Derek21 Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/cup/...05-tv-nhl_x.htm USATODAY.com - NHL ratings sag; rights for new TV deal could, too NHL ratings sag; rights for new TV deal could, tooBy Rudy Martzke, USA TODAY With negotiations for a new TV contract near, sagging playoff ratings are hurting the NHL's position. Overnight ratings for Saturday's games on ABC, matching Philadelphia-Ottawa and Anaheim-Dallas, fell 23% from last year to a 1.7 average. National ratings for ABC's first three weeks of the playoffs averaged 1.1, a 21% drop-off. That is the same drop-off experienced during the regular season. Negotiations are to begin in July for a renewal of ESPN/ABC's five-year, $600 million deal, which expires after the 2003-04 season. The hoped-for rise in ratings that could stave off a 50% drop in rights fees didn't happen. ESPN's playoff ratings have dipped 14% from last year to a 0.6 cable average, a loss of 50,000 homes a game. Playoff audiences on ESPN2 are off 94,000 homes a game, a 20% ratings decline. That is just brutal. Get ready for no network covering our favorite sport . "The name American teams (Detroit, Colorado, St. Louis) have had difficulty advancing," said ESPN vice president Mark Shapiro. "A Vancouver-Ottawa Finals would be ominous." Typical by this jerk. Boohoo. As sad as it sounds, this jerk is probably right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilMinder Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 What about the other leagues. These numbers mean $hit when they aren't compared to something. How did the NBA and the NCAA fair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 no big surprise here, they've been in steady decline since the late 90's when the NHL regressed into a stale garage league. I'd like to see how Bettman spin doctors this. I think we're in for some more gimmicks & silly rule changes. "MORE EXPANSION! Toothless bumpkins in Mobile need hockey, give 'em the Habs!!!" the best hockey nowadays is on ESPN Classic for pure hockey, vancouver-ottawa would probably be the best matchup, too bad it's a ratings killer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamode Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 "MORE EXPANSION! Toothless bumpkins in Mobile need hockey, give 'em the Habs!!!"A bit of a biased remark about Alabamians/Southerners, don't you think? for pure hockey, vancouver-ottawa would probably be the best matchup, too bad it's a ratings killer. It is a ratings killer but I don't think this is the best matchup of quality hockey just because they're Canadian. Something has to be done to market the sport better. If ESPN's ratings are down, well is that accurate because they only broadcast the Avs & Wings! The Dire Straits part actually caught my eye first, Derek--you know I am huge fan! MK is healing up well, I hope. The whole tour was cancelled, I was pretty bummed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 I think the whole ratings thing is b.s. Who the hell has one of these stupid boxes that monitors what is being watched? Some stupid toothless hick somewhere with the IQ of a gnat? I have never known, nor has anyone I know known someone that has one of these Neilson boxes. Does anyone on this board know of anyone? I don't like my television veiwing being determined and judged by 1% of the population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
point Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Can anyone explain why Colorado is a ratings draw? The franchise has only been there for -what? 8-10 years? Do they draw fans from Quebec City? Only 600,000 people live in QC. I don't get this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 point: A good deal of sports fans follow their local hockey team because they are local, not because they are a hockey team. So once the Avs moved in and won the Cup, a lot of people were hooked.. as long as the Avs keep winning. They also play an exciting style with exciting players, have "cool-looking" uniforms, and have had a lot of success lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-Man Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Some deal should be made to have CBC available to cable & satellite providers in the US. They have the best NHL coverage available. I cringe when I think about some of the US networks covering the NHL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted May 7, 2003 Author Share Posted May 7, 2003 Zam, I knew the Dire Straits thing would catch your eye. Big fan of theirs' too. When they are doing that horribly nationally and as the fourth sport, it's not a good sign for the league's future . Why is ESPN going to retain them when they have MLB, NFL and their beloved NBA ? I know. Who cares if they don't pick up the NHL. If only it were that simple to attract another major network to pick up the league. Network execs look at the bottom line and those numbers don't bring the sound, "Cha ching" to the premise. Where does the NHL go from here ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfsharkalligatorhalfman Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 a hard cap is the only thing that could save hockey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 maybe they'll go to NBC, that network has been relegated to showing Arena League Football. Though I have a feeling the AFL gets higher ratings than the NHL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langenbrunner15 Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Don't forget.. ESPN is a west coast station... they favor west coast hocke teams and rarely show east coast hockey games.... they only do during the playoffs and even then they don't show many..... MAYBE THATS THE PROBLEM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBT Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 They also play an exciting style with exciting players, have "cool-looking" uniforms, and have had a lot of success lately. You are correct, sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Devil Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 I think the whole ratings thing is b.s. Who the hell has one of these stupid boxes that monitors what is being watched? Some stupid toothless hick somewhere with the IQ of a gnat? I have never known, nor has anyone I know known someone that has one of these Neilson boxes. Does anyone on this board know of anyone? I don't like my television veiwing being determined and judged by 1% of the population. I actually used to install the boxes in people's homes. Believe me when I say the spectrum of people with the boxes is W-I-D-E. I've been in plastic surgeons and corporate lawyers homes. I've also walked in the middle of a crack deal in center city Philly and everything in between. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfsharkalligatorhalfman Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 i've seen every devils game except one on espn and abc this year (i live in rochester) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Wow that is awful. TSN AND CBC have been getting over a million viewers for every game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbdf Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 It doesn't help that people are locked up all winter, the weather finally starts to break in April and May and you can get out on a saturday or sunday and enjoy some warm weather and sunshine so, hey, let's put hockey on at 3pm - yeah, sure, lots of people would rather stay stuck inside and watch ice hockey in the afternoon for the first couple of warm sunny saturdays than say, get their boats in the water, go fishing, do yardwork, take a walk on the beach, go for a hike, play ball with their kids in the park, makes sense to me. and as to those neilson boxes, what a crock. the cable company can easily monitor what station every t.v. hooked up to a cable line is tuned to - that would be much more accurate than a "random" sample of people WILLING TO ALLOW such monitoring (doesn't that limit the population and therefore destroy the "random" part) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Devil Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Actually, rbdf, your method omits the non-cable population which, I'm guessing, is a lot more sizeable than you're estimating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbdf Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 I believe I know 1 person with the dishnetwork. I know NOBODY using over the air antenna. So out of say 50 (nice round number) different households i've been in in the past say 2 years, 1 had the dish, the other 49 were cable-different companies, different states, but still cable. How is my method of determining how many households would be monitored by cable companies any better or worse than the neilson survey method of contacting a random sample of people, then requesting permission to put a box in their home for a certain amount of time, then contacting someone else when they say no, and so on and so on until they reach their magic number for the month. And as someone else stated, in my 30 years, I too have yet to meet someone who was at any point in the past a Neilson household. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Devil Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 25 to 30 percent of the country views TV sans cable OR DBS. At least 15,000 households are Nielsen Households. Not all of them have the "People Meter." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbdf Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 In that case, I change my argument. If your 25-30% figure is correct, my argument changes to "they don't watch enough t.v. to matter - they get what, 10 channels, obviously they are not big t.v. people. The rest of us get over 100 channels and spend every evening flipping through every one of them, repeatedly, trying to find something worth watching - usually settling for a re-run of ferris buler's day off, but that's besides the point." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIDevsFan1 Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 It doesn't help that people are locked up all winter, the weather finally starts to break in April and May and you can get out on a saturday or sunday and enjoy some warm weather and sunshine so, hey, let's put hockey on at 3pm - yeah, sure, lots of people would rather stay stuck inside and watch ice hockey in the afternoon for the first couple of warm sunny saturdays than say, get their boats in the water, go fishing, do yardwork, take a walk on the beach, go for a hike, play ball with their kids in the park, makes sense to me. Couldn't agree more (again)---season needs to be over by May 1. Other than for football, no one is staying in on a nice Sat aft. to watch teams they don't care about. Seven months for a cult sport is enough. I can't wait until a team like Pheonix make it to the SCF (hopefully playing us) and they're playing in 100 degree weather. NHL will look foolish again. They (the NHL) are just so short--sighted is unbelieveable. Frankly, they deserve everything they get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Devil Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 In that case, I change my argument. If your 25-30% figure is correct, my argument changes to "they don't watch enough t.v. to matter - they get what, 10 channels, obviously they are not big t.v. people. The rest of us get over 100 channels and spend every evening flipping through every one of them, repeatedly, trying to find something worth watching - usually settling for a re-run of ferris buler's day off, but that's besides the point." You are right, there are those households that do not spend more than 5 hours a MONTH in front of the TV. The thing is, that doesn't make their viewing any less important. Nielsen's mission isn't to measure what American TV-watching households are viewing, its what AMERICA is viewing. Also, there may be many cultural and economic factors that contribute to a home being a non-cable household. Again, they are Americans and what they watch is important to Nielsen and Nielsen's customers. To leave them out of the sample just because they do not have cable is an "injustice' (for want of a better term) on many levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 At least 15,000 households are Nielsen Households. Not all of them have the "People Meter." 15,000 households is not going to measure what America is viewing at all. And what is a people meter? And GADev the so called wide spectrum you mentioned are the type of people who are least likely to watch television. Did you get the boxes back from the drug addicts? I'd bet they sold them with the tv! I remember shows being cancelled and the Neilsonless fans getting very riled and starting letter writing campaigns to save their fav shows. The system is extremely flawed. And is the box on every TV? Or can someone leave it tuned to a show and go watch what they really want to watch in another room? Once I read that bowling had better ratings than hockey, I knew positively that the system was seriously flawed. What kind of person sits and watchs a "sport" that a completely out of shape person can do. That a 3 yr old can do? That a moron can do. That you do because it is pouring rain and there is nothing at all to watch on tv on a Sunday afternoon. You still want to tell me that the reason hockey is not watched is because it is boring? Who praytell is watching bowling? (During the day on a weekend no less) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 I'm sorry but the mere thought of anyone "watching" bowling is downright scary. Get up you lazy jerk and throw your own ball and knock down the pins! The excitement. Will they get the spare? Gimme a break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.