When North America hosted the Worlds in 2008, more Canadians wanted to watch the WC final than they did the corresponding SC Playoff games (conference finals).
Mmm.. Hamburger. Yummy.
Good TV ratings for World Championship
Olympics vs World Cup
- Thread starter Rob Bowen
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
When North America hosted the Worlds in 2008, more Canadians wanted to watch the WC final than they did the corresponding SC Playoff games (conference finals).
Mmm.. Hamburger. Yummy.
Good TV ratings for World Championship
A team that appeals to an entire country, draws more than a league where the fan base is largely regional.
Stop the presses !!!!!!!
( p.s after the habs are elimintated, I don't give a crap who wins so long as it's not boston).
Are you saying that the world shampionships are better hockey than the stanley cup playoffs ? everyone is entitled top their opinion, even people who are wrong.
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
Canada plays Russia in a final averages 947K says your link
The SCF that year (with no teams from Canada involved) averaged 2.3 million viewers in Canada Stanley Cup final delivers strong ratings | CBC Sports
In 2009 the SCF averaged 2.154 million Canadian viewers and in 2010 the SCF averaged 2.107 Canadian viewers (again with no teams from Canada involved) Stanley Cup Finals television ratings - Wikipedia
In the 2011 SCF (when there was a team from Canada involved ) game 7 had an average 8.76 million viewers in Canada
947K for a final (especially a Canada/Russia final, played in the NA time zone) really isn't all that impressive to me
I'm saying people will follow sporting events they have an emotional connection to; level of play isn’t the sole determining factor for this, many times it isn't a factor at all.
Hence why the WJC is huge in Canada; or why Canadians chose to watch 2008 Team Canada over the Stanley Cup semi's; or why NCAA athletics is gigantic in this country; or why, despite being a 3rd rate league, the MLS is showing unprecedented growth.
Your assertion that "people in north america are not accustomed to watching third, or second, rate leagues," is completely ridiculous.
Last edited:
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
personally I think it has more to do with it's held during winter vacation when millions of Canadian kids are home all day/night every day (it really helps TSN sell their hype); put it on when school's in and I think there'd be a significant drop
Your pointing to 947k being proof of a significant emotional attachment is a failure...that Canada/Russia final was far less than the SCF that same year & massively less than something more Canadians might care about (a Canadian team playing in the SCF)
Looking at the Canadian TV ratings for the 2007-08 season 2007–08 Canadian network television schedule - Wikipedia and every show listed beats the Canada/Russia final you're pointing to as being such a big deal
Last edited:
Hockey fans might watch the AHL or major junior, casual fans likely will not.
Toronto, the center of the hockey universe has difficulty drawing for anything other than the leafs.
The number of people who follow the ahl compared to the nhl is what? 5 percent?
Again if the quality of the talent makes no difference you are cheering for laundry. If that's for you, that's great for you. Lap it up.
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
For me I guess I'm a bit different...
I had season tickets for the local NASL team in 2016 and 2017 and I really enjoyed the 2016 season a lot and I knew it wasn't anywhere near the best for talent...I used to enjoy/follow the CFL from the 70s through to the 90s and I always knew that the NFL was more talented..and I'm open to having such experiences again
But in a thread about hockey titled "Olympics vs World Cup" - it's in this context (elite international play) that I'm essentially expressing "only best-on-best" really matters
The same would apply to any regularly scheduled event. Hold the Stanley Cup playoffs at 1pm every day, or the SuperBowl at 3am and viewership would plummet. I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at there.
You’re reading too much into this, too defensive.
I never claimed the Worlds were a big deal, or that they're overall exceedingly important to Canadians.
My point was that, on this particular instance, Team Canada trumped the Stanley Cup semi’s – proof that Canadians will opt to watch ‘lesser talent’ from time to time, in direct contradiction to sandysan's claim that North Americans would never choose as such.
Last edited:
I'm a college hockey enthusiast, so I definitely will enjoy cheering for 'laundry'.
If you value talent first and foremost, fine. Enjoy the upcoming All-Star game; the elite of the elite all on 1 sheet of ice!!!
Last edited:
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
Millions of kids means a lot of viewership that might not happen when attending school (earlier bedtimes) and doing homework/living a busier life (less free time) makes a difference...plus the holiday season more people are likely to gather together than any other time of the year (so again a better chance of getting viewership, especially "casual viewership")
That's just my opinion
I don't care about/watch the tournament myself (nor do I consider it a best-on-best as the very best players in the age group are already in the NHL)Fair enough; thanks for clarifying
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,070
- 40,920
The IIHF WM has been around for decades. The so-called World Cup has had 3 tournaments in the span of 22 years. There's no consistency, it has no value
So a best of the rest tournament becomes legitimate because it's been a best of the rest tournament for a long time?
Winning this tournament makes you many things, best in the world ain't one of them.
IIHF world champions when other players were busy pursuing a more cherished title. Hazzah!
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,070
- 40,920
When you win the IIHF World Championships, you are the best of the world at that moment in time. You won the World Championships. Some players missing due to the Stanley Cup play offs, doesn't change that. It's considered part of the triple-gold club.
A "World Cup" held every 8-12 years isn't a serious tournament. Now, if they host it every 4 years consistently for the next 2-3 decades, it might get there, but at the moment it's just a gimmick.
JETZZZ
Registered User
I dont think anyone claims the World Championships is best-on-best, but its nice that they dont cancel it every second year either.
If the NHL isn't going to the Olympics anymore, and if they are not going to run the World Cup anymore, it would be nice to see the World Championships become best-on-best.
Starting the NHL season a week or 2 earlier/pushing the Worlds back a few weeks until the Playoffs and the Worlds no longer overlap.
Hell, finding a way to hold it during mid-season, pre-season, whenever, the NHL's schedule is still a huge obstacle to work around.
If the NHL had a problem with not being allowed to advertise their players presence the Olympics, well the IOC isn't involved so you think some kind of agreement could be made.
If the NHL isn't going to the Olympics anymore, and if they are not going to run the World Cup anymore, it would be nice to see the World Championships become best-on-best.
Starting the NHL season a week or 2 earlier/pushing the Worlds back a few weeks until the Playoffs and the Worlds no longer overlap.
Hell, finding a way to hold it during mid-season, pre-season, whenever, the NHL's schedule is still a huge obstacle to work around.
If the NHL had a problem with not being allowed to advertise their players presence the Olympics, well the IOC isn't involved so you think some kind of agreement could be made.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
No.
I grew up in Europe, I like the World Championships and watch it annually, but this is not what it means.
It's an international tournament but holds little weight as far as bragging rights are concerned.
It's the equivalent of an Olympic soccer champion claiming to be the best nation in soccer.
Amazing Kreiderman said:
Something invented by the IIHF to give the World Championships legitimacy.
Triple Gold Club - Wikipedia
They are trying to put the WCs on the same level as the Olympics and the Stanley Cup because it's their tournament.
Amazing Kreiderman said:
Agreed, and with no gimmick teams.
It ceased to be serious after 2004.
Last edited:
Kap-the-Head
Registered User
Olympics. But it has to be a format similar to Torino, not Vancouver or Sochi. The last two were way too short.
Well, this is kind of all the dull moaning about World Cup personified.
World Championships is just a nonsense tournament with very little relevance in sporting terms and it doesn't matter if people like it or if it is part of the triple-gold club.
World Cup contains the best players and therefore it is relevant and serious, with or without "gimmick teams". And as I said before, I prefer a Team Europe over a team like Germany every day a week.
Btw, did the World Cup in 2004 get the same criticism? There was no mixed teams back then, but did people complain saying it was just something NHL did to get money and claiming it was a pre-season tournament?
International hockey is financially important because it creates exposure you don't see in club hockey.
So winning a best of the rest tournament where many of the players who participate wouldn't even be considered if others were not occupied makes you the best in the world?
How about no?
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,070
- 40,920
It's a more prestigious tournament than the WCH which has been hosted with 8 and 12-year intervals. As I said, if they have some consistency, it may one day be a legitimate World Cup of Hockey.
It's also peculiar that Canadians and also Finnish hockey hipsters who would want to be Canadian are so used to hyping up a nonsense tournament like the WJC that they won't even question how irrelevant it is when it's a kids' tournament where the best players in the age group are not taking part.
Frequency isn't the salient metric talent is. The summit series isn't a regular event but it's historical value undebatable
If you think Olympic football is meaningless, you might want to check out the reactions of the Brazilian players and fans after a scrub called Neymar secured them the gold medal in 2016. Those South Americans seemed to be pretty enthusiastic about a meaningless gold medal, but maybe they just don't understand football quite as well as North American hockey fans.
And while we're talking about meaningless sports events, I wonder which game had a larger global TV audience: the Olympic football final in 2016, or the Olympic hockey final in 2014 with the best Canadian and Swedish players competing for an Olympic gold.
No, it's not. The best U20 players in the world aren't allowed to take part.
The quality of talent in the NHL is rubbish compared to leagues like the NFL or the UEFA Champions league because hockey is such a small sport and so expensive to play. If you're an NHL fan, you're cheering for laundry too.
Last edited:
If you look at the Team Canada roster in that tournament, I don't think it's far-fetched to say they had more talent in their roster than any of the remaining four teams in the Stanley Cup playoffs:
Canada at eliteprospects.com
