Turin
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2018
- 22,393
- 31,797
So far this is probably the worst playoff round 1 I can remember in terms of intrigue. The Sens can save it though…
News Article: Playoff Viewership tanking
- Thread starter 614 CBJ
- Start date
barkovcanfinnish
remember to breathe
3 of the 4 Eastern Conference series were finished in 5 games. And the West has been underwhelming.
I think the second round will bring a lot more entertainment.
The NHL does not drive expansion, but does nothing more than review applications from putative owners who have a stadium deal and a check for what is now probably around US$1.5 billion. Sure, the NHL tries to gin up interest, but only in those areas where those two criteria are likely to be met.
Exactly who in Canada is offering a stadium deal and a check for around US$1.5 billion? Name names.
bert
Registered User
I am not sure why you didnt quote my entire post literally talking about knowing exactly why they have expanded the way they did. What a disingenuous way to try and interact.
Because your one statement was demonstrably false, that's why. The NHL expanded south because no serious Canadian investors were willing to finance further expansion there ... or even to keep some teams there.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
I am pretty sure that the first round numbers always suck but they bounce back once the games get really good
See how that goes. Currently, Was would play Car, that is locked. Fla plays either Tor or Ott.
LV/Edm leading would face if they can close out. Dal/Win who are leading would play next if both close out.
viewership goes up and down based on who makes the PO. Talent/teams/markets do matter.
bert
Registered User
Not true, when Vegas and Seattle came in there were options. Its now priced out. Back to the original question we know why viewership is down because there are very few american markets where people actually watch hockey are left in the playoffs.
That is probably true as to the markets. But why should I -- as a paying consumer of the entertainment product -- even care? Viewership being down doesn't hurt my enjoyment of the product, and I can't say that I lose sleep at night if the investors/owners aren't getting a better ROI. Heck, folks that don't want further expansion should be happy that the numbers are down because that would dampen financial interest.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
This is kind of a misunderstanding of how the first round broadcasts work. All of these games are being broadcast locally. A Stars fan in Dallas is going to watch tonight's game on Victory+, not TBS/Max. National broadcast numbers for the first round represent interest in the games from OUTSIDE the home markets and don't tell you anything about the interest within the market itself.
The reason, beyond just the age of the teams, that the northeastern teams (plus Chicago) would bump national numbers in the first round is because migration patterns have resulted in a lot of fans from those markets moving south and west. It doesn't work the other way around.
STL fan in MN
Registered User
- Aug 16, 2007
- 7,195
- 5,917
The product ESPN has been producing is garbage. TBS/TNT has mostly been fine. But the production quality, replays, PbP and color from the ESPN broadcasts have generally been embarrassingly poor. Continually mixing up players, talking nonsense, not showing replays of important play, talking about one play while the booth shows an entirely different replay…it’s just been bad.
Not sure if that’s impacting viewership but I’d suspect it is. The other thing is, for the love of God, please stop it with the “8:30” and later start times for the Central teams. Again, more ESPN shenanigans. They’ll schedule an east coast game at 6 (7 eastern) and then a game in the central time zone at 8:30. No NHL game, particularly a playoff game, gets done in 2 1/2 hours. So then the next game will actually start at 8:50 and they’ll throw the start of it onto a different channel like ESPNews or ESPNU and then switch back to ESPN or ESPN2 at some point. I bet some people are tuning in and not seeing the game they want and then they go find something else to watch. Good luck to anyone that can’t watch live and is trying to record the game. Just put the game on a different channel so there’s not all of these conflicts! The Central teams get screwed every year with start times in the playoffs and I’m over it. Kids can’t watch games that late and adults have to get up for work the next morning too. I have no doubt the late starts would absolutely impact viewership.
Not sure if that’s impacting viewership but I’d suspect it is. The other thing is, for the love of God, please stop it with the “8:30” and later start times for the Central teams. Again, more ESPN shenanigans. They’ll schedule an east coast game at 6 (7 eastern) and then a game in the central time zone at 8:30. No NHL game, particularly a playoff game, gets done in 2 1/2 hours. So then the next game will actually start at 8:50 and they’ll throw the start of it onto a different channel like ESPNews or ESPNU and then switch back to ESPN or ESPN2 at some point. I bet some people are tuning in and not seeing the game they want and then they go find something else to watch. Good luck to anyone that can’t watch live and is trying to record the game. Just put the game on a different channel so there’s not all of these conflicts! The Central teams get screwed every year with start times in the playoffs and I’m over it. Kids can’t watch games that late and adults have to get up for work the next morning too. I have no doubt the late starts would absolutely impact viewership.
Last edited:
ShootIt
Paid the Refs
- Nov 8, 2008
- 17,958
- 8,096
Was perplexed at the Panthers-Lightning game 1 starting at 8:30 a purely Eastern time zone matchup.
The start times are weird. When you have so many teams in the playoffs every night for round 1, I agree that start times shouldn't be late or later than usual start times during the regular season.
I get west coast teams starting later, but honestly as an Eastern time zone location, I rarely watch those games. Just too damn late and I don't follow any of those teams.
I really just hate it when they schedule the advertised "start time" of back to back games two and a half hours apart in general. I do feel for the fans of usually central time teams who get an "8:30" (i.e. ~8:50 puck drop) local time home game over it, because that's really rough. Even if it's a pair of afternoon starts such as 1:00 and 3:30 eastern time so nobody gets a ridiculously late start (and I don't mind afternoon starts but I know they tend to be unpopular with most people), what it means is that they cut over to the second game with no significant time between the end of the first game and the start of the second game. I would prefer a bit of time to mentally unwind from the first game, even more so if one of my teams is playing in either of them, so I'd rather the scheduled time for each game be three hours apart instead. Of course, they would never make a team have a 9:00 home game, even if the "8:30" game doesn't actually start until 8:50 (or even later).
What has been amusing is ESPN starting a game on some side channel and then flipping it over to a main channel without telling anybody. One minute you're watching hockey, then they go to a commercial and when you come back then you're now watching a show about the NFL draft or something. You think it is just another ESPN commercial, but only after it goes on for a few minutes do you figure it out. Very rinky dink, on top of the ESPN broadcast crews being a crime against humanity.
GMR
Registered User
I agree with a lot of this but please remember that 10 or 15 years ago, you wouldn’t get every playoff game televised with merely two channels. I understand the league wants each game televised but the late start times for central games is annoying.
Canadienna
Registered User
Losing Montreal will hurt viewership numbers. They were pretty well on par with the Leafs at ~ 4 million viewers in Canada.
ElysiumAB
Registered User
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,927
- 5,786
It also makes the game impossible to record and watch later.
Last night they interviewed Ovie instead of putting on the Jets/Blues game as scheduled, and put the start of the game on ESPNU. If you were watching or recording you missed the first goal.
No one but hardcore NHL fans, like the ones on here, are gonna sit there and sort out cable providers, blackouts, streaming services, and delayed start times... to THEN be served gambling and glitchy board ads.
STL fan in MN
Registered User
- Aug 16, 2007
- 7,195
- 5,917
That’s been horrible. That’s happened for the Blues twice now. They go to commercial and then come back and it’s the show that was originally scheduled for that channel. At least put it on a banner saying it switched back to the original channel! But nope. ESPN has been downright horrible these playoffs. I wish I could watch the local feed but can’t because I live out of town.
The product is awful. Outside of a couple games they've been as boring as a regular season nothing game in the middle of January. Zero intensity whatsoever.
FissionFire
Registered User
I mean it sorta does in a way. The biggest American legacy teams were all bad this year. Chicago was awful. Detroit is usually a big TV draw and they were terrible all year except for a hot streak after the coaching change then fell apart after 4 Nations. The Rangers were a disaster most of the year. I can totally understand viewers tuning out on those teams because the product on the ice was borderline unwatchable much of the time. I know I had zero interest in following them after awhile. Throw in successful NBA and MLB teams for those cities and you had an easy alternative to watch. Throw in Boston and Pittsburgh as well.
McShogun99
Registered User
I think players are scared to take penalties since you never know what's going to get called. Are the refs using the regular season or playoff rule book? Is game management about to happen?
I thought for sure getting rid of line brawls and calling a million penalties a game would increase viewership. Weird
Edmonton East
BUT the ADvaNCEd STatS....fire Fitz
- Nov 25, 2007
- 6,711
- 2,963
If they add another team in some non traditional market, I'm gonna be convinced the league is somehow a pyramid scheme.
Edmonton East
BUT the ADvaNCEd STatS....fire Fitz
- Nov 25, 2007
- 6,711
- 2,963
Somewhat agree with this. People won't admit humans are entertained, to a degree, by violence. Literally all throughout history. Nearly every single civilization. I'm not saying we gotta start feeding players to lions, but the more physicality they remove from the game, the more the entertainment value suffers. The more difficult it is to attract new fans. Now, don't go back to the years of Messier giving out flying elbows, including to guys on their knees, or guys swinging sticks at heads, but I think the sport (isn't the only one) culturally overcorrected. Gonna be hard to fix at this point. Over the years, when you'd bring a hockey novice to a game, 9/10 times their favorite part was the fights. I know tons of people that got into hockey solely because of the fights or even huge hits initially....and then grew to follow, love, play the game themselves.
Entertainment value matters....as does safety, but there needs to be a balance. My other inevitably unpopular opinion is they need to reduce goalie pads and bring more skill back to the position. It also shouldn't feel like half the playoff goals are random ass unintentional deflections. Tired of seeing the Michelin man in net. Spare me the protective gear/padding excuses, we've gone wayyyyy past that over the last 2 decades. Example: Hasek was so damn entertaining to watch. Brodeur and Roy were too. Dozens of others....yet what goalie do people consider exciting or a joy to watch today?
