It never became "hip" to hate on hockey.

Notice the increase in Nascar coverage around the same time they bought the rights to air the races? It's very formulaic.

NASCAR had a built in audience when the broadcasting rights got picked up. Ungodly number sof people were hauling their asses around the country just to see races, hence the huge numbers when more broadcasts went national. It had zilch to do with hockey.

Also, a good portion of the best players are not from here or speak with an accent. Middle America has a tough time with this.

This is also the case with baseball and now basketball but they still draw. Plus, if you're hinging this on "Middle America," you really think they're huge fans of those scary black people they've read so much about and all their jive lingo?

I don't think there's any concerted effort to hate hockey...it's just difficult for the average perosn not into the sport to follow on TV. It doesn't translate well to broadcast and that's a dagger if you're trying to draw in viewers. Combine that with it being a difficult sport to just pick up and play as a kid and you have the reasons as to why hockey isn't huge. None of that is a slight against hockey...it's just how it is.

[CountryBob]

Its a very regional sport - I hate hockey - was never around anyone who liked it.
Down here in the sticks. Probably kinda like NASCAR is to alot of people where hockey is king.

[Donnie Iris]

It became "hip" to bash hockey?

What?

People just didn't watch it in the same numbers as the other sports when it was broadcast on ESPN. When it went away it just went away and the same people who didn't watch or rarely watched it before didn't watch it afterwards. It never became "hip" to hate on hockey.

Maybe hip was a poor choice of words, but many of the blowhards on national syndicated sports shows, radio or tv, continually had a smug stance toward the sport. Again, I could care less, but hockey definitely became a more acceptable punching bag compared to other sports that the network covered. I'm not saying it's bad business, just what happened.

NASCAR had a built in audience when the broadcasting rights got picked up. Ungodly number sof people were hauling their asses around the country just to see races, hence the huge numbers when more broadcasts went national. It had zilch to do with hockey.

What had zilch to do with hockey? The ratings are way, way down for ESPN's Nascar coverage.



This is also the case with baseball and now basketball but they still draw. Plus, if you're hinging this on "Middle America," you really think they're huge fans of those scary black people they've read so much about and all their jive lingo?

I don't think there's any concerted effort to hate hockey...it's just difficult for the average perosn not into the sport to follow on TV. It doesn't translate well to broadcast and that's a dagger if you're trying to draw in viewers. Combine that with it being a difficult sport to just pick up and play as a kid and you have the reasons as to why hockey isn't huge. None of that is a slight against hockey...it's just how it is.

You're probably right that there isn't a concerted effort to hate hockey. You say it doesn't translate well to broadcast, but I would highly disagree (The sport, not the production). Especially when you compare it to baseball or regular season NBA. Either way, it's subjective to the viewer and not even really debatable. I don't even really consider myself a huge hockey fan but I played plenty in the street growing up. It's rather easy to pick up and play as a kid.

[TheMojoPin]

You're probably right that there isn't a concerted effort to hate hockey. You say it doesn't translate well to broadcast, but I would highly disagree (The sport, not the production). Especially when you compare it to baseball or regular season NBA. Either way, it's subjective to the viewer and not even really debatable. I don't even really consider myself a huge hockey fan but I played plenty in the street growing up. It's rather easy to pick up and play as a kid.

But street hockey and field hockey/lacrosse are completely different from ice hockey. Ice hockey is not easy to just pick up. It's expensive and you typically have to go out of your way to play it.

And you have to look at the TV issue from the perspective of someone who knows little to nothing about hockey. It just doesn't broadcast well, mainly due to the basic fact it's hard as hell to even just follow the puck. That's not the case with baseball and basketball and football. You can turn it on and instantly know where the ball is. You see someone get a hit or make a basket or score a touchdown and it instantly registers: in hockey you often don't know how a goal went down until the replay and you also often don't even know it occured at all until the horn goes off. There's not that instant gratification and ability to follow for a TV viewer that football, baseball and basketball all offer. It's just not tailored for a casual viewer at all.

[TheMojoPin]

Maybe hip was a poor choice of words, but many of the blowhards on national syndicated sports shows, radio or tv, continually had a smug stance toward the sport. Again, I could care less, but hockey definitely became a more acceptable punching bag compared to other sports that the network covered. I'm not saying it's bad business, just what happened.

It's a "punching bag" in the same way soccer is: both are major sports that simply do not draw consistently good numbers from American viewers and listeners, hence why sports shows don't devote more coverage to them or act like it's boring to talk about. The simple fact is that the majority of the audiences for most of those shows don't reguarly follow either sport and tend to tune out when it's brought up.

What had zilch to do with hockey? The ratings are way, way down for ESPN's Nascar coverage.

I misread it and thought you were implying ESPN dropping hockey had something to do with their NASCAR numbers.

[Donnie Iris]

All of what you have said makes perfect sense to me with the exception of being able to follow the puck. Is it really that difficult to the casual viewer? I didn't watch hockey at all for 5 years or so when I lived out West for school but never had a problem before or after that time.

All things considered, I kind of like the fact that it is a niche sport. Most things that are popular to the masses are shite in this country.

[styckx]

The puck following and over all presentation of the game is what should be changed first. This is why I'm not a fan of Bettman. He's worried more how the game is played then how it's presented.

I think the Foxtrax stuff if tweaked could work well and not have purists in an uproar. The streak effect at high speeds wasn't and isn't needed. I think a simple overlay of a bigger black circle would be perfect. Maybe twice the size of the puck. That's all it would really take.

I'm a fan of the typical horizontal camera view, but I can see how to a casual fan it's pretty bland and overall a boring presentation. It also makes you feel like you are watching the game from the nose bleed section instead of being right there on the ice. They sometimes tinker around with down the ice shots, but they are usually static shots and doesn't "get in the action" very well as it's behind the glass.

[spoon]

Very good point here.

I think sometimes also that the purists really ruin any push to make hockey more mainstream.

Remember Foxtrax?

http://frozenwater.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/foxtrax.jpg

This whole thing was actually a great way to attract new fans. They had HUGE coverage on Fox, an easy way for newbies to follow the puck and the announcing teams were more educational about the game and in a vague way "taught the game".

Ahh, but the hockey purists had a shit fit over the glowing puck. News media and others (like ESPN) started jumping on the bashing Foxtrax bandwagon and it was taken away. Along w/ the Fox coverage of hockey. The Fox coverage in my opinion was the NHL's big chance to break into the mainstream for good. Too bad they listened to hockeys equivalent of Apple fan boys. I'm a purist to a point but I understand if hockey is going to be more mainstream some changes must be made as long as they aren't drastic and ruin the overall integrity of the game.


No fucking way. This has nothing to do with me being a "hockey purists", but that was the most idiotic way to market a sport. Oh, let's cheapen the game and ignore the actual fans while trying to bring in idiots who can't follow the flow of the game. Fuck that, if you don't learn a sport you'll never follow the play. ANY SPORT. Fuck fox for that and their news program.

[spoon]

But street hockey and field hockey/lacrosse are completely different from ice hockey. Ice hockey is not easy to just pick up. It's expensive and you typically have to go out of your way to play it.



I can't disagree more on street hockey being completely different from ice. It's essentially the same thing minus the ice and the addition of roller hockey closes the gap even more. Whether it's a ball, ground puck or ice puck the game and the strategy employed to play it is exactly the same.

As for the ice hockey is not easy to pick up, I'd agree for a few reasons. The biggest is that most of our fathers were not into hockey and have not been involved in passing it down. That's a huge blow to any sport in my mind, as baseball and football got passed on to me from my father, hockey I picked up myself. I truly find it amazing such a tough complex game has taken off as much as it has since even when I was a kid in the PA/NJ areas alone. It truly is expanding in popularity, yet the normal media outlets won't show it bc of other factors like Bettman and Versus.

However, I'd argue that as far as the core fans go, hockey fans may be the best in the business. Hard-core fans are simply all about hockey, usually play hockey into their 50's at least and or get totally into the local team whether it's an NHL or minor league team. I'm not saying it'll ever rival the top two sports, yet their core fans truly are locked in.

[spoon]

All things considered, I kind of like the fact that it is a niche sport. Most things that are popular to the masses are shite in this country.

Chicken or the egg on this one. To me, I'd like to keep it pretty much where it is right now with the only change being the network coverage in order for it to be out there for people who may like the game as it is. ESPN will surely help people's exposure to the game, and it'd be much easier to see where hockey is compared to the past when it was on espn. Even though NBC is a major network, you simply can't dump a sport on that channel in the last series of the year (essentially) and expect some huge draw. Still, the NHL makes plenty of money and if they keep the salaries and ticket prices in check I'm a happy camper.

[nate1000]

I can't disagree more on street hockey being completely different from ice. It's essentially the same thing minus the ice and the addition of roller hockey closes the gap even more. Whether it's a ball, ground puck or ice puck the game and the strategy employed to play it is exactly the same.

I dunno about this, Spoon. I've never shifted in a street hockey game. There is no go like balls for a minute or two then get off the ice. Also, the movement is completely different- i.e. skating, which impacts the flow of the game significantly. I agree Roller hockey narrows the gap, but I find that skating to be completely different too- all that curling instead of stopping and restarting. Also, the only roller hockey I've played has been during the summer and it's been in some serious sweatboxes. Finally, there's no road rash in ice hockey- you go down, you get up. The fundamentals are similar, but I think the game is very different off the ice.

Hard-core fans are simply all about hockey, usually play hockey into their 50's at least and or get totally into the local team whether it's an NHL or minor league team.

37 and still going- got a game tonight.

[TheMojoPin]

I can't disagree more on street hockey being completely different from ice. It's essentially the same thing minus the ice and the addition of roller hockey closes the gap even more. Whether it's a ball, ground puck or ice puck the game and the strategy employed to play it is exactly the same.

It's not about the games being different as games...it's about how different they are in playability. Buy ice skates and the necessary equipment and THEN just finding a fucking rink to play at makes it hugely different than the other hockeys and lacrosse. Saying "minus ice" like that's not big deal completely misses the point. The Big 3 you can essentially just go outside at any point and play some critical aspect of the game with basically anyone who comes along with cheaply bought minimal equipment. Ice hockey requires fuckin' ice plus people who can actually skate. That's already infinitely narrowing the appeal and basic ability to just play the sport compared to the Big 3.

[TheMojoPin]

However, I'd argue that as far as the core fans go, hockey fans may be the best in the business. Hard-core fans are simply all about hockey, usually play hockey into their 50's at least and or get totally into the local team whether it's an NHL or minor league team. I'm not saying it'll ever rival the top two sports, yet their core fans truly are locked in.

I think that's more due to the specialized nature of playing it. It's not something just anyone can go out and do, so just right there you're basically part of a special "club" that's sets you apart from most people and gives you more loyalty amongst other fans and to the game, though I think saying diehard fans of any one sport are "better" than another is pretty redundant and pointless.

[spoon]

It's not about the games being different as games...it's about how different they are in playability. Buy ice skates and the necessary equipment and THEN just finding a fucking rink to play at makes it hugely different than the other hockeys and lacrosse. Saying "minus ice" like that's not big deal completely misses the point. The Big 3 you can essentially just go outside at any point and play some critical aspect of the game with basically anyone who comes along with cheaply bought minimal equipment. Ice hockey requires fuckin' ice plus people who can actually skate. That's already infinitely narrowing the appeal and basic ability to just play the sport compared to the Big 3.

My point is basically that the overall theme of the game is the same and all roller/street hockey kids love ice whether they play it or not. It simply is the easy version of the game and is to those that play it either a stepping stone to ice hockey, and at least the in for the NHL that lends these people to be huge fans.

[TripleSkeet]

I can't disagree more on street hockey being completely different from ice. It's essentially the same thing minus the ice and the addition of roller hockey closes the gap even more. Whether it's a ball, ground puck or ice puck the game and the strategy employed to play it is exactly the same.


My point is basically that the overall theme of the game is the same and all roller/street hockey kids love ice whether they play it or not. It simply is the easy version of the game and is to those that play it either a stepping stone to ice hockey, and at least the in for the NHL that lends these people to be huge fans.

I see what your saying now, at first I thought you were crazy though. I grew up playing street hockey, and I could ice skate, but when I finally tried to play ice hockey I looked like I was drunk. I just couldnt get the coordination down. And whoever asked, ice hockey has to be one of the most incredible workouts ever. I was sore in places I didnt even know I had muscles.

But its usually not a stepping stone because kids that play street hockey usually have folks that cant afford what it takes to let them play ice hockey. It is such an expensive sport.

[TheMojoPin]

But its usually not a stepping stone because kids that play street hockey usually have folks that cant afford what it takes to let them play ice hockey. It is such an expensive sport.

Exactly. Logically, street/field hockey and lacrosse should be natural stepping stones to ice hockey, but by and large they tend not to be because of the cost and basic logistically ability to learn to skate and play ice hockey on any kind of a regular basis.

My point is basically that the overall theme of the game is the same and all roller/street hockey kids love ice whether they play it or not. It simply is the easy version of the game and is to those that play it either a stepping stone to ice hockey, and at least the in for the NHL that lends these people to be huge fans.

Again, it's not questioning how similar the games are. They clearly are very similar. There's just the huge gulf between playing those sports and being able to learn and play ice hockey due to the cost and relative limited availability of playable ice. That's a huge reason why hockey isn't as big as the Big 3, which is the main question of the thread.

[spoon]

Exactly. Logically, street/field hockey and lacrosse should be natural stepping stones to ice hockey, but by and large they tend not to be because of the cost and basic logistically ability to learn to skate and play ice hockey on any kind of a regular basis.



Again, it's not questioning how similar the games are. They clearly are very similar. There's just the huge gulf between playing those sports and being able to learn and play ice hockey due to the cost and relative limited availability of playable ice. That's a huge reason why hockey isn't as big as the Big 3, which is the main question of the thread.

Shut up thread railer!

[Gvac]

why is hockey the red-headed step child of american sports?

You have to ask?

Because hockey SUCKS!

It's a sport for faggots.

Might as well be figure skaters.

A professional sport on ice?

Seriously?

[Annie Waits]

You have to ask?

Because hockey SUCKS!

It's a sport for faggots.

Might as well be figure skaters.

A professional sport on ice?

Seriously?

don't be a little bitch just cuz your team just lost the cup!

[aquamonkey]

I think hockey is one of the hardest games to grow an appreciation for when watching on TV. It's almost like you have to form a love for the game in person and then you'll enjoy watching it on TV, but if you try to develop an interest in the game by watching it on TV first it's too difficult.

When I watch football (with the exception of a long pass play), basketball, and baseball, I feel like TV gives me an accurate picture of the gameplay. But for hockey I feel very limited in what I can see ahead and behind when teams are in transition. I much prefer to be there with full view of the ice at all times. That's when you can enjoy hocket at its best.

[nate1000]

You have to ask?

Because hockey SUCKS!

It's a sport for faggots.

Might as well be figure skaters.

A professional sport on ice?

Seriously?

Bwaaa-haaa-haaaa-haaa

The Hossa curse!

[SatCam]

Man I used to love playing street hockey. I sometimes would even strap on the roller blades and pads. One of the problems was getting hurt on the asphalt (if one didnt have pads) and that really discouraged us from playing it regularly.


Also, hockey and soccer are not "american" sports. They are so dominated by other countries, you can't say "oh that guy went to my high school" "oh my sister used to bang that pitcher" like you can with baseball/football/basketball.


The great thing about soccer and hockey, tho, was the quick learning curve. Everyone could play it, everyone knows the rules and on an amateur level everyone is almost just as good as the other guy.

[hammersavage]

Apparently it does translate well to TV. I know it was mentioned in the other thread, but highest ratings since 1973. That's amazing.

Now they need to capitalize on the young talent, get a better TV deal and fix other big issues and its a really relevant, mainstream sport again.

[El Mudo]

Apparently it does translate well to TV. I know it was mentioned in the other thread, but highest ratings since 1973. That's amazing.

Now they need to capitalize on the young talent, get a better TV deal and fix other big issues and its a really relevant, mainstream sport again.


Just to play devil's advocate, how can the league possibly get a better TV deal? As I posted earlier:

Versus has some muscle behind it (its owned by Comcast), and I think its far from the fly by night network that everyone makes it out to be (it gets out to over 70 million people). Is it perfect for the NHL? Absolutely not...but does it get the league on TV and make it marketable to the point where when the contract's up, they can get themselves a more lucrative deal, especially with all the big young stars they can market? Sure does...

Besides....ESPN didnt WANT the NHL, at least not at the 70 million a year Comcast was offering...where else could they have gone?

Plus, look at these things in the original deal:

Quote:
OLN's deal mandates that Comcast carry the NHL Network, which is now only available in Canada, on its digital sports tier. If certain subscriber levels for the network are not reached after two years, Comcast would have to pay the league $15 million, said a television executive who is familiar with the OLN deal, but would not speak for attribution because the contract has not been signed.

OLN must pay the league $15 million more if it exceeds 80 million subscribers, the executive said. It now has 64 million, well below ESPN's 90 million.

And between the massive deal ESPN just signed with the SEC, the NBA, Golf, college football and basketball, where exactly does the NHL fit into the TV schedule there?



You can say "well yeah, they could just stick the NHL on ESPN Classic or something", but how is that much better than being on Versus? I would much rather have the league as a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond. People say "well, the league isn't on ESPN so SportsCenter doesn't cover it"...well...did SportsCenter really cover it when it was on the network?

[Ohiorunningrick]

I agree with much of what has been said. Hockey and baseball do not translate well onto TV, hockey for its speed and baseball of the atmosphere and size of the park. Both have many traditions and small details that true fans appreciate, but casual fans don't have the patience to learn.

If hockey is going to make a comeback, they need to cut ties with vs. and get back on ESPN. ESPN can market the hell out of anything. They have people watching other people play cards.

[TheMojoPin]

Wait, where did anyone else here say that baseball doesn't translate well to TV? That's crazy talk.

[TripleSkeet]

Just to play devil's advocate, how can the league possibly get a better TV deal? As I posted earlier:



You can say "well yeah, they could just stick the NHL on ESPN Classic or something", but how is that much better than being on Versus? I would much rather have the league as a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond. People say "well, the league isn't on ESPN so SportsCenter doesn't cover it"...well...did SportsCenter really cover it when it was on the network?

The fact that hockey is considered one of the Major 4 American Sports and not carried on ESPN is like one big cockslap to the face of the NHL. Seriously. How are new younger fans supposed to take the sport seriously when instead of being included with football and baseball its on a "sports tv channel" thats specialize in sports like fly fishing and rodeo.

[TheMojoPin]

The fact that hockey is considered one of the Major 4 American Sports and not carried on ESPN is like one big cockslap to the face of the NHL. Seriously. How are new younger fans supposed to take the sport seriously when instead of being included with football and baseball its on a "sports tv channel" thats specialize in sports like fly fishing and rodeo.

Scathing commentary about ESPN 20 years ago. I hope your next one is about making the entire plane out of the black box and what's the deal with Grape Nuts.

[Donnie Iris]

Wait, where did anyone else here say that baseball doesn't translate well to TV? That's crazy talk.

It's all subjective. Regular season baseball is nearly unwatchable to me (not just because I'm a Pirate fan). Aside from a New York and Boston series, and/or maybe a hot pitcher on the mound, baseball has really no sense of urgency until the end of the year. The games seem so meaningless considering the length of the season and even the games. I'm fairly certain that if a person was somehow entirely ignorant to sports as a whole and was then equally exposed to each sport on TV, baseball would have to finish near the bottom as far as likeability.

[TheMojoPin]

It's all subjective. Regular season baseball is nearly unwatchable to me (not just because I'm a Pirate fan). Aside from a New York and Boston series, and/or maybe a hot pitcher on the mound, baseball has really no sense of urgency until the end of the year. The games seem so meaningless considering the length of the season and even the games. I'm fairly certain that if a person was somehow entirely ignorant to sports as a whole and was then equally exposed to each sport on TV, baseball would have to finish near the bottom as far as likeability.

But that's different than the argument that hockey doesn't translate well to TV. Hockey doesn't translate well because it's hard to follow the puck and tell when a goal is scored as it happens and so on and so on. That's not the case with baseball. If one so chooses they can turn it on and follow pretty much all the action with no problem. If they simply find it boring, that's a whole other issue.

Besides, if you're talking "urgency," football is the only sport where most or arguably all of the games have a sense of urgency. The other 3 have exactly the same thing you're talking about.

[Donnie Iris]

But that's different than the argument that hockey doesn't translate well to TV. Hockey doesn't translate well because it's hard to follow the puck and tell when a goal is scored as it happens and so on and so on. That's not the case with baseball. If one so chooses they can turn it on and follow pretty much all the action with no problem. If they simply find it boring, that's a whole other issue.

Besides, if you're talking "urgency," football is the only sport where most or arguably all of the games have a sense of urgency. The other 3 have exactly the same thing you're talking about.

This whole "hard to follow the puck" argument baffles me. Is it really that difficult? Especially in a post HD world? The answer is no.

Baseball has twice the number of games than the other two. So, yeah I think that does create much less urgency in baseball.

[TheMojoPin]

This whole "hard to follow the puck" argument baffles me. Is it really that difficult? Especially in a post HD world? The answer is no.

Baseball has twice the number of games than the other two. So, yeah I think that does create much less urgency in baseball.

Of course baseball has more games. The point is is that the majority of the season in basketball and hockey as well aren't urgent at all.

The puck is hard to follow for people trying to pick up the game. For me the biggest drawback for those not into game is that so often you have no idea a goal was scored until the horn goes off and you have to catch the replay to even see how it happened. That's the equivalent of not seeing a touchdown or home run until after the fact.

[Donnie Iris]

Of course baseball has more games. The point is is that the majority of the season in basketball and hockey as well aren't urgent at all.

The puck is hard to follow for people trying to pick up the game. For me the biggest drawback for those not into game is that so often you have no idea a goal was scored until the horn goes off and you have to catch the replay to even see how it happened. That's the equivalent of not seeing a touchdown or home run until after the fact.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I guess my point is that the actual pace of the game in the regular season seems to be much more urgent; or maybe competitive is a better choice of wording.

But yeah you're probably right about the casual fan and not being able to realize a goal being scored as it happens.

[Donnie Iris]

10,000 people were reported to be at the Lakers victory parade in LA today.

375,000 people reported at the Penguins victory parade in Pittsburgh on Monday.

[Ohiorunningrick]

Here is why I said baseball doesn't translate well to tv:
1. the atmosphere of the ballpark: there is a huge difference in being in the ballpark on a nice summer evening, drinking a cold beer and eating peanuts, as opposed to sitting in the living room
2. I don't think tv allows you to judge the distances. On tv, it looks like I could throw it from the outfield to home. At the ballpark, it's obvious it would take me 2-3 throws to get it there. It's impressive when you see the distances and speeds that these guys throw and hit.

[TheMojoPin]

Here is why I said baseball doesn't translate well to tv:
1. the atmosphere of the ballpark: there is a huge difference in being in the ballpark on a nice summer evening, drinking a cold beer and eating peanuts, as opposed to sitting in the living room

But that's true for any sport. Any sport has a totally different feel/ambience/experience actually at the game as opposed to watching it at home.

2. I don't think tv allows you to judge the distances. On tv, it looks like I could throw it from the outfield to home. At the ballpark, it's obvious it would take me 2-3 throws to get it there. It's impressive when you see the distances and speeds that these guys throw and hit.

I definitely agree it looks much more impressive in person, but the numbers show that this isn't really holding too many people back from enjoying baseball on TV.

[TripleSkeet]

Scathing commentary about ESPN 20 years ago. I hope your next one is about making the entire plane out of the black box and what's the deal with Grape Nuts.

Way to miss the point genius.


It wasnt scathing about ESPN, and I dont even know where you came up with "20 years ago". It was about the fact that NHL has changed so much and ignored its diehard fans to the point where it cant even get a decent price to be on ESPN. The fact they arent on ESPN just makes the NHL look like a joke. That was the point.

[TheMojoPin]

The only thing that matters is that you set up my amazing joke.

[keithy_19]

Seriously though, this happens a ton now due to deck and roller hockey. So to me this isn't so far off.

Even in towns without it, like mine, we would play pick up games in tennis courts. All you needed was a takeback line, a net (or garbage can) and people to play. It was so much fun.