HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

NHL's image rising? The Rangers role:

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-20-2007, 05:39 PM
  #51
danno2530
 
danno2530's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,453
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to danno2530
Some very, very good points brought up here. The fact is, do we overrate the Rangers' success in being a key to helping the league back into the mainstream? Yes. But the fact is, New York teams usually equal big ratings. And if you need an example of how the Rangers do for the good of the league...well, I present to you 1994.

The Rangers really took the country by storm that year. Now I'm sure alot of it had to do with the personality and name recognition of Mark Messier as well as the whole 1940 thing, but come on...you had Jeff Beukeboom in Sportscenter ads, you had the Rangers win 'Team of the Year' at the ESPY's....YES, A HOCKEY TEAM won Team of the Year on ESPN.

And then the lockout came and things were never the same. Oh sure, the league did ok for the first couple of seasons after the lockout....but it lasted until about 1997...about the same time the Rangers went into their abyss. Hmmm.

Also I think it's not just a coincidence that the reason the league is struggling has alot to do with the teams who have won the cup: Dallas, New Jersey, Tampa Bay, Carolina, Anaheim. Sorry, but those teams ain't gonna bring in ratings.

Now as important as the Rangers success is to the league, that goes for alot of other teams too. The league was pretty big when the Chicago Blackhawks were a good team as well when they had guys like Roenick. As much as we hate them, the Flyers need to be good as well. A team from Boston succeeding never hurt either so we need the Bruins back on track and of course, you always have to think about the city on that other coast with the Kings. There is a huge difference between Los Angeles and Anaheim just like there is with New York and New Jersey.

In the end though it could just be that alot of people have never really been exposed to hockey so they can't make a judgement on it. I have brought many people to their first game at MSG and I have never once heard them say anything but the fact that they had a great time.

Also, people seem to complain alot about the lack of hockey attention just here in New York...but have you ever noticed that whenever someone even mentions the word "Rangers" or "Islanders" or occasionally "Devils" on WFAN, there are immediately several calls that follow? That's not just a coincidence.

And if it winds up just being a niche sport, well, that isn't a completely bad thing. Attending the NHL Draft in Columbus last month, I think that made it an even better experience as it was like a big hockey fan convention. I'm not sure if it would have been the same for the NFL or NBA draft.

danno2530 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2007, 06:24 PM
  #52
Gardner McKay
Moderator
#4parsley
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 10,904
vCash: 300
I tend to agree and disagree

New York City is the biggest market in the world for any sports team.
I think that if hockey did have any chance of jumping back to that fourth spot, and beyond, the Rangers would have alot to do with it.

Think about it. How many casual fans know, who the Atlanta Thrashers, Carolina Hurricanes, or Columbus Blue Jackets are?

How many of those fans know who the Detroit Redwings and New York Rangers are? My guess would be unless they have lived in a cave for the past 20 years, all of them. Thats what its about. They know the Rangers. So when they see the Rangers in the Stanley cup Finals, hey maybe they will tune in to watch the game.

No different then me with any other sport. I will watch hockey no matter who is playing. But Unless its my Yankees or Jets, I could really give a hoot about anything else, unless its another team I recognize. If I see the Milwaulkee Brewers in the World Series Vs the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, are any of us gonna watch? Heck no. But for those of you who are not Yankees fans, if the Yankees are in it, maybe you tune in for a game to watch the Evil empire lose.

Its no different with the Rangers, yes we may over-estimate the importance a bit, however they are still the biggest market in America.

Gardner McKay is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2007, 06:39 PM
  #53
The Korean*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Country: South Korea
Posts: 7,635
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to The Korean* Send a message via Yahoo to The Korean*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hplaya94 View Post
New York City is the biggest market in the world for any sports team.
I think that if hockey did have any chance of jumping back to that fourth spot, and beyond, the Rangers would have alot to do with it.

Think about it. How many casual fans know, who the Atlanta Thrashers, Carolina Hurricanes, or Columbus Blue Jackets are?

How many of those fans know who the Detroit Redwings and New York Rangers are? My guess would be unless they have lived in a cave for the past 20 years, all of them. Thats what its about. They know the Rangers. So when they see the Rangers in the Stanley cup Finals, hey maybe they will tune in to watch the game.

No different then me with any other sport. I will watch hockey no matter who is playing. But Unless its my Yankees or Jets, I could really give a hoot about anything else, unless its another team I recognize. If I see the Milwaulkee Brewers in the World Series Vs the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, are any of us gonna watch? Heck no. But for those of you who are not Yankees fans, if the Yankees are in it, maybe you tune in for a game to watch the Evil empire lose.

Its no different with the Rangers, yes we may over-estimate the importance a bit, however they are still the biggest market in America.
Very good point. This is exactly why this year's finals drew so low.

The Korean* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2007, 06:56 PM
  #54
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,013
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hplaya94 View Post
New York City is the biggest market in the world for any sports team.
I think that if hockey did have any chance of jumping back to that fourth spot, and beyond, the Rangers would have alot to do with it.

Think about it. How many casual fans know, who the Atlanta Thrashers, Carolina Hurricanes, or Columbus Blue Jackets are?

How many of those fans know who the Detroit Redwings and New York Rangers are? My guess would be unless they have lived in a cave for the past 20 years, all of them. Thats what its about. They know the Rangers. So when they see the Rangers in the Stanley cup Finals, hey maybe they will tune in to watch the game.

No different then me with any other sport. I will watch hockey no matter who is playing. But Unless its my Yankees or Jets, I could really give a hoot about anything else, unless its another team I recognize. If I see the Milwaulkee Brewers in the World Series Vs the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, are any of us gonna watch? Heck no. But for those of you who are not Yankees fans, if the Yankees are in it, maybe you tune in for a game to watch the Evil empire lose.

Its no different with the Rangers, yes we may over-estimate the importance a bit, however they are still the biggest market in America.

All that means the finals in New York might draw better. The casual fan in Atlanta or Carolina or Nashville or Columbus aren't going to tune in because it's NY.

And I think in order to be fair in this conversation, you need to take the Yankees out of it. They are on a differnet level from any other sports franchise.

IMO it all comes down to stars more than where the team is from. You're right - the ratings for a Brewer-Devil Ray World Series would not be good. That's because the average fan (and probably most fans on the west coast) don't know about Carl Crawford or Delmon Young or Prince Fielder or JJ Henry. But they know A-Rod and Jeter or Reyes and Wright.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2007, 07:26 PM
  #55
Isles4ever11
Registered User
 
Isles4ever11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: Ghana
Posts: 10,952
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Isles4ever11
Don't mean to "hijack" the thread (Isles fan ), but I'd figure I'd add to the conversation.

I think the whole, "if [insert NY team] is good, it's good for the sport" argument is complete crap. In every sport.

As Sign pointed out, it definitely increases viewership in the area, and not even for the said team's fans. Just for example, I can name a few Islander fans off the top of my head that watched the Rangers/Sabres series rooting for Buffalo - they would never have watched that series if the Rangers weren't there.

I think rivalry has a great effect on viewership and fan interest.

But on the flip side, I went out to San Francisco and had the pleasure of seeing the Giants face Cincy at AT&T Park. Beautiful stadium, btw. Anyway, I started to talk to a few Giant fans, explained that I was from NY etc - and they said that the Mets and Yankees don't have any effect or any interest unless the Giants are directly tied to those teams.

I think that's the same deal for all sports. I think the media overhypes New York, and while that may help the popularity, the fact is - there will be an increase in viewership (in the NYR case) with Ranger fans, and probably the Islander and Devils fans. Not a Dallas Stars fan.

Just my opinion.

Isles4ever11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2007, 08:36 PM
  #56
snowcloud
Registered User
 
snowcloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
Whenever I take someone to their first hockey game, they immediately fall in love. The speed at which the game is played, the grace with which the players move, etc... How can anyone not love it? That's a rhetorical question by the way .
I agree.

snowcloud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2007, 09:42 PM
  #57
chip chipperson*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,033
vCash: 500
this is a slam dunk, home run, fantasy football era of sports. all of these sports are filled with controversy. whether its steroids, dog fighting, strip club shootings or referess (however its spelled) betting on games. so far controversy only helps these sports. and that is what makes hockey different. besides the gambling ring in phoenix there is no controversy in hockey the nhl is one of the cleanest sports. hockey suffers in this country because nobody sees the beauty of the game. all they want to see is a home run type play. they don't know the beauty of a good penalty kill or or how exciting a 1-0 game can actually be. hockey was at its last high peak in 1994. coincidence, i don't think so. the rangers along with some help from guys like crosby and ovechkin can bring hockey back to what it used to be. wouldn't it be something to see the rangers vs penguins in the east finals? hopefully sports fans can look past home runs, over analyzied football and a sport filled with cry babies and criminals... basketball, to appreciate what a series that could be.

chip chipperson* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2007, 11:30 PM
  #58
danno2530
 
danno2530's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,453
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to danno2530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isles4ever11 View Post
Don't mean to "hijack" the thread (Isles fan ), but I'd figure I'd add to the conversation.

I think the whole, "if [insert NY team] is good, it's good for the sport" argument is complete crap. In every sport.

As Sign pointed out, it definitely increases viewership in the area, and not even for the said team's fans. Just for example, I can name a few Islander fans off the top of my head that watched the Rangers/Sabres series rooting for Buffalo - they would never have watched that series if the Rangers weren't there.

I think rivalry has a great effect on viewership and fan interest.

But on the flip side, I went out to San Francisco and had the pleasure of seeing the Giants face Cincy at AT&T Park. Beautiful stadium, btw. Anyway, I started to talk to a few Giant fans, explained that I was from NY etc - and they said that the Mets and Yankees don't have any effect or any interest unless the Giants are directly tied to those teams.

I think that's the same deal for all sports. I think the media overhypes New York, and while that may help the popularity, the fact is - there will be an increase in viewership (in the NYR case) with Ranger fans, and probably the Islander and Devils fans. Not a Dallas Stars fan.

Just my opinion.
I agree with you to an extent..but not completely. I think that SOME casual viewers do care about New York teams. All I have to do as I mentioned earlier is point back to 1994. The Rangers were all over ESPN, Jeff Beukeboom was in Sportscenter ads, the Rangers won the ESPY for team of the year....if there is news regarding New York (or Boston..or Philadelphia) teams, ESPN is going to hype it to death and that in turn will get people talking. Most of the time it will be negatively, but people will tune in to root against those teams.

I also think alot of it has to do with stars on the teams. There's a reason A-Rod got the most all-star votes and Jeter was close behind him and it doesn't have much to do with Yankees fans around here since I know that for the most part they don't seem to vote in droves. The same goes for David Wright and Jose Reyes getting in.

I think that some fans in Atlanta, Columbus, Nashville will tune in if a New York team is playing but it will usually be to root against them. And that is fine - any publicity is good for the league. I think the reason the 2000 World Series did so well is that alot of people hate both the Yankees and Mets so they really didn't want to pick sides and were indifferent. But, look back to the 03 and 04 ALCS and millions of people watched to root for the Red Sox and against the Yankees. If the Red Sox were playing the Blue Jays, it wouldn't have been the same.

danno2530 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 12:22 AM
  #59
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,542
vCash: 500
NYC prominance is absolutely, completely, enormously important to the level of attention a sport draws. ESPECIALLY a marginal sport like hockey.

Even if we were only talking about the impact of the local market on ratings, which people poo-poo, you have to remember that the NY market is HUGE (while NYC is roughly 8MM people, the NY metro area is 25-30MM, i.e. 10% of the national population). The NY metro area has at least 2 teams in every sport and 3 in hockey - no other city that I can think of comes close to that. I may be missing one or two, but as far as I can remember as I type this, the closest is LA with 2 basketball teams and 2 baseball teams (while not having even one NFL team) and the only other city with more than one team in a major sport of any kind is Chicago with 2 baseball teams.

But it's NOT JUST the impact of local market ratings. The NY media machine causes ripple effects that foment additional media coverage, which is a factor that is highly underrated (as is the fact that most national media conglomerates have NY headquarters, which significantly impacts what they cover). Heck, the ESPN campus is located in Connecticut. The NY team is hated as the evil empire in pretty much every sport (except perhaps football) - and viewership is drawn by strong feelings, not necessarily positive feelings.

Lastly, and perhaps the most underrated factor: moreso than any other city in the country, most citizens throughout the USA have ties to NY - I read a stat once somewhere that 1 out of 4 people in this country can trace their roots back to Brooklyn at one point in history (not NYC mind you, Brooklyn specifically).

It's not just a coincidence that hockey reached it's zenith in 1994 - not only did the Rangers win "Team of the Year" at the Espys (the only hockey team ever to do so I believe?), more impressively they actually LED SportsCenter broadcasts multiple times that year, especially as they started to progress in the playoffs. I can't remember the last time that a hockey team did that once, much less more than once. Heck, I remember SportsCenter showing a shot of Anthony Mason walking through an aisle betwen the 300s and 400s (I think) wearing a Rangers jersey and getting high fives from all the Rangers fans. That's not just the result of the 54 year curse or that the hockey was particularly good that year (which it undeniably was), that's because it was NYC.

You just watch - if the Rangers make it to the Cup this year, there will be some kind of agreement putting the NHL back on ESPN the following year.

Having said all of that, hockey can climb back to where it was in 1994, but I don't see it ever passing one of the other major three sports until they conquer the issue that Fox tried to address in the mid 90s with the much debated chip in the puck - the difficulty of following the puck in play. I'm sorry, but despite the fact that hockey is by far the fastest of the major sports and in many ways the most beautiful and the most explosive/violent, any sport that you have to LEARN how to watch will always fall behind the other easy-to-follow sports until they overcome that issue. (And bear in mind that as I say that that I love hockey more than any other sport.) In my opinion, that has always been hockey's biggest issue by far, waaaaay outstripping the old theory that the fact that only a small percentage of the population can play hockey. (As I said, I love the game more than any other - and my grand total of time playing ice hockey is about 5 periods of intramural play in college.)


Last edited by BrooklynRangersFan: 07-21-2007 at 12:52 AM.
BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 12:53 AM
  #60
Isles4ever11
Registered User
 
Isles4ever11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: Ghana
Posts: 10,952
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Isles4ever11
Quote:
Originally Posted by danno2530 View Post
I agree with you to an extent..but not completely. I think that SOME casual viewers do care about New York teams. All I have to do as I mentioned earlier is point back to 1994. The Rangers were all over ESPN, Jeff Beukeboom was in Sportscenter ads, the Rangers won the ESPY for team of the year....if there is news regarding New York (or Boston..or Philadelphia) teams, ESPN is going to hype it to death and that in turn will get people talking. Most of the time it will be negatively, but people will tune in to root against those teams.

I also think alot of it has to do with stars on the teams. There's a reason A-Rod got the most all-star votes and Jeter was close behind him and it doesn't have much to do with Yankees fans around here since I know that for the most part they don't seem to vote in droves. The same goes for David Wright and Jose Reyes getting in.

I think that some fans in Atlanta, Columbus, Nashville will tune in if a New York team is playing but it will usually be to root against them. And that is fine - any publicity is good for the league. I think the reason the 2000 World Series did so well is that alot of people hate both the Yankees and Mets so they really didn't want to pick sides and were indifferent. But, look back to the 03 and 04 ALCS and millions of people watched to root for the Red Sox and against the Yankees. If the Red Sox were playing the Blue Jays, it wouldn't have been the same.
But that's just it. The Yankees are the true exception - they are going to get marketed no matter what - but teams get marketed because of the players you have.

I did a little research with basketball. The Knicks were not on national TV once this entire year. In contrast, Denver, who has Carmelo Anthony, was on national TV 15 times this season. They finished 6th in their conference. The Knicks still play in NY, they still draw, but they really don't have a star. And Marbury is no star. That's why Denver is getting tons more air time than the Knicks. And they should!

The reason the Rangers have been on NBC a lot this year is because Jaromir Jagr is a player that people love to watch. And Henrik Lundqvist will be there soon.

That's why you see a team like Pittsburgh on TV every week. That's why the Mets are on FOX every other week etc.

It's not the cities, but the stars that cause the team to be marketed, IMO.

The Rangers, in 1994 - you have Messier. You have Leetch. You have Richter. That's 2 sure fire hall-of-famers, and arguably the best US goalie of all time. Tell me that's not marketable.

As Sign said, what's great for the NHL is that they have 2 really young stars who they can market - Ovechkin and Crosby. They have a great core of young goaltenders, and they have the remaining "older" stars like Jagr and Sakic and Hasek that help the league as well.

That's why you see Pittsburgh, and Colorado, and Detroit, and the Rangers on TV every week. And once the Caps get good, they will join them. And that is what the NHL has to look forward to.

Isles4ever11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 01:15 AM
  #61
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isles4ever11 View Post
But that's just it. The Yankees are the true exception - they are going to get marketed no matter what - but teams get marketed because of the players you have.

I did a little research with basketball. The Knicks were not on national TV once this entire year. In contrast, Denver, who has Carmelo Anthony, was on national TV 15 times this season. They finished 6th in their conference. The Knicks still play in NY, they still draw, but they really don't have a star. And Marbury is no star. That's why Denver is getting tons more air time than the Knicks. And they should!

The reason the Rangers have been on NBC a lot this year is because Jaromir Jagr is a player that people love to watch. And Henrik Lundqvist will be there soon.

That's why you see a team like Pittsburgh on TV every week. That's why the Mets are on FOX every other week etc.

It's not the cities, but the stars that cause the team to be marketed, IMO.

The Rangers, in 1994 - you have Messier. You have Leetch. You have Richter. That's 2 sure fire hall-of-famers, and arguably the best US goalie of all time. Tell me that's not marketable.

As Sign said, what's great for the NHL is that they have 2 really young stars who they can market - Ovechkin and Crosby. They have a great core of young goaltenders, and they have the remaining "older" stars like Jagr and Sakic and Hasek that help the league as well.

That's why you see Pittsburgh, and Colorado, and Detroit, and the Rangers on TV every week. And once the Caps get good, they will join them. And that is what the NHL has to look forward to.
Um, no.

Granted, when it comes to cities that aren't major media markets, the stars determine whether or not they get air time.

But when it comes to NY (and to a lesser extent LA and Chicago) every major network and every major league office is desperate to have them get as much on-air time as possible.

You throw out last year's Knicks team's failure to get national exposure as an example (which by the way, didn't stop the TNT team form spending as much time discussing them as they did any other team in the league.)

I counter with the previous 10 years' Knicks teams. Last year, the Knicks were godawful... after YEARS of being godawful. That's why they didn't get air time. But why did they get air time in every year previous to that given that they've been crap basically since the turn of the century? BECAUSE THEY'RE THE NYC TEAM.

And by the way, I'm willing to bet a coupla beers that the Knicks will get some national air time again this year, despite the fact that they were as bad as they were last year - the Randolph trade gives the networks/league a reason to put them on, which they will most assuredly capitalize on. (Mind you I'm a Knicks fan so I'm hoping for this.)

BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 01:26 AM
  #62
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr. View Post
I think it's what keeps the causal fans' interest. You know, the people who aren't obsessing over line combos in July.
LOL. Best post I've seen in a few weeks.

Seriously though, I think hockey is the only sport with legit sport heroes any more.

I mean I can actually admire a guy like Shanny and pull for a kid like Cally. Hard for me to do that with other sports anymore.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 07:34 AM
  #63
nyrmessier011
Registered User
 
nyrmessier011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Charlotte/NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,350
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to nyrmessier011
This is really something I feel will tarnish the NBAs image. Your players can be criminals off the field, but its still a fair sport on the field. The NFL has the least of the trouble in my opinion.

As for the MLB there's just something in fans minds that don't really care too much about steroids. I'm not worried about the competition on the field as a baseball fan, I'm more concerned with the records being broken

But with this allegation, some of the games on the court were essentially fixed. That's just unacceptable as a sports fan. Thank God I despise the NBA anyway

nyrmessier011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 09:52 AM
  #64
Isles4ever11
Registered User
 
Isles4ever11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: Ghana
Posts: 10,952
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Isles4ever11
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Um, no.

Granted, when it comes to cities that aren't major media markets, the stars determine whether or not they get air time.

But when it comes to NY (and to a lesser extent LA and Chicago) every major network and every major league office is desperate to have them get as much on-air time as possible.

You throw out last year's Knicks team's failure to get national exposure as an example (which by the way, didn't stop the TNT team form spending as much time discussing them as they did any other team in the league.)

I counter with the previous 10 years' Knicks teams. Last year, the Knicks were godawful... after YEARS of being godawful. That's why they didn't get air time. But why did they get air time in every year previous to that given that they've been crap basically since the turn of the century? BECAUSE THEY'RE THE NYC TEAM.

And by the way, I'm willing to bet a coupla beers that the Knicks will get some national air time again this year, despite the fact that they were as bad as they were last year - the Randolph trade gives the networks/league a reason to put them on, which they will most assuredly capitalize on. (Mind you I'm a Knicks fan so I'm hoping for this.)
Why would anyone want to watch the Knicks when they can wathc Duncan, LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Shaq, or Carmelo?

That's why those team's are on all the time - not because of the city they play in.

Isles4ever11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 09:59 AM
  #65
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isles4ever11 View Post
Why would anyone want to watch the Knicks when they can wathc Duncan, LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Shaq, or Carmelo?

That's why those team's are on all the time - not because of the city they play in.
Because of the reasons I laid out in post #59.

But rather than debate it any more, let's wait and see what the TV schedule shows when it comes out. I'm fairly sure you'll see the Knicks represented - and to a larger degree than last year's performance warrants.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 10:17 AM
  #66
alkurtz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mahopac, NY
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Just jumping into the discussion after being off the boards since the first posting on this thread. Been a hockey fan since the early 1960s and lived with the ups and downs of the sport. Hockey will never challenge baseball and football and likely will never challenge basketball either. Hockey has a build in disadvantage. 30% of the US population is either African-American, Latino/Hispanic, or Asian American. For whatever reason (economic, cultural, whatever), people in this demographic are not hockey fans. I wish it were not so, but it is. So right off the bat, hockey starts out with a handicap of 30% in regards to television ratings. I don't see this changing, even if a member of one of these groups became a big star in the NHL. So ratings will always be a struggle.
But, hockey can become more popular and is, in actuality, more popular than most commentators or sports writers think, among a certain demographic in the US. The popularity flies under the radar. Go to any rink in what I think of as hockey country (from Bangor, Maine down to Boston, across Connecticut and NY, down the coast through NJ and Philly, across Pennsylvania and the northern tier of Ohio, all of Michigan, the suburbs of Chicago, all of Minnesota and stretching westward), and you will find it unbelievably busy: little kids learning the game in the afternoon, youth leagues and high school teams practicing in the evening, adult leagues around midnight and later. Sometimes it seems like the rinks can go 24/7. In the suburbs, hockey is popular and becoming more so.
But for the NHL to develop a wider footprint it needs long term success not only in NYC, but also in LA and Chicago.
Especially LA: the Gretzky phenomena there didn't survive his leaving. A team in LA (not Anaheim which almost seems like the Devils compared to the Rangers) must be competitive and win championships over a long period of time. We've seen how quickly the media and advertising moved away from the Rangers when the team went into the tank for 7 years. As much as I agreed with the idea that the NHL would have been better with Crosby in NY, I think it would have been better served with him in LA.
As for the next ten years: I see the NHL retrenching back to Canada and going where they know that teams will do well. There will be another team in Ontario, a team will return to Winnipeg, perhaps with a new arena, Quebec. There are teams in the US in long term trouble. I'm rooting for success in Nashville, Florida (both teams), Phoenix, Carolina, but I'm worried. I worry about the long term viability of the Devils and Islanders too. Hopefully new teams in Canada will be expansion teams, not teams leaving US cities/
So, at the end of this ramble, I think the NHL will become more popular (we're starting to see players drafted from non-traditional places), but because of demographics will likely never make it into the big 3. But so what, its still the greatest sport in the world (I love baseball and football, have no interest in basketball, NASCAR, only a passing interest in soccer). I also see more involvement with Europe and the day, in the next half century, when the NHL covers two continents.

alkurtz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 10:34 AM
  #67
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Zoidberg View Post
Yup, the NHL flounders if New York is not front and center.

If the Rangers make the finals, viewership will still remain dismal. Net Ranger viewership was relatively mediocre, even in last year's environment where Avery became a media darling and the Rangers actually built a team.

The NHL is, and will continue to be, a fringe sport. Just accept it. Frankly, the NHL is shooting itself in the foot again with the ridiculous cap increases every year.
Like in 1994?

If anything, NY demands a winner. NYR did not only miss the PO's in 7 straight years, they did it in the worst possible way spending twice as much as everyone else.

NYR got in the PO's two seasons ago after a fine season, and was completly humiliated by the 2nd worst possible team, the NJD. NYI would have been worse.

Last season was the first ok season the NYR had in 10 freakin years. It takes some time to get credible again in NY.

A good season now, with players that I think fans in NY can relate in better like Drury and Gomez on board, could possibly lift the interest in the NYR some.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 10:44 AM
  #68
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
You just watch - if the Rangers make it to the Cup this year, there will be some kind of agreement putting the NHL back on ESPN the following year.
I remember a interesting article in a Swedish paper about the interest in hockey on Manhattan during the PO's.

They talked with a bunch of sports bar owners, and several of them said the same thing.

They said that allot of people remembers 94' and if NYR got gooing like that again and went deep into the PO's that would be a really big deal for them. Most of them said that they didn't follow the NYR at the time, everybody knew they had a young goalie and Jagr, but that if NYR went deep into the PO's they would start following thoose games.

NYR didn't have good numbers against Buffalo, though I think the numbers could explode if NYR would advance another round or even into the finals.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 10:50 AM
  #69
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isles4ever11 View Post
Don't mean to "hijack" the thread (Isles fan ), but I'd figure I'd add to the conversation.

I think the whole, "if [insert NY team] is good, it's good for the sport" argument is complete crap. In every sport.

As Sign pointed out, it definitely increases viewership in the area, and not even for the said team's fans. Just for example, I can name a few Islander fans off the top of my head that watched the Rangers/Sabres series rooting for Buffalo - they would never have watched that series if the Rangers weren't there.

I think rivalry has a great effect on viewership and fan interest.

But on the flip side, I went out to San Francisco and had the pleasure of seeing the Giants face Cincy at AT&T Park. Beautiful stadium, btw. Anyway, I started to talk to a few Giant fans, explained that I was from NY etc - and they said that the Mets and Yankees don't have any effect or any interest unless the Giants are directly tied to those teams.

I think that's the same deal for all sports. I think the media overhypes New York, and while that may help the popularity, the fact is - there will be an increase in viewership (in the NYR case) with Ranger fans, and probably the Islander and Devils fans. Not a Dallas Stars fan.

Just my opinion.
I am not sure here, but I think you miss one aspect.

Where is the media in the US?

I honestly don't know, but I would guess on NY and LA first and foremost, then maybe Chicago, am I right? From what city is Sportsnet broadcasted from?

If hockey became big in NY or LA for example, big sports writers that writes nationally on for big papers/internet sites would notice it, the guys that runs the big sports shows would notice it, because they sit in NY or LA, its outside their window.

The owners of big papers and tv-networks would notice it, becaues its outside their window. They would meet NYR fans on the street.

If Hockey is big in Buffalo, nobody notice it.

So there is a spill-over affect in that way. It gets noticed.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 10:54 AM
  #70
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,822
vCash: 500
How do you guys think the bad results from other big NY teams will affect the interest in the Rangers?

If the Knicks misses the PO's, and the Yankees missed them, I would guess there would be some fans with NYR as their 3rd who would pay some attention the the NYR if they played really well, or?

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 11:02 AM
  #71
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,013
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
How do you guys think the bad results from other big NY teams will affect the interest in the Rangers?

If the Knicks misses the PO's, and the Yankees missed them, I would guess there would be some fans with NYR as their 3rd who would pay some attention the the NYR if they played really well, or?
The Knicks have missed the playoffs. I don't think the Yankees or Mets factor into it as they played at different times of the year.

So, to answer your question, I think other teams will have little impact. Perhaps miminal short-term impact, but nothing lasting.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 11:27 AM
  #72
Isles4ever11
Registered User
 
Isles4ever11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: Ghana
Posts: 10,952
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Isles4ever11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
I am not sure here, but I think you miss one aspect.

Where is the media in the US?

I honestly don't know, but I would guess on NY and LA first and foremost, then maybe Chicago, am I right? From what city is Sportsnet broadcasted from?

If hockey became big in NY or LA for example, big sports writers that writes nationally on for big papers/internet sites would notice it, the guys that runs the big sports shows would notice it, because they sit in NY or LA, its outside their window.

The owners of big papers and tv-networks would notice it, becaues its outside their window. They would meet NYR fans on the street.

If Hockey is big in Buffalo, nobody notice it.

So there is a spill-over affect in that way. It gets noticed.
Yeah, New York and LA are the big 2 I'd say.

But when the Rangers are good, it definitely affects media coverage in NY. In fact, this year, when all 3 locals made the playoffs for the first time in 13 years, there was more media coverage for hockey here than I saw in a long time.

That's a good thing - but it really didn't increase viewership outside NY. And remember, two of the three teams made it to the 2nd round.

But I don't think it has any effect on people that don't live here. I honestly don't think someone in San Jose cares that the Rangers are good.

The other thing - look who just won the Cup - Anaheim, located no more than an hour away from Los Angeles, and there was barely any media coverage in NEW YORK about it. That's what I'm saying - it's just not something the casual hockey fan cares about. Once their team is out, that's it.

The Rangers made it to the 2nd round and the NBA first round gets tons more coverage. I just think it's a position about where the sport is.

Just my opinion - no one has to agree with it.

Isles4ever11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 12:30 PM
  #73
ArtieAnisimov
 
ArtieAnisimov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr. View Post
Zero impact. The NHL is too far out of the mainstream at this point for anything but a plane crash that kills an entire team to be newsworthy. MLB, NFL and NASCAR are the only things that are "consumed" in mass quantities by Americans, so that's all the media cares about.

Examples:

-I heard David Beckham is going to play in the MLS. (?) Know how I found out? My wife told me while she was entrenched in some Posh Spice special on TV. That's STILL the only place I've heard the news.

- The "Tiger Woods of motorsports" is currently leading the Formula 1 World Championship in his rookie season and has yet to finish off the podium in 9 starts. Can anyone not posting from Europe even name him?
The Tiger Woords of motorsports is Lewis Hamilton

ArtieAnisimov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 01:05 PM
  #74
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danno2530 View Post
And if you need an example of how the Rangers do for the good of the league...well, I present to you 1994.

The Rangers really took the country by storm that year. Now I'm sure alot of it had to do with the personality and name recognition of Mark Messier as well as the whole 1940 thing, but come on...you had Jeff Beukeboom in Sportscenter ads, you had the Rangers win 'Team of the Year' at the ESPY's....YES, A HOCKEY TEAM won Team of the Year on ESPN.
The team won an ESPY and Beuk was in a Sportscenter ad equals "took the country by storm"?

What you presented is proof of how little impact it had anywhere other than in NYC.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2007, 02:58 PM
  #75
danno2530
 
danno2530's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,453
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to danno2530
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
The team won an ESPY and Beuk was in a Sportscenter ad equals "took the country by storm"?

What you presented is proof of how little impact it had anywhere other than in NYC.
Do you know the presence ESPN was back then? It wasn't the garbage that it is now - it was must see TV. If you were all over ESPN, it was big.

Anyone who followed the game closely in 1994 knows the presence that team had all around the country. I went to both Boston and Baltimore that year and talked with people extensively about the team.

The ESPY's were just an example of the exposure the team had. And like Isles4Ever said, alot of it has to do with star power and the fact that the team had a Messier and a Leetch and a Richter.

But you can't dispute the fact that the 1994 team was a HUGE story in the American sports landscape and nothing (positive) hockey-related has really matched it to this date.

danno2530 is offline   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 04:04 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.