QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Dec 12, 2006 -> 05:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you don't think that's why NHL gets no coverage?

I think the NHL doesn't get any coverage because ESPN refuses to give them coverage because as has been mentioned, the NHL isn't on ESPN.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Dec 12, 2006 -> 01:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will disagree with you about those two, especially the Knicks. All you hear about is Isiah Thomas and the Knicks. Rutgers got HUGE run (Granted that was a good story, but IMO Bosie State is a similar story that did not get that much run)

Boise St almost lost to San Jose St. If they beat somebody half decent, they'd probably be given the same exposure.

I think the NHL doesn't get any coverage because ESPN refuses to give them coverage because as has been mentioned, the NHL isn't on ESPN.

And thats the NHL's damn fault. ESPN got stuck in a bind because of there strike and the NHL tried to make a stand to ESPN and lost.

I agree. I'm not angry at ESPN for that.

 

I'm angry that there is a direct correlation between ESPN and what happens/what is reported in sports.

Caring about hockey ratings, ranks right up there for me with caring about attendance. I don't watch hockey to see how many other people are watching it, I watch it because I like it.

 

I respect those who watch the NHL and I agree that at times it can even be decent to watch, but the reason that it's not covered is that probably 98% of America does not UNDERSTAND about the sport.

 

A little edit there to make it more accurate. For much of the country it just isn't simple enough, and that's too bad, because they are missing out on the most gifted athletes in the world IMO.

I wonder how the attendance is compared to the TV Ratings. It seems like more diehard fans are actually going to the games now.

 

It will probably take a couple more years for the ratings to go back up.

I wonder how the attendance is compared to the TV Ratings. It seems like more diehard fans are actually going to the games now.

 

It will probably take a couple more years for the ratings to go back up.

 

I've read on various occassions that attendance isn't any better, but it's about the same or a little worse.

 

I Googled it, just to see if I could find a recent article stating as much:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...orts/columnists

 

Attendance is 1% worse right now than it was prior to the lockout; however, revenues are greater thanks to ridiculous ticket prices.

I've got a lot to say about this, but I don't have time right now. And, I'm not trying to be egotistical, but I know a LOT more about this then most people because of contacts in the sport - management, players, and agents. I'll try to chime in later.

The people who care about hockey know about versus and what channel it is. I'm sure they would have made a better deal with a 'bigger' name network if it was possible. I'm assuming this was their best option, unless i'm shown documentation proving otherwise.

 

NHL has been there for two years, if you don't know that, then you don't care about the sport at all, and putting it on ESPN wouldn't suddenly make anyone care that much more.

 

One of the big problems with hockey is the fact that it's a complex game that not many people understand, or want to take the time to understand. Football, baseball, and basketball are all much easier games to understand. Oh, and the NFL has the gambling aspect driving the ratings up big time.

 

That, and it doesn't translate to TV as well as other sports.

Thats the problem though. You are missing the casual fan that would be channel surfing, and see the game and watch it. You are not getting that with Verses.

How many people legitimately channel surf these days and stop on something and suddenly have an interest in it? I don't think many viewers are missed that way.

 

Besides, it appears people aren't channel surfing and stopping on their own comcast, fsn, etc. anyway.

Well that's based on what other programs are on Versus, not necessarily because you don't know where it is - i assume you do. And games are only one on mondays and tuesdays on Versus. Not really a great flipping channel, as you won't find games on there randomly on all different days. I just don't think you'd gain many 'flipping' people who would actually watch, then watch more on purpose, attend games, etc. After all, didn't the espn2 ratings suck when it had hockey?

television ratings for just about everything are down, primarily because there are so many options now. the market for viewers is intense, and the nhl has done just about everything it can do to hurt itself in a competitive market.

 

these days, you have to make it easy for people. playing a niche sport on an obscure network is not the way to succeed or build viewership. you combine those factors with the fact that hockey on television is just not as good as it is in person, and you have a big problem.

 

and i really enjoy hockey. i've been to plenty of games both pro and minor league, and i've always had a great time. but when i try to watch on television the lack of seeing the big picture really hurts. hockey on television is very meh.

You're probably right in saying they won't gain much more viewership/ratings by people flipping channels. But that's exactly how I became a Sox fan when I was a kid.

 

I randomly came across a game on TV, and then I ended up randomly learning that was where/when they were on and starting learning players, etc. (This was coincidentally back in 1993).

 

So though it may be rare, it's not completely implausible.

I've read on various occassions that attendance isn't any better, but it's about the same or a little worse.

 

I Googled it, just to see if I could find a recent article stating as much:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...orts/columnists

 

Attendance is 1% worse right now than it was prior to the lockout; however, revenues are greater thanks to ridiculous ticket prices.

I bolded what I believe is the #1 reason why more kids don't get into hockey.

You can't take your kids to many games with the price structure most NHL teams have, unless you want to sit way up in the bleeds, and at that point you may as well just watch it on TV.

There's absolutely nothing wrong in sitting in the 300 level at the UC. Perfect view of everything going on, and no it's not too far away from the play. I personally don't like the 100 level, unless i'm at the top of it.

I don't like to sit anywhere else. 300 level behind either goal is where I WANT to sit.

326, game over.

Love that area. I've been in the 200 level a few times this year. That's THE best place to watch the game, but it's mucho expensive. 8 bucks upstairs works for me.

They must have found out you are a high roller, wanted to see if you'd buy a suite or two. Good idea on their part.

Goes to show you how much the Hawks are hurting for people to show up eh?

There's absolutely nothing wrong in sitting in the 300 level at the UC. Perfect view of everything going on, and no it's not too far away from the play. I personally don't like the 100 level, unless i'm at the top of it.

You're also not 6 years old with no prior knowledge of hockey. My daughter is, and she'd be bored with 300 level seats. I've seen the difference in her reaction when I took her to Sox games in the lower deck and then the upper deck. She wants to be closer to the action, and I feel that's true for many kids.

Also, with hockey more than any other sport, the closer you are the more you feel and hear the nuances of the game, and that's a major part of the attraction for me.

I've taken my nephews to the cheap seats at the UC before, and the response I got was that they felt too far away. They asked to leave early in the 3rd period, but that suggests to me that maybe they WERE paying attention to the Hawks....

I see your point Critic. I guess i'm just used to sitting upstairs because i grew up at the Chicago Stadium with season tickets in the 2nd balcony. I realize it's not the 300 level height, but I am so used to watching hockey from up top. And yeah, i've also played the game my whole life, etc.

 

However, with the current attendance at he UC, you usually can hear the nuances of the game from the 300 level! LOL.

I see your point Critic. I guess i'm just used to sitting upstairs because i grew up at the Chicago Stadium with season tickets in the 2nd balcony. I realize it's not the 300 level height, but I am so used to watching hockey from up top. And yeah, i've also played the game my whole life, etc.

 

However, with the current attendance at he UC, you usually can hear the nuances of the game from the 300 level! LOL.

LOL, how true!!!

I also had 2nd balcony season tix at the Stadium, but no place can replicate that experience. Fond, fond memories.