Can Hockey Survive?

noel · Post by **noel** » June 1, 2004, 7:21 pm

After hearing this morning, that the Stanley Cup Finals were the 19th rated program amongst cable channels, I think it's reasonable to ask whether the problem is simply that the teams playing the current series are just not a compelling matchup, or is hockey just not cut out to be a mass-market sport? Certainly it has a following amongst people here, and obviously it's Canada's national sport, but is it really catching on here in the states, or does it have the same niche following that say soccer does? I guess the question is, can hockey continue to exist in its present form, or is it destined for change?

Without ratings, a lot of the money goes away, which means lower salaries for players, and less money for teams in general. I'm just curious to hear people's thoughts. I only loosely follow hockey, but I think they have a good product. It doesn't seem like the product is attracting new fans though. I think part of that it's more difficult to find an ice-rink here in the US than it is to find many of the other venues for the more popular sports. What can be done to improve the product and make it more compelling? With the collective bargaining agreement coming up, can hockey survive a strike? I think it can, but it will be very damaging in the short term.

I'm mostly just looking to learn a bit from people who understand the issues better than I do, and get a sense for what the rest of you think...

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 1, 2004, 7:31 pm

I think its mostly due to the fact that its not 2 American teams in the finals. Thats what the majority of the canadian sports channels are saying anyway. I would have to agree with them too.

Edit: Ill add that in order for hockey to survive, it will need to have 2 American teams in the finals every year just so they can be pleased.

Personally, I think the sport is just fine. After 10 or so years, the RedWings, Devils, and the Stars are finally handing over their reign to other teams. And by that I mean, other teams are starting to be more dominant.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 1, 2004, 9:27 pm

I think it's all going to depend on where you are also. Here in Central Texas, we only get ice MAYBE once a year. The thought of playing a game on ice doesn't appeal to the masses, even though we have a team here (minor minors

).

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 1, 2004, 9:55 pm

Well whoever posted about the two American teams has a point.. look at tennis and the French Open. The American men got kicked out fairly early, and everybody made a huge stink about it since "It isn't worth watching now!" This pissed me off quite a bit heh.

Watch good sports, not American teams.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » June 2, 2004, 2:03 am

Aranuil wrote:After hearing this morning, that the Stanley Cup Finals were the 19th rated program amongst cable channels, I think it's reasonable to ask whether the problem is simply that the teams playing the current series are just not a compelling matchup, or is hockey just not cut out to be a mass-market sport?

I think I said it in another thread.. I really believe a lot of it is due to the fact that it's hard to understand all the rules in Hockey without giving it some time, or having someone explain them to you. And if you don't understand the rules (icing, offsides, 2 line pass, etc) that keep stopping the action, then it gets very annoying having the action keep stopping. At least, that's how I felt when I first started watching it.

As for the SC finals.. My home team is playing and I'm for the most part not watching. I can't really decide if it's because my nerves are too frazzled by the end of the 1st period or if it's because the way Calgary is operating is really pissing me off everytime I do watch it. Either way, I'll usually catch a few minutes of the game then do something else. Come back a little later and catch a few more minutes. Either way, we (Tampa Bay) definitely have the best looking team in the NHL for the ladies to watch.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » June 2, 2004, 9:03 am

I watch. And I really don't care for either team, and am not "rooting" for either....well...maybe leaning a bit to the canadian side...I personally think the revival of hockey is in the hands of other countries. The fan base here in the US is what it is, and I don't think hockey can expand to new people as well as other sports.

Hence why in and of itself, hockey is doomed in america. It seems only fans of the sport watch it, and other people never get into it (until their home team is a stanley cup finalist...not anyone on this board...just everyone I know it seems). New fans just don't have "staying" power.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » June 2, 2004, 1:28 pm

I seriously think it stems from the fact that much of the US doesn't freeze over during winter so it is tough to learn how to skate when all your friends are playing football. Maybe the action is too fast for people to keep up with. Football allows people to take a break and analyze what they just saw but Hocky and Soccer are both pretty much non stop. I guess that really doesn't hold all that much weight because Basketball is the same way.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 2, 2004, 3:37 pm

Hockey is plateauing because, for the past several years, the playoffs have been a fucking agonizingly slow clutch-and-grab trapfest.

All they need to do is come down like a hammer on players who use their sticks for ANYTHING other than handling the puck, quit trying to remove fighting from a game that NEEDS it, and let the players PLAY.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » June 3, 2004, 1:12 am

masteen wrote:Hockey is plateauing because, for the past several years, the playoffs have been a fucking agonizingly slow clutch-and-grab trapfest.

You could be on to something there.. and it might explain why I haven't been watching the home team in the series. It's like.. Get the fuck moving and DO something already instead of trying to hump each others legs.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 3, 2004, 10:21 am

Hockey is not non-stop action. It is tied with soccer for the most agonizingly boring sports to ever be put on TV. Golf even has more excitement to watch than those two sports. I mean seriously....in a golf tournament you will see more shots holed form 150+ yards than there are goals in a hockey game or soccer game. It is just repetitive back and forth shoot the puck into the boards and 2 or 3 guys pile onto it garbage.

And why the fuck do they stop the fucking game every 25 seconds for this icing crap? Someone please find out what icing is and get rid of it. If they wanted to make it a sport that people in the U.S. would actually watch, they would remove the pads and add a regularly scheduled fight into it once a period. The losing team would play one man down for that period.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 3, 2004, 10:30 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Hockey is not non-stop action.
...they stop the fucking game every 25 seconds...

Which one is it?

Anyways, speaking of same old shit, how does football or basketball offer more excitement than hockey? Those sports always have the same plays and always go back and forward with the same shit, only slower. But those sports are more popular in the US than hockey is.

I don't mean to flame or put anybody down with this statement but is it because you just can't process information fast enough while watching hpckey?

Edit: Maybe its just that their aren't a lot of American hockey players (113 in total for 15%) compared to Canadian players (55%)

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 3, 2004, 11:39 am

I am not sure where you lost me there.....the things you quoted from me mean the exact same thing. They stop the game very 25 seconds...therefore it is not non-stop action.

If they would elimintae the icing and other really stupid game slowing rules....and maybe made the ice about double the current size....then it might be played as a faster game. Spreading out the playing field might actually accentuate the skills of players where you could actually see them make a 1 on 1 great play. I could care less about watching a 7 or 8 player dog know where they just pound around for 20 seconds near a goal until it slides under the goalie. The most exiciting actions in sports are watching great players beat someone badly.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 3, 2004, 1:18 pm

Maybe its because I'm french, but non-stop over here means it doesn't stop. Hence, stopping every 25 seconds would be the opposite of non-stop.

And making the ice surface a bit wider would help hockey greatly by giving the skilled players the chance to skate and make good plays.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » June 3, 2004, 1:20 pm

Hockey + labor strike = death

noel · Post by **noel** » June 3, 2004, 1:41 pm

The Stanley Cup Finals were beaten in ratings last night by... Spongebob Squarepants! and... Full House reruns! (No I'm not joking)

Grats Hockey!

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 3, 2004, 1:43 pm

Doesn't suprise me since there was no game last night.

Post by **Xouqoa** » June 3, 2004, 2:12 pm

Icing explained!

NHL Rulebook wrote:Rule 65 Icing the Puck

(a) For the purpose of this Rule, the center red line will divide the ice into halves. Should any player of a Team, equal or superior in numerical strength to the opposing Team, shoot, bat or deflect the puck from his own half of the ice beyond the goal line of the opposing Team, play shall be stopped and the puck faced-off at the end face-off spot of the offending Team, unless on the play, the puck shall have entered the net of the opposing Team, in which case the goal shall be allowed.

For the purpose of this Rule, the point of last contact with the puck by the Team in possession shall be used to determine whether icing has occurred or not.

(NOTE 1) If during the period of a delayed whistle due to a foul by a player of the side NOT in possession, the side in possession "ices" the puck, then the face-off following the stoppage of play shall take place in the neutral zone near the defending blue line of the Team icing the puck.

(NOTE 2) When a Team is "short-handed" as the result of a penalty and the penalty is about to expire, the decision as to whether there has been an "icing" shall be determined at the instant the penalty expires. The action of the penalized player remaining in the penalty box will not alter the ruling.

When a Team is "short-handed" by reason of a major penalty, and they have neglected to ensure there is a player on the penalty bench to exit upon the expiry of the penalty, they will continue to play short-handed but are not permitted to ice the puck. Icing will be called. They may substitute for this penalized player at the next stoppage of play.

(NOTE 3) For the purpose of interpretation of the Rule, "icing the puck" is completed the instant the puck is touched first by a defending player (other than the goalkeeper) after it has crossed the goal line and if in the action of so touching the puck, it is knocked or deflected into the net, it is NO goal.

(NOTE 4) When the puck is shot and rebounds from the body or stick of an opponent in his own half of the ice so as to cross the goal line of the player shooting, it shall not be considered as "icing."

(NOTE 5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the section concerning "batting" the puck in respect to the "icing the puck" rule, the provisions of the final paragraph of Rule 59(e) apply and NO goal can be scored by batting the puck with the hand into the opponent's goal whether intended or not.

(NOTE 6) If while the Linesman has signalled a slow whistle for a clean interception under Rule 77(c), the player intercepting shoots or bats the puck beyond the opponent's goal line in such a manner as to constitute "icing the puck," the Linesman's "slow whistle" shall be considered exhausted the instant the puck crosses the blue line and "icing" shall be called in the usual manner.

(b) If a player of the side shooting the puck down the ice who is on-side and eligible to play the puck does so before it is touched by an opposing player, the play shall continue and it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule.

(c) If the puck was so shot by a player of a side below the numerical strength of the opposing Team, play shall continue and the icing violation shall not be called.

(NOTE) If the Team returns to full strength following a shot by one of its players, play shall continue and the face-off shall not take place.

WASH-OUT
(d) If, however, the puck shall go beyond the goal line in the opposite half of the ice directly from either of the players while facing-off, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule.

(e) If, in the opinion of the Linesman, any player of the opposing Team is able to play the puck before it passes his goal line, but has not done so, play shall continue and the icing violation shall not be called. If, in the opinion of the Referee, the defending side intentionally abstains from playing the puck promptly when they are in a position to do so, he shall stop the play and order the resulting face-off on the adjacent corner face-off spot nearest the goal of the Team at fault.

*NEW*
If, in the opinion of the Linesman, the goaltender leaves the crease on a potential icing and feigns playing the puck at any time, the potential icing shall not be called and play shall continue.

(NOTE) The purpose of this section is to enforce continuous action and both Referee and Linesmen should interpret and apply the Rule to produce this result.
(f) If the puck touches any part of a player of the opposing side, including his skates or his stick, or if it touches any part of the opposing Team's goalkeeper, including his skates or his stick, at any time before or after crossing the goal line, it shall not be considered icing.

(NOTE) If a goalkeeper takes any action to dislodge the puck from the back of the net, icing shall be washed out.
(g) If the Linesman shall have erred in calling an "icing the puck" infraction (regardless of whether either Team is short-handed), the puck shall be faced-off on the center ice face-off spot.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 3, 2004, 2:28 pm

Lynks wrote:Doesn't suprise me since there was no game last night.

Sorry, that was the stats for the last night it was played. I didn't look at the date on the article. My bad!

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 8, 2004, 1:10 am

I think this is something that has a couple things plaguing it.

First and foremost, the labour situation. Fans hate rich athletes and fatcat owners arguing about ways to divide billions of our dollars. TV networks and sponsours don't like to sign on to events/leagues that may not be active because of outages.

Second is the geography. As mentioned, a lot of people in the southern US think of ice as something for their drink, not as something to skate on. There is a cultural adaptation to make. Your kids don't all want to play minor hockey, because there aren't any rinks in much of the country: they play football, baseball, basketball, tennis, etc, instead because the facilities and equipment are more available and most cases less expensive. And kids are the backbone of every sport: they are your next generation of professionals.

Third I think is that many adult fans are lazy. They want something they can understand easily (i.e. Kilmoll and his lack of understanding about icing or offside). If you learn the rules as a kid, or have some incentive to learn them (i.e. your kid wants to play so you want to learn a bit about it) its not as difficult, but as we age we all get more set in our ways. I mean I have no idea wtf the rules are for cricket and I don't want to learn them either.

Fourth I think there is a large misrepresentation about the game in some of the ignorant masses. Some people say its like soccer, and the only thing they share is the same scoring structure: you get the ball or the puck past the goal keeper and in the net, you get one point. In terms of flow, its more like basketball, with the physical play of football. The stoppages, aside from goals are more akin to rules you never see called in the NBA (i.e. doube dribbles, traveling, etc).

Fifth is again a cultural issue. Hockey in the US was strongest after you guys won the Olympic gold in Lake Placid in 1980. Since then, internationally you aren't the best and I think that affects your "national psyche" towards the sport: everyone likes to be the best. Hell up here we lord it up and brook no pretentions from anyone else that it is our game. The USA has produced some great players: Keith Ktachuk, Jeremy Roenick, Mike Modano, Chris Chelios, Gary Suter, Mike Richter, John van Biesbruck, even guys like John Leclair, Doug Weight and Brian Leetch. The US shares some great dual-citizenship guys with Canada like Adam Deadmarsh and Brett Hull (both of whom play under the US flag as they had disagreements with Hockey Canada in their youths). But at this point you are good or maybe even a great hockey nation, but not the best. And thats what you may need to get more widespread support.

As far as things like the flow and pace, I have to strongly disagree with Kilmoll again. In the playoffs I saw large stretches where the whistle wouldn't sound for a couple minutes. Some teams do play a more restrictive style and some don't: I wish the NHL would clean up the officiating so that we saw more of the free flowing, non-obstructive game. However its no coincidence and its no exageration that hockey is a faster game than baseball, basketball or football and the proof is that the average 60 minutes of hockey takes less time to play (2 hrs 35 minutes) at the professional level than any other sport (when the fuck is the last time you saw a baseball game take under 4 hrs?).

But there is a startling difference when you look at the TV ratings on both sides of the border and the Stanley Cup Finals rate 19th in the US, yet pull over 3 million viewers for an easy #1 up here. It says that maybe the NHL's push to expand ever south may not have been the most sound strategy for them.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » June 8, 2004, 3:55 am

With so much on TV I don't see why someone would watch a couple of teams they either dont like, or find no excitement in watching. It doesnt supprise me. If there was a Devil Rays / Expos World Series Im sure it would be pretty low rated as well. A lot of people just dont want to watch if their teams not in it or there is not a huge 'name' draw through out the teams lineups. I know a lot of great players are on Calgary and TB but they are not well known unless you follow hockey a lot

kurzweil · Post by **kurzweil** » June 8, 2004, 2:00 pm

I think timing is also an issue.
SC Playoffs vs basketball. March Madness, the NBA Finals vs. two relatively unknown hockey teams? The networks were/are spending all their time pushing basketball, and hockey gets lost.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » June 8, 2004, 8:08 pm

How are hockey and soccer the most boring sports? How about Football, where you wait 1 min to see a 5 second play, then wait again, see a play, wait again, see a play, wait again, see a play. Oh cool play there, no wait, a flag, fuck lets wait some more. And when most plays are incompletes or 2 yard gains. Most of the game is watching them in fucking huddles, not doing cool plays. Its like watching a pre-game show and turning it off when the game begins.

Face it, most sports are retarded to watch. To play is different, but to watch games, most of which are 90% boring as fuck, and to be interrupted by commercials every 10 minutes is not worth anyone's time.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » June 8, 2004, 8:49 pm

Huddles always kinda reminded me of gay orgies. All those guys crouched like that.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » June 9, 2004, 3:42 am

Animalor wrote:Huddles always kinda reminded me of gay orgies. All those guys crouched like that.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » June 9, 2004, 9:55 pm

Keverian FireCry wrote:How are hockey and soccer the most boring sports? How about Football, where you wait 1 min to see a 5 second play, then wait again, see a play, wait again, see a play, wait again, see a play. Oh cool play there, no wait, a flag, fuck lets wait some more. And when most plays are incompletes or 2 yard gains. Most of the game is watching them in fucking huddles, not doing cool plays. Its like watching a pre-game show and turning it off when the game begins.

Face it, most sports are retarded to watch. To play is different, but to watch games, most of which are 90% boring as fuck, and to be interrupted by commercials every 10 minutes is not worth anyone's time.

Im starting to think americans do not like non stop action.
the only sport, other then Pride or UFC fights i can sit threw is soccer. When the world cup comes around i get enthusiastic about almost every game, if we had a high end league here i would most likely be a huge fan. That, or i go to ESPN 2 and look for some good real madrid or la coruna games

I cant stand watching football,as it is very slow paced. Il watch the superbowl (due to bets) and maybe some bucs games if they make it to the playoffs.
Hockey to me just looks like a highly disorganized ripoff of soccer. Basketball gets old real fast becouse a basket means jack shit, and you can only win a game in the last quarter.
Soccer is non stop action, with two halfs of 45 minutes of play, and the game can be decided any second.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » June 10, 2004, 8:35 pm

Xzion wrote:Basketball gets old real fast becouse a basket means jack shit, and you can only win a game in the last quarter.
Soccer is non stop action, with two halfs of 45 minutes of play, and the game can be decided any second.

How can soccer be decided in any second any differently than basketball?

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » June 12, 2004, 1:36 pm

1 goal= like 40 baskets

Momopi · Post by **Momopi** » June 14, 2004, 9:48 am

Keverian FireCry wrote:How are hockey and soccer the most boring sports? How about Football, where you wait 1 min to see a 5 second play, then wait again, see a play, wait again, see a play, wait again, see a play. Oh cool play there, no wait, a flag, fuck lets wait some more. And when most plays are incompletes or 2 yard gains. Most of the game is watching them in fucking huddles, not doing cool plays. Its like watching a pre-game show and turning it off when the game begins.

Because with Football, america has a connection with its players. Everyone has their own favorite player to root for so they enjoy watching the game to see how things will turn out. That's the number one problem with Hockey, noone in america cares about it because noone knows who the hell any of the players are. Hockey lacks star power of any kind and as long as this is the case, hockey will not attract any new fans. Everyone in america knows who Tom Brady is, but how many people know a single player on their local Hockey Team if they happen to live in a hockey town. Forget it if there is no hockey team in their town. Unless Hockey can somehow find the next Great One or Mario, the league is toast.

Narmgarf · Post by **Narmgarf** » June 14, 2004, 10:21 am

Who the hell is Tom Brady?

Narmgarf

valryte · Post by **valryte** » June 14, 2004, 10:42 am

Hey Lynks, are you fucking retarded? Like 2 replies and you still don't get it?

Hockey is not non-stop action.

DO...YOU...SEE...THE...WORD...BETWEEN..."IS"...AND..."NON-STOP" ?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Not

Oh wait, you're french...nevermind.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 14, 2004, 12:49 pm

Took ya two weeks for that huh? Maybe I should of added a third post saying that I understand now and simply overlooked the word "not".

MAYBE...I...FINALLY...UNDERSTOOD...IT...?

Good job at poking fun at the french....maudit con.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » June 15, 2004, 4:32 pm

why don't you go surrender something toad.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 17, 2004, 9:33 am

Stragi wrote:why don't you go surrender something toad.

That doesn't make any sense.

VeeshanVault

Can Hockey Survive?

Can Hockey Survive?

Re: Can Hockey Survive?