An intelligent colum about hockey's ratings? really?

Yes someone who isn't a hockey writer actually has an intelligent view on why the NHL's TV ratings are so low. Sure he points ot how miserable they are this year, but he also... GASP!!!.. talks to a hockey person about his strategy and actually presents a different side to the issue. I know this means he had to interview a hockey person, and do some research (well at least a little) but even though I don't agree with his conclusion he didn't come off looking like a petulant mean-spirited jerk.

7 comments:

  1. It wasn't the slash-and-burn job we're used to, but it also doesn't get to the real problem with the NHL's ratings, which is that EVEN HOCKEY FANS AREN'T WATCHING. That speaks to a problem with coverage more than anything else. Watch a NASCAR race and tell me there aren't technological advancements in audio and video the NHL isn't using, ones that can bring the game to life better than one giant camera swinging back and forth like it's filming a ping-pong match.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey when you get the treatment that Hockey does, and actual honest look at the sport seems downright refreshing.

    True it doesn't get to the real problems, but there is little out there that gets down to the real problems. If the NFL can use those hanging camera's on the field why can't the NHL have something similar?

    ReplyDelete
  3. NBC used their little pop-up icons to identify players on the ice during the few playoff games they aired. That was a cool feature that I think a lot of casual sports fans can appreciate.

    But yeah, the quality of TV coverage is way too old-school to appeal to modern American sports fans and their 2.6-second attention spans.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hockey is a complicated game. It relies on traditional values, but tries to make technological advancements to improve the game. As bad as the Fox Puck was, the game has moved forward considerably from 10 years ago: reporters and color commentators between the benches, cameras inside the net, helmet cameras on goalies, and mic'ed up players to hear what they are saying on the ice.

    The problem is that if no one is watching and no major network is carrying the game, no one is willing to test out new technology within the game. It's a process of evolution: people watch, networks notice, more technology is introduced.

    That's what happened to NASCAR, and that's what has to happen here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That actually wasn't too bad. Wasn't great, for the reasons mentioned above, but it wasn't the same mad-libbs story about how th eNHL isn't a real league and nobody cares. He at least took the time to show both opinions and talk to somebody that has acute understanding of the game. Unlike some of the Canadian media leading up to the Stanley Cup that went out of thier way to find Californians who couldn't pick Pronger out of a line-up.

    Balanced? Sure. Fair? Pretty close. Particularly insightful? Not really.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pronger in a line-up. Heh, good hypothetical. :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. That was my feeling exactly Mike. I was just happy he attempted to actually say something new about it.

    Also keep in mingd it's not particularly insightful to us, hockey fans. A non-hockey fan whose used to the "MAD-LIBS" type of hockey article (a great description of it BTW) might actually find something new in there,. That's good because that's who the audience of the article is supposed to be

    ReplyDelete