triplethreatmark
Grimlock
Party Fouler
I look exactly like this avatar in real life.
Posts: 14,074
|
Post by triplethreatmark on Jan 6, 2013 2:13:56 GMT -5
Oh, lord knows I'd kill for a Brad Doty or Anje Kopidor jersey.   And that amazing tackle Brad Dotey did. Who can forget it? |
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jan 6, 2013 2:21:02 GMT -5
I do think the genpop of the country need either an American to get behind since most cannot play it or a huge personality. That is the key with most sports in this country, IMO. You need people to think they can play it easily (or have played it) or someone they can get behind and root for/against and in most cases it needs to be an American (it can be really anyone as long as they have an amazing personality though). It's the same reason F1 hasn't taken off and Indy Racing has gone to hell, mismanagement, no easy way to watch and lack of someone to root for/against because of it. Danica, for as much as the average race fan cannot stand the attention she gets, draws people in because she's American, decent and hot (yeah that is the most important but the rest makes the hot matter). That combined with the 500 being on ABC brought renewed interest to the 500. It was easily accessible to the common sports fan and gave them someone to root for/against. If NHL could find a person like that (somewhat talented but charismatic), would market the hell out them and most importantly get NBC's help by putting more games on TV channels people can watch the NHL would be a lot more popular I think. I will say, even with all that, Hockey will never reach the levels of popularity that baseball, football, basketball and even soccer enjoy because it's not a pick up and pay thing. There just is no easy way for most of the country to casually play hockey Oh, I'm not pushing for hockey to overtake football, baseball, or basketball. I know that'll never happen; but what would suffice would be a respectability is all. Yeah, I understand what you are going for, I am just trying to say what I see as respectable for hockey in my opinion. I agree to a point. I think marketing the team is important and the goal but most people want a vested interest in what they are watching and just being a team doesn't do that for something that is new to most people. What I am getting at with finding someone and hyping them like that is creating a team that people are going to follow whether because they hate it or love it based on that player (it can even be players if there are enough). How many Bulls fans are there because of what Jordan did or Cowboys fans because of the Staubach Era and Triplet Era or the Yankees because of Ruth, Mantel, Jeter and ARod? On top of that, how many people became fans of teams because they wanted to see another team or player knock off those players and teams? You can only do so much based on location. People in Dallas will follow the Stars but without a rival or someone to draw people in, no one gets invested unless they are gunning for the Cup. When Mike Modano played here, he was all over TV and had the city wanting to see him succeed, that combined with Red Wings dominance of us made helped make people Stars fans. It gave us someone to root for, which became a team to root for and then a rival. He left and the team hasn't done anything to market itself since. They still have the fans he brought in and people want to see us beat the Red Wings but other than that nothing. I guess what I am trying to get at, if you want it to become something that people don't brush off, that they won't mind watching, they need something to make them see hockey as more than that thing played on ice. You need someone that can sell it and then turn that into selling the team game. They need a player in the short term that becomes a team in the long run for them to root for or against since most will never be able to play it. |
|
sryans
Don Corleone
BROOKLYN, BROOKLYN
Posts: 2,001
|
Post by sryans on Jan 6, 2013 2:21:16 GMT -5
I do think the genpop of the country need either an American to get behind since most cannot play it or a huge personality. That is the key with most sports in this country, IMO. You need people to think they can play it easily (or have played it) or someone they can get behind and root for/against and in most cases it needs to be an American (it can be really anyone as long as they have an amazing personality though). It's the same reason F1 hasn't taken off and Indy Racing has gone to hell, mismanagement, no easy way to watch and lack of someone to root for/against because of it. Danica, for as much as the average race fan cannot stand the attention she gets, draws people in because she's American, decent and hot (yeah that is the most important but the rest makes the hot matter). That combined with the 500 being on ABC brought renewed interest to the 500. It was easily accessible to the common sports fan and gave them someone to root for/against. If NHL could find a person like that (somewhat talented but charismatic), would market the hell out them and most importantly get NBC's help by putting more games on TV channels people can watch the NHL would be a lot more popular I think. I will say, even with all that, Hockey will never reach the levels of popularity that baseball, football, basketball and even soccer enjoy because it's not a pick up and pay thing. There just is no easy way for most of the country to casually play hockey Oh, I'm not pushing for hockey to overtake football, baseball, or basketball. I know that'll never happen; but what would suffice would be a respectability is all. Also, can I just say that another thing I can't stand about American sports culture is the fact that there always needs to be an individual to root against/for. I honestly think that advertising the team game is much more important than promoting the individual. Frankly, one either likes and appreciates a sport, or they do not. I mean, people who just shrug off your interests and are all "LOL Who cares?" are just jerks. It has nothing to do with their sporting interests. Personally, I am about as interested in hockey as I am in badminton. That is not a diss on hockey, the few times I have watched it, I have greatly enjoyed watching it. I just simply can't bring myself to care unless it is the olympics. |
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,011
|
Post by nate5054 on Jan 6, 2013 2:30:27 GMT -5
Hockey will always be a fourth tier sport in the US. Probably for a few reasons:
1) It's low scoring, much like soccer, though admittedly it's a much faster paced sport than soccer. On one hand though football is low scoring if you accounted for the fact that TDs are worth 6 points instead of 1, but even if a football team is down 3 scores it feels to me (again, just a personal view here) that there is a path a team can come back from. A 3 goal lead in hockey feels almost insurmountable (though not like soccer where it feels like it's just totally impossible to come back from).
2) It's hard to tell who the players are, especially with all the line changes. Honestly I have no clue who is on the ice half the time I'm watching a hockey game. Interestingly enough I did like playing NHL video games back in the day because the player's name would float about their body in the game. I'd honestly like hockey more if I could figure out how to watch a game like that, though I'll admit I'm probably in the minority.
To expand on that while I haven't really followed hockey much in the past 6 years or so, especially because the Avs haven't been that good, I do know Ryan O'Rielly and Matt Duchane (and the Swedish kid they got last season whose name is not only escaping me but I have no chance in hell of spelling...Landerskog I think) are the star players for the team, but I don't know their numbers and have no idea what lines they are on and when that line is on the ice. The fact they all wear helmets and look the same really hurts, though for safety reasons they should. It doesn't hurt that much in the NFL because the QB is usually the major star and you know where he is at all times.
3) It's just not culturally ingrained in the US other than the northeast. Hell I live in Colorado where we have an NHL team that has won two Stanley Cups since they've moved here and has two pretty damn good college hockey teams and nobody really cares (not that there isn't a good hockey fanbase here, but I hardly hear about hockey being talked in the office unless maybe the Avs are in the Stanley Cup Finals). Let alone places like California and most of the south. Related to this problem is that it's really expensive to play. I wanted to play hockey as a kid but the cost and the fact the only rink was a half hour away from our house made it nearly impossible.
|
|
triplethreatmark
Grimlock
Party Fouler
I look exactly like this avatar in real life.
Posts: 14,074
|
Post by triplethreatmark on Jan 6, 2013 2:50:58 GMT -5
Hockey will always be a fourth tier sport in the US. Probably for a few reasons: 1) It's low scoring, much like soccer, though admittedly it's a much faster paced sport than soccer. On one hand though football is low scoring if you accounted for the fact that TDs are worth 6 points instead of 1, but even if a football team is down 3 scores it feels to me (again, just a personal view here) that there is a path a team can come back from. A 3 goal lead in hockey feels almost insurmountable (though not like soccer where it feels like it's just totally impossible to come back from). 2) It's hard to tell who the players are, especially with all the line changes. Honestly I have no clue who is on the ice half the time I'm watching a hockey game. Interestingly enough I did like playing NHL video games back in the day because the player's name would float about their body in the game. I'd honestly like hockey more if I could figure out how to watch a game like that, though I'll admit I'm probably in the minority. To expand on that while I haven't really followed hockey much in the past 6 years or so, especially because the Avs haven't been that good, I do know Ryan O'Rielly and Matt Duchane (and the Swedish kid they got last season whose name is not only escaping me but I have no chance in hell of spelling...Landerskog I think) are the star players for the team, but I don't know their numbers and have no idea what lines they are on and when that line is on the ice. The fact they all wear helmets and look the same really hurts, though for safety reasons they should. It doesn't hurt that much in the NFL because the QB is usually the major star and you know where he is at all times. 3) It's just not culturally ingrained in the US other than the northeast. Hell I live in Colorado where we have an NHL team that has won two Stanley Cups since they've moved here and has two pretty damn good college hockey teams and nobody really cares (not that there isn't a good hockey fanbase here, but I hardly hear about hockey being talked in the office unless maybe the Avs are in the Stanley Cup Finals). Let alone places like California and most of the south. Related to this problem is that it's really expensive to play. I wanted to play hockey as a kid but the cost and the fact the only rink was a half hour away from our house made it nearly impossible. You and Ric make good points. The thing about the NHL at least is that for whatever reason, they're either too incompetent or too gun shy to advertise anybody as an individual outside of Crosby and Ovechkin. I mean, I know why they do it, they are generational talents overall, but why stop there? I suppose they feel the need to let the teams market themselves, but if the main office isn't doing it, then what initiative do the clubs have? For example, in LA it took us winning the Cup for people to even know who our stars were and what they looked like. I can only imagine what it must be like in Dallas. I mean, do you Ric know who Jamie Benn or Loui Eriksson are? I'm asking this not to insult you, I'm legitimately curious if you know who they are or not. As far as recognizing the players is concerned, it isn't that hard. If you watch a few games in a row, you'll become familiar with who's on what line and so on. I know, easier said than done but if you watch say, 3 or 4 games in a row, you'll pretty much understand who plays where. As an aside, it's interesting you bring up Ryan O'Reiley's name. He's not coming back to America once the lockout's over. He signed a two-year deal with a Russian team in the KHL, Russia's pro hockey league. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2013 2:53:51 GMT -5
Hockey will always be a fourth tier sport in the US. Probably for a few reasons: 1) It's low scoring, much like soccer, though admittedly it's a much faster paced sport than soccer. On one hand though football is low scoring if you accounted for the fact that TDs are worth 6 points instead of 1, but even if a football team is down 3 scores it feels to me (again, just a personal view here) that there is a path a team can come back from. A 3 goal lead in hockey feels almost insurmountable (though not like soccer where it feels like it's just totally impossible to come back from). 2) It's hard to tell who the players are, especially with all the line changes. Honestly I have no clue who is on the ice half the time I'm watching a hockey game. Interestingly enough I did like playing NHL video games back in the day because the player's name would float about their body in the game. I'd honestly like hockey more if I could figure out how to watch a game like that, though I'll admit I'm probably in the minority. To expand on that while I haven't really followed hockey much in the past 6 years or so, especially because the Avs haven't been that good, I do know Ryan O'Rielly and Matt Duchane (and the Swedish kid they got last season whose name is not only escaping me but I have no chance in hell of spelling...Landerskog I think) are the star players for the team, but I don't know their numbers and have no idea what lines they are on and when that line is on the ice. The fact they all wear helmets and look the same really hurts, though for safety reasons they should. It doesn't hurt that much in the NFL because the QB is usually the major star and you know where he is at all times. 3) It's just not culturally ingrained in the US other than the northeast. Hell I live in Colorado where we have an NHL team that has won two Stanley Cups since they've moved here and has two pretty damn good college hockey teams and nobody really cares (not that there isn't a good hockey fanbase here, but I hardly hear about hockey being talked in the office unless maybe the Avs are in the Stanley Cup Finals). Let alone places like California and most of the south. Related to this problem is that it's really expensive to play. I wanted to play hockey as a kid but the cost and the fact the only rink was a half hour away from our house made it nearly impossible. If you're a NFL fan I don't get the 2nd part of your argument since it's harder to keep track of 24 players in the NFL and the camera isn't directly following a player behind like they usually do in hockey where the number appears bigger on TV as well since it's not so zoomed out to keep track of 24 players. |
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jan 6, 2013 3:05:26 GMT -5
You and Ric make good points. The thing about the NHL at least is that for whatever reason, they're either too incompetent or too gun shy to advertise anybody as an individual outside of Crosby and Ovechkin. I mean, I know why they do it, they are generational talents overall, but why stop there? I suppose they feel the need to let the teams market themselves, but if the main office isn't doing it, then what initiative do the clubs have? For example, in LA it took us winning the Cup for people to even know who our stars were and what they looked like. I can only imagine what it must be like in Dallas. I mean, do you Ric know who Jamie Benn or Loui Eriksson are? I'm asking this not to insult you, I'm legitimately curious if you know who they are or not. I know Eriksson because he came up the last time the Stars got any major coverage out here. Benn not at all. Part of the problem Dallas had is when Mike left and the young guys took over, the Rangers and Mavs made huge strides so they took coverage away from the Stars. The time they would have gotten for games or even news coverage was devoted to them so we'd get a final score at best. |
|
triplethreatmark
Grimlock
Party Fouler
I look exactly like this avatar in real life.
Posts: 14,074
|
Post by triplethreatmark on Jan 6, 2013 3:08:45 GMT -5
You and Ric make good points. The thing about the NHL at least is that for whatever reason, they're either too incompetent or too gun shy to advertise anybody as an individual outside of Crosby and Ovechkin. I mean, I know why they do it, they are generational talents overall, but why stop there? I suppose they feel the need to let the teams market themselves, but if the main office isn't doing it, then what initiative do the clubs have? For example, in LA it took us winning the Cup for people to even know who our stars were and what they looked like. I can only imagine what it must be like in Dallas. I mean, do you Ric know who Jamie Benn or Loui Eriksson are? I'm asking this not to insult you, I'm legitimately curious if you know who they are or not. I know Eriksson because he came up the last time the Stars got any major coverage out here. Benn not at all. Really? Geez, again, the clubs just do a real poor job of promoting their stars in their respective cities. Well, in case you were curious, he's one of the team's (and league's really) up and coming stars and is the #1 center on the team. Also, did you have any idea that the Stars signed Jaromir Jagr this past off-season? |
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jan 6, 2013 3:18:11 GMT -5
I know Eriksson because he came up the last time the Stars got any major coverage out here. Benn not at all. Really? Geez, again, the clubs just do a real poor job of promoting their stars in their respective cities. Well, in case you were curious, he's one of the teams up and coming stars and is the #1 center on the team. Also, did you have any idea that the Stars signed Jaromir Jagr this past off-season? I remember hearing about Jagr signing but that was mainly thanks to the internet. I'm hoping that having someone like Jagr on the team along with the young talent and most importantly a new owner will help change things but it's going to be an uphill battle since they cannot get play on anything out here. |
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847 
|
Post by Reflecto on Jan 6, 2013 3:19:56 GMT -5
But that's also a problem as well- a big way for hockey in the USA needs to succeed is to embrace that it's a smaller sport and actively pick smaller markets that have no cities. This was a problem with the Sun Belt expansion as well- while teams like Seattle, KC, and Houston have no teams [and Seattle/KC have no basketball team- which, at least with the Sounders in MLS, has proven can really help a lesser team thrive)- the last expansion had picked poorly for its own sake. If it's Sun Belt elitism, it's one thing- but it's worse when they're picking cities like Atlanta, which has failed twice in 40 years- and because Atlanta's a big US city, we all know the NHL is going to try to expand there AGAIN. Even the cities named have problems- Seattle and Houston never got tested, but Kansas City is a choice because of their arena (and not the fact that the last time Kansas City got an NHL team, they failed so miserably they had to move two years later.)
Indeed, if hockey will succeed in the US, the step shouldn't be "expand to the Sun Belt" or "Expand to the Northern markets", but rather "expand to cities where they won't be competing with basketball in the winter". When that happens, there'll be more of a chance the city takes to hockey- which leads to more rabid, loyal fanbases- which leads to it taking.
|
|
triplethreatmark
Grimlock
Party Fouler
I look exactly like this avatar in real life.
Posts: 14,074
|
Post by triplethreatmark on Jan 6, 2013 3:40:27 GMT -5
But that's also a problem as well- a big way for hockey in the USA needs to succeed is to embrace that it's a smaller sport and actively pick smaller markets that have no cities. This was a problem with the Sun Belt expansion as well- while teams like Seattle, KC, and Houston have no teams [and Seattle/KC have no basketball team- which, at least with the Sounders in MLS, has proven can really help a lesser team thrive)- the last expansion had picked poorly for its own sake. If it's Sun Belt elitism, it's one thing- but it's worse when they're picking cities like Atlanta, which has failed twice in 40 years- and because Atlanta's a big US city, we all know the NHL is going to try to expand there AGAIN. Even the cities named have problems- Seattle and Houston never got tested, but Kansas City is a choice because of their arena (and not the fact that the last time Kansas City got an NHL team, they failed so miserably they had to move two years later.) Indeed, if hockey will succeed in the US, the step shouldn't be "expand to the Sun Belt" or "Expand to the Northern markets", but rather "expand to cities where they won't be competing with basketball in the winter". When that happens, there'll be more of a chance the city takes to hockey- which leads to more rabid, loyal fanbases- which leads to it taking. That's a good point as well. I seriously hope Seattle gets an NHL team soon because from the get-go you'd have a rivalry in place with Vancouver. Not to mention that the rivalry will escalate quickly if you know anything about the Canucks or their fanbase. Anyways, I feel like some Canadians and O6 teams just don;t give sun belt fans a fair chance though. On another forum I won't name, sun belt fans are seen by fans of some of the more established clubs like lepers or something. As if their existence as a Florida Panthers fan or Columbus Blue Jackets fan is an insult to the sport and identity as hockey fans. It's pretty infuriating. In fact just now, there's a large debate on that other forum whether or not Canada's top developmental junior hockey organization, the CHL , should ban all US and European players simply to make the league "more Canadian" again. It's just asinine. |
|
BR329
King Koopa
Support the WWF
Posts: 11,477
|
Post by BR329 on Jan 6, 2013 3:59:23 GMT -5
But that's also a problem as well- a big way for hockey in the USA needs to succeed is to embrace that it's a smaller sport and actively pick smaller markets that have no cities. This was a problem with the Sun Belt expansion as well- while teams like Seattle, KC, and Houston have no teams [and Seattle/KC have no basketball team- which, at least with the Sounders in MLS, has proven can really help a lesser team thrive)- the last expansion had picked poorly for its own sake. If it's Sun Belt elitism, it's one thing- but it's worse when they're picking cities like Atlanta, which has failed twice in 40 years- and because Atlanta's a big US city, we all know the NHL is going to try to expand there AGAIN. Even the cities named have problems- Seattle and Houston never got tested, but Kansas City is a choice because of their arena (and not the fact that the last time Kansas City got an NHL team, they failed so miserably they had to move two years later.) Indeed, if hockey will succeed in the US, the step shouldn't be "expand to the Sun Belt" or "Expand to the Northern markets", but rather "expand to cities where they won't be competing with basketball in the winter". When that happens, there'll be more of a chance the city takes to hockey- which leads to more rabid, loyal fanbases- which leads to it taking. That's a good point as well. I seriously hope Seattle gets an NHL team soon because from the get-go you'd have a rivalry in place with Vancouver. Not to mention that the rivalry will escalate quickly if you know anything about the Canucks or their fanbase. Anyways, I feel like some Canadians and O6 teams just don;t give sun belt fans a fair chance though. On another forum I won't name, sun belt fans are seen by fans of some of the more established clubs like lepers or something. As if their existence as a Florida Panthers fan or Columbus Blue Jackets fan is an insult to the sport and identity as hockey fans. It's pretty infuriating. In fact just now, there's a large debate on that other forum whether or not Canada's top developmental junior hockey organization, the CHL , should ban all US and European players simply to make the league "more Canadian" again. It's just asinine. I'm with you on Seattle. I think hockey would really take off there. Plus there building a new arena in time for the 2015 season. |
|
|
|
Post by Throwback on Jan 6, 2013 4:37:07 GMT -5
I always thought it was funny how Hockey is considered a very Canadian Sport yet we have less than a thirds as many teams as the U.S.A
Canadian Teams = 7
Edmonton Oilers
Calgary Flames
Vancouver Canucks
Toronto Maple Leafs
Montreal Canadiens
Ottawa Senators
Winnipeg Jets
American Teams = 23
1.Chicago Blackhawks
2.Carolina Hurricanes
3.Colorado Avalanche
4.Philadelphia Flyers
5.Pittsburgh Penguins
6.Washington Capitals
7.Anaheim Ducks
8.Buffalo Sabres
9.Columbus Blue Jackets
10.Boston Bruins
11.Tampa Bay Lighting
12.St.Louis Blues
13.Las Angeles Kings
14.San Jose Sharks
15.Nashville Predetors
16.Florida Panthers
17.New York Islanders
18.New York Rangers
19.Dallas Stars
20.Minnesota Wild
21.Pheonix Coyotes
22.New Jersey Devils
23.Detroit Red Wings
|
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jan 6, 2013 5:42:05 GMT -5
I think a big problem is the hockey season happens at a bad time. When there is a season it starts during the period of the year where there is a log jam of sports happening. You have college football, NFL, NBA, and college basketball in addition to hockey. That's too much sports to keep track of at the start of the season. And at the end of the season it is going against end of the season NBA and early season MLB.
Basically hockey is flat out the last sport, next to soccer, on the minds of most Americans.
I myself don't follow the NHL all that much but I do follow the Oklahoma City Barons(and the Blazers before them).
|
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Jan 6, 2013 11:11:28 GMT -5
Honestly one of the things I like about hockey is none of the players come off as ego maniac douchebags, probably because they would get checked alot and into alot of fights. That never stopped Sean Avery. or Chris Pronger. NHL definitely has its share of egomaniac douchebags, they're just more subtle about it (except Avery). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2013 11:41:57 GMT -5
Here's my view on why hockey is treated as a second-class sport, and this from somebody who lives in the shadow of Chicago, which actually treats its Blackhawks hockey somewhat well...when they play.
-Basketball, football and baseball have multi-camera angles and excellent views of each game. You feel like a part of the action. The camera is able to be right there with a close-up of Derrick Rose slamming one down, or Matt Forte being pushed out of bounds and right into your living room.
-In hockey, you have Plexiglas separating the fans from the game. The view you get from cameras behind the glass aren't all that good. The action is almost too much for the fans to take in; it's almost like watching tennis with the constant back-and-forth with the puck. (Plus, the image of hockey mainly being two brutes beating each other up...I won't get into that.)
-Your local station's broadcast of anything sports-related also plays a part in it. If the news station treats it as a big deal, then it will most likely BE a big deal.
If you mention it as an aside..."Oh, by the way, in other sports news, the Chicago Wolves (AHL team) lost to Milwaukee...", then fans will mostly not pay any attention to it.
-Local broadcasting of games makes a big difference. For years, people didn't really care about the Blackhawks - or hockey in general - (save for their "12,000 fans") because you never saw the games on regular TV. It was all on cable. It usually aired on tape delay or was bumped from the schedule for something a little more "exciting" (the Bulls or a local college team doing well, for instance). The old ownership (Dollar Bill Wirtz) refused to put home games on TV, standing by the old adage "If they can watch home games for free on TV, they won't come out to the games."
The new blood (flag-bearer Rocky Wirtz) understood that to create a fan, you have to make things more fan-friendly. Show the darn things on free (WGN) TV! Push your young stars as building blocks for the future! Bring back the old stars (Stan Mikita, Bobby Hull, etc.) and welcome them back to the family! Bridge the gap!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jan 6, 2013 11:58:24 GMT -5
I don't think it was meant as an arrogance kind of thing. It was just his opinion to the questioned that you proposed. More American's would probably pay attention to hockey if the NHL expanded to big US markets without teams (Seattle, KC, Houston etc.) And if done right (AKA not like it was done with the sunbelt expansion) it could work. However for the sake of the league the NHL needs to keep it's Canadian market. The 7 Canadian teams bring in ridiculous amounts of cash and adding a team in Quebec City and/or Southern Ontario would be a license to print money. I didn't mean to call M.O.P arrogant at all. in fact, I really respect his ideas and opinions on the game. I was just saying Americans in general. Yeah I got what you were saying. And like I said, it wasn't something I necessarily think is right myself. But I do think it's a part of why hockey is seen as the fourth sport here even if I don't like it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2013 12:13:45 GMT -5
But that's also a problem as well- a big way for hockey in the USA needs to succeed is to embrace that it's a smaller sport and actively pick smaller markets that have no cities. This was a problem with the Sun Belt expansion as well- while teams like Seattle, KC, and Houston have no teams [and Seattle/KC have no basketball team- which, at least with the Sounders in MLS, has proven can really help a lesser team thrive)- the last expansion had picked poorly for its own sake. If it's Sun Belt elitism, it's one thing- but it's worse when they're picking cities like Atlanta, which has failed twice in 40 years- and because Atlanta's a big US city, we all know the NHL is going to try to expand there AGAIN. Even the cities named have problems- Seattle and Houston never got tested, but Kansas City is a choice because of their arena (and not the fact that the last time Kansas City got an NHL team, they failed so miserably they had to move two years later.) Indeed, if hockey will succeed in the US, the step shouldn't be "expand to the Sun Belt" or "Expand to the Northern markets", but rather "expand to cities where they won't be competing with basketball in the winter". When that happens, there'll be more of a chance the city takes to hockey- which leads to more rabid, loyal fanbases- which leads to it taking. That's a good point as well. I seriously hope Seattle gets an NHL team soon because from the get-go you'd have a rivalry in place with Vancouver. Not to mention that the rivalry will escalate quickly if you know anything about the Canucks or their fanbase. Anyways, I feel like some Canadians and O6 teams just don;t give sun belt fans a fair chance though. On another forum I won't name, sun belt fans are seen by fans of some of the more established clubs like lepers or something. As if their existence as a Florida Panthers fan or Columbus Blue Jackets fan is an insult to the sport and identity as hockey fans. It's pretty infuriating. In fact just now, there's a large debate on that other forum whether or not Canada's top developmental junior hockey organization, the CHL , should ban all US and European players simply to make the league "more Canadian" again. It's just asinine. Well it's asinine that they are paying the top European players money under the table to come to the CHL. And I don't mean a little bit more of money but six times more than the other players so the CHL and the CHL team has bragging rights we had the #1 overall draft pick. Also Koda you better be watching the Barons whether on TV or Live  |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 6, 2013 12:40:38 GMT -5
Hockey will always be a fourth tier sport in the US. Probably for a few reasons: 1) It's low scoring, much like soccer, though admittedly it's a much faster paced sport than soccer. On one hand though football is low scoring if you accounted for the fact that TDs are worth 6 points instead of 1, but even if a football team is down 3 scores it feels to me (again, just a personal view here) that there is a path a team can come back from. A 3 goal lead in hockey feels almost insurmountable (though not like soccer where it feels like it's just totally impossible to come back from). 2) It's hard to tell who the players are, especially with all the line changes. Honestly I have no clue who is on the ice half the time I'm watching a hockey game. Interestingly enough I did like playing NHL video games back in the day because the player's name would float about their body in the game. I'd honestly like hockey more if I could figure out how to watch a game like that, though I'll admit I'm probably in the minority. To expand on that while I haven't really followed hockey much in the past 6 years or so, especially because the Avs haven't been that good, I do know Ryan O'Rielly and Matt Duchane (and the Swedish kid they got last season whose name is not only escaping me but I have no chance in hell of spelling...Landerskog I think) are the star players for the team, but I don't know their numbers and have no idea what lines they are on and when that line is on the ice. The fact they all wear helmets and look the same really hurts, though for safety reasons they should. It doesn't hurt that much in the NFL because the QB is usually the major star and you know where he is at all times. 3) It's just not culturally ingrained in the US other than the northeast. Hell I live in Colorado where we have an NHL team that has won two Stanley Cups since they've moved here and has two pretty damn good college hockey teams and nobody really cares (not that there isn't a good hockey fanbase here, but I hardly hear about hockey being talked in the office unless maybe the Avs are in the Stanley Cup Finals). Let alone places like California and most of the south. Related to this problem is that it's really expensive to play. I wanted to play hockey as a kid but the cost and the fact the only rink was a half hour away from our house made it nearly impossible. If you're a NFL fan I don't get the 2nd part of your argument since it's harder to keep track of 24 players in the NFL and the camera isn't directly following a player behind like they usually do in hockey where the number appears bigger on TV as well since it's not so zoomed out to keep track of 24 players. I think the NFL is easier in that there are defined positions that are really easy to determine because they do their job and little else. You know who the QB is on the field, not because you see his face, but because he's always in the same role. There aren't that many different scorers and they don't move around nearly as much as hockey players because it's a slower paced game (as far as zipping around the field of play goes), so it becomes easier to pick them out. You know who they hand the ball to, who throws it, and a few of the players who might catch it, the roles are a lot more solid. Meanwhile, most people really don't know, for example, all of the linemen. As far as the low scoring goes, baseball is still huge and that's low scoring as well (as well as being slower than soccer). I think it's the culture thing, it's just not a part of the culture at large outside of the northeast. |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 6, 2013 12:47:59 GMT -5
Bigger goals
Americans like high scoring
|
|
