Why is Mcdavid SO Little Known Outside of Hockey | Page 29 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Why is Mcdavid SO Little Known Outside of Hockey

I do watch the NFL but when notably boring Matthew Stafford was in a commercial I had to google who it was, yet I know who Uvis Balinskis is.

In the bubble of a hockey forum there is little certainty.
 
I don't think there has ever been such a disparity between talent and fame. What is the reason for this?
Gary Bettman and the cheapskate owners killed the league as far as the general sports fan is concerned. To put it in younger person terms, this league has zero rizz. They will expand the league to 36 or 40 teams because it's free money that requires no work on their part.

This bed was made a long time ago, back when the league left ESPN just as online content was growing so they could make a few (heavy emphasis on few) bucks by broadcasting games on some no name channel called Versus that no casual fan was ever going to find.

The sports world left their cheap asses behind.
 
I have come across a stat that there are more or same number of registered hockey players in Texas than in Canada (it may even be per capita)), can't recall fir sure).
Considering there is significantly less people in Texas than in Canada, even would be a bit strange of word here.

There is not more or the same number of registered hockey player in Texas than in Canada.... it is one of the state with the least player per capita in the USA, if it was 1.33 more than in Canada imagine what it would mean for the whole country.

Texas had list 16,000 registered hockey player in 2022, 1600 high school players (boy& girls combined)

There was less competition for superstar status among celebrities. It was basically sports stars - basketball, football and baseball in NA- Gretzky was the only hockey player making that kind of impact - musicians, and actors in movies or TV shows on 4 major networks. Other than that, there were no celebs,
If you reached the highest peak in other popular-selling domain, you could Mike Tyson was one of the biggest star on earth, heavyweight and other popular weight class boxer were big star before the 2000s (Ali at one point outside politician could have been the biggest celebrity on earth), in the 80-s90s they invented the Top model category, Crawford-Schiffer for some obscure reason became celebrities (in an art form no one actually watched).

Yes, if you were not on TV it was really hard, to be a radio star celebrity you needed to be Howard Stern level, while a middle of the road sitcom would do the trick. A chess player, you needed to be Kasparov, writer Stephen King-JK Rowling, business leader better be a Jack Welch/Gates/Jobs/Buffet
 
Considering there is significantly less people in Texas than in Canada, even would be a bit strange of word here.

There is not more or the same number of registered hockey player in Texas than in Canada.... it is one of the state with the least player per capita in the USA, if it was 1.33 more than in Canada imagine what it would mean for the whole country.

Texas had list 16,000 registered hockey player in 2022, 1600 high school players (boy& girls combined)
Hmm....mein memory got something mixed up with something else.

Thanks for checking that out.
If you reached the highest peak in other popular-selling domain, you could Mike Tyson was one of the biggest star on earth, heavyweight and other popular weight class boxer were big star before the 2000s (Ali at one point outside politician could have been the biggest celebrity on earth), in the 80-s90s they invented the Top model category, Crawford-Schiffer for some obscure reason became celebrities (in an art form no one actually watched).

Yes, if you were not on TV it was really hard, to be a radio star celebrity you needed to be Howard Stern level, while a middle of the road sitcom would do the trick. A chess player, you needed to be Kasparov, writer Stephen King-JK Rowling, business leader better be a Jack Welch/Gates/Jobs/Buffet
Interesting thing about the people you mentioned is often times it seems that famous people in those kind of fields are fluke or a TV journalist/writer made a myth (the only example I can think of right now is Mother Theresa).

It ties into the models you referred to because they are famous only because entertainment tabloids keep talking about them

A current case in point right now is Angel Reese in the WNBA. She is a god-awfil basketball player yet she's more well known than probably any other player not named Caitlin Clark
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeeto
thing about the people you mentioned is often times it seems that famous people in those kind of fields are fluke or a TV journalist/writer made a myth
Never heard the idea that Kasparov, someone that was the best chess player in the world for more ~15 years (highest elo achieved in the 80s, the 90s and 00s), a competition that is close to be as objective that something can be, without any judge, being a fluke. It is not uncommon for someone to be the best at chess for a long time, specially with the Reese comp I am not sure how it can compare to Stephen King and his 65 books 50 years career, Gunslinger was in 1970, Carrie in 1974, Misery 1987, 11/22/63 in 2011...

I doubt Buffet and Welch got famous because of Tabloid spicy coverage.... maybe you are just trolling here (same for Texas) and I just looking foolish, I will give 99.5% this is trolling.
 
Never heard the idea that Kasparov, someone that was the best chess player in the world for more ~15 years (highest elo achieved in the 80s, the 90s and 00s), a competition that is close to be as objective that something can be, without any judge, being a fluke. It is not uncommon for someone to be the best at chess for a long time, specially with the Reese comp I am not sure how it can compare to Stephen King and his 65 books 50 years career, Gunslinger was in 1970, Carrie in 1974, Misery 1987, 11/22/63 in 2011...

I doubt Buffet and Welch got famous because of Tabloid spicy coverage.... maybe you are just trolling here (same for Texas) and I just looking foolish, I will give 99.5% this is trolling.
Wow.

You take things very seriously, wh? 😏

I'll keep on mind next time (if it ever haooens) to do an annotated bibliography anytime dare to throw out an opinion or thought on a matter😅

Best of luck, Cam; keep rocking that Howe jersey!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: zeeto
Because the NHL is stupid enough to let a generational talent get drafted by a team playing on the North Pole.

The NFL or NBA would have rigged the draft to make sure he goes elsewhere.

Imagine McDavid playing in any US market and he's better known here. Not saying he'd be more popular than Lebron or Mahomes but he would be significantly more popular than currently.

In the cities I've lived in the States I often meet groups of people who get very into following a team or an athlete on the opposite side of the world. There are so many Liverpool fans who have never touched a ball in their life and started watching as adults.

Then you have Atlanta Braves fans all over the United States and Dallas Cowboys fans all over the United States. Those followings came about simply because they were always on.

It is largely because of where McDavid plays that ESPN has chosen not to make him the centerpiece of their marketing. Their best short term option is always to market players whose teams have existing followings in the States so they can pick up those viewers in the next game. But that's a mistake long term. You can develop a dedicated following over time to watch the Oilers, which frankly are just much more entertaining to watch than other clubs. McDavid isn't boring to watch. He's incredible to watch and a great story. If ESPN had him on tv every game, it would over time become a much better draw than any other hockey they could put on.
 
In the cities I've lived in the States I often meet groups of people who get very into following a team or an athlete on the opposite side of the world. There are so many Liverpool fans who have never touched a ball in their life and started watching as adults.

Then you have Atlanta Braves fans all over the United States and Dallas Cowboys fans all over the United States. Those followings came about simply because they were always on.

It is largely because of where McDavid plays that ESPN has chosen not to make him the centerpiece of their marketing. Their best short term option is always to market players whose teams have existing followings in the States so they can pick up those viewers in the next game. But that's a mistake long term. You can develop a dedicated following over time to watch the Oilers, which frankly are just much more entertaining to watch than other clubs. McDavid isn't boring to watch. He's incredible to watch and a great story. If ESPN had him on tv every game, it would over time become a much better draw than any other hockey they could put on.
I think these broadcasters want the quick buck, especially in an era where entrainment options are endless. They probably figure taking the time to develop KS too risky because it may not lead to anything concrete in terms of viewers or revenue.

I personally don't see American adopting a Canadian team as their favourite either, especially not a small market
 
I personally don't see American adopting a Canadian team as their favourite either, especially not a small market

Why would people on the other side of the country adopt the Cowboys or the Braves as their favorite team? It has nothing to do with how big the market is in those cities, it is 100% because the teams are good and they are always on tv. Put the Oilers on tv.
 
Why would people on the other side of the country adopt the Cowboys or the Braves as their favorite team? It has nothing to do with how big the market is in those cities, it is 100% because the teams are good and they are always on tv. Put the Oilers on tv.
What do Dallas ans Atlanta have in common? They are two of the largest cities in the U.S. City name matters. No different than brand name recognition.

For years the Braves were the only MLB team in the South as well.

The only exception to this is Green Bay. But for a lot of fans it may be as much a matter of the market/ownership situation combined with on-field success.
 
What do Dallas ans Atlanta have in common? They are two of the largest cities in the U.S. City name matters. No different than brand name recognition.

For years the Braves were the only MLB team in the South as well.

The only exception to this is Green Bay. But for a lot of fans it may be as much a matter of the market/ownership situation combined with on-field success.

City name has little to do with it. I'm not putting on the L.A. Clippers over Oklahoma City.

Now the L.A. Lakers brand is huge, but that's because they've had dynasties and star power and been on tv constantly, not that much from the city. The Oilers can have that brand power too.

Likewise the Green Bay Packers isn't just a minor exception, it's a team with a city that most folks would never have heard about if not for the team. People watch them because they're on, they have star power, and they win. The Oilers just need to be on.
 
City name has little to do with it. I'm not putting on the L.A. Clippers over Oklahoma City.

Now the L.A. Lakers brand is huge, but that's because they've had dynasties and star power and been on tv constantly, not that much from the city. The Oilers can have that brand power too.

Likewise the Green Bay Packers isn't just a minor exception, it's a team with a city that most folks would never have heard about if not for the team. People watch them because they're on, they have star power, and they win. The Oilers just need to be on.
CincinnatinReds
Oakland A's
San Antonio Spurs

All had great runs at some point but it never carried over into a broader fan base.

NFL is an odd entity in that it seems even small market teams can gain broader fan bases bit I suspect that is because of the short season, small number of games and the fact that it's one game a week.
 
Hockey really isn't popular in the US. It's not a surprise to anybody who pays attention to the major sports. MLB, NBA and the NFL are way more popular. Unless you're really into Hockey, you wouldn't know who McDavid is. Plus the NHL sucks at marketing their stars and they really have no clue how to get people interested in the sport.
 
Hockey really isn't popular in the US. It's not a surprise to anybody who pays attention to the major sports. MLB, NBA and the NFL are way more popular. Unless you're really into Hockey, you wouldn't know who McDavid is. Plus the NHL sucks at marketing their stars and they really have no clue how to get people interested in the sport.
Then how are they making $5B in revenuebanf getting hundreds of millions of dollars from American networks? And the Dallas Stars are playing to a packed house tonight.
 
Then how are they making $5B in revenuebanf getting hundreds of millions of dollars from American networks? And the Dallas Stars are playing to a packed house tonight.
I'm not the one to ask about that one. Doesn't change the fact that Hockey is behind baseball, football and basketball in the US.
 
I can't name very many active players in most other sports - major league or not. There's a good portion of my friends that can't name any pro sports players of the 2020's at all. I also have a portion of my friends that have to have every single sporting event on TV all weekend long which I find sorta sad. To each their own.

People have options more than ever. It's okay to pick a lane and watch what you wanna watch. Could give a crap about household name stuff.
 
Lots of good reasons here, but I think the following are what I think are the reasons.

1. Versus/Outdoor Channel
2. The marketing of the league and its teams and players.
3. Has the personality of a stump
4. Hasn’t won a Stanley Cup

I ranked them by total damage done.

I don’t think him playing in Edmonton is that much of a factor (though it contributes). Anybody saying Gretzky wasn’t the biggest player in the 80’s probably lived in the New York area at the time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Beukeboom Fan
Why would people on the other side of the country adopt the Cowboys or the Braves as their favorite team? It has nothing to do with how big the market is in those cities, it is 100% because the teams are good and they are always on tv. Put the Oilers on tv.
Braves were on Turner cable so a bunch of folks grew up watching them and they were good for all of the 90s. Cowboys were also elite in the 70-80s, had star players, and the DC Cheerleaders.

You're not going to get new fans just by televizing more McD games.
 
Braves were on Turner cable so a bunch of folks grew up watching them and they were good for all of the 90s.

That's literally my point! They just happened to be on national tv all the time by historical accident, that Turner owned the team. And they were good and had star power, which are the elements the Oilers already have. The missing ingredient there is being on tv all the time, which is what I'm suggesting.

Cowboys were also elite in the 70-80s, had star players, and the DC Cheerleaders.

So the missing ingredient is cheerleaders?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad