ajzepp Posted June 29, 2006 Author Share Posted June 29, 2006 Oh, as much as I enjoyed it (I was pulling for the Clippers/Braves), the NHL was the best thing going for me... 715977[/snapback] I never gave hockey a second thought as a kid, which is probably why I'm not nearly as into it as a lot of you guys. For me it was soccer, football, baseball, tennis, and track (shot and discus). That being said, the biggest factor in my increasing enjoyment of the sport has to do with HDTV. I have pretty good vision, but I'd still get pretty frustrated trying to follow the damn puck when I'd watch games in the past. The speed of the game just didn't translate all that well to tv for me. With HD broadcasts it's an entirely different story. The widescreen and enhanced definition allow you to really follow every bit of the puck movement. Used to be that I didn't know where the hell a slapshot or a one-timer ended up until after the fact. Now I can see things so clearly that I'm able to track the puck along it's path. For me, it allows for a much greater appreciation of the players' skill. I really think you may see more people tuning in with the greater prevalence of HD broadcasts. Needless to say, I was pretty pissed that ESPN wasn't carrying the playoff games and I had to watch on friggin OLN Football and, um, futbal, are still tops for me, but I watched more hockey this year than ever before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Great post, I agree... this year's playoffs were the best thing going, & things will only get bigger and better. 715923[/snapback] Wow, just heard on FOX Sports radio, that there is a strong rumour floating around that the Celtics (my favorite team) are priming to trade for Allen Iverson...I love Paul Pierce, but Iverson would be the best player that the Celtics have had since Bird. I can't figure out what they would trade for him. I know they obtained Theo Ratliffe from the Blazers tonight...I am not sure if Pierce and Iverson could play together, not enough balls to go around. And, if they traded Pierce for Iverson, who would be left for AI to play with? It would just be the 76'ers all over again.... I like Iverson, he plays hard (don't ask him about practice!) but I was kind of hoping the Celts would make a move for Garnett...he wants out of Minnesota, and Ainge and McHale are buddies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 29, 2006 Author Share Posted June 29, 2006 Wow, just heard on FOX Sports radio, that there is a strong rumour floating around that the Celtics (my favorite team) are priming to trade for Allen Iverson...I love Paul Pierce, but Iverson would be the best player that the Celtics have had since Bird. I can't figure out what they would trade for him. I know they obtained Theo Ratliffe from the Blazers tonight...I am not sure if Pierce and Iverson could play together, not enough balls to go around. And, if they traded Pierce for Iverson, who would be left for AI to play with? It would just be the 76'ers all over again.... I like Iverson, he plays hard (don't ask him about practice!) but I was kind of hoping the Celts would make a move for Garnett...he wants out of Minnesota, and Ainge and McHale are buddies... 715991[/snapback] I was in Philly when they drafted AI, and he's my favorite player in the NBA. The guy is a talent on both sides of the ball, but don't expect him to elevate the play of those around him. As much as I love AI, the only way I'd want him on my team is if I had other players who were unselfish, but also self-motivated. Larry Brown had the Sixers playing as close to a 'team' as they were going to get with AI around. He eventually bought into Brown's system enough to where they reached the finals, but AI is going to play his game. Period. He'll shoot before he dishes, and you have to have a supporting cast that understands that. He's an exciting player, and I was glad I got to see him play when I was in Philly, but don't expect him to be leading you to the promised land anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 "Despite a high level of media coverage for the World Cup soccer tournament..." The first line in that article speaks volumes. For the past four weeks you can't turn on ESPN or ESPN2 without there being a WC game on. I only WISH the NHL received that kind of coverage. Lots of people don't care about the Olympics as well, but every four years, the ratings kill anything else. The World Cup gets better ratings because it's a once-every-four-years event and it is shoved in our faces. And to be clear, I don't "hate" soccer -- I just think it's ridiculous that some keep predicting it will rise in popularity in the US over the plethora of professional and college sports we already support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 really? I thought the NBA finals were a strong #3 behind the Superbowl and WS. 715813[/snapback] Day on of the NFL draft pulls in higher ratings than NBA playoffs. THE DRAFT! I think a big part of the problem with the NBA playoffs is that they are so friggin long! They need to cut at least the first round to 5 games. I would make the first two rounds 5 games. This year the post season started on April 22rd and ended Jun 20th. It's hard to get pumped for a playoff game when there's a game on almost every day for two months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puhonix Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 All this, and the NBA Finals got higher ratings this year over last year. World cup does well in the US with Americans for the higher level of play, and the competition against other countries. Anytime we can beat down the rest of the world, we're all for it. It's all about selfish pride. For me, the NHL Finals must be the most exciting in sports, but those morons in the front office couldnt get people to watch NHL Games if it was a cross promotion between hockey and Baywatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 "Despite a high level of media coverage for the World Cup soccer tournament..." The first line in that article speaks volumes. For the past four weeks you can't turn on ESPN or ESPN2 without there being a WC game on. I only WISH the NHL received that kind of coverage. Lots of people don't care about the Olympics as well, but every four years, the ratings kill anything else. The World Cup gets better ratings because it's a once-every-four-years event and it is shoved in our faces. And to be clear, I don't "hate" soccer -- I just think it's ridiculous that some keep predicting it will rise in popularity in the US over the plethora of professional and college sports we already support. 715998[/snapback] Honestly, I'd rather it didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 All this, and the NBA Finals got higher ratings this year over last year. World cup does well in the US with Americans for the higher level of play, and the competition against other countries. Anytime we can beat down the rest of the world, we're all for it. It's all about selfish pride. For me, the NHL Finals must be the most exciting in sports, but those morons in the front office couldnt get people to watch NHL Games if it was a cross promotion between hockey and Baywatch. 716034[/snapback] Yes but the probability of beating down the rest of the world with the players US develops is next to none. And this obsession that some have about losing to a third world country is stupid. Brazil isn't exactly a rich country and they have the most stars on their shirts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I wonder what these ratings would look like if there was a world cup every year. It never seems right to compare a yearly event to one that happens every 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I wonder what these ratings would look like if there was a world cup every year. It never seems right to compare a yearly event to one that happens every 4 years. 716223[/snapback] They want to make it every 2 years. I'm against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 29, 2006 Author Share Posted June 29, 2006 "Despite a high level of media coverage for the World Cup soccer tournament..." The first line in that article speaks volumes. For the past four weeks you can't turn on ESPN or ESPN2 without there being a WC game on. I only WISH the NHL received that kind of coverage. Lots of people don't care about the Olympics as well, but every four years, the ratings kill anything else. The World Cup gets better ratings because it's a once-every-four-years event and it is shoved in our faces. And to be clear, I don't "hate" soccer -- I just think it's ridiculous that some keep predicting it will rise in popularity in the US over the plethora of professional and college sports we already support. 715998[/snapback] I don't know how old you are, but the NHL DID receive that sort of coverage back in the mid-90s. Fox Sports picked up the package and marketed the living hell out of it. That was back when they were trying out the fox tracker thing where you had the blue halo to make the puck easier to follow. I don't remember if it was around the same time, but ESPN also took its shot with the package, and also marketed the hell out of it. I still feel, as I said earlier in the thread, that the key to hockey is going to be HDTV. The game is too damn fast for SD television. Sure, the die hards are going to watch anyway, but for marginal and/or new fans, I think once the game is a bit easier to follow (which it is on HD), you'll see the numbers rise accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 29, 2006 Author Share Posted June 29, 2006 I wonder what these ratings would look like if there was a world cup every year. It never seems right to compare a yearly event to one that happens every 4 years. 716223[/snapback] I agree....it's just the fact that soccer isn't typcally even given a second thought by most people in this country, so it's interesting to see what happens come world cup time. In my opinion, it reinforces the fact that Americans want to see the best in the world. The MLS is a glorified farm system for the Euro leagues, and will never amount to anything on a much larger scale than you see now - though someone like Beckham or Ronaldo could definitely pique the interest of more fans. But as others have said, when it's "us against the world", that definitely leads to viewership....and then you throw in the fact that it's the worlds best players, I think that lends itself to viewership, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I don't know how old you are, but the NHL DID receive that sort of coverage back in the mid-90s. Fox Sports picked up the package and marketed the living hell out of it. That was back when they were trying out the fox tracker thing where you had the blue halo to make the puck easier to follow. I don't remember if it was around the same time, but ESPN also took its shot with the package, and also marketed the hell out of it. I still feel, as I said earlier in the thread, that the key to hockey is going to be HDTV. The game is too damn fast for SD television. Sure, the die hards are going to watch anyway, but for marginal and/or new fans, I think once the game is a bit easier to follow (which it is on HD), you'll see the numbers rise accordingly. 716237[/snapback] Oh, I remember it well. Totally agree on the HD thing. I've also always been of the belief that hockey is the "mainstream" professional sport that translates most poorly from in-person to TV. You really need to see a game live to appreciate it, and then you get hooked. Widespread HD broadcasts will help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 29, 2006 Author Share Posted June 29, 2006 Oh, I remember it well. Totally agree on the HD thing. I've also always been of the belief that hockey is the "mainstream" professional sport that translates most poorly from in-person to TV. You really need to see a game live to appreciate it, and then you get hooked. Widespread HD broadcasts will help. 716258[/snapback] Yep, I agree....when I used to go to Amerks games it was TOTALLY different than watching on tv. You really need to be able to see a large area of the ice so that you can more easily track things. When you have these tv cameras constantly zipping back and forth and all around it can drive you nuts. NBC did an "okay" job with their camera work for the HD broadcasts, but HDNet is where the NHL should be, IMO. I've mentioned it before on here, but they basically plunk you down right behind the glass, give you a nice wide shot of the ice, and present the thing in crystal clear HD. I was so excited when I saw that, cause I felt it was even more impressive of an improvement than the NFL and MLB when I saw them in HD. It's more like being there, and as you said, when you're actually at the game you can appreciate it much more. So the more you can simulate that in the home, the more successful it will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts