Stanley Cup Finals may set record for low T.V. ratings in U.S.
"Last year's Stanley Cup Finals on Walt Disney Co.'s ABC drew the lowest U.S. television ratings for the National Hockey League's championship series. That record might be broken this year..." http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...c.BLg&refer=us
"Last year's Stanley Cup Finals on Walt Disney Co.'s ABC drew the lowest U.S. television ratings for the National Hockey League's championship series. That record might be broken this year..." http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...c.BLg&refer=us
In Canada they will surely be the highest rated finals since '94 and might even be the highest ever, people have jumped on the flames bandwagon like i've never seen before. Perhaps it is cause the 80s-early 90s a canadian based team won all the time (edm, mtl, cgy,) and now we haven't seen one in the finals for 10 years.
The Flames have given Canada it's first finals presence since Vancouver some 10 years ago. There's lots to admire about the Flames and alot of people are happy that a Canadian team has a shot this year
In the metro-NY area where I live, I can't even see this series pulling a 1.0 share in this market. The Mets are playing well, the Yankees are the Yankees and the NBA dominates here.
I hope I'm wrong. This series seems to be the type that would pull in some new hockey fans, but nobody will be watching.
I think it's a great series for hockey. It may not pull a big share, but that should be secondary to the effects of creating hope for smaller market franchises, injecting more excitement and uncertainty than has been seen in awhile, appealing to both traditional and new hockey markets, featuring some great young players, etc. If we can just stop worrying about the Nielson's for a minute, this is really all you could ask for in a Stanley Cup. Should be a good one.
"Last year's Stanley Cup Finals on Walt Disney Co.'s ABC drew the lowest U.S. television ratings for the National Hockey League's championship series. That record might be broken this year..." http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...c.BLg&refer=us
And yet Game 7 got the highest ratings in 30 years
"Last year's Stanley Cup Finals on Walt Disney Co.'s ABC drew the lowest U.S. television ratings for the National Hockey League's championship series. That record might be broken this year..." http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...c.BLg&refer=us
I don't care how low the ratings are... all I know is that this Cup finals should be really exciting... if the average sports fan can't see that then screw them! And for the first time in years, it won't be someone like Detroit or NJ winning the cup.
I will be watching and I think it will be interesting CF , more interesting than last year anyway. Both teams have great offence and are playing with so much heart and will.
That it will have spin off benefits to a number of franchises.
Many teams (small markets) will look at their successes, in concert with a new cost certainty plan like the new CBA promises, and then assume that they can be players as well.
Teams like SJ stand to get better and better as they will be able to augment their youth with proven vets as well.
ALL teams will be able to do so. Thats why I say that this idea that the Bruins have positioned themsleves to be at the head table in the UFA sweepstakes is bunk.
We will be in the sanme situation as everyone else...no better off than most anyone.
It will allow for more teams to compete for the top free agents and bve involved in the trading game...as buyers!
More teams will see that they can add guys because the price wont be a deal breaker!
Instead of watching teams like Toronto, NYR, Colorado, Boston, Detroit and Philly swimming around the carcasses of teams like Calgary and Edmonton, we will soon see these Flame and Oil franchises seated at the same tabel as their big market bretheren.
And they`ll be ordering off the same menu!
I cant wait for those days.
Unfortunately (depending on your point of veiw) teams will soon realize that you cant have too many high priced players.
So, a team like Boston will have to move a Samsonov or Thornton before he becomes cost prohibitive...in relation to the percentage of team payroll that he takes up.
Many teams will face these issue....thus allowing the Calgarys to be the teams benefiting from a Bostons salary decisions.
Its not a high scoring game, which makes its appeal somewhat soccer or golf-like to many. Its kind of like watching a guy fly-fish...and catch nothing!
Most people get VERY bored with televised hockey unless they are serious fans.
For the NHL to ever gt good ratings, there will have to be something developed that makes people lovethe TV "version" of the game.
Its a LIVE sporting event....not a good television event.
Its not a high scoring game, which makes its appeal somewhat soccer or golf-like to many. Its kind of like watching a guy fly-fish...and catch nothing!
Most people get VERY bored with televised hockey unless they are serious fans.
For the NHL to ever gt good ratings, there will have to be something developed that makes people lovethe TV "version" of the game.
Its a LIVE sporting event....not a good television event.
Later
I haven't seen it in HDTV, but I'm sure HDTV becoming a regular thing might help.
The more TV influences something the less soul and "creative control" it tends to retain. IMO.
TV is never going to end the game of hockey or the competition for the Stanley Cup and with Center Ice and all of the telecommunication technology somebody will always record/televise hockey at it's highest level and I will find it. More people watching just means more exorbitant money for someone who is not me. I don't care if the TV deal is Zero upfront and the players get paid revenues and "only" make a few hundred grand a year. I'm looking for great hockey not more people at the water cooler mentioning hockey.
1. NCAA basketball...especially come March Madness time
To me, there is NOTHING better than mens college basketball....and the womens game is getting MUCH better as far as TV coverage and "watch-ability" are concerned.
I may be in the minority here but I think this series can do hockey a world of good. In the one corner we have a high scoring and electrifying offense in the Lightning, and in the other we have hard nosed and crushing defenseof the Flames, both with solid goaltending, both with very good coaches so I believe its going to be the individual players on not a "system" the wins the series.
I plan to watch most of the series if not all, and I really hope this series can draw fans from other bases that would not normally watch hockey, because I really believe hockey is the best spectator sport on the planet.
It should make for exciting hockey even if two small-market teams add up to abysmal television ratings in the U.S. See KPD column, "Another bad break for NHL in finals: Small-market Flames, Lightning are exciting to watch -- too bad they don't play in N.Y., Chicago or L.A." on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5046781/
That it will have spin off benefits to a number of franchises.
Many teams (small markets) will look at their successes, in concert with a new cost certainty plan like the new CBA promises, and then assume that they can be players as well.
Nothing personal Jeff but I disagree on a bunch of your points.
I wixh I could be as optimistic. There is no new CBA yet, there is no agreement from the NHLPA on cost certainty, and several of these teams may be belly up before (if) a new CBA happens.
I think the series itself will be good for the NHL, screw the ratings, network TV is tommorrow's roadkill, NHL will do better on a private network recruiting their own sponsors, undercutting the network middlemen. IF THEY EVER SKATE AGAIN.
That is the problem. If this series electrifies Canada, the only benefit might be more Canadians vacationing in Tampa next winter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff from Maine
Teams like SJ stand to get better and better as they will be able to augment their youth with proven vets as well.
ALL teams will be able to do so. Thats why I say that this idea that the Bruins have positioned themsleves to be at the head table in the UFA sweepstakes is bunk.
We will be in the sanme situation as everyone else...no better off than most anyone.
It will allow for more teams to compete for the top free agents and bve involved in the trading game...as buyers!
I disagree that "all teams" will. Many may be worse off after a lockout. As I understand it, in place contracts do not dissolve when the CBA expires. Teams with commitments are just defering them with a lockout. That is one reason the Bruins, with fewer commitments, are in better shape financially. Does that mean they will go for UFAs when the league starts back up? Not necessarily. But they could, much better than poor boys like Pitt, Wash, Buff, Edmtn, and moreso than teams that are bound up longer term and possibly cap-constipated like NYR, DET, AVS.
What the Bruins might do is trade youth for veterans and dump others (Murray, Rolston, etc). Not that I want this, but it is what I think will happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff from Maine
More teams will see that they can add guys because the price wont be a deal breaker!
Even if player prices go down, if there is a cap-like device in place, it won't allow teams who are financially strapped the ability to take on more contracts. It will cause over-salaried teams to dump players. But poor teams may not have the money, especially after a long lockout, to pick up these players, even at a discount. Unless they dump others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff from Maine
Instead of watching teams like Toronto, NYR, Colorado, Boston, Detroit and Philly swimming around the carcasses of teams like Calgary and Edmonton, we will soon see these Flame and Oil franchises seated at the same tabel as their big market bretheren.
That will only happen if the Canadian dollar achieves equity in some manner with the US dollar, in NHL or real terms. For example, if the cap is in US dollars or the Canadian Gov. gives their teams a break. A cap will lower salaries some and prevent the big $$ teams from grabbing all the best players, but that does not mean that Calgary or Edmonton will be able to afford more of them.
Then again, after getting to the finals the Xxxxx (Whoops, Daryl not Brian) Sutter way, who is to say Calgary will want to sit at that table with all the fat losers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff from Maine
...
Unfortunately (depending on your point of veiw) teams will soon realize that you cant have too many high priced players.
So, a team like Boston will have to move a Samsonov or Thornton before he becomes cost prohibitive...in relation to the percentage of team payroll that he takes up.
Many teams will face these issue....thus allowing the Calgarys to be the teams benefiting from a Bostons salary decisions.
Great days are ahead!
Later
Not logical, in my mind at least.
If Sammi or Joe-Bob are too expensive for the Bruins to keep, either will be too expensive for Calgary to add and keep Iginla.
Team Cap and budget dollars are two different things. Calgary will be under cap (whatever it is) because they have to be.
I think that NHL teams will learn to follow the SNL casting model rather than the "Friends" casting model: Market your new talent, and when they get too pricey, dump 'em. Mid level veterans are going to end up in the IHL or Europe, and fewer players will last long enough to even reach free agency (even if they lower it to 30 years of age).
We will never see another Dave Andreychuk, for example.
I also think there is a good chance that the NHL will dissolve its relationship with the NHLPA and say "who wants a job?" and players will break ranks.
I do not think either the US or Canadian governments will lift a finger to help this pseudo-union survive.
