NHL Gets Snubbed

[NJTank]

Yeah it does need more exposure which is Gary bettmans big failure thats why he was hired and he has failed to do it.

[Magus]

this is precisely why the NHL is 4th among major sports.

you need to promote the sport, which bettman is a joke at doing.

baseball, football and basketball all promote there stars. the nhl doesn't. there isn't any players the nhl significantly markets. the nhl needs to market players like Heatley, Kovalchuk, Lecavalier, Gaborik etc..

[gojetsgo]

the nhl needs to market players like Heatley, Kovalchuk, Lecavalier, Gaborik etc..

Interesting choices for marketable player.... Well just the last one. Gaborik is a bum through and through. He's exactly the type of player the NHL wants to avoid - a guy who misses dozens of games as he holds out for millions, and then comes back and performs like a 3rd line player.

[Shmee]

the nhl needs to market players like Heatley, Kovalchuk, Lecavalier, Gaborik etc..

Five words.

Jarome Iginla and Martin St.Louis.

No two players right now more emobdy the dedication, toughness, and jawdropping talent that the NHL needs to market itself on. It doesn't hurt that they each made it to the Stanley Cup Finals, or that Iginla is black. Promoting Iginla, a tough black player who has an amazing scoring touch will only help the NHL expand its base among non-traditional hockey fans. St.Louis, who is small and fast, will help shatter the image of the brutish, extremely violent hockey player.

Heatley is a tough issue right now, with the accident he was involved in. One more season, where he'll be around for the entire campaign and can return to his awesome playing, and I think he'll be ready to become the face of the NHL like originally planned. He's obviously very strong mentally and physically.

[Stampman]

Iggy & St Louis are good choices--so would Scott Neidermayer--and a handful of goalies...

[stimpy]

those players are marketable just in hocky only compinies. baseball football and basketball really have teh same clothing and equipment compinies. (reebok Nike adidas) wile hockey has its own compinies (CCM Bauer Itech Koho) even though i wouldnt want to see it if a company liek Nike picked up alot of players and made sticks (i know they do but only mario lemiuex uses them) and made comercials and stuff leik that hockey would be better off

[Saintsfan]

I am gonna stick up for SI here. First of all, the TV ratings in the US for the Stanley cup were, as I understand it, poor. So SI can be forgiven for thinking that Americans aren't that interested. Secondly SI is an American magazine, Hockey is largely a Canadian sport. And without reading the article it sounds like it is about the 'rebirth' of griffey, not specifically his 500th homer.

[jkrdevil]

those players are marketable just in hocky only compinies. baseball football and basketball really have teh same clothing and equipment compinies. (reebok Nike adidas) wile hockey has its own compinies (CCM Bauer Itech Koho) even though i wouldnt want to see it if a company liek Nike picked up alot of players and made sticks (i know they do but only mario lemiuex uses them) and made comercials and stuff leik that hockey would be better off

I think Bauer is owned by nike.

Anyway, I agree that Iginla needs to be promoted more. He is right now what hockey is about. He is fast, he can score goals. and he can hit. He needs to be promoted.

The NHL keep smaking these rule changes thinking that it will bring more interest. They don't understand that rule changes do nothing, when people don't know what the rule changes do. The NHL needs to promote the game as is, they need to promote the checking, and the goalies instead of trying to change hockey into what it isn't and never was. A high scoring game, hockey has been and always will be a low scoring game, and the NHL needs to promote that as something it is instead of something it isn't.

[gosioux76]

I am gonna stick up for SI here. First of all, the TV ratings in the US for the Stanley cup were, as I understand it, poor. So SI can be forgiven for thinking that Americans aren't that interested. Secondly SI is an American magazine, Hockey is largely a Canadian sport. And without reading the article it sounds like it is about the 'rebirth' of griffey, not specifically his 500th homer.

I'm wondering if deadline pressures didn't have something to do with SI's lack of a Stanley Cup cover. Weekly magazines have wacky deadlines. A magazine that hits the stands ona Monday might be done by a Wednesday. But who knows.

[CJR]

But they still got notice of the Tampa Cup win on the cover. It's not like they didn't know the Cup was going to be won that night, they could have held the cover and gotten a photo of one of the captians holding it up.

[gosioux76]

I know what you're saying. And you're probably right. I'm jst throwing it out there as a possibility. I mean, maybe it was an 11th hour thing where the best they could do was strip some text across the top? It's just a far flung possibility.

[-kj]

Except the Cup was won on Monday, I believe, and I've seen them get Wednesday or Thursday events onto the cover, with photos, for their Monday deliveries. (I used to get SI.)

[Puckguy14]

The rule changes! Guh! When will they learn that automatic icing needs to implemented. (Want a reason: see the Sharks Marco Sturm vs. Colorado)

nix the 2-line pass and see the offense open up.

None of these, goalie touches the puck behind the goal line automatic penalty stupid changes.

[Brian in Boston]

The problem with promoting the NHL to the non-traditional fan has absolutely nothing to do with Gary Bettman.

The problem with promoting ice hockey to the non-traditional fan is that in order to do so you must utilize television as a tool. Think about it: the non-traditional fan base - which is the segment of the population in which the sport has an opportunity to grow in popularity - isn't likely to go out and plunk down big money to see a game live... at least not right away. Therefore, this target audience of nascent fans needs to be introduced to the game via television coverage. Unfortunately, ice hockey is the least "television-friendly" of the "Big Four" sports.

The very thing that works for the sport in person - its speed and fluidity - does not translate well to televised coverage. It simply doesn't. I've worked as a sports broadcaster. I am a sports fan. I love hockey. However, I'll be the first person to admit that I don't enjoy it nearly as much on television as I do in person. Period. If it doesn't appeal to me - a fan - how the hell is it going to capture the imagination of the average, non-traditional "potential fan"?

Add to this the fact that the NHL was largely viewed as a Canadian/regional sports league up until the late 1960s... hell, until the mid-1970s. Face it, through the 1966-67 season the NHL was a six team outfit: Montreal, Toronto, Boston, New York, Detroit and Chicago. Two Canadian teams and four American clubs concentrated in the Northeast and Upper Midwest. Regional! Even when the league expanded, it kept going back to the Northern Tier. When it doubled in size in 1967-68, half the teams were in the traditional Northeast/Upper Midwest, namely Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Minnesota. St. Louis was a bit off the NHL's traditional "beaten path", but only California and Los Angeles were truly bold, "national" expansion choices. So, even at twelve teams, only three were outside of Canada or the Northern Tier. The 1970-71 expansion consisted of adding clubs in Buffalo and Vancouver... to the Northeast and Canada. Canadian/Regional expansion again. Then 1972-73 saw Atlanta and the New York Islanders join the fray. A bold move into the South, balanced by yet another Northeast American team. Move on to 1974-75. The Kansas City Scouts are a reasonably "national" expansion choice, but Washington wasn't certainly much of a move beyond the sport's traditional Northeast corridor mentality. The league was self-perpetuating its existance as a "regional" sports entity in the greater public's eye.

Bottom line? The NHL may just have to be content with being viewed as the "fringe" sport amongst the "Big Four"... permanently. The NFL has a stranglehold on the # 1 slot. MLB, even with all of its problems over the past 10-15 years, is still # 2. That means that the NBA and NHL are going to have to duke it out for # 3 and # 4, and as unappetizing as the NBA's on-court product may be to many people, it is still a "homegrown" product in the United States.

Look, I'm a fan of the sport. However, I also realize the NHL's historical place in the hearts and minds of the "masses" here in the United States. I hate to say this, but the United States is the media center of the world. The largest media corporations and outlets are located here... including the sports variety. If the market share isn't there for the NHL's brand of hockey, and the ratings for the NHL on American television indicate that fact isn't going to change any time soon, then die-hard hockey fans in both the US of A and Canada had better come to grips with the fact that the sport's profile in the United States isn't going to grow significantly in the near future.

Brian in Boston

[GMac]

having worked in print... though on a much smaller scale... we have held cover designs till the last minute you just get the template up and wait for the picture to come in them slide the photo in the adjust any text that can take away from the photo and send it to the printer... no harm no foul...

NHL really needs to look at international rules to make the game more exciting and safer for the players... tag up off sides, no touch icing, remove the red line... it was their previous changes that caused the down turn in scoring to keep teams like the oilers from killing everyone else...

[jkrdevil]

Again, I say rule changes won't attract new fans.

If they don't know wha the rule changes or what the previous rule is, then a rule change won't have any impact.

Personally, I think the emlination of the 2 line pass would do more harm than good. You would have more icing than which means less. I like the physical games.

You have to be careful when looking at the international rules becuase when most people see them in play are during the olympics and world championships and those are all-star tournaments. When you put average teams with far less talent on the ice the game is different.

[Stampman]

I disagree about the TV thing--I find any sport more exciting in person than on TV-(except maybe the ones that are boring to watch no matter what)-so that's not much of an argument...

But using the argument any way I could apply it to baseball--it can be dreadfully boring on TV, but in person it's quite interesting...

So why's baseball so big?

I also find the argument that you can't see the puck wanting--can you always see the football? Cna you always see the baseball?

NO--but you watch and learn to follow the play..so when I'm watching hockey--even if I can't see the puck I have a good idea where it is...

Hockey is a great TV sport, so is football--I'd list them as the best 2 to watch on TV...

It just takes getting used to--you have to give it a chance...

And as NHL ticket prices are ususally too high for me, I'll watch on TV (but get me free tickets or a deal--I'm there!)

[Brian in Boston]

Well, stampman... we'll agree to disagree on hockey's suitability to being broadcast relative to the other "Big Four" sports.

As someone who has worked in the broadcast industry, when I see the difficulty that the NHL has in attracting viewers to the sport on television in the United States... well, I'm going to say that the average American finds something lacking in the experience of watching the game on television. What's more, whatever it is that these average Americans find lacking in watching hockey on television, they apparently don't feel that the other "Big Four" sports are lacking it to quite the same extent when broadcast. A simple look at the relative ratings for the four sports certainly proves that.

My overall assessment of the situation stands: Whoever replaces Commissioner Bettman isn't going to be capable of doing a damn thing to change the NHL's popularity in the USA relative to the other "Big Four" sports. It is what it is as far as the vast amount of Americans are concerned: a "regional" sport.

Additionally, a new NHL commissioner is going to attempt to do the exact same things that Bettman has with regard to marketing, and those measures are going to be largely confined to bringing in new corporate marketing partners. Like it or not, those corporate marketing partners are going to push for a significant franchise presence in growth markets in the United States. Why? Because, they are convinced that is where the disposable income is. So, while it's very likely that we'll see "weak-sister" franchises in "non-traditional" markets moved in the future (hey... a few may even fold as a result of a prolonged work stoppage), don't imagine that they'll be moved to Canada or former NHL small markets like Hartford. For every Raleigh or Anaheim that (potentially) goes by the boards, get ready to welcome a Houston, Las Vegas, Kansas City or Charlotte.

As for notions that the NHL is going to go rushing back north of the border... frankly, I just don't see it. Would it be nice to see the NHL firmly entrenched in nine or ten Canadian cities? Absolutely. After all, hockey is more than a sport in Canada... it's a "religion". Unfortunately, NHL hockey is a BUSINESS. I'm not certain that Ottawa, Edmonton and Calgary have cemented their long-term financial viability as NHL markets. Forget about welcoming Winnipeg and Quebec City back to the fold. In the future, the NHL might well be fighting to maintain a Canadian presence larger than Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.

And as for rule changes in the NHL and how that impacts viewership and the fan base, the average American doesn't give a "frog's fat ass" about ice hockey's rules. They wouldn't know for certain that the red line had been removed if you told them.

Brian in Boston

[Stampman]

Well a lot of it is waht you're used to--I grew up watching hockey on TV--so I do it very well, and enjoy it...

I also grew up watching football--mostly CFL, but also NFL...same thing--

And I can watch a mean game of curling...

[habsfannova]

I think that both of you are right....hockey on television IS great, but I don't think it's great to use to teach people the game. I mean, it makes the game look slow and compressed compared to real life, maybe because the camera only shows about 1/3 of the rink. Once you've seen a few games live and get the flow of the game, you can appreciate hockey on televlsion a lot more....

Football is helped in the compression effect by having yard lines, basketball by half court cameras and people stopping, and baseball by the fact most people know the basic postitions, etc.