So hockey is back and, once again, it's time to listen to the typical laments of hockey fans and "experts" listing all the wrong reasons why no one cares about the NHL.Take, for example, the poll on this very website which identified all the typical "problems." To review, the question was: "What is to blame for the NHL's lack of popularity? A. Hockey just isn't American; B. Too many other sports options; C. Lack of Scoring; D. No recognizable stars to market; E. Who cares, more tickets for me.
Excuse me while I try to slowly puncture a hole in my temple with my cell phone antenna...
OK... since that didn't work, I will finish my column. How about another choice?: "None of the above." The main reason for hockey's lack of popularity is the NHL's bone-headed decision to keep games off of ESPN, combined with the utter lack of a coherent marketing strategy.
Bottom line: it's the league, stupid.
I know people love to use the lockout as an excuse for the game's flagging popularity, and maybe there's some truth to that - especially for anyone who was on the fence about being a full-fledged fan. Still, there's a question that I can't seem to answer, and it goes something like this:
If you were a hockey fan before the lockout, why wouldn't you still be one now?
The quality of play has never been better. Rule changes have made for a more wide-open game, paving the way for those goals that everyone seemed to be clamoring for. The elimination of the two-line pass and tag-up offsides (for the hockey-illiterate, just understand for now that it means less stoppage of play) have provided fans with longer and more exciting stretches of continuous action. For all the flak that other sports get for games taking too long - baseball, anyone? - a regular season hockey game is over in about two hours. What other sport can you start watching at 7 and still be done early enough to catch your favorite primetime shows?
Sure, teams are still adjusting to the stricter penalty rules, and of course it's harder to play defense now...but the elimination of the old holding and hooking tactics means that we get to see spectacular plays made by new kinds of players. Alex Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby are prototypes for the 21st-century NHL star. Going by the wayside are goons who can't skate or forwards, like Theo Fluery, who wouldn't hit anything unless it was a bar after the game. Ovechkin and Crosby can do it all. Ovechkin in particular is a freight train who enjoys knocking over opponents as much as he enjoys scoring goals - or knocking over opponents while carrying the puck en route to scoring goals, for that matter.
Combine this novelty with the resurgence of players like Jaromir Jagr and the continued dominance of should-be geriatrics like Joe Thornton and Brendan Shanahan, and it's clear that the NHL has never been higher on star power. In fact, the NHL has more players capable of stealing the show than any of the other pro sports leagues.
So why isn't anyone watching?
In a fit of shortsightedness, the NHL chose to shoot itself in the foot by demanding more than ESPN was willing to pay for the right to broadcast games. The alternative? The league took the money from another network, OLN. (Now called VS., according to rumor. No one knows for sure, because no one's ever heard of OLN or VS.)
The money, of course, is worth nothing, because it comes entirely at the expense of long-term revenue. By limiting its potential market to only those customers who get VS., the NHL has assured the stagnant growth of its fan base. How can people get interested when they don't know where to turn?
It's no secret that the pop sports universe begins and ends with ESPN. It's also no secret that ESPN promotes its own interests, which explains why the newtowrk devotes so much air time to the WNBA and the women's Final Four. If it's covered by ESPN or ABC, you can be it'll be on SportsCenter. If it's not, well...how many hockey highlights have you seen lately? If the NHL had trouble growing its fan base before the lockout, it was because of the old rules. With the new rules and the new players, ESPN's hype would have drawn people to the game. But the league screwed the pooch on the TV deal, and now it's paying the price for it.
The other problem with the NHL is that it clearly has no marketing plan. In order to get people to watch hockey, you have to give them a reason to watch hockey. The casual sports fan likes drama and will watch anything if the story line and the characters are compelling enough. Hockey players are great role models: they rarely get arrested and they do countless hours of charity work in their local communities. Even better, most - with the notable exceptions of Darius Kasparaitis and Donald Brashear - are good-looking enough to model for Ralph Lauren. There are no sloppy offensive linemen, no freakishly tall goofballs (Zdeno Chara excluded), no slobs like David Wells. Why the NHL doesn't expose its players more to the female audience is beyond me. Run ads on Lifetime, or do something like the NFL's United Way campaign during "Desperate Housewives"... anything to appeal to the women out there. If hockey were the only sport the wife would watch, I guarantee you the husband would quickly become a hockey fan.
In addition, the coverage of hockey is abysmal on local TV, and only slightly less confusing on national telecasts. Forget the theory about not being able to follow the puck. The reason people have no interest in watching hockey is because they can't follow the PLAYERS. What other sport is there where you have no idea who is playing at any given moment? With all the advances in TV technology, the NHL still broadcasts hockey the same way it did 20 years ago.
NBC used the fly-by-wire camera sparingly last year...which was a start, but only a start. We need to be shown the names of the players coming onto the ice during line changes, and we need to know when those changes occur. Why not a picture-in-picture at the top of the screen showing the benches during key substitutions? One of the "coolest" and most unique things about hockey is the way that the players jump on and off the ice like James Dean hopping in and out of a convertible. Let's highlight it, for godsakes.
Hockey is a fantastic game, played by fantastic players with an incomparable set of skills and savvy. The reason that no one is watching is because the NHL has made sure that no one can watch. Do any hockey fans even know what channel VS. is off the top of their heads? Until the NHL makes a concerted effort to reach out to the sports world, the league will continue to find itself in the same spot it does now: cold and alone, on the ragged edge of the cable dial. There's no place like home, but come on...
Bottom line: it's the league, stupid.
I know people love to use the lockout as an excuse for the game's flagging popularity, and maybe there's some truth to that - especially for anyone who was on the fence about being a full-fledged fan. Still, there's a question that I can't seem to answer, and it goes something like this:
If you were a hockey fan before the lockout, why wouldn't you still be one now?
The quality of play has never been better. Rule changes have made for a more wide-open game, paving the way for those goals that everyone seemed to be clamoring for. The elimination of the two-line pass and tag-up offsides (for the hockey-illiterate, just understand for now that it means less stoppage of play) have provided fans with longer and more exciting stretches of continuous action. For all the flak that other sports get for games taking too long - baseball, anyone? - a regular season hockey game is over in about two hours. What other sport can you start watching at 7 and still be done early enough to catch your favorite primetime shows?
Sure, teams are still adjusting to the stricter penalty rules, and of course it's harder to play defense now...but the elimination of the old holding and hooking tactics means that we get to see spectacular plays made by new kinds of players. Alex Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby are prototypes for the 21st-century NHL star. Going by the wayside are goons who can't skate or forwards, like Theo Fluery, who wouldn't hit anything unless it was a bar after the game. Ovechkin and Crosby can do it all. Ovechkin in particular is a freight train who enjoys knocking over opponents as much as he enjoys scoring goals - or knocking over opponents while carrying the puck en route to scoring goals, for that matter.
Combine this novelty with the resurgence of players like Jaromir Jagr and the continued dominance of should-be geriatrics like Joe Thornton and Brendan Shanahan, and it's clear that the NHL has never been higher on star power. In fact, the NHL has more players capable of stealing the show than any of the other pro sports leagues.
So why isn't anyone watching?
In a fit of shortsightedness, the NHL chose to shoot itself in the foot by demanding more than ESPN was willing to pay for the right to broadcast games. The alternative? The league took the money from another network, OLN. (Now called VS., according to rumor. No one knows for sure, because no one's ever heard of OLN or VS.)
The money, of course, is worth nothing, because it comes entirely at the expense of long-term revenue. By limiting its potential market to only those customers who get VS., the NHL has assured the stagnant growth of its fan base. How can people get interested when they don't know where to turn?
It's no secret that the pop sports universe begins and ends with ESPN. It's also no secret that ESPN promotes its own interests, which explains why the newtowrk devotes so much air time to the WNBA and the women's Final Four. If it's covered by ESPN or ABC, you can be it'll be on SportsCenter. If it's not, well...how many hockey highlights have you seen lately? If the NHL had trouble growing its fan base before the lockout, it was because of the old rules. With the new rules and the new players, ESPN's hype would have drawn people to the game. But the league screwed the pooch on the TV deal, and now it's paying the price for it.
The other problem with the NHL is that it clearly has no marketing plan. In order to get people to watch hockey, you have to give them a reason to watch hockey. The casual sports fan likes drama and will watch anything if the story line and the characters are compelling enough. Hockey players are great role models: they rarely get arrested and they do countless hours of charity work in their local communities. Even better, most - with the notable exceptions of Darius Kasparaitis and Donald Brashear - are good-looking enough to model for Ralph Lauren. There are no sloppy offensive linemen, no freakishly tall goofballs (Zdeno Chara excluded), no slobs like David Wells. Why the NHL doesn't expose its players more to the female audience is beyond me. Run ads on Lifetime, or do something like the NFL's United Way campaign during "Desperate Housewives"... anything to appeal to the women out there. If hockey were the only sport the wife would watch, I guarantee you the husband would quickly become a hockey fan.
In addition, the coverage of hockey is abysmal on local TV, and only slightly less confusing on national telecasts. Forget the theory about not being able to follow the puck. The reason people have no interest in watching hockey is because they can't follow the PLAYERS. What other sport is there where you have no idea who is playing at any given moment? With all the advances in TV technology, the NHL still broadcasts hockey the same way it did 20 years ago.
NBC used the fly-by-wire camera sparingly last year...which was a start, but only a start. We need to be shown the names of the players coming onto the ice during line changes, and we need to know when those changes occur. Why not a picture-in-picture at the top of the screen showing the benches during key substitutions? One of the "coolest" and most unique things about hockey is the way that the players jump on and off the ice like James Dean hopping in and out of a convertible. Let's highlight it, for godsakes.
Hockey is a fantastic game, played by fantastic players with an incomparable set of skills and savvy. The reason that no one is watching is because the NHL has made sure that no one can watch. Do any hockey fans even know what channel VS. is off the top of their heads? Until the NHL makes a concerted effort to reach out to the sports world, the league will continue to find itself in the same spot it does now: cold and alone, on the ragged edge of the cable dial. There's no place like home, but come on...
We're going to send you the most entertaining NHL articles, videos, and podcasts from around the web.
6 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete