BruinLVGA
Just got me a Beretta 92XI Squalo!
So, if they were indeed trying to grow the sport (that means to have a bigger reach, in the first place), how come I didn't see even one commercial about the World Cup?
World Cup TV ratings
- Thread starter Fenway
- 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
So, if they were indeed trying to grow the sport (that means to have a bigger reach, in the first place), how come I didn't see even one commercial about the World Cup?
Conspiracy Theorist
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2016
- 5,862
- 2,098
How do you Canadians feel playing against Leftovers in the final? What will this do to the world cup rating?
How petty are we planning to get haha. Next you're going to tell us how much better the hot dog sales have been at this tournament.
In 1970 the average NBA salary was 35k. Starting in the mid-70s the first TV deal was signed, 7 million dollars a year feels like nothing. Upgraded to a 10 million a year by the end of the decade it was almost a 20 million dollar a year deal and because of that the average salary spiked to 180k. Salary rises were so drastic it necessitated the creation of a salary cap as the new TV deal pulled in 23 million a year. Well it doubled the next deal and the salary cap matched and TV deal increases have matched salary cap increases ever since for decades. Television is why these athletes make an average of 5 million a year, and not 35k a year (unadjusted for inflation if we want to be petty). Look at the basketball stadiums who have lasted the time. Madison Square garden, the capacity has barely changed over time. Civil Engineers are absolutely capable of building bigger, but the days where hospitality revenue is relevant are over. You know the largest stadium in the World? No not the big house in Michigan, it's a stadium in North Korea it seats 150k. The majority of NFL stadiums are less than half that size. Our civil engineers are better than theirs, it's not that our civil engineers can't build bigger, it's not necessary and the maintenance is unnecessarily costly. If you decked out every stadium but your TV ratings are even slightly below projected you've won nothing.
Jussi
Registered User
Jussi
Registered User
You are aware that the arenas were much smaller? Plus it's harder for tourists to get into Russia these days?
Don't think it's an ideal matchup ratings wise as Canada is probably going to roll over them. Think ratings will suffer
Macman
Registered User
- May 15, 2004
- 3,483
- 516
I'm responding to people who are taking glee that an 18,000-seat rink isn't completely sold out in Toronto and using that as proof that the World Cup has been a flop. Those 12,000 and 13,000 seat stadiums in Moscow and St. Petersburg weren't either. Not even close.
BTW those visa restrictions were loosened for the worlds.
http://www.iihf.com/sk/home-of-hock...]=5804&cHash=8542f6972045e9da32ee9e40550b9ca2
Jussi
Registered User
Why don't you take a look at the attendance numbers from 2015 Worlds? No visa restrictions, affordable ticket prices. Much better comparison.
Well it is a flop regarding expectations. All the games should've been sold out if we go by a) the hype b) 12 years! c) cnucks actually being hockey fans, instead of gloryhunters; or just nhl team supporters. Thats totally ok, but it doesn't seem like it's "your game" anymore nucks.
Canuck21t
Registered User
As a league, they should, but since the NHL is run by morons, who know what they're thinking.
Canuck21t
Registered User
Leftovers? Lol oh my talk about trolling the Slovaks and the rest of Europe. They beat everyone else except North American teams.
In hindsight they should have allowed the Slovaks a team. I agree but hindsight is 20/20.
They are trying to grow the sport. That's why they took a smaller espn bid, to reach the general populous that watches ESPN and not NBCSN and is generally not as hockey conscious. Some difficulties were incurred though because the ratings seem like mostly transfers from the typical NBCSN viewership as opposed to new ESPN viewership.
Continue? You mean like they have already been to some?
Wrong.
By holding a best-on-best tournament in a country where no one cares about the sport? Great idea!
But, I guess, having Slovakia and Switzerland in the tournament would bring people in China in front of their TV screens!
Even this overly negative and cynical forum says otherwise. If you mean hockey fans, of course, not the whole population on Earth, then, I kinda agree, but that's a moot point. I'm pretty sure there must be a sport no one in Europe cares about really, but is important to some other nations in South America or whatever. Does it mean something? Certain sports have larger or smaller audience, that's just the way it is. If Spain doesn't care about ice hockey, why should anyone take that as a negative? Do we look down at some sporting event as "meaningless", just because it doesn't have the popularity of some other sports?? Who cares? Like gymnastics. Or swimming. Or I don't know what. A sport event is mainly for those who watch the sport already. Please name a sport where the world championships of that sport isn't in country where it gains interest. Maybe I'm wrong about that, so I'll wait for your answer that will convince me.
I don't know. But not knowing doesn't mean knowing it's not.
But you did watch the previous 5 olympics, right?
I am happy for them. And I think the TV ratings will be solid.
have you lost all sense of humor? Is this site such a bad influence?
Last edited:
By continuing to go to them.
In what way did a tournament like this do anything to help grow the game? Did this tournament reach out to ANY non-hockey interested people at all outside of Canada? Even hockey interested people in Europe and USA didn't care, how in the world is a tournament like that going to even come close to growing the game?
I guess untapped was the wrong word, as I guess that means countries with 0 hockey following. What I ment was countries like Slovakia, Switzerland, Germany. Countries where hockey is on the radar but has a chance to grow. You think the world cup made a splash over there? Or is NHL looking to only grow the game inside Canada? Hell, hockey has a lot of growing to do even in a country like Sweden.
Ratings (avg) from Finland:
FIN-SWE: 471k
FIN-RUS: 298k
CAN-RUS: 88k
FIN-NAT: not enough to make ratings list
For comparison:
- Three Euro Hockey Tour games in 2015/11 had avg rating of 462k
- WJC 2015/2016 round-robin games of Team Finland had at least 700k rating each, final had 1981k
- WHC 2016: lowest 973k (FIN-FRA) and highest 2305k (final). Even USA-CAN round robin game got 959k
Conclusion: Even games against Sweden and Russia couldn't draw more than EHT level ratings, which tells a lot. Game against NA U23 wasn't even a blip in the radar.
FIN-SWE: 471k
FIN-RUS: 298k
CAN-RUS: 88k
FIN-NAT: not enough to make ratings list
For comparison:
- Three Euro Hockey Tour games in 2015/11 had avg rating of 462k
- WJC 2015/2016 round-robin games of Team Finland had at least 700k rating each, final had 1981k
- WHC 2016: lowest 973k (FIN-FRA) and highest 2305k (final). Even USA-CAN round robin game got 959k
Conclusion: Even games against Sweden and Russia couldn't draw more than EHT level ratings, which tells a lot. Game against NA U23 wasn't even a blip in the radar.
Last edited:
If it's any comfort, ratings would've been better if not for the way the opening game unfolded against Slovakia, wait, the young North American super-team...
Those ratings are ok considering that the casual fans are not really in hockey watching mode this time of the year. And this being a true best-on-best tournament doesn't mean much to them. For them, the true world championships are played every year in the spring.
Game against U23 aired in the middle of the night. Can't draw any conclusions from that one.
Also those are Nelonen ratings, right? They don't include people who watched either Viasat or Viaplay? Viasat/Viaplay had longer pre-game studio and less commercials so people who have it probably preferred it over Nelonen. At least I did.
Last edited:
Well, they got pretty excited about the JWC though that's not that well known tournament either in Finland. Anyway, there has not been much interest at all, but if we would have fared better I think viewing figures would have been quite a bit better. Now I think the finals will have totally dismal viewing figures due to the broadcast times and the fact that Team Europe is a totally foreign concept to most people.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,677
- 5,122
Yeah, it's not like anybody said so before the tournament, it's a completely new idea only born out of hindsight.
BruinLVGA
Just got me a Beretta 92XI Squalo!
1. How do you know if no one cares about the sport if they're not exposed to it?
It seems someone in the NHL thinks so too, seen that Beleskey & Pastrnak went to China on exactly such a mission (= to grow the game in non traditional markets): http://www.theplayerstribune.com/matt-beleskey-boston-bruins-china/
Do you think that Beleskey & Pastrnak were sent there just for fun?
By the way... Do you know how (American) football leagues started in Europe? Because private TV channels started showing NFL games and people enjoyed the novelty so much that they started forming teams and leagues (I was one of them: I played in two leagues - meaning two different nations - back in the day), which are now very much alive and kicking.
That was a start from scratch, from absolutely nothing. Now there are leagues thriving, maybe in another 10-20 years there will be NFL players coming out of these leagues. All of this done simply by showing something good that people didn't have much knowledge nor access to.
The effort is most definitely worth the possibility and folks like you who want to ridicule that, are just brutally short sighted.
2. I have watched every Olympics, summer and winter, since 1976. Plenty of talk about each of them by all medias available.
The NHL did the right thing by participating to the last five Olympics. Incredibly stupid to abandon that because of a money grab. Is that clear?
Some conclusions can be made of that NAT game: Finns didn't watch it. Pay-TV (Viasat) subscribers aren't included in those numbers, but it's hard to believe that it would make more difference than some tens of thousands at maximum. For other two games the difference could be a bit higher (even 100k better or something), but still the numbers are not comparable to other men's tournaments (or even WJC). Rio Olympic athletics (men's javelin basically) got 429k rating at 3:30AM on 21st August and ice hockey gets the best sports ratings in general. So if there's interesting lion hockey ongoing at 3 AM, it gets better ratings on free channel than it got now.
BladesofSTEELwFIRE
Registered User
- Feb 15, 2010
- 1,570
- 3
99% of Americans haven't even HEARD of the World Cup of hockey! This was an AWFUL time to have it! In America everyone is consumed by the presidential election! With regard to sports it's the NFL and baseball wild card races.
The World Cup of hockey isn't even an afterthought because NO ONE even knows what it is!!
