About low ratings on American TV for hockey. Anyone ever seen a U.S. telecast?

Question

I notice a lot of people asking why the ratings are low in the U.S. for hockey, but has anyone in Canada ever watched the broadcasts from there? I am from Toronto but have lived in Australia for years where we are lucky to get a couple of U.S. broadcasts once in a while, edited to fit into 90 minutes. I don't mean this to be anti-American, just to point out that the Versus network has no idea how to broadcast a hockey game. We get some here from Fox Sports too that vary in quality, some are as bad as Versus and others are fairly good. The problem with almost all U.S. broadcasts is that they don't do a proper play by play call of the game; the guys calling the game talk about players and stats and all kinds of things while the game is going on. They need to listen to Bob Cole or someone like that. I would never watch their broadcasts if I had a choice.

Answer 1

I think part of the problem is that hockey broadcasts in the US try to be like football broadcasts in the US where you talk a lot about stats, and players and tell little anecdotes, football has the highest TV rating so I guess they figure why not copy that. The only problem is that football by its nature is a stop and start game (so its run a play wait 30 seconds) and all the down time over 3 hours lends itself to filler of stats and stories. Hockey on the other hand is constant motion. The broadcast team in Dallas does a good job because the guys that do the TV broadcast also do the radio broadcast at the same time so during stoppages and intermissions you get stories and stats but because of the radio broadcast you have to call the game first and use filler second.

Answer 2

O k , so there I was living and thriving in the Dalls/Fort Worth Metroplex a dyed in the silver and blue Cowboys fan when an Ozark parvenu bought my favorite sports team and fired, without telling him he's fired, my favorite sports coach.

I am not going to support that team until the Arkansas taint is removed.

So I turned to baseball - a game I grew up with and understood. Well, basketball was available but our team sucked the big one at the time and it was painful to watch them lose and lose and lose. Then you know what happened - on the advice of Wayne Gretzky, some dimglow moved a hockey team to town! Like, right! The only time I watch hockey is in the Olympics and then I only enjoyed it if the USA win or do exceedingly well!

But I am a sportsaholic - so I'd try to watch a hockey game and about midway into the first period I'd change the channel out of frustration. Because I did not know the rules and did not understand the calls the referees were making. The lower 2/3rds contiguous states never saw hockey broadcasts before the teams started migrating south; they were never shown.

Then the local broadcasters started doing a "Rules of the Game" segment during one of the intermissions. They would read the rule and show an infration of the rule - sometimes in slow motion - and explain as it went. And, gradually, I learned the rules of the game and could even make calls before the announcers did.

In short, this is why the hockey ratings are so low in the USA - with the exception of the northern most states, few of us know the rules of the game and find ourselves confused while trying to watch the game. It's not because we're stupid, it's just lack of exposure - and there's usually a sport we do understand on another channel! I now encourage my friends and family who like sports to try watching hockey. I sit and explain the rules to them so they don't get so lost but I can't make them watch when I'm not around.

But, watch out, there are now more hockey teams in Texas than there are in Canada. We're coming.

Incidently, the Dallas Stars commentators, Ralph Strangis and Darryl Reagh, do play-by-play and are very good. Ralph is from the northern USA and Razor is a former goalie and crazy funny. I think the league should use those 'Rules of the Game' segments during other sports broadcasts so more of us would learn what a great game hockey is.

I bleed black and green now!

Answer 3

It has been horrible for a little while. Especially when Fox adding a freakin lazer tail to the puck and assuming that the fans are blind and stupid. I miss the Pro Telecasts of Gary Thorne and Bill Clement. I know many didn't like them but they had a distinct voice and flow that went with the game. Definately no Canadian broadcast and on the oppisite much more than any game that John Kelly (Avs/Blues) could ever call. Many have balked at "The Goal" that Ovechkin made but its highlights like that will bring new viewers in to the mix. Its been a fact for a long time that TV hasn't been the NHL's strong point. It doesn't help that the new scheduling vote will prevent many stars from being seen outside their divisional/conference games. I live near LA and would love to see Crosby or Ovechkin, fugediboudit now. Thank the Puck Gods that at least VS and NBC were willing to keep network viewing alive. This sport we love is the highest action with the lowest paid talent in the world. It didn't help by missing an entire season due to a lock out killed interest as well. The NHL has shot themselves in the foot too many times to think about walking forward. Hell hang Bettman, a monkey could do better. God bless this sport and NHL Center Ice. Fan for life.

Answer 4

I love to watch the National broadcasts...on mute. The announcers are terrible. Being from Minnesota though, most of my hockey watching is when the Wild are on local TV.

The problem with hockey is that it is not on a widely known station. If it were still on ESPN, a station that nearly everyone in America has, the ratings would be up and hockey would have chance to get back in to some major markets. It will never be as big as football or baseball in America.

I heard a number stating that NBA and NHL have similar numbers of viewers (I don't remember where I got that bit of info, and it could be totally wrong). But, watch ESPN and you have 50 minutes of Basketball highlights, and a brief mention of hockey. When hockey was aired on ESPN and ABC, you had more highlights because ESPN had a vested interest in seeing the broadcasts be successful.

Do I still watch? yes. But I was raised playing hockey and love the game. But as long as it is parked on VS, or any other random no-name station, it will continue to fail.

Answer 5

I am just glad to be able to get Hockey on TV at all without paying a fortune for the so-called "hockey packages"! I love hearing the stats and player info, but realize from reading the other answers that I have been tainted by the broadcasters in other sports so I don't have any real expectations of what good hockey commentary should be.

Now I understand why my friend in Tampa turns the volume off on the TV while watching the game (on Sunsports) and listens to her play-by-play on the radio. Radio broadcasts are meatier!

Answer 6

I agree with you about the quality of U.S. telecasts. I live in the Seattle area, and here CBC is part of the basic cable package, so it's pretty easy to catch a game (or three!) on CBC. I don't have Versus, but I've seen NBC telecasts and they also tend to come off like they're calling a football game: color and stats get far more attention than the play-by-play action. That works fine for football, but not for hockey.

The telecasts on CBC are far better. Unless my favorite team is playing in the NBC game, if I have to choose a game to watch between the two networks, I'll take CBC every time.

Answer 7

I've noticed that Canadians treat hockey like Americans treat football. I used to get the CBC and I'd watch Hockey Night in Canada all of the time, regardless of who was playing just because the coverage was top-notch. American broadcasts, on the other hand, are blase affairs. Except for a few local Fox Sports Network broadcasts (not all of them are good), there are horrible camera angles, no play breakdowns, no discussions of the game between periods, no team analyses, and little reporting of other scores.

I think Versus is horrible, right along with NBC, because they not only fit the above description, but they spend 12 minutes between each period discussing basketball, golf, tennis, football, and baseball trades! Excuse me! I'm watching a hockey game, not SportsCenter!

Answer 8

Dude, us expatriates are wondering why we can't watch hockey on Versus let alone other broadcasts- it is only available in the US on the computer...but NFL football, for example, is only shown on the computer overseas - go figure! If the league is in it to make money, why then can't people overseas pay to watch NHL games on there computer? Nobody has even addressed this question!
I do not like the schedule via Bettman and, if they change the size of the nets next year (bigger to have more goals; as if there are not enough powerplays now!), I do not care if I ever watch a game again. In my opinion, there was nothing wrong with the game 5 years ago, shrinking the league would have been just fine instead of the money grubbing going on now.
The telecqasrs from the states are fine - if you can find them!

Answer 9

It's important to distinguish between US national versus local broadcasters. Some of the local guys are decent. But you are right, when I had to watch some of the US feeds with our illegal satellite a few years ago, it was painful.

There's a chicken and egg argument tho. If Americans liked hockey like they do football, then would the high quality coverage come then, or does it have to come before?

Hockey fan for life (GO LEAFS)

Answer 10

Personally I watch on Fox Sports Pittsburgh with Stagie, Paul Stagerwald, and I enjoy the game. Never watch on VS because I've tried the once and couldn't stand it. Only problem was that the local broadcast was blacked out of course. I prefered back in the days of Mike Lang but Stagie is doing pretty good this year. Still don't mind going to the site and hearing the radio call and listening to Mike Lang again.