I’m just wondering if maybe the NHL gets a little too much media attention. This probaly isn’t going to be popular, but… I think it’s a legitimate question to ask. Everyone knows how bad hockey’s TV ratings have been. I’m not trying to twist that knife, but… given the general disinterest of the general populace towards hockey, perhaps ESPN and other sports media outlets are giving it a little bit too much attention.
Game Seven led SportsCenter… and ESPN.com did one of those special half-page graphics for it. It was the big story of the day, and while it doesn’t quite get the same SportsCenter treatment as the Super Bowl, World Series, or NBA Finals… it’s not that far below. Is that as it should be? I don’t know what the Game 7 ratings were, but… Game Six of a very competitive series got an embarrassing 1.2. That’s like a UPN number. No need to rehash all the individual ratings, but hey, Game 7 notwithstanding, they’re turtle’s dick low.
I’m just wondering if, for example, Arena Football fans get pissed off when the NHL leads SportsCenter, while Arena Football brings in better TV ratings. On the surface at least, they’d seem to have a point… as would fans of the WNBA or women’s college softball. Maybe the TV ratings aren’t the end-all, be-all…and maybe there’s something to be said for the intensely loyal nature of hockey fans. But I still think it’s fair to at least ask if maybe ESPN should move it down the list a little bit.
BA Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I think that’s a little harsh. I think espn has pared down their coverage of hockey and the playoffs dramatically this year. All refrences to the NHL and the stanlley cup will be gone by about 6:00 PM tonight when the hypefest for the dallas/miami game begins.
zkatz Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
look mjd, every sport has a period where nobody gives a sh*t (ahem, post nba strike years). the nhl will bounce back, as the product on the ice is way better then arena football, or a hot dog eating contest, or a man trying to beat a giraffe in a race. in a few years, you will probably be on this space, writing an entry titled, “penguins 1, canucks 0″, and nobody is going to call you a hypocrite. So instead of twisting the knife (which you absoloutly are), maybe you should take your own advice and not give the stanley cup any attention at all, because you think its century old tradition is less important than tv ratings.
Ron Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
People need to stop looking at national ratings when talking about the NHL. Other than Canada, hockey is a regional sport, always has been and always will be. While Ranger fans love the Rangers and will watch any Ranger game, they don’t give a shit about the Hurricanes and Oilers. This is fine. The NHL will still make millions and millions, and the sport will flourish. Just never expect people in Florida to care if the Lightning or Panthers aren’t in it.
Fightclub3230 Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Don’t worry, they make up for it. There’s an exciting Game 7 with a lot of hits and great goals and saves, and the question they ask on Around the Horn is, “Was this a good season?” This is asked purely so Jay Marriotti can go on his spiel about how hockey sucks (does he actually like sports?) Then, on PTI, they ask if hockey has a brighter future than MLS. I wish they didn’t talk about it either, so I would stop getting insulted for liking a sport.
doubleginntonic Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
I think it’s important to consider the fact the NHL is currently being shown on a fringe cable network that many people don’t have. I’m not sure the numbers but theres no way in hell OLN is reaching as many homes as ESPN and stuff like the WNBA is going to get a better rating because its reaching a disperportionately larger ammount of households. When you consider that and the fact that the ESPN marketing machine no longer plugs the league in every sportscenter bump during the playoffs like in years past, it’s not hard to understand why the ratings have fallen off so badly.
And really, to trash hockey and then try and tell people to ‘give soccer a fair chance’ is almost comical. Try and imagine what the World Cup ratings would be if OLN had picked up soccer this year. I’m willing to bet they’d be comparable to the NHL playoffs.
dapopeovoz Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
I like the point that Fightclub makes,no matter where people are talkin about hockey,wether on TV,radio,in newspapers or even at work,it makes me feel like an ass for liking the sport.
Biff Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
The problem with that line of reasoning is thus: Are there really any Arena Football fans out there? Or WNBA fans? I mean, obviously there are people watching and attending the games, but do any of them really care? Or is their success merely an offshoot of their more popular brethren, in this case the NFL and NBA, respectively? Contrast that with the NHL, where hockey fans are NHL fans, and they (generally) care passionately for their sport and their league. There would be a huge uproar (or at least a noticably sizeable one) if either the AFL of the WNBA ever beat out the NHL in terms of media coverage like you suggest, but not the other way around.
Don Paco Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Absolutely right. The NHL has become a minority interest in America. It makes no sense to lump it in with the major sports. There’s more interest in soccer in America now than in hockey.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing and it’s not a slight on hockey on the NHL. There’s more to life than being popular.
Having said that, the NHL simply isn’t very popular anymore. There’s plenty of rabid fans left, but not that many of them.
And I’ve read time and again how “the NHL’s going through a bad spot, it’ll rebound like the NBA did”, but I don’t think that’s true. Hockey will become a “specific interest” kind of sport. Except in Canada. People really do go ape about hockey in Canada.
the mighty mjd Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
zkatz: Hey, maybe you’re right, and in five years, NHL ratings will be through the roof. But it might also go the other way, too. And why would I want to twist the knife? Contrary to popular belief, I don’t have anything against the sport… I don’t watch it, but why would I be happy about the sport having low ratings?
doubleginntonic: I did not trash hockey. Not once did I make fun, or criticize the sport, or criticize anyone for liking it. Just asked the question of whether or not it deserves the lead spot on SportsCenter. And I could not care less if you ever try watching soccer.
Biff: I think that point is perfectly valid… as I said in the original post, the TV ratings might not be the end-all, be-all, but… I don’t know what other way there is to judge fan interest.
And again… I just asked the question. I did not demand that ESPN remove all mentions of the NHL. If you think a 1.2 rating in Game 6 (which was on NBC, which everyone has) indicates that the question is unfair and ridiculous… then hey, that’s what you believe. Hockey fans are the most sensitive group of fans out there.
mr elevation Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
That’s completely uncalled for, Burgundy. You know those rating systems are flawed. They don’t take into account houses that have more than two television sets, and other things of that nature.
tony Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 2:38 am
Ratings, schmatings… THE CANES WON THE FREAKING CUP!!!!
I understand some of those arguments, but as for leading SportsCenter, why the hell not? It’s a championship, and even if it’s not “Big Four” anymore, it’s certainly top six or so. In-house attendance numbers this year have shown that there’s interest there, just for whatever reason not on TV. Also, the Cup has been given out for over 100 years, this is just the 14th (or was it 15th?) Game 7 in the Final. It’s an event, and one worth covering. Given the rest of the sports schedule Monday night, what else would you lead with? Maybe if that kid had finished the no-no for SF, but that’s about it.
And to back up Fightclub’s point again, using the deciding game in a damn fine series to try to make a point that the NHL still sucks is weak. I never watch PTI, Around the Horn, or even really listen to much sports radio anymore. Everything got turned into “Yeah, that was nice, but the sport’s still not worth your time.” Dan Patrick and Olbermann (who I think I finally realized I want to kick in the balls with a steel boot) used the time to talk about prick owners moving teams. It gets old listening to people who are paid to watch/talk sports spend all their energy bashing sports that they don’t deem as worthy. Kevyn Adams finished the last 2 1/2 periods of Game 7 with a broken wrist and it gets glossed over, yet TO catches three TD’s in a 14 point loss, and we see highlights until the Bermans come home. Surprisingly, Jim Rome is about the only one that did it right today.
Bah. I’m gonna end this rant and go watch Brindy dance with the Cup some more…
phenyl_engine_rods Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 4:03 am
Hey, if no-one’s watching the game, then that many more people need Sportscenter to tell them what happened, right?
More seriously, I don’t think this is an unreasonable question to ask. But I think there’s a certain inherent conservativeness to this sort of thing. The sports world changes relatively slowly, and it’s really unsettling to see the hierarchy messed with. Even though I don’t want to watch hockey (or football or baseball, for that matter), I’d just have trouble taking seriously a sports news show in North America that didn’t put it in with the big ones.
I think you have to look at multiyear ratings trends, not just this year’s ratings. If ratings stay low, that’s as good a sign as you can get that casual sports fans don’t care enough to show news at the top of Sportscenter. But we don’t have good evidence on multiyear ratings trends right now, because the lockout messes things up.
By the way, what are the ratings like in Canada? The finals (and most of the playoffs, I think), have been on CBC up here–so that removes the influence OLN has on ratings. (Even though some games have been on NBC, the fact that a lot of hockey hasn’t been easily watchable will have an influence even on NBC’s games. And game 7, at least, wasn’t on Seattle’s NBC–even though there were “Stanley Cup on NBC” ads on the boards.) Of course, hockey is much bigger in Canada than down there, but we do have non-hockey fans here (hi!), so you could look and see if there’s been a dropoff in Canadian ratings this year compared with previous years.
DookieStyle Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 5:15 am
What a dumb column.
mshcch Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 8:24 am
In its glory days the NHL benefited from strength in the major northeastern media markets - New York, Boston, Philly, Detroit. Because these cities had an interest in hockey, the NHL received media coverage completely out of proportion to the average fan’s interest.
That continues today. NHL fans might complain about OLN, but there’s a reason ESPN dropped the league. Saturday’s World Cup coverage got 5 times as many viewers as any NHL playoff game — and even that is understated, as the WC viewership only reflects ABC coverage, and does not Univision’s viewers. When you get whipped by soccer here in the US, it is time to re-think your viability as a major sport.
Rob Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 8:36 am
Sorry mjd, but you aren’t asking the right question. I think you meant to ask “does the NHL get a little too much media attention *on ESPN*?” All you cite in your post is Disney’s bitch and its sub-family of whores.
Form my experience, the NHL now gets more attention for its lack of attention than for anything going on icewise. See last week’s SI, which spent more words lamenting the TV ratings then actually hyping the Finals. Such is the price for skipping a season. It’s turned the NHL into Elizabeth Taylor. All anyone can say is how hot she *used* to be and how far she’s fallen. She and the Stanley Cup will still get screen time, but it’s more for their history than their present.
asm Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 2:54 pm
The rating for Game 7 was a 4.0. Its not great but its a lot better than the previous games.
Game 7 of the 2004 Stanley Cup got a 5.4 rating and Game 7 of the 2003 Stanley got a 5.7.
the mighty mjd Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Not that it’s particularly relative to the point, but the guy here says 2.3. So who knows.
Link.