Question about the average american's view on NHL

[Guest mindfly]

How come there are articles about it, journalists etc saying for the sport to grow among the general population in america they must remove fighting? Doesn't the american's just love it, UFC seems to be pretty big there for instance.

The latest HBO 24-7 when Fehr went out to that random family and the old lady said something like "what a tough sport, fighting and all, we don't want that blabla" ?

I just don't get it.

Edited December 31, 2010 by mindfly

[sleepwalker 512]

How come there are articles about it, journalists etc saying for the sport to grow among the general population in america they must remove fighting?

Because some journalists are clueless morons?

Hell, if anything, to make it catch on with the "average American", you'd have to have MORE fights. At the very minimum one a game, I'd guess.

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros 1,029]

Because some journalists are clueless morons?

Hell, if anything, to make it catch on with the "average American", you'd have to have MORE fights. At the very minimum one a game, I'd guess.

I hate UFC. Senseless violence.

[sleepwalker 512]

I hate UFC. Senseless violence.

I don't watch it either. But the fact is America is a violent country, inhabited by violent people, who love violence.

To say the only way to make hockey popular to Americans is to take fighting out, is just so completely mindblowingly wrong, it makes you wonder if the person who wrote something like that was smoking crack at the time they wrote it.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

From my perspective, the game is sorta stuck in between. The NHL wants families involved in the sport, but fighting & family sports don't mesh.

The NHL wants to promote itself as a family friendly event for all. This is of course because it helps the $ and future of the sport (families = children = future fans and more players). Football is successful at skirting the line by being a contact sport, not a fighting sport. Somehow, people defending their teammates crosses the line.

The UFC has a popular following, but it's more the adult male & bar scene. People who wish to pay to watch two people knock the crap outta each other. I don't know a ton of families that huddle around the TV for UFC. The few that do are controlled by a testosterone filled blue collar father who doesn't give a crap what the kids wanna see.

[Guest mindfly]

Pierre McGuire for example

Stances on issues in hockey

McGuire has been outspoken as an advocate of removing the red line and allowing skilled players to play a skilled game without clutching and grabbing impeding them. His views of hockey have him campaigning for all players to wear partial visors. With respect to fighting, McGuire has professed that he loves this aspect of the game but he believes for the game to sell in the United States and for the game to progress, this aspect of the game must be removed. McGuire's outspoken nature provided one of the more interesting stories during the 2004–05 NHL hockey lockout. After McGuire claimed that, if asked to vote privately, more than 70% of NHL players would accept an owner-imposed salary cap, NHL player Tie Domi countered that McGuire was completely off-base. McGuire later retracted part of his claim by saying he never should have given a percentage but that he still believed strongly that assertion was true.[6] In the end, the players accepted a salary cap arrangement in the 2004 CBA.

Edited December 31, 2010 by mindfly

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros 1,029]

I don't watch it either. But the fact is America is a violent country, inhabited by violent people, who love violence.

To say the only way to make hockey popular to Americans is to take fighting out, is just so completely mindblowingly wrong, it makes you wonder if the person who wrote something like that was smoking crack at the time they wrote it.

That's true. That's not the first time someone has said hockey would become more popular in the states with the removal of fighting, though. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's always been a part of the game, it always will be a part of the game. Most non-hockey fans i talk to say its too boring, that there's not enough scoring. So, maybe if every game was 10-9 then it would become more popular, which is what the league has been getting at since the lockout, with the implementation of rules that prohibit clutching and grabbing, thus creating more offense.

[Jedi 1,865]

I don't think removing fighting would do anything to increase the popularity of the sport. If anything, I believe it would have the exact opposite effect.

I think the best thing the NHL could do to increase popularity of the sport in the States is to get onto itself onto as many TV screens as it cans. While VS. has increased it's market share since they first picked up the NHL, there are still more American homes that have ESPN than VS. Getting the sport on a network that can show the games in more households is one of the most effective ways to increase the popularity of the game.

Getting a little consistency with the refs and disciplinary matters wouldn't hurt either. Say for instance, give Toronto the ability to overrule the "intent to blow the whistle" rule?

And Pierre McToolGuire? Maybe he believes that if players buckled up their chinstraps, then the NHL would be more popular...

[Guest mindfly]

That's true. That's not the first time someone has said hockey would become more popular in the states with the removal of fighting, though. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's always been a part of the game, it always will be a part of the game. Most non-hockey fans i talk to say its too boring, that there's not enough scoring. So, maybe if every game was 10-9 then it would become more popular, which is what the league has been getting at since the lockout, with the implementation of rules that prohibit clutching and grabbing, thus creating more offense.

And bigger nets, and smaller goalie equipment, and trapazoid and the list can go on forever.

Edited December 31, 2010 by mindfly

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

That's true. That's not the first time someone has said hockey would become more popular in the states with the removal of fighting, though. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's always been a part of the game, it always will be a part of the game. Most non-hockey fans i talk to say its too boring, that there's not enough scoring. So, maybe if every game was 10-9 then it would become more popular, which is what the league has been getting at since the lockout, with the implementation of rules that prohibit clutching and grabbing, thus creating more offense.

The "game doesn't have enough scoring" angle makes little sense to me. Plenty of people are willing to watch cars drive around a track, or golf, or soccer/football (the most popular sport worldwide). If anything, I'd think there's too much for new viewers to learn and keep track of and at too fast a pace.

Edit #2: I also don't consider blowout games nearly as enjoyable or interesting as a 0-1 game.

Edited December 31, 2010 by CaliWingsNut

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros 1,029]

And bigger nets, and smaller goalie equipment, and trapazoid and the list can go on forever.

True. I still think the trapezoid is bogus. Bigger nets are beyond bogus, but i don't have a problem with the smaller goalie equipment. Take a look at the goalies from the '80s, i don't have a problem heading back in that direction, although goalie equipment will never be that small again.

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros 1,029]

I don't think removing fighting would do anything to increase the popularity of the sport. If anything, I believe it would have the exact opposite effect.

I think the best thing the NHL could do to increase popularity of the sport in the States is to get onto itself onto as many TV screens as it cans. While VS. has increased it's market share since they first picked up the NHL, there are still more American homes that have ESPN than VS. Getting the sport on a network that can show the games in more households is one of the most effective ways to increase the popularity of the game.

Getting a little consistency with the refs and disciplinary matters wouldn't hurt either. Say for instance, give Toronto the ability to overrule the "intent to blow the whistle" rule?

And Pierre McToolGuire? Maybe he believes that if players buckled up their chinstraps, then the NHL would be more popular...

As far as getting onto as many screens as possible, ESPN doesn't help at all. Take for instance, the Steve Downie incident in 2008 and the Chris Simon incident in 2007, it was the only coverage the NHL got from ESPN for a while.

[CenterIce 83]

Out of the 4 major sports in the US, I think hockey gets knocked the most for the following, no particular order, reasons:

Basic rules more complicated

Costs more to play

Harder to play year round

Less media coverage/have to understand it to cover it

League with most non US franchises

League marketing/promoting not good

Too many franchises based on TV rather than hockey markets

Too many franchises in financial/attendance trouble

[Jedi 1,865]

As far as getting onto as many screens as possible, ESPN doesn't help at all. Take for instance, the Steve Downie incident in 2008 and the Chris Simon incident in 2007, it was the only coverage the NHL got from ESPN for a while.

But look at which network(s) the NHL were on at that time. NBC and VS., which are two direct competitors to the ESPN/ABC networks. It's not surprising that ESPN would dedicate more coverage (even in SportsCenter and all of ESPN's other original programming) to sports that they carry, as opposed to hyping up the NHL. They're not going to give much coverage to a sport that people have to watch on a competing network.

The current TV contract with VS. & NBC is up this year. ESPN's management has indicated that they would like to have the NHL back on the ESPN/ABC networks, as well as VS./NBC wanting to keep them. The NHL is in a good position to try and leverage better TV revenues, and more games shown, from either network. I just hope the League sees the same opportunity that I do, rather than just blindly going with whatever NBC and VS. offers.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

The average American doesn't know squat about hockey and assumes it is more violent than what it really is.

I think the non-hockey fan assumes the NHL is like the film Slapshot, where violence and brawls break out every game. They'd be surprised to know that those things rarely happen like they used to in the olden days.

[clearlybetter11 18]

I wouldn't really place the woman from 24/7 in the average american category, she came off as more of a worried mother type than a sports watching type. I think hockey is a really misunderstood sport because people just don't have enough exposure to it. It is an expensive sport (ice time, equipment, etc) also unlike football, baseball, and basketball, hockey requires a unique skill set. Most sports are just a combination of ordinary skills like running, jumping,and catching therefore people who do not play can still hold there own when they give it a try. Hockey on the other hand requires a person to be able to skate and use a hockey stick, skills that do not come natural as human nature and must be practiced on. Therefore people do not find it as fun at first and just give up on it, even though most people who give it a chance turn out to love the sport.

[edicius 3,269]

The average American doesn't know squat about hockey and assumes it is more violent than what it really is.

I think the non-hockey fan assumes the NHL is like the film Slapshot, where violence and brawls break out every game. They'd be surprised to know that those things rarely happen like they used to in the olden days.

Which is odd that Americans love their football, which in my eyes, is a far more violent sport than hockey any day of the week (both on and off the field).

[WorkingOvertime 536]

Most Americans that don't watch hockey probably want fighting removed. However, I doubt that removing fighting will bring these people to the games. Even if fighting is removed, it would still happen as it does in the Euro leagues (just much less). Therefore, I am not sure if it would bring these fan in to the game as much as hoped.

Personally, I would hate for fighting to be removed. There are so many dangerous things that can happen in hockey- ran from behind, two-handed with a stick (both have happened to me), etc- that the semi self-policing nature of the sport is very attractive to me.

[Zetts 236]

True. I still think the trapezoid is bogus. Bigger nets are beyond bogus, but i don't have a problem with the smaller goalie equipment. Take a look at the goalies from the '80s, i don't have a problem heading back in that direction, although goalie equipment will never be that small again.

YES. That was easily the stupidest recent rule change. Painting little random zones on the ice where only some players can play the puck?! It gives it the feel of some sad game an elementary school gym teacher came up with.

And more importantly: Rule changes like that make the game MORE complicated for casual fans (or new fans) to follow. Changing the size of zones by a foot or two is something that I'm completely fine with. But adding more complicated, unnecessary rules is counterproductive.

Here's an idea for the next rule change: Maybe the defense shouldn't be allowed to touch the puck inside the circles in their own zone. That would increase offense too.

Oh yeah, and I feel like the huge success of the WWE suggests that a whole lot of Americans like violence, including families.

[Hockey Convert 55]

Part of what makes this question difficult is a related question: how to define an "average American"? The U.S. is a big place, and I can tell you from experience that the "average person" varies wildly from region to region. I've only had what I'd consider direct experience with three places I've lived, so I'll stick to those. The one I know the least/am still learning is Providence, RI, where I've been traveling for work for about 4 months now. There, and in the Boston area, it seems to me that the average person is at least aware of hockey, has probably seen a Bruins game, and may very well be a fan. People also play hockey, and I hear advertisements for hockey supply stores on the radio.

This is a huge contrast to where I live (and have for 3.5 years), in central South Carolina. Here, the average person is barely aware that sports exist other than college football. He also might follow college baseball, possibly basketball. Hockey is, to people here, one of those things that they're aware exists, but in an abstract way; something that exists in theory but really has no bearing on their lives. It's not any one aspect that keeps people from liking hockey, it's that hockey is nowhere in the local culture, and if there's one thing that will rile up Southerners quickly, it's any prospect of change to their culture. I don't think less fighting, more scoring, or anything else would sway the average person in SC.

I grew up in western Washington state, and I'd say it's halfway between the two. There were hockey fans around, and a few junior hockey league teams that most people would have at least heard of. However, I'd say the biggest problem there is again culture, but due to the climate; lakes and ponds are generally not frozen over solidly enough to skate on, so the average person has probably never been ice-skating. Now, eastern WA is different, because it gets very cold, and I think there are probably more hockey fans per capita (I would guess that the Spokane team, I think it's the Chiefs, has a bigger following than the Thunderbirds or Everett team whose name escapes me). I think the average person in WA could be a hockey fan, if it were more prevalent somehow.

Truth be told, I didn't watch hockey growing up; I'm really here because I started dating and later married a girl from the Detroit area. She converted me to hockey and the Red Wings. I really watched it for the first time the first couple years we were together, and she'd turn on the playoff games. I gradually realized how awesome hockey is, and now I can't get enough; but it took that experience to wake me up. The point of all this rambling, really, is that it's hard to say the NHL needs "less fighting", or "more scoring", or any other factor to draw in the average American because while you could define that average, the variance is just so high.

[Lord Stanely 39]

MARKETING!

I love hockey. I live 3 hours south of Minneapolis and I only know one other person in mytown who loves hockey and he is a displaced Canadian Dr.

Most people who know that I love hockey look at me as sort of strange- it's like a gimmik to them. They "don't get it". "It's too hard to understand". I think the marketing needs to stop making hockey so mysterious and just make it simple- KISS.

When you have teams with names of players that most local people woudl think are something from a terrorist watch list or KGB role call that can't help either. Getting a guy like Lidstrom and these other "non-American" names to show they are normal every day types couldn't hurt. Doing more with players on TV has to happen- Osgood on Tonight show, etc.

The thing I personally LOVE about hockey and why I became a FANATIC is the oddity of it. The stories of the Stanley Cup being dropped kicked on the river and being found a year later, Sawchuck playing with broken arms, Yzerman on a hobbled knee, Lids with a speared testi, old time players jumping over the boards and fighting fans, etc. I LOVE THAT STUFF- I love the history of the game- but others might take it as the game being for die-hard whackos- it needs to be normalized for the regular guy- but then again for me I DON"T WANT A NORMAL VANILLA SPORT! That is why I no longer watch Basketball. But I do think for the everyman to really take off with understanding hockey and enjoying it they need to

1. Market it tons- names have to become everyday- not just Crosby/Ovechkin but Helm, Osgood, Lids, Dipiettro, hell throw a dart and grab some names and get then in the community.

2. Stop making it so "mysterious". It is NOT a difficult game- skilled yes, but easy to follow. Start using the olympics to teach people.

3. Start marketing at lower levels. Free hockey seasons for youths sponsored by local teams.

4. Pro players showing up at rinks for pick-up games. Could you imagine Osgood showing up to play goal at a local rink followed by a huge newspaper article.

5. Newspapers putting the freaking sport in the paper or somewhere other than a small section after thought on the last page near the classifieds. I'm 3 freaking hours from Minneapolis and my local paper doesn't even print the game summaries, standings, or ANYTHING- NOTHING! Local teams need to start getting newspapers to do stories about the games and follow the teams.

6. Free Tickets at High School levels to NHL/AHL, etc for good grdes, etc

7. Get sports teams from High Schools or colleges to come to games- bring them on the ice- build excitement that will generate into word of mouth at a grass roots level.

8. Local teams doing give aways with local news, TV, radio.

9. Cross market with Car dealerships, restaurants, etc.GET TICKETS TO PEOPLE FOR FREE- word of mouth- grass roots- build excitement.

10. Games on ESPN

11. Games on local networks!!!!!!!! Holy Crap could you imagine! Even if only once and a while.

12. Players involved in community- sort of like the Penguins Season ticket delivery by players.

13. Get your players camera time in other locations- human interest stories.

14. Get a story of human interest on Oprah, etc! Like the Dream a Wish kids that play with Wings!

15. Fire bettman.

16. Commercials that teach simple parts of the games on College football, NFL, MLB, etc

17. Players making appearances at first pitch time, etc.

[Lord Stanely 39]

Part of what makes this question difficult is a related question: how to define an "average American"? The U.S. is a big place, and I can tell you from experience that the "average person" varies wildly from region to region. I've only had what I'd consider direct experience with three places I've lived, so I'll stick to those. The one I know the least/am still learning is Providence, RI, where I've been traveling for work for about 4 months now. There, and in the Boston area, it seems to me that the average person is at least aware of hockey, has probably seen a Bruins game, and may very well be a fan. People also play hockey, and I hear advertisements for hockey supply stores on the radio.

This is a huge contrast to where I live (and have for 3.5 years), in central South Carolina. Here, the average person is barely aware that sports exist other than college football. He also might follow college baseball, possibly basketball. Hockey is, to people here, one of those things that they're aware exists, but in an abstract way; something that exists in theory but really has no bearing on their lives. It's not any one aspect that keeps people from liking hockey, it's that hockey is nowhere in the local culture, and if there's one thing that will rile up Southerners quickly, it's any prospect of change to their culture. I don't think less fighting, more scoring, or anything else would sway the average person in SC.

I grew up in western Washington state, and I'd say it's halfway between the two. There were hockey fans around, and a few junior hockey league teams that most people would have at least heard of. However, I'd say the biggest problem there is again culture, but due to the climate; lakes and ponds are generally not frozen over solidly enough to skate on, so the average person has probably never been ice-skating. Now, eastern WA is different, because it gets very cold, and I think there are probably more hockey fans per capita (I would guess that the Spokane team, I think it's the Chiefs, has a bigger following than the Thunderbirds or Everett team whose name escapes me). I think the average person in WA could be a hockey fan, if it were more prevalent somehow.

Truth be told, I didn't watch hockey growing up; I'm really here because I started dating and later married a girl from the Detroit area. She converted me to hockey and the Red Wings. I really watched it for the first time the first couple years we were together, and she'd turn on the playoff games. I gradually realized how awesome hockey is, and now I can't get enough; but it took that experience to wake me up. The point of all this rambling, really, is that it's hard to say the NHL needs "less fighting", or "more scoring", or any other factor to draw in the average American because while you could define that average, the variance is just so high.

I'm 100% in line with your thoughts- I grew up in Michigan but become a hockey FANATIC when I went away to college and had a kid from Yorkton Saskatewan as my room mate who got me HOOKED on hockey. Before that I was just a Redwings Fan.

But your right to the rest of the country hockey is not even on the radar. I moved to Chicago from Adrian, MI in 1994 and was amaized that no news articles were on anything short of the 8th page on the Chicago sprots page. now of course that has changed and hockey is part of the culture in Chicago (I now live in Iowa though). It needs to get on peoples radars some how.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Lord Stanely

[Joey v3.4 45]

Out of the 4 major sports in the US, I think hockey gets knocked the most for the following, no particular order, reasons:

Basic rules more complicated

Costs more to play

Harder to play year round

Less media coverage/have to understand it to cover it

League with most non US franchises

League marketing/promoting not good

Too many franchises based on TV rather than hockey markets

Too many franchises in financial/attendance trouble

Costing more to play is a huge reason there aren't more American Hockey players. Only the rich kids can afford to play competitively. To play hockey you need pads, gear, skates, a stick, arena fees, league fees, etc. Very few schools play hockey below the high school level, and most high schools do not have hockey teams. So you have to play it independantly of school. Keep in mind that in order for a kid to become "good" at hockey he has to play a LOT, and has to have quality, more expensive equipment. It is not uncommon for some parents to pay thousands every year for one kid to play hockey.

Meanwhile, you can pick up a basketball for 20 bucks, and 10 kids can play all summer long. All schools have Basketball teams, and football teams.

I think the lack of ability to play it growing up, greatly reduces its popularity in places that aren't already hockey oriented (Ie. Canada, heh). Every kid plays basketball or football, but most people in the U.S. have never ever, even once, played ice hockey.

Plus you have to learn to skate, and a TON of people cannot skate that well.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Joey v3.4

[vangvace 12]

How come there are articles about it, journalists etc saying for the sport to grow among the general population in america they must remove fighting? Doesn't the american's just love it, UFC seems to be pretty big there for instance.

The latest HBO 24-7 when Fehr went out to that random family and the old lady said something like "what a tough sport, fighting and all, we don't want that blabla" ?

I just don't get it.

She also said it was the first game she watched. A rivalry game to boot.

[MulesWillFly93 199]

Maybe I'm just a violent American, but I think what's more important in drawing a family crowd is the atmosphere, rather than what's going on in the game itself. As a woman, I like the fact that I can go to a game - in "enemy" territory even - and just sit in my seat and cheer on my team without having a bunch of completely wasted jerks around me ruining it for everyone, home team fans included. I don't have kids, but if I did, I wouldn't hesitate taking them. Football or basketball...I'd be a little less willing maybe.

Not that I can speak for all of us, but I doubt Americans want less violence in the game. One thing I do know is that most of us like drama. A lot. Why the heck else is everybody so stuck on the Kardashians and Jersey Shore and all that stuff? Even if we won't admit we like violence, I think, if given the chance, a lot of us would really get into all the rivalries and paybacks and trash talk that goes on, as well as the violence that happens to come along with it. We eat that stuff up, it seems, and hockey is so satisfying because, unlike in other sports and most reality shows, you REALLY get to see some retribution take place. Whereas Paris Hilton just keeps on acting like a little twit and nobody calls her on it, somebody eventually always catches up with Sean Avery.

Speaking as a native Californian, I agree that the reason hockey's not popular here is because it's just not on our radar. Nobody ever talks about the Ducks or the Kings - they get a mention every now and then on the Sports page as part of their news round-up, the only hockey player people have ever heard of is Wayne Gretzky, and the hockey that does go on around here is hidden away in indoor rinks, and frankly, a lot of us just don't get into team sports period as much as other regions. You have to seek it out if you want to get into it. If I wasn't a naturally curious person and didn't have a serendipitous set of events that led up to me watching it, there's no way I would've become a hockey fan. The only exposure I got to it was the Mighty Ducks movie when I was a kid and a story we read in one of my French classes about a kid from Quebec who was a Canadiens fan. Those two things, coupled with being really bored one winter break with nothing on TV to watch, were the only reasons I started watching hockey.

I do think we Californians are a little more primed for understanding the game now, though. My generation (I'm 26) and subsequent ones have grown up playing soccer in school, and with an ever-growing Latin American population, we're used to soccer being around, and I think knowing the rules there really helped me when I started watching hockey. It's interesting that there have been more Californians in the Draft in the last couple of years because that follows my line of thinking: we may not be big on watching sports, but we do like to play all kinds of oddball sports. Water polo is really popular, and it seems like lacrosse is on the rise, for example. I think hockey's kind of coming along with that. I think it might be partly because parents think their kids will have a better chance of getting a sports scholarship if they play a sport that's not as popular as football or soccer or whatever, so there's less competition for a spot on the team, but I couldn't say for sure. Anyway, so while kids might not be turning into diehard Ducks fans, I think there are more Californian kids playing hockey, anyway.