NHL TV ratings.

[That funky motion]

TV ratings going south

It keeps getting worse in big U.S. markets

 

Tony Gallagher, The Province

Published: Sunday, December 10, 2006

The NHL governors got a rude awakening at their board meeting this week at the beautiful Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Fla., when they had the U.S. television ratings plunked in front of them.

Talk about devastating. And unless there is a rapid recovery, it's very difficult to understand what will become of this sport in the U.S.

Keep in mind this has nothing to do with the league's appearance on Versus network, or the old Outdoor Living Network as it was known last year. This is virtually every U.S. city in the league as viewers seem to be turing away from the game at a remarkable pace.

Coming on the heels of ESPN's refusal to carry paid NHL advertising on its station because they apparently didn't want to trumpet a sport they don't carry on their own network, the numbers showed a downward spiral that failed the league's or network's estimations in all but two markets.

It's important before getting into some of the specifics to point out that seemingly all sports ratings are down these days, so the NHL is hardly alone. People just seem to be watching things other than sports on television and all marketing people in all sports other than the NFL need to be concerned.

While Evgeni Malkin and Sidney Crosby were lifting the Fox Sports News Pittsburgh ratings 40 per cent higher than expectations and the highest they've been since 2000-01, the rest of the U.S. cities were headed straight to the dumper. If these results don't raise some eyebrows among the owners, it's hard to know what will get their attention.

Strangely enough, the other city that topped expectations was Chicago, where the Blackhawks have had such little television exposure and their teams have been so bad over the years that the quick start authored by Martin Havlat and crew and now sustained since the team has overcome that onslaught of early injuries has really helped. And any good news out of such a major market as Chicago is certainly good news for the league, so with luck that will keep improving.

It's some of the other cities where the news is exceptionally disturbing. Take Florida, for example, where there was the expectation of a 1.0 share for the Panthers on FSN Florida and it came in down a whopping 77 per cent.

If that wasn't bad enough, along came the numbers from SportSouth in Atlanta, where the Thrashers have an excellent team this year and one would think the numbers would be significantly higher simply because of where the team is in the standings. Not so. The numbers were down a 10th of a rating point and fully 70 per cent below expectations.

In New York it's so bad the Islanders, who appear on Fox New York, are virtually to the point where the viewership does not even rate a number, although this was before coach Ted Nolan got the troops going and one would expect this to improve. But the whole city was down as both the Devils and the Rangers suffered pretty significant decreases as well.

Detroit was another sore spot. Traditionally one of the strongest hockey markets for obvious reasons, the Wings got hammered early this season.

Obviously some of the downturn can be attributed to the success of another Mike Ilitch-owned franchise, the Tigers, who made the World Series, and the Wings haven't been as entertaining in the regular season as they were under previous coach Dave Lewis.

But even considering last season's first-round playoff ouster, this was a massacre, the numbers down almost 50 per cent over last year's figures. And last year's figures were a far cry from when the sport was going strongest in 2001.

The only good news is that these numbers are so discouraging, it appears there's nowhere to go but up

[redandwhite]

It's too bad. Just goes to show how much of an influence ESPN has in sports these days. God, I hate ESPN.

[Balta1701]

It's too bad. Just goes to show how much of an influence ESPN has in sports these days. God, I hate ESPN.

There's another factor other than ESPN in that one.

[redandwhite]

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 12, 2006 -> 12:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's another factor other than ESPN in that one.

 

Living in a dorm, I haven't been able to see one hockey game all year. ESPN puts only about five minutes, at the most, into there NHL time on Sportscenter. It strikes me as odd that because ESPN/ABC has the rights to the Ohio St/Michigan game and it's suddenly the Super Bowl of Super Bowls. Or even tonights Bears game.. It was a horrible game, yet 20 minutes in the show they are still covering it? Personally, I think ESPN has more of an influence in sports now-a-days than you're willing to admit.

[That funky motion]

Whats funny is I am on 3 hockey teams, and very few of my teammates watch Hockey. If people who play the sport, don't watch it, thats a problem.

[redandwhite]

Besides baseball, there is hardly any of this East coast bias everyone refers to.

 

Do the Knicks, Celtics, Nets, etc. get any more time in the spot light than they should? No.

 

Do the Bruins, Rangers, Devils, Islanders, etc. get any time in the spot light at all? No.

 

There is hardly any favoritism at all in the NFL, especially now that ESPN holds the Monday Night Football rights.

 

College Sports? Who? Boston College? No. Rutgers? No. UMass? St. Johns? St. Joes? Come on.. Absolutely not.

 

And while I agree that the NHL has more problems than just ESPN, the tv ratings, which this thread is based on have a direct correlation to not being carried on ESPN.

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

Besides baseball, there is hardly any of this East coast bias everyone refers to.

 

Do the Knicks, Celtics, Nets, etc. get any more time in the spot light than they should? No.

 

Do the Bruins, Rangers, Devils, Islanders, etc. get any time in the spot light at all? No.

 

There is hardly any favoritism at all in the NFL, especially now that ESPN holds the Monday Night Football rights.

 

College Sports? Who? Boston College? No. Rutgers? No. UMass? St. Johns? St. Joes? Come on.. Absolutely not.

 

And while I agree that the NHL has more problems than just ESPN, the tv ratings, which this thread is based on have a direct correlation to not being carried on ESPN.

 

What the hell are you talking about? ESPN is always talking about the knicks.

 

As for hockey, I played for around ten years and I don't even get into the NHL. Part of the fact is that living in a dorm I'm not able to watch it, but even if I could I would never watch it. The NHL is bad, period.

[Buehrle>Wood]

College Sports? Who? Boston College? No. Rutgers? No. UMass? St. Johns? St. Joes? Come on.. Absolutely not.

Um, the ACC anyone?

[redandwhite]

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Dec 12, 2006 -> 12:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What the hell are you talking about? ESPN is always talking about the knicks.

 

As for hockey, I played for around ten years and I don't even get into the NHL. Part of the fact is that living in a dorm I'm not able to watch it, but even if I could I would never watch it. The NHL is bad, period.

 

I watch Sportscenter, just because I'd rather watch sports highlites than soap's, on average 3 times per day. Perhaps you're more of an ESPN connaisseur than I am, but I just fail to see all this Knick coverage you speak of.

 

As for the second part. The NHL is bad? The greatest hockey players in the world play in our country and the NHL is bad? The NHL is the premier league in the world, but it's bad? Get real.

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

Um, the ACC anyone?

 

Even Jay Bilas was making fun of how much coverage Duke gets the other day (I think it was during the Illini-Zona game). They were showing the upcoming schedule of Duke games on ESPN- Bilas-"Are we gonna start showing their practices now"?

[redandwhite]

Yea, the ACC basketball coverage is rather ridiculous. Although it's mainly only Duke and North Carolina, and similar to the Red Sox and Yankees, it's because they are two of the most popular teams in the country and draw incredible ratings.

 

Also, Tony. Could it be because the Red Sox and Yankees draw ratings? Whether or not you like how the station is run, things that draw ratings and as a result draw more revenue will be front and center ahead of things that don't.

[whitesoxfan101]

Well when your games are on "versus", the original 6 teams never play each other, and one of the few potential hockey hotbeds is dead because of a owner that most people wish was dead, these things happen.

[redandwhite]

It has it's positives during baseball season, as you said, but I was more furious than you were on a daily basis for three weeks leading up to the Ohio St/Michigan bulls***.

 

I certainly can see where you're coming from after having to witness a countdown on ESPN for a game other than a Championship game for three weeks straight. Sickening, gross..

[The Critic]

I like how they tried to play off that it has nothing to do with the NHL being on Versus.

No one knows WHAT Versus is, much less where to find it.

The NHL does no marketing to let anyone know that OLN is now Vs. and yet they're surprised when their ratings are lower than women's college basketball.

The most unfortunate thing for hockey is that the game really is so much better in person.

See a few games in person and you fall in love with the sport. Unfortunately, the NHL is pricing people away from that option.

[Chisoxfn]

Yea, the ACC basketball coverage is rather ridiculous. Although it's mainly only Duke and North Carolina, and similar to the Red Sox and Yankees, it's because they are two of the most popular teams in the country and draw incredible ratings.

 

Also, Tony. Could it be because the Red Sox and Yankees draw ratings? Whether or not you like how the station is run, things that draw ratings and as a result draw more revenue will be front and center ahead of things that don't.

Which is the same reason everyone is talking about the Bears (whether they are saying good things or not so good things) since we are quite possibly the most popular team in the NFL (and easily one of the 3 most popular).

 

Hell the NFL has to be loving it...the Bears, Cowboys, and Giants are all winning and those are by far 3 of the biggest fan bases out there.

[SoxFan562004]

Besides baseball, there is hardly any of this East coast bias everyone refers to.

 

Do the Knicks, Celtics, Nets, etc. get any more time in the spot light than they should? No.

 

Do the Bruins, Rangers, Devils, Islanders, etc. get any time in the spot light at all? No.

 

There is hardly any favoritism at all in the NFL, especially now that ESPN holds the Monday Night Football rights.

 

College Sports? Who? Boston College? No. Rutgers? No. UMass? St. Johns? St. Joes? Come on.. Absolutely not.

 

And while I agree that the NHL has more problems than just ESPN, the tv ratings, which this thread is based on have a direct correlation to not being carried on ESPN.

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)

[Queen Prawn]

I like how they tried to play off that it has nothing to do with the NHL being on Versus.

No one knows WHAT Versus is, much less where to find it.

The NHL does no marketing to let anyone know that OLN is now Vs. and yet they're surprised when their ratings are lower than women's college basketball.

 

It also doesn't help that some providers (mine being one of them) doesn't carry OLN/Versus either.

[greasywheels121]

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)

 

Rutgers got valid play, and I think Boise State didn't get much play because they do this every year. And their name just comes up every time people bring up the problems with the BCS.

[The Critic]

It also doesn't help that some providers (mine being one of them) doesn't carry OLN/Versus either.

Yeah, I meant to mention that as well.

The NHL signs a weak deal with a rinky-dink "network" and then raises eyebrows when the ratings blow.

[greasywheels121]

It also doesn't help that some providers (mine being one of them) doesn't carry OLN/Versus either.

 

Yeah, I had no idea they changed their name. I get the channel at home (Comcast), but not here at school (Insight).

[IlliniKrush]

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.

[WHarris1]

Also, Tony. Could it be because the Red Sox and Yankees draw ratings? Whether or not you like how the station is run, things that draw ratings and as a result draw more revenue will be front and center ahead of things that don't.

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

[aboz56]

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 give a s*** about the sport.

 

I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

Why would ESPN put resources in something that most people won't watch when they can carry the NFL, MLB, NBA, College Hoops, etc...It doesn't make any sense from their perspective. They're in it to roll in those advertising dollars, not please a small portion of the population.

 

As far as their lack of coverage on Sportscenter specifically, I see Barry Melrose on there a couple of times a week. I'd be happy if I was a NHL fan that he wasn't kicked off the air for horrible grooming habits.

[The Critic]

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 give a s*** about the sport.

 

I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

Why would ESPN put resources in something that most people won't watch when they can carry the NFL, MLB, NBA, College Hoops, etc...It doesn't make any sense from their perspective. They're in it to roll in those advertising dollars, not please a small portion of the population.

 

As far as their lack of coverage on Sportscenter specifically, I see Barry Melrose on there a couple of times a week. I'd be happy if I was a NHL fan that he wasn't kicked off the air for horrible grooming habits.

Gary Oldman + bad grooming habits = Barry Melrose.

[The Critic]

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.

Their cancellation of an entire season cost them their ESPN gig. They had to take whatever deal any network would give them, or else run their season like self-produced infomercials (you know, like the Blackhawks' radio deal).

 

Being on ESPN at least would give some people the opportunity to happen across hockey. Hoping your provider carries The Outdoor Vs Network, and searching it out in the upper numbers of your channel guide, is only something die-hards would do. You're preaching to the choir at that point.

 

I don't think hockey is THAT much harder to understand, it's just that it's not as ingrained in people's minds as other sports. At its core, it's a pretty straightforward game. Every sport has its intricacies, and the more you watch, the more you're going to learn it. I think the "you don't get it" thing is similar to soccer fans' defense of their game.

 

I agree 100% about the gambling aspect and the game not coming across as well on TV.