Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
puckhead63

The Pens...Bettman...won't make the same mistake twice

Recommended Posts

If he had done that in Hartford, I would have been enjoying the cup last year.
This kind of statement is probably why you catch the kind of heat you get around here.

C'mon....thats not a slam against you guys at all, you know that. It's simply saying if Bettman worked as hard as he is in Pittsburgh, in Hartford. They may have never left. I'm talking bettman here not the canes. There was no insult there towards you guys at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not slam persay, but when you go to someone's house you don't put your feet on the coffee table.

Nope...still no slam, no disrespect at all. Anyway if by chance I had my feet on the coffee table, I had my shoes off when I did it...not as bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not slam persay, but when you go to someone's house you don't put your feet on the coffee table.

Nope...still no slam, no disrespect at all. Anyway if by chance I had my feet on the coffee table, I had my shoes off when I did it...not as bad.

that would depend on if your feet stink!!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not slam persay, but when you go to someone's house you don't put your feet on the coffee table.

Nope...still no slam, no disrespect at all. Anyway if by chance I had my feet on the coffee table, I had my shoes off when I did it...not as bad.

that would depend on if your feet stink!!! :lol:

lol...no stink here....well ,maybe. Anyway,before this turns into a weird foot fetish thread back to that loser Bettman..lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a guy at my friends work who had customers take off their shoes to take pics of their feet! He also had girls take off their shirts and take pics but Im not gonna talk about that right now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple fact is Bettman doesn't want a team to relocate "now" because it looks extremely bad right after he he spent an entire year in a lockout constructing what "should" be a financially flawless CBA. It would make him look like the idiot he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand the business sense in locking Canada out of NHL franchises. There's got to be a reason. Maybe there are laws in Canada that would cause problems for things like moving teams or something.

This deal is nothing like moving the Whalers. I guarantee that if this were an original WHA team being purchased and moved to Wyoming, it would be a done deal. Edmonton better hurry up and build a new arena or they might be back to tipping cows for fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just don't understand the business sense in locking Canada out of NHL franchises. There's got to be a reason.

1989 stanley cup finals featured the montreal canadians vs the calgary flames and recorded the lowest tv ratings across America ever. The NHL lost millions that year and learnt a valuable lesson.

Americans are not interested in watching Canadian NHL teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1989 stanley cup finals featured the montreal canadians vs the calgary flames and recorded the lowest tv ratings across America ever. The NHL lost millions that year and learnt a valuable lesson.

Americans are not interested in watching Canadian NHL teams.

That's blanket conclusion and I think you're kidding yourself if you think American hockey fans will simply tune-out because it's an all-Canadian match up.

I've heard that argument used before but rarely are the dynamics of the TV deal at the time included in the discussion. The fact is that much like last year, ESPN wasn't the official hockey network that year, it was SportsChannel America and they were in their first year. Just as ratings were awful last year on OLN during the season because of significantly fewer subscribers (vs. ESPN) with a niche cable channel the same was true that year.

Unlike last year though when NBC broadcast the Stanley Cup Finals, SportsChannel America aired the Calgary/Montreal final. It's an obvious ingredient for bad ratings in the U.S.

Canadians seem to have been rooting hard lately for Canadian teams to win the Cup but my experience is that American loyalties are much more likely to be split based on who is playing. The bottom line though is the "Americans won't watch Canadian teams play" argument does not hold up under scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bottom line though is the "Americans won't watch Canadian teams play" argument does not hold up under scrutiny.

There is no scrutiny and it's not a blanket statement, it's fact. You're making it sound like it's the broadcasting stations that affect public interest, when it's the other way around. If large broadcasting stations have a strong inclination that people won't watch a particular program, then they won't run it. It's as simple as that. People aren't drones who watch whatever is presented to them on their basic cable package, they watch what interests them.

The fact is that much like last year, ESPN wasn't the official hockey network that year, it was SportsChannel America and they were in their first year. Just as ratings were awful last year on OLN during the season because of significantly fewer subscribers (vs. ESPN) with a niche cable channel the same was true that year.

Why do you think OLN/Sports Channel America and not ESPN has been the official hockey network in America? The question answers itself. Major networks are not going to commit to something they won't be garaunteed strong turnover and the NHL across america can't generate that. If it could, Bettman wouldn't have to broadcast NHL games over the internet instead of the traditional way on televisions. Internet broadcasting doesn't tell me hockey is growing, it tells me the NHL can't even convince people to leave their computers.

If you want an actual example. Watch old MTL/CAR playoff games and pay attention to the boards advertisements in the RBC. You'll see quite a few Canadian ads like Tim Horton's or Canadian Tire. The reason is because local companies across the greater Raleigh region weren't buying the space. I don't live in Raleigh so I don't know the exact reasons, but if I were to guess, it's probably because companies in Raleigh didn't see the point in paying for ad space that very few people across North Carolina are going to actually see.

Unlike last year though when NBC broadcast the Stanley Cup Finals, SportsChannel America aired the Calgary/Montreal final. It's an obvious ingredient for bad ratings in the U.S.

Would NBC ever broadcast an all Canadian finals?

Canadians seem to have been rooting hard lately for Canadian teams to win the Cup but my experience is that American loyalties are much more likely to be split based on who is playing.

You're starting to turn this into a Canada/America battle and I want to correct this early, because that's not what my initial point was trying to make. My argument is that hockey is a regional sport (in terms of populatity) across America. You may have a strong vested interest in the sport, but you don't speak for the general public (although that's what both of us are trying to do).

It's not that America hockey fans don't care about Canadian teams, they don't care to watch any team but their own (this fact is more true in non-traditional markets then traditional). Bettman isn't having trouble getting people in Tampa to what Lightning games, or people in Dallas to watch Stars games. The problem is getting people in Tampa or Dallas to watch games that don't involve the stars or lightning.

There's a reason why the Cowboys are called "America's Team", because many people outside will tune in to watch Cowby games regardless if they are a fan. The Yankees serve the same purpose in baseball. It you're not a fan of the Yankees you'll still watch some games hoping t see them lose. There is no team in the NHL that accomplishes the same job....the Rangers try, but they fail at this.

So the real bottom line is.....if the general audience of America is uninterested in watching other America franchises play, the conclusion is they would be even less interested in watching non-American franchises.

Look I'm really want to agree with you here, but I just can't. If what you are saying is true, then the NHL would take the risk of expanding further into Canadian cities, but they don't seem to be doing that. What I'm trying to talk about is economics here, not any form of cultural nationalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can we all simply agree that if there is to be expansion or whatever......HARTFORD, QUEBEC AND EITHER HAMILTON OR WINNIPEG GET THE TEAMS....on the fence about winnipeg, nbot sure why yet. Let me think about it and I'll get back to ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're starting to turn this into a Canada/America battle and I want to correct this early, because that's not what my initial point was trying to make.

I'm not trying to do that in the least. You are the one who wrote "Americans are not interested in watching Canadian NHL teams." I merely included relevant information that you overlooked.

My simple point was that you made a wide-sweeping conclusion based on TV ratings from the 1989 Calgary-Montreal finals that didn't take into account the broadcast coverage situation.

Hockey is not a mainstream sport in the U.S. and on that point we agree. However, when ESPN carries hockey and then pulls the plug and a virtual unknown cable company in the form of SportsChannel America with limited subscribers takes over, it's an inherent problem. They had exclusive rights with no national partner for the Finals so it stands to reason in their first year that the Finals ratings would be terrible. In the post I replied to that was the sole evidence you used to support your contention that Americans are not interested in watching Canadian teams.

It just so happened that it was an all Canadian final that year. Your conclusion in my opinion mixes cause and effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vegas, Cleveland or Kansas City will get a team first.

Cleveland won't get a team with Columbus already having one but K.C. does keep getting a lot of play.

I've heard Las Vegas too and I can't believe they would even consider it given the Tocchet situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kansas City a possibility ( funny how cities that had teams keep getting them back......next?) Las Vegas I think would be a joke and Cleveland, thats the first I've heard of that, not getting a good vibe about Cleveland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stormrider....

How long did this SportsChannel American hold that exclusive rights?

Montreal and Calgary also played in the finals and 86 as well....and if my memory serves me correct, I'm almost certain tv ratings were dismal that year too.

I wasn't trying to make a wide spread generalisation, I just didn't think I had to write a long winded essay everytime i try to explain this. It only makes people in here upset to hear the same cliche arguments over and over, so I tried to keep it brief.

Hockey popularity in America is commonly associated with player names and not city names. Despite the fact that Montreal played slow boring hockey when they won the cup in 93, the finals that year got relatively good exposure because Gretzky was on LA. Broadcasting stations take this into consideration and realise that unless there is a team with a superstar on it making a strong run for the cup, it becomes extremely hard to sell the NHL playoffs to the general audience in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stormrider....

How long did this SportsChannel American hold that exclusive rights?

Montreal and Calgary also played in the finals and 86 as well....and if my memory serves me correct, I'm almost certain tv ratings were dismal that year too.

They only had the rights for a few years but the 1989 Stanley Cup final was their first which was the key consideration. They were a rag tag outfit and had substantially lower number of subscribers than did ESPN.

Yes, Montreal and Calgary did play in 1986 but I don't know about the ratings. That match up though was significantly different than the rematch where they were the two elite teams in the NHL. In 1986 neither team won their division nor did they crack 90 points - no exactly an elite match up which is what usually will attract U.S. audiences.

For example in this year's World Series you had the wild card Tigers who were bad down the stretch and the barely above .500 Cardinals who nearly coughed up their lead to Houston and missed the playoffs altogether. There was collective indifference, except in their home markets, because the sense was that it was not a match up of two upper echelon teams and the ratings reflected it.

So in the NHL in '86 you had the same kind of thing but they were Canadian teams. In 1989 they had a rematch and were the top teams in the NHL but were below the radar on TV with a sorry broadcast partner.

Again, my point is that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to explain low ratings which have little if anything to do with the fact that it's a match up of two Canadian teams which was your premise. I know plenty of people here who rooted for Calgary vs. Tampa Bay because Gelinas was a Flame and had been so popular here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can we all simply agree that if there is to be expansion or whatever......HARTFORD, QUEBEC AND EITHER HAMILTON OR WINNIPEG GET THE TEAMS....on the fence about winnipeg, nbot sure why yet. Let me think about it and I'll get back to ya
yeah I'd want to agree with you here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stormrider....

You're points value merit, there are probably many reasons that can attribute to low tv ratings for hockey games. And I will agree with you that Championship tv ratings will vary for multiple reasons too.

Regradless, the simple fact is.....by restricting future expansions and relocations away from Canada you also eliminate many of those possible reasons. It's clearly possible that NBC may one day be able to broadcast an all Canadian final under the right circumstances, but financially speaking lets not take the chance.

This is what i believe to be the logic behind Bettman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that Kansas City is bigger than Oklahoma City, but I've heard several times about Oklahoma City wanting a team to put in their new arena (since they can't seem to keep the NBA Hornets for good) - does Kansas City have a decent arena to compete? They're building the state-of-the-art Sprint Center, but it's due to open late 2007/early 2008...is that soon enough?

Wondering out loud here. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...