Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Stanley Cup final ratings a disaster!


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
226 replies to this topic

#211 VancouverStyle

VancouverStyle

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,249 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:38 PM

I can honestly say i've watched a total of 5 minutes of the cup final.

I'm a hockey fan and try to watch as much as possible, but the interest
level was not there for me during the cup final round.

#212 trevforever

trevforever

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,743 posts
  • Joined: 21-July 06

Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:54 PM

Dont know what they expected. Nothing against the Kings and Devils, but they dont have those big name stars that are gonna get the averge joe to skip over NBA games to watch.

Plus last yr there was the excitement in teams that hated each other, loyal and passionate fanbases and a Canadian club. The excitement kind of left the playoffs this year way to early and there were times when the NBA Conf. Finals held more drama.

xliv.png
 


#213 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,906 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 13 June 2012 - 02:20 PM

I kind of hate to admit it, but I'm pretty much convinced that last year's final received better ratings thanks to the fact that Vancouver were successfully billed as villains.

Look a WWE, or WWF in the past. All of the biggest PPVs feature a good vs. evil storyline, something which media and fans alike managed to create during last year's playoffs.

A lot of fans, both in the US and Canada, watched because they wanted to see the Canucks lose.
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#214 cs2016

cs2016

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,358 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 11

Posted 13 June 2012 - 02:32 PM

I kind of hate to admit it, but I'm pretty much convinced that last year's final received better ratings thanks to the fact that Vancouver were successfully billed as villains.

Look a WWE, or WWF in the past. All of the biggest PPVs feature a good vs. evil storyline, something which media and fans alike managed to create during last year's playoffs.

A lot of fans, both in the US and Canada, watched because they wanted to see the Canucks lose.


All the high-scoring games would attract attention too like the Pittsburgh and Philly series.

#215 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 13 June 2012 - 10:22 PM

ok I have to ask... why should we care what the ratings are? People are always saying how they don't want Gary to expand to "non-traditional" markets, well the best way to keep that from happening is for nobody to care about hockey. Look at the NBA and how they get all kinds of ratings to the point where they moved teams all over the place (Oklahoma City!!!???? I didn't even know they were big enough to support a local adult league.)

Anyways, I could really care less how bad the ratings get as long as I have access to the games. Had they been "great" all this time, we might be stuck watching tape delay games after NBA games and MLB games are done for the day. You think that is better?

#216 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,906 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 14 June 2012 - 10:16 AM

ok I have to ask... why should we care what the ratings are? People are always saying how they don't want Gary to expand to "non-traditional" markets, well the best way to keep that from happening is for nobody to care about hockey. Look at the NBA and how they get all kinds of ratings to the point where they moved teams all over the place (Oklahoma City!!!???? I didn't even know they were big enough to support a local adult league.)

Anyways, I could really care less how bad the ratings get as long as I have access to the games. Had they been "great" all this time, we might be stuck watching tape delay games after NBA games and MLB games are done for the day. You think that is better?



I think it's more a case of people not wanting expansion into markets that have demonstrated a lack of interest in hockey. Case in point: Atlanta. We all realize that it's a large US market and that it would be great if hockey could be popular there, but the reality is that it lies somewhere between high school basketball and tractor-pulls in popularity amongst Georgians.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally think that it would be great if people in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Miami felt as we do about the game we all love, but it's never likely to be the case.

However, when we have an NHL final between two non-traditional markets as we did this year, ratings are going to suffer. Would more consistency in the way games are called help? It's hard to say, but some of us feel that it certainly couldn't hurt.
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#217 Oregon Canucky

Oregon Canucky

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  • Joined: 23-September 11

Posted 14 June 2012 - 02:58 PM

I can NOT believe the stuff comming out of my mouth durring the SCF... i said things like "I wish the kings would hurry up an win so i dont have to watch hockey any more."

I actually dreaded watching the BORING games... I dont have anything against the teams, the rules, or anything else, but that WAS very freaking boring to watch.

I was in the pool of those who "tuned-in" but i was in the other room most of the time... uhg.
Posted Image

Portland Oregon: The first U.S. city to play for the Stanley Cup!

#218 SNACanuck

SNACanuck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,426 posts
  • Joined: 07-May 09

Posted 14 June 2012 - 06:49 PM

Although a ratings disaster nationally, the SCF got a 24 point share(24% viewing) locally in LA. The news has been touting how successful its been here.

A double edge sword that may result from the success of the Kings is that AIG(owner of the team) is now seen as competent in running a team. This may result in a football team coming to LA next year. If that happens, the Kings will fall further down the chain of popularity than the other sports here.

'Merica!

 


#219 Kingsman

Kingsman

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 922 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 14 June 2012 - 11:26 PM

I think it's more a case of people not wanting expansion into markets that have demonstrated a lack of interest in hockey. Case in point: Atlanta. We all realize that it's a large US market and that it would be great if hockey could be popular there, but the reality is that it lies somewhere between high school basketball and tractor-pulls in popularity amongst Georgians.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally think that it would be great if people in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Miami felt as we do about the game we all love, but it's never likely to be the case.

However, when we have an NHL final between two non-traditional markets as we did this year, ratings are going to suffer. Would more consistency in the way games are called help? It's hard to say, but some of us feel that it certainly couldn't hurt.


There is no denying the love and passion Canucks fans have for the great game of hockey. I've seen it firsthand at games both in Vancouver and in LA. However, when commenting about cities who's fans don't have a strong passion and love for the game, in no way should Los Angeles be thrown in with the likes of Atlanta, Phoenix and Miami. Atlanta doesn't even have a team anymore, who knows how long Phoenix will have one and Miami still seems to be trying to make a name for themselves in Fla. I just attended a celebration in downtown LA earlier today with more than 250,000 fellow hockey fans. Those are the ones who could be there; perhaps another million or so watched from home. LA is a very good hockey town with passionate fans.As for the ratings.... I truly believe the ratings would have been much better if the Rangers made the Finals. But, we'll never know how much better.... maybe we'll find out next year!!

#220 darkpoet

darkpoet

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,448 posts
  • Joined: 08-September 05

Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:51 AM

The ratings sucked because you had an 8th seed vs. a 6th seed, and both of them play defensive systems.

I managed to watch 3 periods of the Final over 6 games, and even that was a chore.

Philly vs. Pittsburgh was awesome. Lots of goals, lots of fights, lots of hits, fast pace, lots of PASSION.... all the things that were lacking sorely in the Final.

#221 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,906 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 15 June 2012 - 10:15 AM

There is no denying the love and passion Canucks fans have for the great game of hockey.  I've seen it firsthand at games both in Vancouver and in LA.  However, when commenting about cities who's fans don't have a strong passion and love for the game, in no way should Los Angeles be thrown in with the likes of Atlanta, Phoenix and Miami.  Atlanta doesn't even have a team anymore, who knows how long Phoenix will have one and Miami still seems to be trying to make a name for themselves in Fla. I just attended a celebration in downtown LA earlier today with more than 250,000 fellow hockey fans.  Those are the ones who could be there; perhaps another million or so watched from home.  LA is a very good hockey town with passionate fans.As for the ratings.... I truly believe the ratings would have been much better if the Rangers made the Finals.  But, we'll never know how much better.... maybe we'll find out next year!!



250k is pretty good. How many people are there in LA?

I guess I wouldn't be so cynical if I hadn't seen US media reporting on LA KIngs games, but using the Sacramento Kings logo....
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#222 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 15 June 2012 - 10:24 AM

250k is pretty good. How many people are there in LA?

I guess I wouldn't be so cynical if I hadn't seen US media reporting on LA KIngs games, but using the Sacramento Kings logo....


Like I've said before, the LA Kings have a long way to go to become the media darlings of the SoCal market. One SC win in 45 years probably doesn't help them either. But, there is no way they need two teams in that market.

#223 Kingsman

Kingsman

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 922 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 15 June 2012 - 11:06 PM

250k is pretty good. How many people are there in LA?

I guess I wouldn't be so cynical if I hadn't seen US media reporting on LA KIngs games, but using the Sacramento Kings logo....


As of 2010, the population of LA "County" was estimated at about 11 million. Considering the parade was on a weekday with many people at work or busy doing other things, I too think 250K is a pretty decent amount. Of course, no matter how popular the Kings and hockey is in LA, there will always be fans who don't care about hockey. The Kings have to share the sportscene in So Calif with 7 other pro sports teams, among other things. On the other hand, the Kings are finally (after 47 years) experiencing a new sense of popularity in So Cal they have never seen before. The Gretzky years were great and spawned many new hockey fans in LA, but nothing can be as great and special as bringing your city a SC Championship.

#224 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 15 June 2012 - 11:54 PM

The ratings sucked because you had an 8th seed vs. a 6th seed, and both of them play defensive systems.

I managed to watch 3 periods of the Final over 6 games, and even that was a chore.

Philly vs. Pittsburgh was awesome. Lots of goals, lots of fights, lots of hits, fast pace, lots of PASSION.... all the things that were lacking sorely in the Final.


you forgot; "lots of poor goaltending." Which was soooo bad that I didn't even want to watch that series as a Pens fan!

#225 DefCon1

DefCon1

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,556 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 08

Posted 16 June 2012 - 12:38 AM

I kind of hate to admit it, but I'm pretty much convinced that last year's final received better ratings thanks to the fact that Vancouver were successfully billed as villains.

Look a WWE, or WWF in the past. All of the biggest PPVs feature a good vs. evil storyline, something which media and fans alike managed to create during last year's playoffs.

A lot of fans, both in the US and Canada, watched because they wanted to see the Canucks lose.


I like the Canucks as villains. The hate is just too sweet from the media and the fans. Too bad we couldn't win it last year and make other fans more frustrated.

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image

QUOTE (Rye and Kesler @ Jun 29 2009, 10:24 PM) Where is Celebrities? I am tryin to find it on Club vibes but i can't find it. Is it relatively new? Sounds good though we will have to check it out.

I think Germany is the exception because they should know how to use their own balls.

QUOTE (pacecar @ Aug 2 2009, 11:53 AM) Sheep are ok but horses, ewww.


Posted Image


#226 SNACanuck

SNACanuck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,426 posts
  • Joined: 07-May 09

Posted 17 June 2012 - 10:49 AM

Of course, no matter how popular the Kings and hockey is in LA, there will always be fans who don't care about hockey. The Kings have to share the sportscene in So Calif with 7 other pro sports teams, among other things. On the other hand, the Kings are finally (after 47 years) experiencing a new sense of popularity in So Cal they have never seen before. The Gretzky years were great and spawned many new hockey fans in LA, but nothing can be as great and special as bringing your city a SC Championship.


Good points. I think the win is going to be a double edge sword for LA. Now that AIG has proven it can bring a final win to the city, it would be very likely the NFL is going to realize they are competent enough to handle a football team again in LA. If that was to happen and a NFL team was to come to LA I would argue that would those bandwagoner fans(which make up the vast majority of those probably 250,000) may transform themselves into NFL fans. That is the problem with bandwagoners wherever you go, they vanish when things are bad or when change occurs... flavor of the month mentality.

The demographics and local of LA does not provide for a large hockey fanbase. Those are the words of the AIG president... Until we get to watch Kings and Ducks games locally on a regular basis and people actually start recognizing who the players are I would say we've got a long way to go in Socal before this resembles any dedicated hockey market...

'Merica!

 


#227 terrible.dee

terrible.dee

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined: 23-September 09

Posted 19 June 2012 - 11:39 AM

Minus about a million to both of you, the NHL got into this mess because of too many stupid rule changes, everytime you change the rules its like a butterfly effect, it causes more problems, then more rule changes are made trying to fix the problems the first rule change caused, little Napoleon tried to fix something that wasn't broken and made things worse. You make rule changes to promote offense, the coaches will focus all their energy on defenses to beat it.

The root of the problem is over expansion, we need to let about six teams of dead wood die off, that would reduce hooking and holding by removing about 120 of the weakest skaters from the league.


Wrong,

The post lock-out rule changes were a huge sucess.

The league at that time was EXTREAMLY broken, entertainment value was at an all time low.

The NHL took proactive steps to change things and it worked.

Now it's time to step up again.




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.