The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Hockey was NOT number 2 when only 4 American cities had teams...
i know IU.. i meant to say in those cities. like for example.. how could Bruins not have been #1 in boston in the early 70's with ESPO and bobby orr??? my god, bobby orr???? how great was he?? he was a legend. i know PATS were not as big back then as now.. so i bet maybe bruins in the early 70's with those 2 players and the 2 back to back cups had to be #1 in beantown, no??
what about CHI in the 60's with hull, mikita, etc.. i wonder if they were #1 or #2 in that city in that era? too bad there's no way we can ever find this out.
but if i can just find 1 thing out, it'd be.. are the pens more popular today with sid and malkin, OR the great days of Super Mario, Jagr, Stevens, Coffey, etc... and their back to back cups...that team was good and how fun was mario to watch??
i wonder which pens team got more viewers. the lemieux/jagr era, or the sid/malkin era?? i wish a website existed of every sport of every game that gave every local and national tv rating. i'd be on that site 23 hrs a day.
i wonder which pens team got more viewers. the lemieux/jagr era, or the sid/malkin era?? i wish a website existed of every sport of every game that gave every local and national tv rating. i'd be on that site 23 hrs a day.
Not hard to figure out, considering virtually every game is on television now a days. Back then, definitely not.
More popular is a whole different question though.
__________________
★ #14 - #19 - #56 ★
Dallas Stars - Arsenal FC - FC Dallas - Alabama Crimson Tide - Kentucky Wildcats - SMU Mustangs Bossier-Shreveport Mudbugs - 1997 to 2011 - WPHL Champions 1998, 1999, 2000 - CHL Champions 2011
By analyzing Tweets about live TV, the study confirmed a relationship between Twitter and TV ratings. It also identified Twitter as one of three statistically significant variables (in addition to prior-year rating and advertising spend) to align with TV ratings.
...
Much of the correlation is being driven by the rise in media consumption across multiple device screens. We know that 80% of U.S. tablet and smartphone owners who watch TV use their device while watching at least several times a month. We also know that 40% of U.S. tablet and smartphone users visit a social network while watching TV.
How well does Twitter align with TV program ratings? The recent Nielsen/SocialGuide study confirmed that increases in Twitter volume correlate to increases in TV ratings for varying age groups, revealing a stronger correlation for younger audiences. Specifically, the study found that for 18-34 year olds, an 8.5% increase in Twitter volume corresponds to a 1% increase in TV ratings for premiere episodes, and a 4.2% increase in Twitter volume corresponds with a 1% increase in ratings for midseason episodes. Additionally, a 14.0% increase in Twitter volume is associated with a 1% increase in TV program ratings for 35-49 year olds, reflecting a stronger relationship between Twitter and TV for younger audiences.
this from Twitter.
MOD: https://twitter.com/JeffNuich Over 226K Chicago mrkt TV homes tuned into last night's #Blackhawks game on @CSNChicago; network was #1 from 8p-12:30a for Adults 25-54
there is no rating, but i noticed that approx 35,100 homes in chicago = 1.0 rating.. based on past hawks games. So i divided 226k by 35,100 and got 6.4...So that means Hawks last night vs Anaheim got a 6.4..
of course my numbers of the exact rating could be off a bit, but i'm sure it'll be very close to 6.4...
Last edited by LadyStanley: 03-21-2013 at 06:33 PM.
i know IU.. i meant to say in those cities. like for example.. how could Bruins not have been #1 in boston in the early 70's with ESPO and bobby orr??? my god, bobby orr???? how great was he?? he was a legend. i know PATS were not as big back then as now.. so i bet maybe bruins in the early 70's with those 2 players and the 2 back to back cups had to be #1 in beantown, no??
Rest assured, the Bruins were number 1 during Orr's reign in Boston, the aftermath lasted into the early 80s as the Bruins had some good teams after Orr too. They rules the city, no doubt.
Boston WAS NOT always a baseball town,don't believe the kids that tell you differently. Love and hate with the Red Sox, lots of down years with them. Barely anyone watched the Pats from 1960 to Bill Parcells. They were horrible, bottom of the league for most of the time, slightly above Tampa Bay Bucs level.
Anyhow, they just did a poll, my popular sports icon and Orr won it handedly. Think of all the greats to roll through Boston and Orr won the poll.
1) Bruins games will be inflated naturally due to a later start and fewer games.
2) Celtic ratings at 3 are very good, top 5 in the NBA.
3) Back 4 years ago Bruins were under 3 in the low 2's
4) Bruins ratings are beating the Red Sox
So again the Bruins ratings are quite good but let's not go overboard and claim it is a hockeytown way before it is a basketball town.
Bruins are just experiencing a big high.
And please don't paint Boston as always being a baseball town because it wasn't, even in my lifetime, I watched Boston go from being a Bruin town to the Celtics to the Sox than the Pats (one of which I never thought I would see).
The Bruins were VERY popular at different times, the 30s/40s Cup runs, than again in the late 60s/70s/early 80s where they dominated all things sports than were overtaken by the Larry Bird era Celts. Same with the Sox, up and down. And you're currently watching just how unpopular the Red Sox can become. Watch this season, this is how it was except for certain times.
Rest assured, the Bruins were number 1 during Orr's reign in Boston, the aftermath lasted into the early 80s as the Bruins had some good teams after Orr too. They rules the city, no doubt.
Boston WAS NOT always a baseball town,don't believe the kids that tell you differently. Love and hate with the Red Sox, lots of down years with them. Barely anyone watched the Pats from 1960 to Bill Parcells. They were horrible, bottom of the league for most of the time, slightly above Tampa Bay Bucs level.
Anyhow, they just did a poll, my popular sports icon and Orr won it handedly. Think of all the greats to roll through Boston and Orr won the poll.
easily the best post i've ever read on this forum. thanks buddy. u have no idea how long i've searched those answers and no one ever knew. u've answered all my questions that i've been dying to know forever.
so bruins were no 1 in the 70's?? makes me so happy to hear this. it's just so sad orr had to have such a short career. he was so good. and espo must've been fun to watch in bos, too. also, that's great to hear bruins owned the 70's in bos, because i remember the sox in the 70's were huge, too. the Boomer, Fisk, Lynn, Rice, Evans, etc.. wow, bruins must've been huge. i love it.
wow, and Orr won the poll?? that includes guys like Bird, Havlicek, Brady, Manny, Clemens and i can name hundreds more. I wish i was a bostonian living in the early 70's to have witnessed Orr and Espo together. i'm sure hockey fans who lived in boston that time have fond memories of those days.
easily the best post i've ever read on this forum. thanks buddy. u have no idea how long i've searched those answers and no one ever knew. u've answered all my questions that i've been dying to know forever.
so bruins were no 1 in the 70's?? makes me so happy to hear this. it's just so sad orr had to have such a short career. he was so good. and espo must've been fun to watch in bos, too. also, that's great to hear bruins owned the 70's in bos, because i remember the sox in the 70's were huge, too. the Boomer, Fisk, Lynn, Rice, Evans, etc.. wow, bruins must've been huge. i love it.
wow, and Orr won the poll?? that includes guys like Bird, Havlicek, Brady, Manny, Clemens and i can name hundreds more. I wish i was a bostonian living in the early 70's to have witnessed Orr and Espo together. i'm sure hockey fans who lived in boston that time have fond memories of those days.
thanks again, buddy..
Orr won the poll, beating Bill Russell and Teddy Ballgame. Manny, Clemens are not very popular players especially Manny.
You have this one from the Bleacher Report but there was one done by real media, NESN or the Boston Globe but I can't find it.
easily the best post i've ever read on this forum. thanks buddy. u have no idea how long i've searched those answers and no one ever knew. u've answered all my questions that i've been dying to know forever.
so bruins were no 1 in the 70's?? makes me so happy to hear this. it's just so sad orr had to have such a short career. he was so good. and espo must've been fun to watch in bos, too. also, that's great to hear bruins owned the 70's in bos, because i remember the sox in the 70's were huge, too. the Boomer, Fisk, Lynn, Rice, Evans, etc.. wow, bruins must've been huge. i love it.
wow, and Orr won the poll?? that includes guys like Bird, Havlicek, Brady, Manny, Clemens and i can name hundreds more. I wish i was a bostonian living in the early 70's to have witnessed Orr and Espo together. i'm sure hockey fans who lived in boston that time have fond memories of those days.
thanks again, buddy..
Orr is a rock star he was bigger than all the Red Sox stars at the time. He was so revered, go watch the video of his retirement, they couldn't stop the crowd, longest standing O in the history of Boston retirement games. He still carries the myth of Orr with him, people still get giddy talking about him. I can't explain how people still light up when you start talking about him. I once met this guy from Iowa, he starts talking to me how Orr, tells me everyone in Iowa watched the Bruins and hockey because of Orr. He was that big!
Yaz was the big name for the Sox than the Gold Dust Twins, Boomer (LOL) I loved George Scott, what a character, Mr Spaceman Bill Lee, great times. Orr did outshine them though. Orr is on his own planet.
i know IU.. i meant to say in those cities. like for example.. how could Bruins not have been #1 in boston in the early 70's with ESPO and bobby orr??? my god, bobby orr???? how great was he?? he was a legend. i know PATS were not as big back then as now.. so i bet maybe bruins in the early 70's with those 2 players and the 2 back to back cups had to be #1 in beantown, no??
what about CHI in the 60's with hull, mikita, etc.. i wonder if they were #1 or #2 in that city in that era? too bad there's no way we can ever find this out.
but if i can just find 1 thing out, it'd be.. are the pens more popular today with sid and malkin, OR the great days of Super Mario, Jagr, Stevens, Coffey, etc... and their back to back cups...that team was good and how fun was mario to watch??
i wonder which pens team got more viewers. the lemieux/jagr era, or the sid/malkin era?? i wish a website existed of every sport of every game that gave every local and national tv rating. i'd be on that site 23 hrs a day.
Ok, I get what you're saying now.
Yes, the Hawks were absolutely #1 from the early 60's up until essentially when the 85 Bears took the town over. The Cubs and Sox played to very empty stadiums through both those decades as both were almost always horrible, 69 Cubs and 77 Sox really the only exceptions. The Bulls were a complete after thought until Jordan, no one ever gave a rats about them until then. And the Bears were lousy throughout that time period as well, and obviously, the NFL wasn't what it is today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicky Santoro
this from Twitter.
Over 226K Chicago mrkt TV homes tuned into last night's #Blackhawks game on @CSNChicago; network was #1 from 8p-12:30a for Adults 25-54
there is no rating, but i noticed that approx 35,100 homes in chicago = 1.0 rating.. based on past hawks games. So i divided 226k by 35,100 and got 6.4...So that means Hawks last night vs Anaheim got a 6.4..
of course my numbers of the exact rating could be off a bit, but i'm sure it'll be very close to 6.4...
You are spot on, very nicely done.
6.5/12 share. Peaking at 7.3/16 share in the 3rd. Amazing it was that high given the start time.
And please don't paint Boston as always being a baseball town because it wasn't, even in my lifetime, I watched Boston go from being a Bruin town to the Celtics to the Sox than the Pats (one of which I never thought I would see).
The Bruins were VERY popular at different times, the 30s/40s Cup runs, than again in the late 60s/70s/early 80s where they dominated all things sports than were overtaken by the Larry Bird era Celts. Same with the Sox, up and down. And you're currently watching just how unpopular the Red Sox can become. Watch this season, this is how it was except for certain times.
I lived in Boston in the early 80's (81-85) and my recollection would put it at:
1. Celtics
2. Sox
3. Bruins
4. oh, what do you mean there's a football team that plays in Foxborough
While it was easier to get tickets at Fenway in those days than at the Garden, the Red Sox got more coverage on TV, Radio, and general discussion than the Bruins - even if it was just to complain how the Sox sucked.
Of course, if you looked at the Boston Globe's weekly listing of sports TV ratings, with the exception of playoffs, the #1 spot always seemed to be ...
1. Candlepins for Cash - the NE version of Bowling for Dollars.
Yes, the Hawks were absolutely #1 from the early 60's up until essentially when the 85 Bears took the town over. The Cubs and Sox played to very empty stadiums through both those decades as both were almost always horrible, 69 Cubs and 77 Sox really the only exceptions. The Bulls were a complete after thought until Jordan, no one ever gave a rats about them until then. And the Bears were lousy throughout that time period as well, and obviously, the NFL wasn't what it is today.
You are spot on, very nicely done.
6.5/12 share. Peaking at 7.3/16 share in the 3rd. Amazing it was that high given the start time.
(html.whoswatching.tv)
thanks IU. it's so great to hear you say the hawks were that big back then. i swear all this time, i kept thinking all these hockey fans in chicago have no idea what hockey is and that it's only popular now because of the hawks recent success.. but i had no idea that Chicago is no stranger to hockey, and that they used to be a big hockey town in the glory days. It's great to hear this. it's great to know that chicago appreciated the likes of Hull, Mikita, Savard, etc.. those great players didn't go to waste in a city that didn't care about hockey. you've made me realize for the 1st time that Chicago isn't a bandwagon town and not know anything about hockey, but that they were/are really a great hockey town too.
I lived in Boston in the early 80's (81-85) and my recollection would put it at:
1. Celtics
2. Sox
3. Bruins
4. oh, what do you mean there's a football team that plays in Foxborough
While it was easier to get tickets at Fenway in those days than at the Garden, the Red Sox got more coverage on TV, Radio, and general discussion than the Bruins - even if it was just to complain how the Sox sucked.
Of course, if you looked at the Boston Globe's weekly listing of sports TV ratings, with the exception of playoffs, the #1 spot always seemed to be ...
1. Candlepins for Cash - the NE version of Bowling for Dollars.
Kdb,
you said you lived in boston from 81-85. however, in the post, he said they were no 1 til the early 80's, and you weren't there. he didn't say they were no 1 when you were there.
here is his post.
Rest assured, the Bruins were number 1 during Orr's reign in Boston, the aftermath lasted into the early 80s as the Bruins had some good teams after Orr too. They rules the city, no doubt.
these are all too anecdotal to count for anything... there's too much of a risk for confirmation bias. It's not surprising that a bunch of hockey fans believed the hockey team was most popular in a certain period of time... I can guarantee we wouldn't get the same result on other sports boards.
these are all too anecdotal to count for anything... there's too much of a risk for confirmation bias. It's not surprising that a bunch of hockey fans believed the hockey team was most popular in a certain period of time... I can guarantee we wouldn't get the same result on other sports boards.
although i do believe the boys here, u are right in a way. if you went to a strictly NFL, and MLB forum and spoke to a guy from boston and a guy from chicago who love bears and red sox, who don't like hockey at all and never watched 1 game, and asked them, which were the no 1 sports in those cities in those glory days, hockey wouldn't even be mentioned in the top 5. everyone you ask will have a diff opinion. depends what they are into. but i do believe our boys here, because they follow all sports and have lived those days.
Here's a fact that probably no one would believe.. I am from montreal where hockey is KING.. it's bigger than life here. the habs are GOD..hockey is a major religion here in MTL.. but here it is....
from 1980 till 1994.. Hockey was the no 2 most popular sport in Montreal, behind baseball. that's right, from 80 to 94, the expos were the talk of town before the habs. baseball was indeed the no 1 sport in montreal, ahead of hockey. No one can ever say mtl is not a baseball town, despite us losing our team. and during that time, we never won a world series, nor went to a world series. we were basically a .500 team throughout. Imagine had we been a dynasty??
thanks IU. it's so great to hear you say the hawks were that big back then. i swear all this time, i kept thinking all these hockey fans in chicago have no idea what hockey is and that it's only popular now because of the hawks recent success.. but i had no idea that Chicago is no stranger to hockey, and that they used to be a big hockey town in the glory days. It's great to hear this. it's great to know that chicago appreciated the likes of Hull, Mikita, Savard, etc.. those great players didn't go to waste in a city that didn't care about hockey. you've made me realize for the 1st time that Chicago isn't a bandwagon town and not know anything about hockey, but that they were/are really a great hockey town too.
thanks for that post.
Keep in mind I was around then, this is just going off what I read and what my dad and other family and family friends all tell me, even the ones who don't care at all about hockey.
What i don't understand are all these Hawks fans coming out of the woodwork in the last ocuple years...outside Chicago. In Denver and in Anaheim recently, the stands were mostly red. Are there that many Illinois ex-pats out and about? Did the Hawks have such a huge national following in the past that dwindled with Bill Wirtz, like their local following did? Or is it just a classic case of bandwaggoning?
What i don't understand are all these Hawks fans coming out of the woodwork in the last ocuple years...outside Chicago. In Denver and in Anaheim recently, the stands were mostly red. Are there that many Illinois ex-pats out and about? Did the Hawks have such a huge national following in the past that dwindled with Bill Wirtz, like their local following did? Or is it just a classic case of bandwaggoning?
Combination of both
WGN America sometimes gets bigger ratings in Phoenix for White Sox and Cubs games that the Diamondbacks.
What i don't understand are all these Hawks fans coming out of the woodwork in the last ocuple years...outside Chicago. In Denver and in Anaheim recently, the stands were mostly red. Are there that many Illinois ex-pats out and about? Did the Hawks have such a huge national following in the past that dwindled with Bill Wirtz, like their local following did? Or is it just a classic case of bandwaggoning?
People move. You know many Chicago transplants are in So Cal? I don't know the number either, but it's probably a ton. Denver is kind of a hotbed for young people to relocate to so I'm sure there's a lot of transplants there as well.
Whether or not these people were fans of the team while living here is another story. I'd argue the fools who started the "Let's Go Blackhawks (clap clap clapclapclap) chant have never been to a home game in their lives...
have you guys ever thought that maybe chicago is America's team? Chicago is a big town and the hawks have an incredible history being in the original 6 and all. and now that they're winning, chicagoans and hockey fans of the hawks are coming out. just like the cubs, no matter where the cubs play, there are always tons of cubs fans everywhere.
just like the habs.. we are canada's team (sorry toronto, but it's true) and when the habs play anywhere, it's close to 50% habs fans, especially all over canada, and in florida.
What i don't understand are all these Hawks fans coming out of the woodwork in the last ocuple years...outside Chicago. In Denver and in Anaheim recently, the stands were mostly red. Are there that many Illinois ex-pats out and about? Did the Hawks have such a huge national following in the past that dwindled with Bill Wirtz, like their local following did? Or is it just a classic case of bandwaggoning?
Im born and raised in NY and a diehard Ranger fan but even im now a Hawk fan. Started semi-following them in 2009-10 and now full-time.
What i don't understand are all these Hawks fans coming out of the woodwork in the last ocuple years...outside Chicago. In Denver and in Anaheim recently, the stands were mostly red. Are there that many Illinois ex-pats out and about? Did the Hawks have such a huge national following in the past that dwindled with Bill Wirtz, like their local following did? Or is it just a classic case of bandwaggoning?
I've noticed Hawks fans everywhere, too. Even in Calgary, there are a good amount of Hawks fans. Pretty odd.
But then again, they're an exciting and talented team. I'm a Leafs fan, but beyond that, if I were to follow a team on a regular basis, it'd be the Hawks. I don't even think they'll go that far in the playoffs, but every game is usually entertaining when the Hawks play.
