Day-after Stanley Cup column

Point taken and spot on.

I always found RTP to be a bit too uppity for my tastes. I was a transplant, but it always annoyed me that other transplants wanted to take RTP and turn it into some copy of a northern metropolis. It's far more interesting to assimilate into another culture than to change it to your liking. BTW, I love those Mebanites.

 

Let me get this straight.

A Charlotte newspaper columnist writes about all the Carolina sporting events that were more important than the Hurricanes winning the Stanley Cup. Nowhere in the article are the words "Super Bowl" mentioned.

Brilliant column, douchebag.

 

Yeah, I have that SI article in my own file. I don't, however, recall when it's from. I thought it was before the lockout. As I stated, there was a brief time before the 1993 (?) lockout -- post-Gretzky-to-LA -- that hockey was gaining ground.

It lasted what, a year or two, before that lockout killed any momentum, and hasn't rebounded.

Only when Gretzky was in LA did hockey gain any popularity in the U.S., and it didn't really last long enough to catapult the league into "Big Four" status. I've always tried to convince myself it was there, but the more I see now (as a Florida transplant living in Detroit - and I did move here for hockey) it's always been a niche sport.

Just because gangs wear LA Kings colors doesn't mean they're fans of the game.

 

I think this article appeared just after the Rangers '94 Cup win.

 

Speaking on the Mount, hockey is actually gaining popularity. The local bars were packed when the games were on OLN (it's only available on digital cable, which most do not have in a community that is extremely poor).
Hell, the outdoors writer is now a hockey nut. Calls me every week to ask me questions and bullshit about the Hurricanes.

 

During Game 6, the entire sports staff was gathered around the TV watching. Such things rarely happen in my shop. And it certainly didn't last night during the NBA game.

 

From William Houston's Globe column today. (Houston is the sports media critic for the rag).


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game 7 audience

The CBC saved the best for last, drawing 4.739 million viewers for the seventh game of the Stanley Cup final on Monday.

That ranks as the network's fourth largest audience for a hockey game dating back to the introduction of Nielsen People Meters in 1989. The record is 4.957 million for the seventh game of the 1994 final between the Vancouver Canucks and New York Rangers.

The Monday figure includes the audience for the Stanley Cup presentation and interviews, as well as the game.

From the dropping of the puck to the game-ending whistle, the audience was 5.553 million, peaking at 6.253 million between 10:30 p.m. and 11 p.m. EDT. The 3.042 million audience average for this year's final is down from the 2004 final between the Calgary Flames and Tampa Bay Lightning. The seventh game of that series drew 4.862 million and the average over seven games was 3.735 million. Still, the 2006 average over seven games ranks as the CBC's third best for a Cup final since 1989.

NBC's telecast of Game 7 earned a 3.3 overnight rating (percentage of U.S. households watching), a 21-per-cent drop from ABC's 4.2 for Game 7 of the 2004 final. NBC had an average rating of 2.3 for its five telecasts of the final, down 12 per cent from ABC's 2004 average. Some NBC affiliates didn't air Game 7 live. The network's Seattle station aired a tape-delay, and in Salt Lake City the game wasn't carried at all.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guess there aren't a lot of Mormon hockey fans.

 

This is where hockey's US devotees start behaving the way people say that soccer's US devotees behave. It is wildly popular in two areas -- New England and the industrial Great Lakes. Elsewhere, it's a niche sport run by dumbasses that's fallen behind golf and NASCAR in the naitionall pecking order.  I love the game, but that's simply a fact. No amount of appeals based on the drama of Cup overtime games is going to change that. Back when that SI cover ran, the NHL got a lot of hype out of the Rangers. It'd have been a different story if it had been Vancouver and NJ in the Finals, as it nearly was.
The NBA is a worldwide entertainment engine. Hockey is battling its way off the Big Fish Channel.

 

OK here's a question. Will it be better for hockey if it gets a new deal and gets off OLN as soon as possible or can they ride out a couple of bad years TV wise and hope OLN Versus becomes a force in cable sports TV?

 

Don't disagree with anything you say.

Fact is, as has been pointed out several times, hockey has been broadcast on U.S. networks for over 40 years. It wasn't popular in the 60's, 70's, 80's or 90's and why anyone would think that's EVER going to change now is beyond me. It's always been a niche sport and always will be unless Bubba in Podunk, Arkansas starts playing in a weekly beer league.

Heard Bettman interviewed on the FAN590 yesterday and despite the fact that he's still a weasel and put hockey in places it should never be, he's a realist. All hockey can do is make sure it keeps the fans it's got and try to build on that.

Hell, 20 years ago they had a saying about Black Hawks fans: there's only 20,000 of them in Chicago but they all go to the games.

 

If Versus became available in all markets (like mine), I think it's in hockey's best interest. It's the biggest fish -- figuratively speaking -- for the network and it's in their best interest to help the sport survive on TV. On any of the ESPN varieties, hockey takes an unfortunately-well-deserved back seat to everything else.

But the real promotion of hockey is its appeal as a niche sport -- regional cable.

 

Yeah, don't the local broadcasts on Fox Sports do OK?