Stanley Cup? Who cares?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Carrying the burden of avoiding sports oblivion is the NHL, which must follow up this undesirable Stanley Cup final with an actual 2004-05 season.

Yup, FOX Funhouse couldn't have hand-picked a worse Stanley Cup final match of actual playoff teams. Granted, Nashville Predators vs. Calgary Flames would have gone largely unwatched by anybody.

Sure, what makes this Stanley Cup final most unfit for casual sports fans is that there's a team from Canada involved.

- www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2428886

[Deleted]

Boo hoo, let the American networks cry; this is our game.

[CentreHice]

A Canadian Press article from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record on Thursday:


We Care, Americans don't

TORONTO

Canadians are tuning in to see the Calgary Flames but Americans are tuning out.

CBC drew 3.083 million viewers for Tuesday's broadcast of Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Final, making it the second-highest rated NHL game in the history of the network.

Only Game 7 of the 1994 final between Vancouver and the New York Rangers drew more viewers, with 4.957 million tuning in to watch the 3-2 Rangers win.

It was a different story in the U.S., where Tuesday's game tied for the lowest-rated Stanley Cup final game on ESPN since 1990. Game 1 was watched by an average of 1.013 million people. That translates into a rating of 1.1, which is down from 1.4 for last year's first game.

I wonder what CBC's ratings were for the last 9 years with NO Canadian teams in the finals. Those would be interesting figures.

[Strummerman]

Besides all that its a great series and exciting

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

A series that only Calgary could love

DAMIEN COX

CALGARY—For the extraordinarily-industrious Calgary Flames and their rabid fans, this is turning into a wonderful, unforgettable spring.

But if you do not count yourself among that small pocket of North Americans, you just want this sucker to be over as fast as possible.

A Stanley Cup final that created such high expectations a week ago has fallen flat, producing three mostly uninteresting games.

Rather than give the league a shot in the arm as it toys with the notion of self-immolation, this is beginning to look like a repeat of last year's crawl through the mud between the Devils and Ducks.

- full Starticle

[CentreHice]

Damien Cox:

But it was also generally unwatchable, a contest in which the most skilful element was the amazing ability of NHL players to grab an opponent's jersey while wearing cumbersome hockey gloves.

You should be used to that Damien...you cover the Leafs.

Well, there was that surprising scrap in the first period between Vinny Lecavalier and Jarome Iginla, one of the few times an NHL fight is unscripted beforehand and doesn't involve a designated pugilist.

Lecavalier got off quick and won a narrow decision, but the victors nonetheless described their captain's defeat in the evening's boxing segment as heroic and pivotal.

"It was huge," said Chris Simon. "It set the tone for us."

How a scrap six minutes into a game could be "huge," of course, is hard for anyone to fathom.

If that had been Mats Sundin taking on the opposing captain in a Cup Final, and the Leafs won the game...it would have been your headline.

The uninitiated, of course, might also raise the question of how Robyn Regehr could wrap both arms around Tampa's Ruslan Fedotenko and ram him face-first into the ledge at the top of the boards without being called for a penalty. But hey, that's just the wonderful and indecipherable world of NHL rules.

Again, for a guy who covers McCabe, Marchment, Tucker, Roberts, and Domi..... I was listening to Sam Rosen and Daren Elliot for that game, and they both said it didn't warrant a penalty.

But this is a league that has, over the past 10 years, developed a style that is only entertaining to those with a specific rooting interest. So good for you, Calgary. Party on and party hard. The rest of us will just have suffer. Or tune this out.

Poor Leafs fans/media...they have to get their partying in after first round wins. Speak for yourself, Cox, I'm not suffering through this. Where have you been? This is how Calgary beat Vancouver, Detroit, and San Jose.

I know Cox is one of the few Leafs' reporters who are extremely critical of his team, but perhaps he's showing his true colours when it really matters...check that... just one colour...GREEN!

[blaise]

I disagree with Damien Cox. I think the games have been fairly exciting except in the late stages, when one team with a big lead plays strictly defensively. For sure the two teams, particularly the defense, play at a higher skill level than the Habs. It's great to see Iginla head-to-head with Lecavalier.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

The NHL season is far too long to sustain my interest. 10 pre-season games + 82 regular season games + (a minimum of 16 games to win the Stanley Cup) = an over-exposed and not particulary exciting product in largely unappreciative markets = greed = boredom.

GO FLAMES GO! (but I'm not watching)

[CentreHice]

Game 4 was the most "tedious" game to watch.
The most Devils-like game I've seen all playoffs.

A 2-man advantage goal not 3 minutes into the game is the winner....that's a long time to sit on a lead, and that's what Tampa did. I saw an awful lot of neutral zone trapping going on. In the third period, Tampa got 5 shots on net....only 7 in the second.

Run and gun? Not Game 4. I guess with so much on the line, the teams are doing "whatever" it takes...and that appears to be a page out of Jersey's book.

Little did the Flames know they'd get not one PP after the first period. Those Lightning must be angels.

At least Bettman is happy.

EDIT: After checking the Calgary newpapers this morning, I guess I pretty much viewed the game with the same eye as Eric Francis of the Calgary Sun.

www.canoe.ca/Slam040601/col_francis-sun.html

[Strummerman]

Unlike last year when the oldies were goldies, this year we are seeing the emergence of new superstars that may dominate the league for awhile like Iginla Lecavalier Richards and St Louis

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Stanley Cup finals get low ratings in Games 3 and 4

NEW YORK (AP) — Games 3 and 4 of the Stanley Cup finals on ABC between Calgary and Tampa Bay drew two of the lowest overnight ratings since broadcast networks began carrying the NHL finals in 1998.
Saturday's Game 3, won by Calgary 3-0, got a 2.2 rating, the lowest since 1998. Tampa Bay's 1-0 win on Monday got a 2.8, which tied last year's Game 3 between New Jersey and Anaheim for the second-lowest since 1998.

The ratings for the first two games on ESPN were anemic, with Game 1 tying for the lowest-rated finals game on the cable network since 1990.

Overnight ratings measure the 55 largest TV markets in the United States, covering about 70% of the country.

[blaise]

So hockey should be played only in cities in which TV ratings are high? Let's keep in mind that TV wasn't always available for games in the 6 team league.

[CentreHice]

What is puzzling to me about last year's Final is that the two largest U.S. metropolitan markets were represented.

New Jersey is included in the New York City, Long Island metro numbers which are #1 in the U.S. at over 21 million people.
Anaheim is in the #2 market of Los Angeles and Orange Counties and can draw from over 16.4 million.

That's over 37 million people from which to draw...(over 6 million more than Canada)...and demographic studies aside...come on...the NFL/NBA/MLB don't seem to have a problem generating TV ratings in these areas.

Now wonder the Tampa-St. Petersburg area at 2.4 million people can't generate TV numbers. Nobody in the U.S. is tuning in for Calgary so forget that.

(dreaming away)

Ahhhhh....I see the days of a highly-skilled, purist Canadian-based National Hockey League, with full arenas based on affordable ticket prices. Where players are happy to be making a maximum of $1 million CDN per year doing what they love to do, and where owners make a healthy profit...it is their investment after all. Where Quebec City and Winnipeg get their teams back....where perhaps even Hamilton is granted a franchise. Where finishing your check doesn't mean finishing your check's career. Where CBC/TSN/Sportsnet continue to draw high ratings. Everyone wins. We keep the Stanley Cup as our trophy.

(dream over)

Truly, though....most of the problem is based in socio-economics both in Canada and the U.S.

Hockey has become a very elitist game. Kids can have a basketball, sneakers, a football, soccer ball, AND a baseball, bat, and glove for way cheaper than quality hockey equipment and ice time fees.

How can we expect a fan base to grow when they don't have the financial opportunity to play the game and pretend to be their heroes?

[seventeen]

CentreHice said:

EDIT: After checking the Calgary newpapers this morning, I guess I pretty much viewed the game with the same eye as Eric Francis of the Calgary Sun.

www.canoe.ca/Slam040601/col_francis-sun.html

I was especially annoyed with the refs over the first call of that double penalty. Moments earlier, a Lightning player flattened Gelina from behind, behind the net. The obvious thing was that he wasn't near the puck. It could have been interference, crosschecking, you name it, and it was let go. Then they call Montadore on a very iffy 'holding' call. It looked more like Montadore was leaning on him than holding. There were a lot of similar situations in the Habs/Lightning series. The refs just seem to be giving Tampa more leeway in their calls.

[CentreHice]

seventeen said:

There were a lot of similar situations in the Habs/Lightning series. The refs just seem to be giving Tampa more leeway in their calls.

The conspiracy theorist portion of my brain says perhaps the "office" spoke with the "officials" in an "off-ice" facility and said something along the lines of, "It would be nice if Calgary didn't go up 3-1."

Chris Clark said he deserved the penalty that put the Flames down 2 men. But they've also been calling the retaliation all year...coincidental minors....Fraser chose to ignore it this time. Only Fraser.

But you're right, it was the first call on Montadore that was weak. Did Fraser make that one too?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

CentreHice said:

Truly, though....most of the problem is based in socio-economics both in Canada and the U.S.

Hockey has become a very elitist game. Kids can have a basketball, sneakers, a football, soccer ball, AND a baseball, bat, and glove for way cheaper than quality hockey equipment and ice time fees.

How can we expect a fan base to grow when they don't have the financial opportunity to play the game and pretend to be their heroes?

An excellent point.

Add to that the fact that for the vast majority of American sports fans/consumers hockey is still a "foreign" game played largely by foreigners (and becoming ever more foreign as the percentage of European players increases yearly), and pffft goes the dream of media revenues approaching those of good old American past-times like baseball, football and basketball.

One of the prime selling points for NHL expansion franchise ownership was a nice slice of the media revenue pie. Care for a crust?

*

But the business problems of hockey go beyond costs and into revenues and the game's acceptance.

For example, the NHL doesn’t have a lucrative U.S. television contract and relies to a heavier extent on gate revenues than other major sports leagues.

The game is also dropping in popularity in the U.S.

A decade ago, ESPN, a U.S. cable sports network, drew an average of one million viewing households to its NHL hockey broadcasts. ESPN said the current audience for a typical game is about 400,000 households.

While Hockey Night In Canada has shown up to three games in a single day, the ABC network in the U.S. will show five games this season.

Although the Anaheim Mighty Ducks and Los Angeles Kings enjoy a rivalry as fierce as the Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames, a game last month wasn't carried on television anywhere in southern California - breaking a string of 52 televised games between the two teams.

During hockey superstar Wayne Gretzky's heyday in Los Angeles, when he led the Kings to the Stanley Cup final in 1993, the Kings had ratings comparable to basketball's Los Angeles Lakers.

- from a CTV News article

*

On the other hand:

TV ratings for fourth game best since '94 Cup final

By William Houston
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - Page S3

The CBC's ratings for the Stanley Cup final are continuing to increase. The fourth game drew 3.45 million viewers, making it the most watched game of a final since the seventh game of the 1994 series between the Vancouver Canucks and New York Rangers. That game pulled in 4.957 million, a National Hockey League record for the CBC.

[blaise]

In the US there's been a general dropoff in interest in sports except in NFL football and NASCAR. Why? Because there's a glut. Too many teams, too many games. Most of the sag in ratings comes at the expense of nationally televised games. Once the local teams are eliminated the fans don't care. How many Coyotes or Capitals fans watched Jarome Iginla and Vincent Lecavalier duke it out?

The increased ratings in Canada (but definitely not in the US) result purely from the novelty of seeing a Canadian team in the Stanley Cup finals. If San Jose had beaten the Flames, the TV sets (except in TB and SJ) would have been tuned to network "Reality" shows, which retain their interest because there are just a few readily identifiable faces on the screen. NFL games and NASCAR races are staged once a week, so the fans don't become jaded. Interest in nationally broadcast out-of-town NFL games survives because they're generally shown on weekends (or Monday nights).

There's far more interest in the NFL draft in the US than in NHL games. The same would apply to a lesser extent to the NBA draft. By contrast, the NHL draft is a footnote on obscure cable channels in the US.

Maybe lopping off half the NHL teams and returning to a 70 game schedule would restore some interest in hockey. A lockout could be the doom of professional hockey.

[Skilly]

CentreHice said:

The conspiracy theorist portion of my brain says perhaps the "office" spoke with the "officials" in an "off-ice" facility and said something along the lines of, "It would be nice if Calgary didn't go up 3-1."

Chris Clark said he deserved the penalty that put the Flames down 2 men. But they've also been calling the retaliation all year...coincidental minors....Fraser chose to ignore it this time. Only Fraser.

But you're right, it was the first call on Montadore that was weak. Did Fraser make that one too?

You want conspiracy ..... I'll give you conspiracy.

1993 - Toronto had LA all but beaten. Fraser fails to call high-sticking on Gretzky in Game 6 - LA wins in OT and Gretz calls game 7 the best game he ever played. The rules at the time were drawing blood is a 5 minute major and a game misconduct. Gretz shouldn't have even been in game 7. The referee - Kerry Fraser

2002 - Montreal had Carolina all but beaten. About to go up 3-1 in the series, leading game 4 3-0, Quintal gets handed a cross-checking penalty but the carolina player goes unscathed. Michel Therrien questions the call, gets handed a penalty and Carolina scores on the 5 on 3 and takes all the momentum from Montreal. The referee - Kerry Fraser.

And now he decides that the NHl needs a good 6 or 7 game series and give Calgary the finger in the process. It is almost like he doesn't like successful canadian teams.

[CentreHice]

Skilly said:

You want conspiracy ..... I'll give you conspiracy.

1993 - Toronto had LA all but beaten. Fraser fails to call high-sticking on Gretzky in Game 6 - LA wins in OT and Gretz calls game 7 the best game he ever played. The rules at the time were drawing blood is a 5 minute major and a game misconduct. Gretz shouldn't have even been in game 7. The referee - Kerry Fraser

And to rub salt into Gilmour's wound....Gretzky scored the Game 6 OT goal, when he should have been in the box. Ah, but it was the Leafs who suffered...so it's okay by me.

The Flames had their chances with two first period PP's after that 1-0 goal...but they missed out....they played a lot like Montreal in that game....missing the net, trying to make the perfect pass....even missing outlet passes....all uncharacteristic of them in these playoffs.
It's as if that 2-man advantage goal really threw a wrench into their game early, in terms of, "I better not do that...I might get a penalty tonight."

Meanwhile the Lightning got away with a couple of blatant calls as Calgary didn't get a PP opportunity in the second or third. That's a long time to hold a 1-0 lead, but I think Fraser's early calls put the kibosh on the Flames' style.

[Strummerman]

The ratings for the final are excellent in canada. i was watching game 6 in a bar on Saturday and the place was packed. So dont tell me no one is watching in Montreal

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Strummerman said:

The ratings for the final are excellent in canada. i was watching game 6 in a bar on Saturday and the place was packed. So dont tell me no one is watching in Montreal

I won't.

*

Does anyone outside of Canada care about the Stanley Cup?

By STEVE WILSTEIN
AP Sports Columnist

Outside of Canada and Tampa Bay, is anyone talking about the Stanley Cup final?

The television audience in the United States is minuscule. Coverage of the Calgary-Tampa Bay series in many newspapers has shrunken to a brief. It's a championship without a buzz.

On the surface, the NHL seems to be drifting from unpopularity to irrelevance, raising the question of whether it still deserves to be called a major league in this country.

- www.leesvilledailyleader.com/articles/2004/06/03/sports/sports4.txt

*

Earlier this week, ESPN Radio's "Mike & Mike in the Morning" show tackled the issue, bringing on guests such as the Chicago Sun-Times' Jay Mariotti and the Dallas Morning News' Tim Cowlishaw.

All of the parties agreed that hockey wasn't in a healthy state, that it does a horrible job of marketing its stars and the game itself could use some work, including possibly widening the rink to Olympic regulations to open up play and accentuate the great speed of the sport.

The disagreements began when the discussion turned to the NHL's place in this country's sports landscape.

There is no doubt that hockey continues to be the fourth team sport in the United States, if for no other reason than by default. Major League Soccer isn't close and Arena Football's surprising ratings aren't enough.

Some argue that it's just the Big Three - the NFL, Major League Baseball and the NBA and in that order. Others put NASCAR and golf above hockey

- www.journalstandard.com/articles/2004/06/06/sports/sports12.txt

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

CBC celebrates playoff ratings amid decline in U.S.

By WILLIAM HOUSTON
Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - Page S3

...The audience figures are measured over an entire telecast. However, for what is known as game-only audiences, those measured from the drop of the puck to the end of the game, Game 7 ranks as the CBC's largest NHL audience ever -- 5.56 million compared with 5.404 for Game 7 in 1994.

For the entire 2004 playoffs, the CBC averaged 2.154 million viewers for each telecast. That's also a record and 35 per cent higher than last year's overall audience figure.

Now, let's look at the United States. ABC's telecast of Game 7 was its last and its executives are probably saying, thank goodness.

ABC earned a national rating of 4.2 (about 4.2 million U.S. households) for Game 7. Although that was a decrease of 9 per cent from last year's rating for Game 7 between New Jersey and Anaheim, it was an improvement over the audiences for the earlier games. Still, it's low.

In 2000, ABC's first year of broadcasting NHL games, the network's combined rating for telecasts of the Stanley Cup final was a 3.7 (about 3.7 million U.S. households). Last year, it was down to a 2.9. This year, it slumped to a 2.6....

- full article

[blaise]

I think the dwindling viewing audience is unfortunate. I thought the finals had considerable entertainment value, unlike last year's Devils-Ducks affair. I was rooting for the Lightning because I admire their playing style and talent, although the Flames were by no means boring to watch.

P.S. I'm glad the Habs remain the last Canadian team to have won the Cup. I hope they claim the honor again before too long.

[Forum Ghost]

Blaise said:

P.S. I'm glad the Habs remain the last Canadian team to have won the Cup. I hope they claim the honor again before too long.

I wanted Calgary to win it, but since they didn't I guess a consolation prize is that the Habs are still the last Canadian team to win the Cup.

Hopefully the last part of M. Beaux-Eaux's signature holds true.

The last Canadian Stanley Cup champions of the 20th century
The first Canadian Stanley Cup champions of the 21st century