Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,679
- 5,124
KHL and the World Cup (Mod warning post 355)
- Thread starter Paxton Fettel
- Start date
The European club owners have absolutely nothing to gain here, and a non-federation national team would be totally unheard of in most if not all European countries.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,806
- 15,466
They gave their endorsement, and that was it as far as I know. Is there any indication that they wouldn't this time? I do think that the IIHF deserves credit for supporting a tournament that they were effectively cut out of, mostly for the sake of quality hockey.
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
The IIHF is doing great and I don't think, not sending the NHL players, for a few years, to the Olympics will NOT crush there efforts. The WHJC and the WHC is much more popular in the US than it used to be. IIHF can thank NBC Sports for there efforts in trying t help.
I don't believe the NHL is trying to undermine the IIHF in any way or you would probably see less NHL players in the U20 and WHC.
The NHL owners know the World Cup will bring money every 4 years. Green is blinding.
cutchemist42
Registered User
It just sucks as a fan because the World Cup is a worse product, and for me is not substitute for Olympic hockey. There's other sports too to watch at that time that will be more important in America so the tourney will get ignored. It's a Canadian cash grab.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,806
- 15,466
Just as an entertainment product, the World Cup is comparable to the Olympics. The 1987 and 1996 Canada/World Cups provided more entertainment and better hockey than several of the Olympic hockey tournaments since 1998. The 1991 and 2004 tournaments were dull, just like the 2006 and 2014 Olympics were. Sometimes it just happens.
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
The World Cup wasn't ignored by hockey fans in the US the last time. The 96' World Cup was a boost to American Hockey because, since 1980, they had gotten crushed in international play.
Having watched all the Canada Cups/World Cups, sincethe 70s, there is no way I could walk away and think that the competition wasn't awesome. I fail to see why anyone would want to think the WC is a substitute for the Olympics, wrong thought process.
cutchemist42
Registered User
The US games were hovering around the .4s ack then, from anything I've seen from a Google search. To me, that's pretty much getting ignored when trying to be a World Cup event.
Sporting landscape has changed sinc then too, baseball attention has become bigger with the bigger wildcard, along with overall football viewership. This new World Cup won't get good ratings in the USA.
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
Not when you are considering what markets the NHL Network and NBC Sports know they will get viewers from. Hockey has grown since 1996 and 2004. Neither the NHL Network nor NBC were involved back then.
NBC Sports saw an opening and purchased Versus. Huge changes for the American hockey viewer. The NHL finals are on NBC now not on some network that is in only in scarce cable outlets, big difference.
In the United States, hockey viewer ratings are dwarfed by baseball, football and basketball. In game 3, according to NBC statistics, there were an average of 6.3 million viewers for Game 3, spiking at one moment to over 8 million, but that was the most pivotal game of the Stanley Cup Finals. That game ended any real TV viewer interest outside of LA. In September, baseball and football are both active, and its still summer in most places. What kind of viewer numbers are you expecting?
cutchemist42
Registered User
Yes, and multiple sport shave changed since and grown where I see that effect being better. I don't see NBCSports having the pull to compete with larger baseball playoff races and the NFL/CFB becoming bigger since then.
I still think those old ratings are bad with ESPN/ESPN2 back then, based off what I found on Google.
I'd be shocked if any of the US games cracked 1.5 and expect most games to be below 1.0.
Jussi
Registered User
I remember there being threads/talk about the miserable US ratings here back then. Of course all those threads got swept away in The Meltdown... That was the prime era of the poker craze and everyone wondering why ESPN kept shoving hockey aside and putting poker on the main channel instead. And it still killed hockey ratings.
Trying to help? NBC is a for-profit company that spends money to make money, not to perform charity work. Presumably, they are televising the WHC because they can make money doing it. Also, the NHL does not allow productive players to play in the WJC unless they are on strike. They only allow those players who haven't broken into the lineup on a regular basis yet.
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
More than what they used to be. No one is claiming the NHL would ever over take Baseball, Football or Basketball ratings in the US. That is not the purpose of the World Cup. The NHL will never over take those sports but NHL TV revenue has increased tremendously under Bettman.
Hockey has grown in the US since the last World Cup in 2004. There is denying it by pointing out ratings for other sports. Bettman and the NHL Board of Governors have increased the market with each new TV contract.
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
Back then, not now. NHL owners want more revenue and they will get it. NHL Network is a perfect example of getting more hockey into US living rooms. Wasn't around back then.
The TV money shared among NHL teams is due largely to the huge revenues generated by Canadian TV. TV viewer ratings are pathetic for local television markets in the Southern US. Even the New York and Los Angeles markets are pathetically small in comparison to Canada. Canadian viewers are keeping the entire league afloat with the revenues generated.
NHL Network ratings are huge in Canada, insignificant in the US, which merely reflects the volume of the fan base. All NHL TV revenues were helped by the fact that the finals were in the largest TV markets, New York and Los Angeles. When the finals were in Carolina and Edmonton, not so much!
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
NHL Network ratings are doing well in good US markets where NHL teams are supported, that is why you had to mention "southern states". Carolina won the Stanley Cup in 2006, 8 years ago. NHL Network and NBC weren't covering the NHL back then.
Denying hockey hasn't grown in the US since the 96' and 04' World Cup is just wrong.
Burke the Legend
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2012
- 8,320
- 2,854
Well one assumes the NHL will throw some money at them, so they do have something to gain. Unless of course they do it for free.
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
If you based your assumptions on ratings in 96' and 04' but NHL landscape in the US has changed NBCSports and NHL Network are in more households in well supported hockey markets. Center Ice wasn't prevalent in 04' either.
Don't know of may baseball races heating up in August either, ESPN doesn't expand it's coverage for baseball till late September for division and wildcard races. No reason for NHL to televise up against the CFB which really doesn't heat up until September.
cutchemist42
Registered User
The correction of the World Cup timing article from a few days ago seems to incidate the August World Cup was wrong, and that September will be the World Cup's timetable now.
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
Then you would have a very good argument if the NHL scheduled WC games up against MLB, CFB and NFL games. I would think that he would not.
I also don't see why Bettman would want to cut into training camps too much.
cutchemist42
Registered User
I know initially, the very first article said it would be in August around the Olympics, but articles out a few days later have said Sept.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/toronto-to-host-2016-world-cup-of-hockey/
I mean, I'll admit, I at least liked the initial rumours that the NHL was ok with a Feb World Cup every two years. Now, it's just a pre-season exhibition at a time when honestly, even I'm more interested in other sports.
