No Home-Viewers League

by user DNL

If a goal scores in the playoffs, but no one at home is watching, does it make a sound?

According to this ESPN article, "more people watched the 13 WNBA broadcasts on ESPN2 last year than the NHL on [the Outdoor Life Network] this year."

Yikes.

And the hits keep on coming:

"ESPN, which had broadcast NHL games regularly since 1992, declined its one-year, $60 million option after the canceled season, when replacement programming such as 'Bowling Night' and 'Stump The Schwab' drew ratings that were at least comparable to its hockey broadcasts of a year earlier."

What's the cause? I don't think the recent labor strife has much to do with it. Instead, I think the problem is endemic. My favorite quote comes from the Daily Princetonian: "The National Hockey League has always struggled to get solid television ratings. It is, after all, a sport dominated by left-handed Canadians, 2-1 final scores and a puck that is really hard to see on TV."

That sums up my problems nicely (save for the unnecessary Canada-bashing, you chesterfield-sitting, Labatt drinking, moose-loving hoser!). And I don't know if it's fixable. I'm a die-hard sports fan; one who can watch just about any sport on TV. Really, I watched paintball last night (boring), enjoy the Kentucky Derby, can't draw myself away from those British dart competitions on ESPN 3.14159, and can occassionally stomach auto racing. But hockey and, to a lesser extent, soccer, are lost on me. Everything seems so chaotic and the low scores suggest that the results are a product of randomness, not skill. While I realize that is simply incorrect -- it's a function of my lack of understanding and appreciation for the game -- it nevertheless is my impression.

Theoretically, I should be hockey's target audience, save for the fact that I'm not of Norse decent. So, how can hockey attract viewers like me?

Date

Tue 05/23/06, 7:06 am EST

SteaksammichRed-Shirting

1310 days ago

Score 2

Hockey is a hell of a lot of fun to play, but I could never get in to following it. I'm a one-sport kinda guy and that's mostly because I can read the paper in the morning and find everything that happened in every game the night before. You can't tell how a hockey game went just by reading a boxscore.

Permalink | Reply

XinophDraft Pick

1310 days ago

Score 0

Wait, only Norwegians like hockey? Have you ever heard of, like, Russia? Or the rest of Eastern Europe? I think most sports fans dislike hockey because it's more difficult to understand and follow compared to, say, football, baseball, or basketball. Any national audience that ranks NASCAR among its most popular sports can't be expect to follow the intricacies of hockey. But then, I'm a hockey fan, so I tend to think ill of people who bash the sport just because it doesn't make the most money.

Permalink | Reply

PeanMajor Leaguer

1310 days ago

Score 1

Its pretty hard to put any stock in the home viewership of a country that watches American Idol

Permalink | Reply

PopjonesWaterboy

1310 days ago

Score 4

It's not just hockey. ESPN's "original programming" tends to outdraw most of its game coverage in all sports, including baseball. Games are too easily available nowadays and the viewers aren't sitting through many of them.

Permalink | Reply

Davis21wylieMVP

1310 days ago

Score 3

The labor strife turned out to be a double-edged sword for the League. The radical new rule changes (especially the shootouts and the outlawing of 2-line passes) have boosted goal-scoring significantly, eliminating the problem of 2-1 snoozefests, and the changes would probably never have been employed had the league not locked out. However, ESPN would have likely re-upped with the NHL if the lockout hadn't occurred -- if not just to maintain the status quo. Ironically, now that it's a better product, it sells even less, because nobody watches OLN. I was a hardcore NHL fan from 1995-2004, but I haven't watched much since they came back. Why? Partly it's because I haven't forgiven them the labor dispute, but also because many of the players I grew up watching are either gone or past their expiration date, a problem exacerbated by losing an entire season of play. I can't even identify marquee matchups anymore -- the teams that were good in 2003-04 were not necessarily good this year (witness the declines of Tampa Bay, Boston, Toronto, the Islanders, Vancouver, and St. Louis... and the "juvenations" of Carolina, Buffalo, and Nashville). As for not seeing the puck: I don't know if that's the problem, because FOX trotted out a cool glowing puck in the mid-1990's, but still nobody watched. Either way, the big problem for now is OLN. Aside from NBC saturdays, the NHL cannot achieve any kind of U.S. exposure on the obscure hunting-and-fishing network. And ESPN certainly won't take the league back, for the reasons you mention (Stump The Schwab? Ouch.). So where does the league go from here? I have no idea. Here's to you, Mr. Bettman... When it come to the lockout, the NHL badly overplayed its hand.

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1310 days ago

Score 3

Sports that don't have the greatest financial reward are generally the most sporting. Look at basketball, football and baseball. I can't see Steve Yzerman shouting at a referee after having a penalty against him. It's the same in Britain with Darts, Snooker, and Cricket, in the latter two you don't need a referee, the players are sporting. So while they aren't paid $millions a year, at least the players behave themselves. Ok, they fight, but they accept their penalty and get on with it. That's why the game is popular in Europe, it is a mainly amateur affair, and as a result, people play the game for the enjoyment of it. I think that in the year without the NHL, people found alternative things to do in their time without it, and they are sticking to those things even though the NHL is back. The rule changes weren't that good either, whilst it brought in a larger audience, it reduced some of the skill involved., and now the emphasis is on speed, whereas there was a good balance between speed and size before. That takes one type of player out of the game, and I fear that the NHL Grinder will go the same way as the MLB Base Stealer. (i.e. Good to have one, but not essential). I hope the NHL does recover though, it's my favourite US Sport.

Permalink | Reply

Anonymous Fanatic #1

1310 days ago

Score -4

I don't mean to sound insulting, honestly, but what are the "intricacies of hockey"? Please explain to someone who understands the intricacy of the double switch and a proper use of a LOOGY.

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1310 days ago

Score 0

I think Hockey is much easier to understand than the NFL. In Hockey, an idiot can see you're trying to hit the puck in the net. In the NFL, someone can be confused easily. (Why are they running backwards? Why is he kicking it? What's a "down"? Quarterback!?" etc. At least Centre, Wing, Defenseman and Goalie is obvious. Baseball is kind of obvious, most people will have played something similar (e.g. Softball, Rounders). Basketball is obvious, you are putting the ball through the hoop. Hockey's "intricacies" were the 2-line pass rule, the offside rule, etc. The ability to beat the Butterfly or Stand Up Goalie... But the new NHL has tried to get rid of them (they have got rid of the 2-line pass rule).

Permalink | Reply

Davis21wylieMVP

1310 days ago

Score 4

Yeah, a lot of people still don't understand offsides or icing, and they didn't get two-line pass when it existed, either. The rules changes are a mixed bag for me: I hate that goalies can't handle the puck except in that red area behind the net, and I think shootouts are very gimmicky -- after playing 65 minutes of real hockey, the game can be decided by "sniper" specialists, on breakaways with no defense. On the other hand, I hated the 2-line pass. It was the one rule I always turned off on NHL '93 :) I hope they can work out a deal with a better network in a couple of years, because I think I might be ready to forgive them by then. But whoever said it's more fun to play than watch is totally right. I guess it's like golf in that respect.

Permalink | Reply

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

1310 days ago

Score 3

Is there also the possibility that ESPN is bashing the NHL a bit and trying to make them seem worthless to lower the bidding on the next tv deal? Hockey had 1 million more fans show up for games this year than last and I think the real reason their ratings suck is because they are on OLN. Also, how much love has ESPN even given the playoffs on sportscenter? Not much. You have a #8 seed two wins away from the Stanley Cup Finals and I haven't heard a peep about this on ESPN. Any other sport where the lowest seeded team was at the brink of the finals would call for constant hype about them and a 15 minute segment narated by Jeremy Schapp. I'm not even that much of a hockey fan, but I even see that the NHL is getting a bit of a raw deal from the media.

Permalink | Reply

Davis21wylieMVP

1310 days ago

Score 1

"a 15 minute segment narated by Jeremy Schapp" - So true. Edmonton should be enjoying George Mason-esque treatment right now. Maybe it is all an ESPN conspiracy... I mean, "Bowling Night"? Come on.

Permalink | Reply

XinophDraft Pick

1310 days ago

Score 2

I don't mean to sound insulting, Anonymous, but trying to explain hockey to you probably wouldn't be worthwhile. The double-switch and a left-handed specialist are hardly the most complex sporting concepts in the history of mankind.

Permalink | Reply