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
Jussi
Registered User
Due to weather reasons, the NHL has cancelled the viewing party outside of the ACC for tonight's game
TheSituation
Registered User
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,790
- 15,438
Is this for real?
Well, weather Canada is calling for a 40% chance of showers and a low of 15 degrees. Canadians cannot tolerate weather that bad.
86Habs
Registered User
- May 4, 2009
- 2,588
- 420
Is this for real?
In all fairness there is 70% chance of rain. Approximately 2 mm. Better safe than sorry, with such a large and passionate crowd expected you don't want things to get out of hand.
Coinneach
Registered User
cutchemist42
Registered User
snipes
How cold? I’m ice cold.
- Dec 28, 2015
- 56,205
- 65,502
Too funny eh? We were up in the middle of the night waiting in lines and packing into bars at 3:00, 4:00 am. Middle of the winter in the pitch black.
The gimmicks are a one off as expected.
snipes
How cold? I’m ice cold.
- Dec 28, 2015
- 56,205
- 65,502
Too funny eh? We were up in the middle of the night waiting in lines and packing into bars at 3:00, 4:00 am. Middle of the winter in the pitch black.
The gimmicks are a one off as expected.
For the 2014 Sochi Gold Medal game.
Asia
In SE Asia it was a 7pm start. Nice change from middle of night or early morning NHL games. Only thing was big pub we found to watch was packed with Swedes. We toned down our celebrating.
In SE Asia it was a 7pm start. Nice change from middle of night or early morning NHL games. Only thing was big pub we found to watch was packed with Swedes. We toned down our celebrating.
snipes
How cold? I’m ice cold.
- Dec 28, 2015
- 56,205
- 65,502
In Canada, we got special permission from the Government for bars to open in the early hours. Bars in Alberta opened at 5 am
.The Olympics must remain.
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,033
Numbers are amazing for ESPN given no US.
With US in the finals they would have done well over 1 million. Maybe more than that.
Anyone who is saying this tournament wasn't successful is boarderline brain dead.
How much does the NHL pay you to post on here? I want this job, where can I submit my resume?
Epsilon
#basta
Meanwhile, actual sports media expert Richard Deitsch calls the ratings a bust:
But I guess he's "boarderline [sic] brain dead" too.
Past Considerations
Registered User
The link in that ^ tweet: http://www.si.com/tech-media/2016/0...ernandez-death-nfl-week-3-presidential-debate
If one examines ESPN’s coverage of the World Cup of Hockey using ratings as the singular metric, the production has been somewhat of a bust. The U.S. team getting eliminated last Tuesday ended any hopes of a momentum push for the tournament. The high for the tournament so far? The Canada-U.S. round-robin game drew 766,000 viewers on ESPN. For context, the 766,000 viewers would rank as a top 10 regular season game on NBCSN. As for comparing it to Olympic hockey, the U.S.-Canada at the Sochi Olympics drew 4 million viewers at noon ET on a Friday on NBCSN. A game between Team Europe and Canada last Wednesday drew just 287,000 viewers on ESPN2 from 8:00 p.m.-10:38 p.m.
“I don’t know it is a disappointment because I don’t know we had any expectations with great accuracy attached to them given the fact the World Cup of Hockey was last held in 2004 and it’s a preseason tournament so you are attempting to get people interested in hockey prior to the season,” said Magnus.
Naturally, ESPN execs had hoped Team USA would advance further given it would have added eyeballs at the end of the tournament.
“We have to do deal with the cards we get dealt,” Magnus said. “We are just overjoyed to present meaningful hockey again on ESPN even if just for a couple of weeks. I think the viewership has been fine and I am looking forward to a compelling finish.”
On the issue of whether the NHL must be on ESPN for relevance, this tournament will not add to that narrative. But the key word is must. The NHL having ESPN as a secondary partner behind NBC would be very good for the league and potentially good for viewers too. Magnus said he is hopeful that when the NHL television rights come up for bid again after the 2020–21 season, his company “will have a shot.” [...]
If one examines ESPN’s coverage of the World Cup of Hockey using ratings as the singular metric, the production has been somewhat of a bust. The U.S. team getting eliminated last Tuesday ended any hopes of a momentum push for the tournament. The high for the tournament so far? The Canada-U.S. round-robin game drew 766,000 viewers on ESPN. For context, the 766,000 viewers would rank as a top 10 regular season game on NBCSN. As for comparing it to Olympic hockey, the U.S.-Canada at the Sochi Olympics drew 4 million viewers at noon ET on a Friday on NBCSN. A game between Team Europe and Canada last Wednesday drew just 287,000 viewers on ESPN2 from 8:00 p.m.-10:38 p.m.
“I don’t know it is a disappointment because I don’t know we had any expectations with great accuracy attached to them given the fact the World Cup of Hockey was last held in 2004 and it’s a preseason tournament so you are attempting to get people interested in hockey prior to the season,” said Magnus.
Naturally, ESPN execs had hoped Team USA would advance further given it would have added eyeballs at the end of the tournament.
“We have to do deal with the cards we get dealt,” Magnus said. “We are just overjoyed to present meaningful hockey again on ESPN even if just for a couple of weeks. I think the viewership has been fine and I am looking forward to a compelling finish.”
On the issue of whether the NHL must be on ESPN for relevance, this tournament will not add to that narrative. But the key word is must. The NHL having ESPN as a secondary partner behind NBC would be very good for the league and potentially good for viewers too. Magnus said he is hopeful that when the NHL television rights come up for bid again after the 2020–21 season, his company “will have a shot.” [...]
That article is in the context of a Vice President attempting to defend ESPN's continued viability as "The" sport broadcasting powerhouse so the president's comments on that should be taken in that context. "I don’t know it is a disappointment" and “We have to do deal with the cards we get dealt†is typical president speak as is the part where he says that he thinks the ratings are "fine", but you really get all you need from that. Google "World Cup of Hockey TV Ratings" and you'll get a lot of negative articles, press, with one or two outliers.
Meanwhile to the CyNick who is a real optimist if I ever met one, Team Europe does not exist, instead, Team Slovakia is drawn up in the group. The US with it's U23 superstars goes 2-1 plays Sweden in the playoffs, THEN you would have gotten your ratings. One upset (given a team with Eichel, Johnny Hockey, etc) over Sweden and your little fantasy happens. Instead the US first surrenders top talent to a North American super-team that statistically did not generate impressive ratings in the US, then loses to a European super-team and the hype is killed. Stop giving hypotheticals when it was the gimmicks themselves who eliminated the chances of the US making the playoffs, much less making the finals. It is indisputable that Phil Kessel alone was not the difference between the US losing 3-0 to a super-team and the US winning, and it is also indisputable that with Johnny Hockey and Jack Eichel at the very least the US would've easily beat Slovakia to advance to the knockout rounds.
It is like you building a tank clumsier in weather than the M1 Abrams but with significantly more armor and embark on war in a soggy place like the Amazon. Your armor works spectacularly but "oh if only we could mobilise the tanks into battle", no you fool, the added tons of armor you put onto the tank are what is preventing the product from entering service. Any hypotheticals regarding it's effectiveness in service are irrelevant and silly.
Meanwhile to the CyNick who is a real optimist if I ever met one, Team Europe does not exist, instead, Team Slovakia is drawn up in the group. The US with it's U23 superstars goes 2-1 plays Sweden in the playoffs, THEN you would have gotten your ratings. One upset (given a team with Eichel, Johnny Hockey, etc) over Sweden and your little fantasy happens. Instead the US first surrenders top talent to a North American super-team that statistically did not generate impressive ratings in the US, then loses to a European super-team and the hype is killed. Stop giving hypotheticals when it was the gimmicks themselves who eliminated the chances of the US making the playoffs, much less making the finals. It is indisputable that Phil Kessel alone was not the difference between the US losing 3-0 to a super-team and the US winning, and it is also indisputable that with Johnny Hockey and Jack Eichel at the very least the US would've easily beat Slovakia to advance to the knockout rounds.
It is like you building a tank clumsier in weather than the M1 Abrams but with significantly more armor and embark on war in a soggy place like the Amazon. Your armor works spectacularly but "oh if only we could mobilise the tanks into battle", no you fool, the added tons of armor you put onto the tank are what is preventing the product from entering service. Any hypotheticals regarding it's effectiveness in service are irrelevant and silly.
Mitchy
#HFOutcasts
Neely2005
Registered User
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,790
- 15,438
I like this one better than when you complained about someone giving "misinformation" about the time a game aired, and then proceeded to give the wrong time. The ratings were bad on ESPN, and there was never any reason to suspect otherwise.
Rob
Registered User
cutchemist42
Registered User
I don't know about ratings, but given I was able to snag a pair of ducats in the first row of a 300 section behind the Europe net for Game 1 online at $40 per ticket, with a face value nearly 5 times that, and that there were at least 4,000 sold but empty seats in the ACC, the Canada-Europe final had to have been a complete nightmare scenario for the NHL. The only thing worse would have been, say, a Europe-Czech Republic final.
