Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Truth & rumours

U.S. hockey viewership shows signs of life again

WILLIAM HOUSTON

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 8:16 PM EST 11/01/08

Improved figures should be viewed with caution though
...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Gary Dare from Portland, Oregon, Canada, writes: According to Phil Rosenthal at the Chicago Tribune, Blackhawks games on Comcast SportsNet Chicago have picked up this season (no surprise). And on the west coast, the new Oregon-oriented Comcast SportsNet NW (FSN NW's nickname is FSN Seattle!) has picked up Rogers cable coverage of the Canucks once maybe twice a week to fill space in their schedule. That's a huge improvement since most Versus games are in the east, and over by the time most people get home on the west coast.
  2. Canuck No longer an Expat from Ottawa, Canada writes: Having recently relocated to Canada after having lived in the states for 3 of the past 5 years I have to say one of the main reasons hockey ratings are considerably lower (besides the fact the game isn't that popular in many markets) is that the non-game coverage is minimal. Even in the Twin-Cities, a very good hockey market with a real grass-roots following, the Wild just didn't get near the non-game play that the Vikings or Twins got. There are no or very few hockey related highlights on the local sports cast. There aren't any hockey shows such as 'That's hockey' and until recently you couldn't get the NHL network. Versus had decent programming and a good amount of games and combined with the local FSN, you could get enough games but beyond the game itself, there are not really programs that help create a buzz or interest for the average hockey fan. And, despite what ESPN says, the coverage of hockey on sportscenter dropped dramitically after they stopped televising games. It was basically non-existent.
  3. S H from Windsor, Canada writes: Who cares if it doesn't take off in the States? It is what it is. The Americans that like the game will watch and the ones that don't...won't! You can't force it on them. Meanwhile... Canadians have been getting short changed for decades! Bring hockey to the cities that support it, and leave the cities that won't! Better yet, get rid of Bettman and the game should improve on its own!

    For the most part, American cities in the north support it. So bring it to cities like Seattle, Cleveland, Milwaukee,(Winnipeg,Quebec City!!!), etc....

    I like playing basketball but I find it very boring to watch. Toronto has the Raptors but I barely watch and probably won't go to a game no matter how much the NBA try to sell the game! Same goes for hockey in the US!

    Like Gary Dare says, it should be shown on TV to at least help. Even in Detroit, the Wings are only shown on PPV TV. They used to be shown on local Detroit TV years ago but not anymore. I see the Wings play more on Canadian TV stations than anywhere else!!!
  4. Billy Biroux from Polar Bear Pit, Nunavet, Canada writes: Speaking of the NBA, how come we never get NBA ratings on Sportnset that don't include the Raptors?

    If you think hockey has bad TV ratings in most of the USA, wait til you see what the NBA gets on CAnadian TV. That is if we ever get to see them.
  5. dan vanman from vancouver, Canada writes: Well SH, we should care when about three quarters of the teams are in the USA. They need to have a real sports network with a national base. The stupidest thing they did was leave ESPN.

    I agree about the non game day shows to build interest, but its a bit of a catch 22. A TV station won't put on a ratings loser, unless of course they have the game rights.

    Sign back on with ESPN, or get a national deal with FSN. The game can make inroads. In the States, the NHL has a better internet presence than a lot more sports than you'd believe(the exact number escapes me, but the NHL.com site supposedly gets more hits than the NBA!)

    So, interest is there, it just needs cultivation.
  6. D. J. Murray from Richmond BC, Canada writes: We're getting excited about Versus having an average audience of just over a quarter of a million, in a market the size of the US? When will the NHL accept the fact that the American experiment has failed; that hockey is a Canadian sport with some minor interest in key US markets. And why should Canadians care about Versus or the American audience anyway? It's our sport and we need to re-claim that fact.
  7. S H from Windsor, Canada writes: Yeah, 3/4 quarters of the teams are in the US but 3/4 quarters of the fans are in Canada! The NHL has to just focus on putting a good product on the ice and the rest will take care of itself! If markets like Dallas,Nashville,Atlanta,Florida,Phoenix and the like can't generate money then they have to move to other markets that can. Whatever they get, they get! It's that simple! The people in these markets will like it or they won't, so lets get on with it!

    Yes exposure is important but lets not forget about what got us here! Detroit is suppose to be Hockeytown but yet when you read the Detroit papers everyday, hockey always takes the back page. Hockeytown?...yeah right!
  8. D W from France writes: don't underestimate the US Northeast/Midwest hockey market, when they have a winning team in Boston, Philly, or New York: I lived in NYC when the Rangers won the Cup, and the whole city was rocking ! it outdrew the NBA and Messier threw out the pitch at Yankee Stadium to wild cheers... the US Sunbelt, who knows?, but the North is a good market, even if other sports teams there (viz Boston) hog the headlines these days
  9. Joseph Daniel from Oakville, Canada writes: I got a laugh out of Milbury's remark about peddie. that is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. But I digress and actually agree with him, and that Peddie should stick to what Milbury said and also selliing condo's.
  10. Dick Lenning from Edmonton, Canada writes: First thing that needs to be done is remove Gary Bettman as NHL commissioner. Second, with the exception of Washington, the Southeast division, despite winning 2 of the last 3 Stanley Cups, and the teams in Nashville and Phoenix should be eliminated by moving those teams to places that will naturally support hockey, i.e. places with snow! In fact, players from those teams only should be consolidated into teams based in Winnipeg, Quebec City, Kitchener-Waterloo, Halifax and Hartford (CT). NHL owners/governors should seriously consider moving the HQ away from New York to either Montreal or Toronto.
  11. Kyle H from Ottawa, Canada writes: The NHL can market itself and try to make itself more appealing all it wants, but at the end of the day you can't force people to like your product. Nobody seems to care that the NBA has never really taken off in Canada. The world's most popular sport, soccer, isn't nearly as popular in North America as it is elsewhere.

    There are just too many NHL markets in the United States where the other sports take priority and/or are in geographic locations where the climate is just not suited to winter sports. Not only that, the USA tends to look inward for its sports fix. NBA, NFL, MLB, and NASCAR are the big sports in the States... all very American. Sports that are very popular elsewhere such as soccer, hockey, and Formula 1 just don't register on the radar there compared to the other American sports leagues.
  12. Verona Raven from United States writes: Winnipeg attendence was pretty poor in those last years...really 12-13K max isnt stellar. The new arena certainly doesnt really fit into the modern day NHL. And corporate support in Winnipeg?

    Quebec city will never put up the money for a new arena...ask Marcel Aubut.

    What makes you think those two towns that are about the size of the Syracuse metro area can support the NHL with the aforementioned variables?
  13. Verona Raven from United States writes: I agree about Hartford. That should be the FIRST city they relocate back to.

    Believe me...that was one of the loudest barns I've ever been to. Ask Quenneville or Tippett.
  14. Canuck No longer an Expat from Canada writes: As a one-time Winnipeger who watched the Jets leave I know how diffficult it is to have a team leave. However, of non-NHL cities right now, Winnipeg is at least up there for candidates. It would take a deep pocketed owner who could handle losses in non-playoff years and be prepared to offer lower then average ticket prices to the fans in Winnipeg (aka the city where you don't leave home without a coupon). Somebody mentioned Hartford but discounted Winnipeg? I remember many less then capacity crowds at the old Civic center and ask most players who played while Winnipeg had a team and they'll tell you it was right up there with Chicago Stadium as the loudest in the league. I'd like to see a team back in Hartford but there is no way it's a better market then Winnipeg. As for Quebec City, agreed. Great fans but very little corporate dollars and no chance for a new arena.
  15. Terry Terry from Brantford, Canada writes: "...audiences for the Atlanta Thrashers have dropped 50 per cent." Hey Mr. Blackberry, when will you be selling tickets for the Hamilton Thrashers? I'll bite (again).

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top