Chunkylover 26 Report post Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=3807681 Ratings are up over last years. Or if you like: Wings>Crosby. Edited January 4, 2009 by Chunkylover Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betterREDthandead 58 Report post Posted January 5, 2009 http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=3807681 Ratings are up over last years. Or if you like: Wings>Crosby. Or, y'know, the Detroit/Chicago media markets combined are three and a half times the size of Pittsburgh/Buffalo. But no - I forgot - this is LGW, where we have an inferiority complex about a player we beat for the championship. Carry on obsessing about Sidney Crosby. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted January 5, 2009 Oddly enough, I think ratings were pretty high in Pittsburgh this year too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thedisappearer 291 Report post Posted January 5, 2009 Carry on obsessing about Sidney Crosby. Actually, it's obsessing about the NHL's coverage of Crosby. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeverForgetMac25 483 Report post Posted January 5, 2009 Or, y'know, the Detroit/Chicago media markets combined are three and a half times the size of Pittsburgh/Buffalo. But no - I forgot - this is LGW, where we have an inferiority complex about a player we beat for the championship. Carry on obsessing about Sidney Crosby. QFT Actually, it's obsessing about the NHL's coverage of Crosby. No, it really isn't. It's not what the masses of LGW make it out to be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveyzerman 0 Report post Posted January 5, 2009 Pens are out of the playoffs right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chunkylover 26 Report post Posted January 5, 2009 Or, y'know, the Detroit/Chicago media markets combined are three and a half times the size of Pittsburgh/Buffalo. But no - I forgot - this is LGW, where we have an inferiority complex about a player we beat for the championship. Carry on obsessing about Sidney Crosby. Yeah, I posted this on HFBoards as well but because of the mixed community over there I didn't pander to the anti-Crosbites. Since we don't have to worry about upsetting Penguins fans here I figured I'd play to the lowest common denominator. The one reason I thought this was significant was because most of the hockey community looked at the 2008 Stanley Cup Final as such a ratings success because the Crosby's Penguins were in them. I figured it was significant that the 2008 Final was the highest rated since 2002. And just so you don't think I'm ignoring your post, I don't think it matters what the size of the specific regions represented in the game are because the ratings are taken of the 20 largest cities in the country or something like that. I don't remember exactly but it was in the article. I guess the heart of the matter is that despite the NHL's marketing of one individual as the face of the league, it is the Red Wings that actually drew more viewers. This isn't an anti-Crosby statement, it's more like an indictment of some of the air-headed marketers who work for the NHL. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betterREDthandead 58 Report post Posted January 5, 2009 Yeah, I posted this on HFBoards as well but because of the mixed community over there I didn't pander to the anti-Crosbites. Since we don't have to worry about upsetting Penguins fans here I figured I'd play to the lowest common denominator. The one reason I thought this was significant was because most of the hockey community looked at the 2008 Stanley Cup Final as such a ratings success because the Crosby's Penguins were in them. I figured it was significant that the 2008 Final was the highest rated since 2002. And just so you don't think I'm ignoring your post, I don't think it matters what the size of the specific regions represented in the game are because the ratings are taken of the 20 largest cities in the country or something like that. I don't remember exactly but it was in the article. I guess the heart of the matter is that despite the NHL's marketing of one individual as the face of the league, it is the Red Wings that actually drew more viewers. This isn't an anti-Crosby statement, it's more like an indictment of some of the air-headed marketers who work for the NHL. I honestly don't think Crosby or not-Crosby has anything to do with it. I think the better ratings for this one have a lot more to do with: - Two much, much larger media markets - Success of last year's game generated hype and interest for this one - More famous and historic venue In fact, given that DET/CHI are over three times the size of PIT/BUF and the game most certainly didn't attract three times the ratings, you could actually suggest that Crosby generated a lot more nationwide interest than the Wings did, or at least there was very little if any difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donfishmaster 62 Report post Posted January 5, 2009 I honestly don't think Crosby or not-Crosby has anything to do with it. I think the better ratings for this one have a lot more to do with: - Two much, much larger media markets - Success of last year's game generated hype and interest for this one - More famous and historic venue In fact, given that DET/CHI are over three times the size of PIT/BUF and the game most certainly didn't attract three times the ratings, you could actually suggest that Crosby generated a lot more nationwide interest than the Wings did, or at least there was very little if any difference. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS = FAIL You are assuming ONLY home-team fans watch the game. There is undoubtedly a fixed amount of hockey fans who watch the game nationwide, and a given percentage of the home fans will watch it at an increased rate. Your assumption that Crosby therefore generated more nationwide interest is utterly, completely without statistical merit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chunkylover 26 Report post Posted January 5, 2009 I honestly don't think Crosby or not-Crosby has anything to do with it. I think the better ratings for this one have a lot more to do with: - Two much, much larger media markets - Success of last year's game generated hype and interest for this one - More famous and historic venue In fact, given that DET/CHI are over three times the size of PIT/BUF and the game most certainly didn't attract three times the ratings, you could actually suggest that Crosby generated a lot more nationwide interest than the Wings did, or at least there was very little if any difference. Yeah, I suppose you are correct. Getting 10% of Chicago or whatever the number was definitely helped the overall totals. So one could say it was the revitalization of the Blackhawks that really made this a success and a secondary cause was that the opponent was from Detroit. With that said can I still be annoyed when I walk into the electronics section of Wal-Mart and all their TVs are showing Crosby's first Finals goal as if that was actually the most important goal of the playoffs? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betterREDthandead 58 Report post Posted January 6, 2009 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS = FAIL You are assuming ONLY home-team fans watch the game. There is undoubtedly a fixed amount of hockey fans who watch the game nationwide, and a given percentage of the home fans will watch it at an increased rate. Your assumption that Crosby therefore generated more nationwide interest is utterly, completely without statistical merit. Perhaps you need some English lessons - we'll start with your homework, which is to go look up the difference between a suggestion and an assumption. An assumption would be what you did, by putting a conclusion instead of a suggestion in my mouth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
esteef 2,679 Report post Posted January 6, 2009 Actually, it's obsessing about the NHL's coverage of Crosby. Exactly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
esteef 2,679 Report post Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) You are assuming ONLY home-team fans watch the game. There is undoubtedly a fixed amount of hockey fans who watch the game nationwide, and a given percentage of the home fans will watch it at an increased rate. Also, there are a lot of Wings and Hawks fans spread out across the country that probably watched, moreso I would say than the Sabres or Pens. Let alone it was an old time rivalry between two O6 teams. That probably helped as well. Just sayin'... esteef Edited January 6, 2009 by esteef Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
