The Invisible Sport
Wednesday evening I decided to watch the defending Stanley Cup champion Carolina Hurricanes face off against the Buffalo Sabres to kick off the 2006-07 National Hockey League season. The Sabres got a little revenge after losing to the Hurricanes in the eastern conference finals last season by winning the game 3-2 after a shoot-out. It was a pretty good game but I’m sure most televisions across American weren’t tuned in.
Nobody watches hockey on television and American sports fans just don't seem to care about the NHL. The league has a core of loyal fans and attendance seems to be healthy. I’m always surprised by how many jerseys I see in the stands when I watch a game in person. It really seems that more hockey fans wear jerseys than in any other sport and that’s a sign of how dedicated those fans are.
Last year the NHL made a strong return after the cancelled 2004-05 season. Hockey fans were glad to have the sport back and embraced the new rules, which opened up the game and replaced ties with shoot-outs. Revenues and attendance were up. But TV ratings and the general popularity of the sport continued to slide. I’m sure the move from ESPN to the Outdoor Life Network, now called Versus, didn’t help matters.
You would think that a game that combines the violence of football, the speed of basketball, and the grace of baseball would be more popular. I have a few theories why it’s not. The first problem is you don’t have a player right now in the NHL that transcends the sport. The sport needs another Wayne Gretzky, someone who all sports fans can identify as being the best in his sport and possibly best ever. Thankfully for the league, there are two youngsters who showcased last year that type of potential in their rookie campaigns: Sydney Crosby of the Pittsburgh Penguins and Alexander Ovechkin of the Washington Capitals. If one or both continue to develop and win a couple of Stanley Cups, they might be able to draw more people to the sport.
The next issue that is hindering the popularity of hockey is one that is not unique to this sport, but still needs to be addressed. There are too many teams in the league. Do we really need the Nashville Predators, Atlanta Thrashers, Columbus Blue Jackets, Florida Panthers, San Jose Sharks, or Anaheim Ducks? If the league was whittled down, the remaining teams would become more talented and the action on the ice would become more exciting.
A third possible explanation for the limited appeal of the sport is the influx of European players. For the longest time players in the NHL were usually from Canada or possibly the United States. In the nineties you began to see more European players, particularly Russians, and their number continued to grow until the league actually divided all-star teams into a North American team and World team from 1998 to 2002. I don’t have anything against the European players, but their presence does make the sport feel more alien than it did when it was mostly Canadians playing. I really have no idea how this issue can be addressed. Obviously getting more American youth to play the sport would help, but outside of the northeast, I don’t see how that can happen.
So what does the future of hockey hold. I’m not sure but it doesn’t look good. I fear the worst. But even in the worst case scenario, I think with the changed rules in place and the current collective bargain agreement, the league should be able to hold on to its core fans. That means that at the very least I’ll still be able to jump on the LA Kings bandwagon whenever they make the playoffs again. As for when the Kings might do that, that’s a story for another day.
Nobody watches hockey on television and American sports fans just don't seem to care about the NHL. The league has a core of loyal fans and attendance seems to be healthy. I’m always surprised by how many jerseys I see in the stands when I watch a game in person. It really seems that more hockey fans wear jerseys than in any other sport and that’s a sign of how dedicated those fans are.
Last year the NHL made a strong return after the cancelled 2004-05 season. Hockey fans were glad to have the sport back and embraced the new rules, which opened up the game and replaced ties with shoot-outs. Revenues and attendance were up. But TV ratings and the general popularity of the sport continued to slide. I’m sure the move from ESPN to the Outdoor Life Network, now called Versus, didn’t help matters.
You would think that a game that combines the violence of football, the speed of basketball, and the grace of baseball would be more popular. I have a few theories why it’s not. The first problem is you don’t have a player right now in the NHL that transcends the sport. The sport needs another Wayne Gretzky, someone who all sports fans can identify as being the best in his sport and possibly best ever. Thankfully for the league, there are two youngsters who showcased last year that type of potential in their rookie campaigns: Sydney Crosby of the Pittsburgh Penguins and Alexander Ovechkin of the Washington Capitals. If one or both continue to develop and win a couple of Stanley Cups, they might be able to draw more people to the sport.
The next issue that is hindering the popularity of hockey is one that is not unique to this sport, but still needs to be addressed. There are too many teams in the league. Do we really need the Nashville Predators, Atlanta Thrashers, Columbus Blue Jackets, Florida Panthers, San Jose Sharks, or Anaheim Ducks? If the league was whittled down, the remaining teams would become more talented and the action on the ice would become more exciting.
A third possible explanation for the limited appeal of the sport is the influx of European players. For the longest time players in the NHL were usually from Canada or possibly the United States. In the nineties you began to see more European players, particularly Russians, and their number continued to grow until the league actually divided all-star teams into a North American team and World team from 1998 to 2002. I don’t have anything against the European players, but their presence does make the sport feel more alien than it did when it was mostly Canadians playing. I really have no idea how this issue can be addressed. Obviously getting more American youth to play the sport would help, but outside of the northeast, I don’t see how that can happen.
So what does the future of hockey hold. I’m not sure but it doesn’t look good. I fear the worst. But even in the worst case scenario, I think with the changed rules in place and the current collective bargain agreement, the league should be able to hold on to its core fans. That means that at the very least I’ll still be able to jump on the LA Kings bandwagon whenever they make the playoffs again. As for when the Kings might do that, that’s a story for another day.
posted by The Pocho at 12:17 PM
2 Comments:
I agree, it's just not that easy to get into hockey for casual fans anymore. Back in the early 90's when I got briefly interested in the NHL, hockey was at its zenith in terms of American and Canadian players in their primes -- Gretzky, Lemieux, Ray Bourque, Pat LaFontaine, Brett Hull, Patrick Roy, Steve Yzerman, Brian Leetch, Eddie Belfour, Jeremy Roenick, etc. Now it's seemingly all Finns, Czechs and Russians and lots of really washed up Americans and Canadians. The NBA should take some note -- being the best league in the world is important, but so is not alienating your existing fanbase.
Good point about the NBA. I'm not sure why Stern seems so focused on trying to broaden it's appeal outside of the US.
Post a Comment
<< Home