HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Ratings II: More 2013 NHL TV Ratings

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-20-2013, 10:00 PM
  #751
Muckr
Registered User
 
Muckr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: I-95
Country: United States
Posts: 1,409
vCash: 500
I'm curious how Hartford is rating for the NBA finals compared to the NHL.

Muckr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2013, 10:06 PM
  #752
Muckr
Registered User
 
Muckr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: I-95
Country: United States
Posts: 1,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tough Guy View Post
The Final has very little (if any) relation to league revenue. You make it sound like the NHL lives or dies based off 7 games in June.

And the big markets matter so much as far as ratings are concerned in hockey because it is the only major sport that doesn't care about the quality of its product. Casual fans in general hate hockey. And, to be honest, I don't blame them. If I wasn't raised watching this sport, I wouldn't follow it at all. We are entering dead puck era #2, so it's extremely unlikely casual fans are being won over by the product currently on the ice.



The only person who agrees with that statement in this thread is you. New York is far from a "great hockey town". New York will always be able to support a team based on the massive population, but their ratings absolutely stunk. I'm not buying "oh, if we had a run like Chicago" stuff. The Rangers have been a good team forever and the ratings still suck.


Wrong. The Rangers have won one division in twenty years and been a perinneal low seed who steals a round or two due to goaltending.

You call that a good team comparable to Boston or Chicago? Are you that much of a knucklehead? D you have no perspective? Show me how the late 90s Hawks or Bruins rated and compare itmtonthe mid 90s Rangers.

You are so biased or naive, I don't know which is more true but you are just as wrong if you think it is fair to base judgement on the NY market from the last decade compared to the Bruins ornHawks who both have won cups and are in their second recent final.

Rangers have been in two finals over the past 35 seasons....put them in two of three seasons THEN....THEN you may compare and judge NY to BOS or CHI...untitled then....get some perspective and stop insulting that market.

Muckr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2013, 10:09 PM
  #753
Muckr
Registered User
 
Muckr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: I-95
Country: United States
Posts: 1,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Regime View Post
Speaking for the New York market, I know a lot of people here, including myself, don't get NBCSN. Heard it's one of the lowest percentages of people who have it in the country.

That being said, most of the other big cities will get behind whichever of the NBA or NHL team is doing better, Boston and Chicago being perfect examples. However, New York is much more slanted towards basketball than hockey. Granted if the Rangers made a deep run, things would pick up a little bit, but they have been good for years while the Knicks just won their first playoff series in forever this year, yet the Knicks are much, much more popular. It's kinda similar to LA - people will jump on the bandwagon, but for whatever reason hockey is not viewed as "equal" to the other main sports, and it pisses me off.
Chicago needed the cup as did Boston before they grew exponentially to their current level so I don't know how that makes them better than New York whom last time I checked after 1994 where the talk of town nd boosted the NHL to its most relevant standing in history. Funny how so many of HF is obviously just teenagers who weren't around then and have no perspective and no problem making such declarative, slandering, statements.

Go see NY ratings 94-99 and then see Boston ratings pre 2008 or Chicago pre 2010 and tell me...show we...WHY NY SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS MUCH LESS...

Muckr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 02:53 AM
  #754
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 57,006
vCash: 500
http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...ley-cup-final/

Quote:
According to a statement released by the NBC Sports Group, this year’s final between the Boston Bruins and Chicago Blackhawks has drawn an average of 5.356 million viewers per game, “making it the most-watched Final through four games on record (data available since 1994), according to The Nielsen Company.”

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 03:22 AM
  #755
Fenway
Moderator
 
Fenway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 1,755
vCash: 50
Doakes

Of the O6 teams the Rangers have the smallest following

Montreal and Toronto are almost equals even today when you combine CBC/RDS numbers.

Detroit is a solid #3 as before expansion they were considered Canada's 'third' team.

Boston is #4 with strong New England and Maritimes support - Chicago #5 as they were followed in Canada's bread basket.

The Rangers never developed a Canadian following.

LOOK - the NHL will never catch the NBA is total eyeballs - but when the dust settles NBC will most likely have made a bigger profit on hockey than ESPN/ABC with hoops because of rights fees.

Fenway is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 10:16 AM
  #756
gordie
Registered User
 
gordie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenway View Post
Doakes

Of the O6 teams the Rangers have the smallest following

Montreal and Toronto are almost equals even today when you combine CBC/RDS numbers.

Detroit is a solid #3 as before expansion they were considered Canada's 'third' team.

Boston is #4 with strong New England and Maritimes support - Chicago #5 as they were followed in Canada's bread basket.

The Rangers never developed a Canadian following.

LOOK - the NHL will never catch the NBA is total eyeballs - but when the dust settles NBC will most likely have made a bigger profit on hockey than ESPN/ABC with hoops because of rights fees.
The Rangers have always had a very strong following in British Columbia due to the many natives of that Province who played for them.

gordie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:16 AM
  #757
BostonBruins92
Closer to the Sun
 
BostonBruins92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brookline, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,753
vCash: 500
Gordie, didn't you predict that no one would watch this series?

BostonBruins92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:45 AM
  #758
gordie
Registered User
 
gordie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crapeze11 View Post
Gordie, didn't you predict that no one would watch this series?
I certainly haven't and I'd had hoped that others would have been smart enough to turn off their sets instead of watching what Boston is trying to sell as interesting.

gordie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 12:51 PM
  #759
um
Registered User
 
um's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordie View Post
I certainly haven't and I'd had hoped that others would have been smart enough to turn off their sets instead of watching what Boston is trying to sell as interesting.
i hate it when goalies close there 5-holes

um is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 01:00 PM
  #760
Muckr
Registered User
 
Muckr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: I-95
Country: United States
Posts: 1,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenway View Post
Doakes

Of the O6 teams the Rangers have the smallest following

Montreal and Toronto are almost equals even today when you combine CBC/RDS numbers.

Detroit is a solid #3 as before expansion they were considered Canada's 'third' team.

Boston is #4 with strong New England and Maritimes support - Chicago #5 as they were followed in Canada's bread basket.

The Rangers never developed a Canadian following.

LOOK - the NHL will never catch the NBA is total eyeballs - but when the dust settles NBC will most likely have made a bigger profit on hockey than ESPN/ABC with hoops because of rights fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordie View Post
The Rangers have always had a very strong following in British Columbia due to the many natives of that Province who played for them.
The Rangers never had a truly iconic player.
There was no Orr, Hull, or Howe.
Wasn't a truly dominant era.

In the US, the Rangers all things equal have the second biggest following after Detroit. When the Rangers won the cup in 1994 they drew on the road and on TV Yankee like support.

I think it is completely unfair to 2013 act and treat the Rangers as the ugly duckling of the original six.
I'd like to see how the Bruins would be followed if they won ONE division in twenty years (oh wait, back pre -2008 they couldn't sell out playoff games) or the Hawks (oh wait...again pre 2009 the madhouse was half full).

Give the Rangers a consistent contender and recent cup champ and just watch how their ratings explode and how the league does even better.

Muckr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 01:41 PM
  #761
Tough Guy
Registered User
 
Tough Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 939
vCash: 500
If you need a perennial Stanley Cup favorite powerhouse filled with star players to even move the ratings needle at all, then you just might not be a good hockey market.

Tough Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 02:36 PM
  #762
showstopper99
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doakes View Post
The Rangers never had a truly iconic player.
There was no Orr, Hull, or Howe.
Wasn't a truly dominant era.

In the US, the Rangers all things equal have the second biggest following after Detroit. When the Rangers won the cup in 1994 they drew on the road and on TV Yankee like support.

I think it is completely unfair to 2013 act and treat the Rangers as the ugly duckling of the original six.
I'd like to see how the Bruins would be followed if they won ONE division in twenty years (oh wait, back pre -2008 they couldn't sell out playoff games) or the Hawks (oh wait...again pre 2009 the madhouse was half full).

Give the Rangers a consistent contender and recent cup champ and just watch how their ratings explode and how the league does even better.


Doakes I know you're getting a lot of flack on here about your Rangers....lol I will meet you halfway on most of your stuff. I disagree a little on the player side. They did have Messier for that run in the early years albeit at the end of his prime....The Rangers were the "team" along with Detroit that was a huge foundation block for ratings for the NHL in the 90's. It would be interesting to see if the Rangers did have the grade A star power like Pittsburgh has.....and a couple finals runs in their back pocket.

Now if you look at Boston. They don't really have any flat out big "stars" they have some damn good hockey players, but nobody that transcends outside of their city or reaches out to casual-non-casual fans. Now I agree Boston did win a cup and stuff.

It was a little disappointing last year to see in the Eastern Finals that they couldn't out do. Boston/TB in the ratings and little disappointing this year. I still believe and hope New York can turn in a high-calibre team. Cause it would only benefit hockey and the league general.

showstopper99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 02:44 PM
  #763
showstopper99
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 155
vCash: 500
If you do look at cities like" Colorado they had dynasty type talent, so did Detroit that has stretched over 20 years! Pittsburgh has had it for the last 6-7 years and throw in the Mario Lemieux and Jagr days.....Also, Chicago does have great exceptional talent too. They would be working on a dynasty right now if their team didn't get blown up a few years ago after their win. Heck even Dallas had some pretty damn good hockey players for their stretch in the late 90-s to early 2000's

I think when you've all of those things going for you it's easy to sell tickets and create buzz.

For the Rangers I did fine them to be a boring team last year. Though, having said that I'm a hockey fan and you would think with them winning the President's Trophy, going to the third round and they've been in the playoffs for quite a bit in the last few years. You would like to see them at least average a 5.0 in that second round against Boston. A original six rival, both cities history.........

showstopper99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 05:23 PM
  #764
Muckr
Registered User
 
Muckr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: I-95
Country: United States
Posts: 1,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tough Guy View Post
If you need a perennial Stanley Cup favorite powerhouse filled with star players to even move the ratings needle at all, then you just might not be a good hockey market.
I guess Boston and Chicago aren't good hockey markets.
Because when the Bruins were an average run of the mill team (and even then the Bruins won the conference in 2002 and 2004) from 1993-2008 when they weren't a "forefront physical contender" they didn't draw in person or TV.

Chicago didn't do much in the late 90s to 2009. So you come off as either a Ranger hater or just some ignorant teenager because when the Rangers have been a contender, they've pushed the needle locally and nationally.

You just forget the 90s and somehow think an aberration called 2012 is enough...yet when Boston had the same thing in 2002 and 2004 and didn't draw $%^&...where were you then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by showstopper99 View Post
Doakes I know you're getting a lot of flack on here about your Rangers....lol I will meet you halfway on most of your stuff. I disagree a little on the player side. They did have Messier for that run in the early years albeit at the end of his prime....The Rangers were the "team" along with Detroit that was a huge foundation block for ratings for the NHL in the 90's. It would be interesting to see if the Rangers did have the grade A star power like Pittsburgh has.....and a couple finals runs in their back pocket.

Now if you look at Boston. They don't really have any flat out big "stars" they have some damn good hockey players, but nobody that transcends outside of their city or reaches out to casual-non-casual fans. Now I agree Boston did win a cup and stuff.

It was a little disappointing last year to see in the Eastern Finals that they couldn't out do. Boston/TB in the ratings and little disappointing this year. I still believe and hope New York can turn in a high-calibre team. Cause it would only benefit hockey and the league general.
The Rangers 2012 season was an aberration, they got their butts kicked in the 2nd round...the Bruins in 2002 finished 1 in the east...and got beaten in the 2003 playoffs...and didn't draw.
How is that disappointing?

You think ONE division title in 20 years should be enough to move the needle as high as winning a cup and being a contender for five seasons?

You forget Rangers and their ratings went up like 173% this season and their playoff games were the top rated show in that time slot.
But let's forget those facts.

Let's remember too Nate Silver's article that NY is 55% Ranger fans...so you realize that unlike Boston, in this market when the Rangers are on TV it DOES NOT EQUATE TO ALL HOCKEY FANS IN THE AREA.

Quote:
Boston/TB in the ratings and little disappointing this year. I still believe and hope New York can turn in a high-calibre team.
Boston-TB went seven, had more goals, and were two markets.
NY and NJ were the same market, so obviously less of the country will watch.

It just shocks me and irritates me how New York is written off as a "bad" hockey market without any due diligence or perspective at all by haters and teenagers or teenage like minds.

Muckr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 05:41 PM
  #765
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 15,017
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
I thought you were a penguins fan mucker

Morris Wanchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 09:14 PM
  #766
showstopper99
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 155
vCash: 500
Yes TB/Boston is two markets, but we're talking about the NEw York area. Which is pretty huge. I think it's a mixture of both. When it comes to the pros and cons of New York as a "hockey" town. Do like the signing of Vigneualt. I think that will bode well for the how the Rangers play hockey.

I hope New York can boom into a huge hockey market. Cause we won't be getting Chicago, Boston in the finals every year.

showstopper99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 09:47 PM
  #767
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,753
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doakes View Post
I guess Boston and Chicago aren't good hockey markets.
Because when the Bruins were an average run of the mill team (and even then the Bruins won the conference in 2002 and 2004) from 1993-2008 when they weren't a "forefront physical contender" they didn't draw in person or TV.

Chicago didn't do much in the late 90s to 2009. So you come off as either a Ranger hater or just some ignorant teenager because when the Rangers have been a contender, they've pushed the needle locally and nationally..
Hawks didn't even show home games on TV until starting in 2008 (Unless you call that joke PPV experiment Wirtz tried that lasted very briefly TV coverage)

So using ratings to judge Hawks fans during that era is a bit absurd

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:07 PM
  #768
showstopper99
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 155
vCash: 500
TB/Boston. Tampa is a sunbelt team. You would think the NJ/New York would galvanize that area. Especially, no Knicks during that time. Yes it went 7 games, but if you averaged out both 6 game series. Boston/TB wins still......I believe. I'm not going to say New York is a great hockey, but I won't say its bad. It's just it leaves a little left to be desired at times........

showstopper99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:18 PM
  #769
Muckr
Registered User
 
Muckr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: I-95
Country: United States
Posts: 1,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by showstopper99 View Post
Yes TB/Boston is two markets, but we're talking about the NEw York area. Which is pretty huge. I think it's a mixture of both. When it comes to the pros and cons of New York as a "hockey" town. Do like the signing of Vigneualt. I think that will bode well for the how the Rangers play hockey.

I hope New York can boom into a huge hockey market. Cause we won't be getting Chicago, Boston in the finals every year.
Boston wasn't a hockey boon in 2010 and even 2011 until they won the cup. Chicago was half of what it is now in 2010. Do you really think it is fair to judge the Rangers based on their recent record compared to two cup champs and contenders?

If so...go back to 1994 and tell me how NY was getting top ratings and had a Yankee like following so big...the angle was at its peak.

It is so ignorant and wrong, just wrong, of you haters and teenagers to dismiss New York as not being a great hockey market and a national following based on them vs. current Boston and Chicago...if the Rangers had the run the hawks or bruins had....and the bruins and hawks had the past five seasons the rangers had....tell me then whose the popular needle mover.

Oh wait...I remember 1994

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Hawks didn't even show home games on TV until starting in 2008 (Unless you call that joke PPV experiment Wirtz tried that lasted very briefly TV coverage)

So using ratings to judge Hawks fans during that era is a bit absurd
Just like using ranger ratings now to judge them compared to the current hawks and bruins is also absurd....even more when you totally disregard what the Rangers ratings were...what the NHL was...post 1994

Quote:
Originally Posted by showstopper99 View Post
TB/Boston. Tampa is a sunbelt team. You would think the NJ/New York would galvanize that area. Especially, no Knicks during that time. Yes it went 7 games, but if you averaged out both 6 game series. Boston/TB wins still......I believe. I'm not going to say New York is a great hockey, but I won't say its bad. It's just it leaves a little left to be desired at times........
Dude...two NY teams play...one of whom is a boring suburb team with no following....that has much less national appeal. Yankees mets World Series had low ratings...for the same reason...so I guess ny isn't a great baseball town.

Muckr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:20 PM
  #770
Muckr
Registered User
 
Muckr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: I-95
Country: United States
Posts: 1,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
And that series was exclusively on cable....the Rangers winning that series got the NHL back on broadcast...but of course...nobody mentions or brings this up...

Muckr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:40 PM
  #771
Fenway
Moderator
 
Fenway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 1,755
vCash: 50
Game 7 of the NBA Finals put up big numbers

Quote:
Game 7 on Thursday night drew 26.3 million viewers, the second most to watch an N.B.A. game on ABC. The viewership peaked from 11:30 to 11:45 p.m. Eastern, at 34.2 million viewers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/sp...seid=auto&_r=0

Fenway is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:55 PM
  #772
joelef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenway View Post
Game 7 of the NBA Finals put up big numbers



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/sp...seid=auto&_r=0
The NBA also has more demographics and unlike the NHL actually markets it stars.

joelef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 12:01 AM
  #773
gordie
Registered User
 
gordie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelef View Post
The NBA also has more demographics and unlike the NHL actually markets it stars.
Boston and Chicago have only stars that hardcore hockey fans know except for ancient Jagr and he's at the end of his career.

gordie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 12:04 AM
  #774
joelef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordie View Post
Boston and Chicago have only stars that hardcore hockey fans know except for ancient Jagr and he's at the end of his career.
because the NHL dosent market them.

joelef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 12:07 AM
  #775
Jussi
No strings on me
 
Jussi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 45,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelef View Post
because the NHL dosent market them.
Because hockey is a team sport where one single individual can't win games by himself(at the top level). Also, Americans don't care about hockey players.

Jussi is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:03 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.