Could NHL surpass NBA?

[Summer Rose]

Yeah as long as my team isn't at risk of going away I don't particularly care about it in the grand scheme of things. I think the Lightning have cemented themselves as a very beloved team in this area so as long as the sport or some new ownership doesn't actively chase people away things are fine as they are now.


It was 2-0. Hence the recurring taunt to Mexicans "dos a cero" whenever USA manages to repeat the feat (which is quite often lately, lol).

I think internationally I'd rather be at risk of losing more often. One reason women's soccer got so little respect back in the day is because USA was so ridiculously dominant at it. It's nice to see them get embarrassed and knocked off their peg lately. That made the recent Olympic gold they won last year a lot more enjoyable because they had to fight for it with new younger players and a better coach and the quality of the women's game overall has improved by leaps and bounds thanks to the European nations taking it seriously.

Whoops, mixed it up with when we beat Portugal 3-2 in the opening game. That was similarly amusing. Good catch though.

 

[LuckyPierre]

I'd say it has a lot more to do with accessibility (i.e. to play basketball all you need is a ball).

Jarome Iginla was one of the best players in the league for a decade, I dont have the data but I dont imagine enrolment of minorities in hockey had a massive increase during that time.

Agreed.

That's why ball hockey is something the NHL needs to fully align with and expand. Need a stick and ball.

And If Jarome Iginla was an American playing in a huge American market during his prime, that dynamic would have likely been drastically different.

 

[jbeck5]

Despite what most people would say, the NHL has been a clear 2nd in post-covid "recovery" and "growth" to the NFL. I don't think it's been enough to overtake the NBA though.

The problem is that hockey always has and always will be fighting an uphill battle due to the barrier to entry. Anyone can go to the park with some friends and a ball and just play football/soccer/basketball/baseball. Hockey will never be able to reach that point. Doesn't mean the NHL and hockey in general can't be successful, and I'd argue that it's in a really good spot right now.

You can't compare pickup football with organized hockey.

The cost to buy football equipment and hockey equipment is similar.

The cost to play ball hockey or ODR hockey is significantly smaller than organized hockey, and THAT should be compared to playing basketball/football/baseball.

To play pickup baseball? You need a bat, a ball, and a glove. How much would that run an individual?

To play pickup basketball? You need a basketball and potentially a portable net

To play football? You need a football.


To play pickup hockey? You need a tennis ball and a wooden hockey stick and potentially a hockey net.

To play odr? You need skates, gloves, and a puck.


But to play organized football or hockey, costs will be similar.

So if you can play football or hockey cheaply on the streets, or expensively in organized fashion, why aren't they comparable in terms of viewership?

 

[johnjm22]

Just before the 4 Nations tournament there was article after article about the NHL's dismal ratings and viewership. Down from last year.

 

[Score08]

What’s an NBA?

 

[jbeck5]

What’s an NBA?

Not sure...

All I can think of is

MBA: master of business administration
NDA: non-disclosure agreement.

So maybe something about not telling people that you have a master's of business administration.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

You can't compare pickup football with organized hockey.

The cost to buy football equipment and hockey equipment is similar.

The cost to play ball hockey or ODR hockey is significantly smaller than organized hockey, and THAT should be compared to playing basketball/football/baseball.

To play pickup baseball? You need a bat, a ball, and a glove. How much would that run an individual?

To play pickup basketball? You need a basketball and potentially a portable net

To play football? You need a football.


To play pickup hockey? You need a tennis ball and a wooden hockey stick and potentially a hockey net.

To play odr? You need skates, gloves, and a puck.


But to play organized football or hockey, costs will be similar.

So if you can play football or hockey cheaply on the streets, or expensively in organized fashion, why aren't they comparable in terms of viewership?

Your view on football appears to be pretty misinformed.

I grew up playing football and coach it as an adult. Every level I played and coached at provided all of the equipment that players need.

The only equipment most players need to buy are cleats. And for players that can't afford cleats they would be provided... For most players the only cost is registration, which is pretty affordable, and I've even seen leagues/teams waive the registration fee if a family really couldn't afford it.

 

[jbeck5]

Your view on football appears to be pretty misinformed.

I grew up playing football and coach it as an adult. Every level I played and coached at provided all of the equipment that players need.

The only equipment most players need to buy are cleats. And for players that can't afford cleats they would be provided... For most players the only cost is registration, which is pretty affordable, and I've even seen leagues/teams waive the registration fee if a family really couldn't afford it.

That's literally what i said lmao. I said the school had to provide the equipment because literally no one owned equipment because they couldn't afford it. Go look at how much helmets are for example. No parent is paying that so their kid can play one year of high school football. So I quite literally said the school had a full set of team equipment for the players.

Whereas hockey, all the parents paid for their equipment because IT IS affordable.


You need to re read what I wrote.

I'm looking at football helmets and they seem to be 3 times the price of a hockey helmet, just as an example.

Shoulder pads are also much more than hockey shoulder pads.

The padded shorts are also more than the hockey shorts...the list goes on.

I think the only piece of equipment that both have where hockey is more expensive is the gloves, but even then, these tiny gloves for football are like $100-200 for the good kinda, whereas hockey gloves have much more material and padding and are basically the same price, maybe a bit more.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You can't compare pickup football with organized hockey.

The cost to buy football equipment and hockey equipment is similar.

The cost to play ball hockey or ODR hockey is significantly smaller than organized hockey, and THAT should be compared to playing basketball/football/baseball.

To play pickup baseball? You need a bat, a ball, and a glove. How much would that run an individual?

To play pickup basketball? You need a basketball and potentially a portable net

To play football? You need a football.


To play pickup hockey? You need a tennis ball and a wooden hockey stick and potentially a hockey net.

To play odr? You need skates, gloves, and a puck.


But to play organized football or hockey, costs will be similar.

So if you can play football or hockey cheaply on the streets, or expensively in organized fashion, why aren't they comparable in terms of viewership?

Exactly.

The ridiculous expense of hockey it’s important when we’re talking about “growing the game”. Middle class families legitimately cannot put their kids through elite hockey without taking reckless financial risks. That’s a problem for the talent pool and the culture of the sport.

But “growing the game” is an entirely different topic than growing NHL viewership and relevance. That comes down to simply being good entertainment. Playing experience is not a prerequisite to watching a hockey game and saying “oh, this is fun”.

 

[jbeck5]

Exactly.

The ridiculous expense of hockey it’s important when we’re talking about “growing the game”. Middle class families legitimately cannot put their kids through elite hockey without taking reckless financial risks. That’s a problem for the talent pool and the culture of the sport.

But “growing the game” is an entirely different topic than growing NHL viewership and relevance. That comes down to simply being good entertainment. Playing experience is not a prerequisite to watching a hockey game and saying “oh, this is fun”.

Exactly. I was on some Facebook hockey group filled with American die hards who were basically little Pierre McGuire's yet never came close to playing hockey themselves.

Playing hockey has nothing to do with growing the NHL popularity. It's about being entertaining and eventful.

Squid game isn't entertaining to some people because they grew up playing death trap games...it's because they find the tv watching experience worthwhile. (I understand this is a scripted show, but the point is you can be entertained regardless of if you can relate or not)

 

[LuckyPierre]

Exactly.

The ridiculous expense of hockey it’s important when we’re talking about “growing the game”. Middle class families legitimately cannot put their kids through elite hockey without taking reckless financial risks. That’s a problem for the talent pool and the culture of the sport.

But “growing the game” is an entirely different topic than growing NHL viewership and relevance. That comes down to simply being good entertainment. Playing experience is not a prerequisite to watching a hockey game and saying “oh, this is fun”.

Playing experience makes it relatable though. Drives engagement and therefore viewership.

I strongly believe that the next commish and c-suite team have to go all in on seeding global markets with ball hockey infrastructure grants and leagues, and pushing their stars to market it.

The NFL is offering an accessible product vis-a-vis sanctioned and heavily promoted flag football leagues. NHL must do the same with ball hockey - it's the obvious lever to pull for rapid expansion of the sport globally, which could in turn allow the NHL to eat into the market share of the NBA.

 

[HisIceness]

No.

 

[DaBadGuy7]

NBA is a better run league and business than the NHL. Until, the NHL improves that, no chance of that every being even a possibility.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

That's literally what i said lmao. I said the school had to provide the equipment because literally no one owned equipment because they couldn't afford it. Go look at how much helmets are for example. No parent is paying that so their kid can play one year of high school football. So I quite literally said the school had a full set of team equipment for the players.

Whereas hockey, all the parents paid for their equipment because IT IS affordable.


You need to re read what I wrote.

I'm looking at football helmets and they seem to be 3 times the price of a hockey helmet, just as an example.

Shoulder pads are also much more than hockey shoulder pads.

The padded shorts are also more than the hockey shorts...the list goes on.

I think the only piece of equipment that both have where hockey is more expensive is the gloves, but even then, these tiny gloves for football are like $100-200 for the good kinda, whereas hockey gloves have much more material and padding and are basically the same price, maybe a bit more.

You said multiple times that the cost to play organized football and organized hockey are similar. This is just not true for the players and families.


For the players and families football is pretty much no cost outside of registration. Players don't have to buy their own helmets, or padded shorts, or shoulder pads... These are provided by the team. Of course buying your own equipment outside of the standard is going to be expensive because that's a specialty piece of equipment that's a luxury which is not necessary.

Football players don't even need gloves. They are purely optional whereas hockey gloves are mandatory... so the fact that you're even bringing that up as a comparison again says that your view on football is pretty misinformed...

Just a wild comparison, man.

 

[robertmac43]

Likely no - the global appeal of the NBA is hard for hockey to fight, especially in parts of Asia.

 

[jbeck5]

You said multiple times that the cost to play organized football and organized hockey are similar. This is just not true for the players and families.


For the players and families football is pretty much no cost outside of registration. Players don't have to buy their own helmets, or padded shorts, or shoulder pads... These are provided by the team. Of course buying your own equipment outside of the standard is going to be expensive because that's a specialty piece of equipment that's a luxury which is not necessary.

Football players don't even need gloves. They are purely optional whereas hockey gloves are mandatory... so the fact that you're even bringing that up as a comparison again says that your view on football is pretty misinformed...

Just a wild comparison, man.

I know the players that are serious would buy their own equipment...

But also same goes for hockey. We have extra equipment at arenas that players can borrow. We have a massive chain called "play it again sports" that are everywhere...people bring back their used equipment and then people can buy it for a fraction of the price. You can find high end used equipment for pennies. We have Kijiji and marketplace free or dirt cheap equipment...

Kids can get hockey equipment for free or barely anything.

If you want to go high end, then you'll likely buy your own equipment.

But NONE OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH NHL VIEWERSHIP. this is more to do with minor hockey participation or NHL talent coming through the pipelines.

This is more about viewership and being entertained.

The fact the 4 nation's tournament grew the games popularity in the states is PROOF that the game can grow regardless of whether people are playing the sport as kids.

Kids didn't start playing more hockey in the last 2 weeks to grow the game. That wasn't a factor at all. A high tempo tournament with a rivalry grew the game.

So let's talk about the factors that actually grow NHL viewership.

I would say bringing back rivalries and hatred into the game would be good. Remove the clutch and grab from the old days but keep the big hits and fights. No more goons is good. Only rare occasional fights, but make them heated between teams that actually hate each other.

 

[Boy Hedican]

Not until there are more black players in hockey. A big reason why half the population doesn't watch is because there's nobody who looks like them.

half the population is black? where?

 

[qc14]

You can't compare pickup football with organized hockey.

The cost to buy football equipment and hockey equipment is similar.

The cost to play ball hockey or ODR hockey is significantly smaller than organized hockey, and THAT should be compared to playing basketball/football/baseball.

To play pickup baseball? You need a bat, a ball, and a glove. How much would that run an individual?

To play pickup basketball? You need a basketball and potentially a portable net

To play football? You need a football.


To play pickup hockey? You need a tennis ball and a wooden hockey stick and potentially a hockey net.

To play odr? You need skates, gloves, and a puck.


But to play organized football or hockey, costs will be similar.

So if you can play football or hockey cheaply on the streets, or expensively in organized fashion, why aren't they comparable in terms of viewership?

The cost to play organized football is orders of magnitude less than to play organized hockey, especially in the US. Teams provide football gear, and at the highest level it is run through high schools which are accessible to everyone. Hockey is very much not.

If there's any sport that's a good comparison equipment-wise it's lacrosse. Still, the comparative cost of an hour of field time for lacrosse vs. an hour of rink time for hockey is once again just not in the same ballpark. Every part of hockey is ridiculously expensive. ODRs are just not viable in the vast majority of the world, and even for pickup one friend having a single football is much more likely and cheaper than five friends all having wooden sticks and a net.

The NHL still can and does succeed with people that have never played before. I love watching football even though I've never played at an organized level. It definitely is harder to break into though, and a built-in disadvantage for the NHL

 

[jbeck5]

The cost to play organized football is orders of magnitude less than to play organized hockey, especially in the US. Teams provide football gear, and at the highest level it is run through high schools which are accessible to everyone. Hockey is very much not.

If there's any sport that's a good comparison equipment-wise it's lacrosse. Still, the comparative cost of an hour of field time for lacrosse vs. an hour of rink time for hockey is once again just not in the same ballpark. Every part of hockey is ridiculously expensive. ODRs are just not viable in the vast majority of the world, and even for pickup one friend having a single football is much more likely and cheaper than five friends all having wooden sticks and a net.

The NHL still can and does succeed with people that have never played before. I love watching football even though I've never played at an organized level. It definitely is harder to break into though, and a built-in disadvantage for the NHL

This is irrelevant to NHL viewership. Most NHL viewers don't actually currently play hockey.

What you're arguing is why there would more or less youth participants.

 

[qc14]

This is irrelevant to NHL viewership. Most NHL viewers don't actually currently play hockey.

What you're arguing is why there would more or less youth participants.

It's not a direct correlation but it definitely is relevant

 

[jbeck5]

It's not a direct correlation but it definitely is relevant

Fair. But I don't think it's a strong correlation. Most of hockey's biggest hardcore fans don't play hockey.

Hfboards had a poll asking posters if they play hockey and majority didn't and this is board for hardcore fans..

So why or why won't the NHL increase viewship among non players compared to the NBA?

 

[LevelingSolo]

It won’t but I wish it would

The current NBA product has never been worse

 

[HabzSauce]

Feel bad for basketball fans. NBA is such a crap product. Too much politics, too many commericals, too many stoppages in play, too many timeouts/reviews, load management, refs have WAY too much power & silver doesn't do anything about it....

It's absolute junk man I can't even watch anymore. Compare that to hockey which is nonstop action, only 3 commerical breaks per period, no where near as much politics, and stoppages are very short outside of offside reviews. And the refs have thick skin and don't cry if a player looks at them the wrong way.

NHL & Bettman >>>>> NBA & Silver by a freaking mile for me

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

As long as Bettman is at the helm, no. The 4Nations Cup was a success but it had every chance of being a spectacular failure. As long as the game is spread across 40 different channels with region restrictions the general populace will not care about the sport.