Like I'm Telling You? Or Anyone?

Question

What 5 year period do you feel the NHL was at it's strongest? In terms of popularity at the time and momentum going forward.

Erica-I agree, I don't even think Center Ice existed back then?? Don't know when it came into effect. Of course the Pens attendance would blossom -#87 and all-he doesn't just drive up Pitt attendance figures, he is a sell out wherever he plays. Thus, the Ice Bowl vs. Pitt, thus Al Arbour one game stint vs. Pitt, etc.
All I know is that compared to other major sports, in the early 90's hockey was closing in on them in terms of popularity, IMO of course. I don't need numbers to back it because with technology and the way numbers can be swayed, it is apples and oranges.
Years ago, arenas were not as big, people had one television, there was not a choice to watch different games on different nights, technology has brought us that, not a growing sport.

I don't know, just my take. It seems that the downfall of the leagues growth coincides with the arrival of Mr. Buttman.

Answer 1

Somewhere between the late 80's and early 90's.
Two reasons: Lemieux & Gretzky.

Americans love stars. Lemieux and Gretzky were stars.
I hardly think the NHL had a strong period of decline in Canada, but I can imagine hockey was going stronger in Canada around that time, because Gretzky was with a Canadian franchise AND because Gretzky & Lemieux played international hockey for Canada.

Even international hockey rivalries were stronger. The Soviet Union was still in existance. The U.S. winning the Gold in ice hockey at the Olympics certainly made the NHL stronger in the U.S.

There was a strong talent pool around that time, so there was additional star power. Some of that can be attributed to the level-of-play that had to be maintained to keep up with not just Gretzky & Lemieux, but the players that played with them on their teams. They both made the players around them better. Not just offensively, either. Have you ever noticed that the players on their teams filled their roles to an incredible extent? Ulf Samuelsson was a notorious goon for Lemieux's Pittsburgh Penguins. Esa Tikkanen was great at being a pest for Gretzky's Edmonton Oilers. Grant Fuhr & Tom Barrasso were outstanding goaltenders.

Answer 2

1989-90 to the 1993-94 season starting with the Oilers closing a dynasty and Rangers ending a cup drought.

That time period stands out for me the most, every team seem to have a one-two punch or at least superstar and some teams had about 5. It wasn’t still absurd to think I guy could get 70 goals in a year or 150 plus points. You had new exciting talent coming over from Europe, Pavel Bure, Sergei Fedorov, Jamior Jagr to name a few.

The Chicago Blackhawks and Boston Bruins were actually relevant, both made Cup appearances and had all-star rosters. The Canadians and Rangers won Cups, Pittsburgh ran off a small dynasty and the Oliers capped theirs. Wayne Gretzky took the LA Kings to the cup finals with ESPN showing the whole thing.

There seemed to be a legitimate buzz for the NHL, new arenas were going to be built, More TV coverage, #99 and #66 still playing at high levels as well has proven All-stars Bourque, Coffey, Roy, Neely, Yzerman and young playing looking to take the game to the next level. What a great time for the NHL

Then of course the NHL decided to shut it all down and seeing the success of the baseball strike they wanted the same thing. The Momentum was lost, a comprised shorten season was the result with the New Jersey Devils clutching and grapping all the way to the title and branding a new style of defensive hockey. All-star games became a stale East vs. West with Central and Northeast divisions, Hockey would soon even outfit North America vs. the World affairs. The Blackhawks and Bruins would become laughing stocks of the game while Florida Panther like-teams would hold, choke and score 1 goal winning games 1-0 or accepting 0-0 ties.

Hockey has really gotten away from itself then, its no longer about the fans its about the non-fans. The NHL has since fallen far behind Nascar and Golf, and took a back seat to horse racing/socializing. The 90-94 time period seems more and more like the NHL’s last hurrah, after Messier held that cup for the Rangers the NHL the fans loved rode off into the sunset and the Bettman NHL began.

Go ahead and pull out the old tapes!!

Answer 3

From a fan's perspective, you can choose any 5 years between 1984 - 1994. Gretzky to LA in '88, The Oilers run and the Rangers' Cup in '94 all contributed to the league's strength, popularity and visibility. The post-Ranger lockout of '94 put the brakes on that momentum and the subsequent subpar on-ice product created a tailspin that the NHL is just now starting to recover from.

Yet, as Like I'm Telling You pointed out a couple of days ago, the Bettman years have reflected the league's strongest period of sponsorship dollars and overall financial health.

Ironically, those same 14 years of Bettman rule could be argued as the bleakest in terms of excitement and competition on the ice or general interest in the sport. Go figure...

Answer 4

Maybe I'm too old, but I would say between 1967 - 1972. The end of the Original Six era and the beginning of expansion to other areas. Look at the legends who were playing during that time and hockey establishing itself as a major sport. I remember growing up watching Bobby Orr, Bobby Hull, Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Yvan Cournoyer, Jean Ratelle, Rod Gilbert, Stan Mikita, etc.

Answer 5

I would say 1978 to 1983. The time of the Canadien, Islander and Oiler dynasties were in close succession. The expansion brought the WHA teams. The US won the Gold medal sparking American Interset in the sport. Gretzky began shattering records that seemed like they may never be broken.

Answer 6

I am going to say it was in late 80's, early 90's. I do not have the exact numbers, but the numbers grew drastically in US youth hockey registrations starting in those years and they are starting to see a drop off which coincide directly with the NHL lock-out. (Please note that I did not say as a result of the lock-out) This is in line with what a few people have already stated, which is the Gretzky/Lemieux era of the game.

Like I'm Telling You: I disagree with you on this one based on numbers you brought up. All of the numbers you mentioned are nothing more than statistics and statistics can be twisted to fit almost any argument.

Answer 7

While I know you disagree, but the NHL's popularity is near it's highest now based on local television ratings, national Canadian ratings, Centre Ice subscriptions are at their highest, etc

However, I don't feel the product on the ice at this time is the best. Nor can I choose a 5 year period.

For me, there was a 20 year period from the early 70s through the early 90s where I really enjoyed the game. Sadly, the addition of the Sharks, Senators, Ducks, Panthers, and Lightning sort of dampened things for me.

The emergence of the Flyers as the first (to use a word from 2Eighty8) uber-competitive expansion team, leading into the Canadians, Islanders, Oilers, and Penguins dominance was an exciting time for hockey. It seemed in the early 90s with the mass expansion, the mass importation of European players, and the advent of the neutral zone trap killed that for me.

I enjoyed watching people like Phil Esposito, Bobby Orr, Tony Esposito, Bobby Clarke, Guy Lafleur and MIke Bossy and that flowed into Gretzky and company. Gretzky vs Lemieux provided the best rivalry of two players in years, not since Howe vs Richard, and Howe vs Mikta/Hull had a player rivalry been worth watching. International Hockey was also at it's highest point at this time with the exciting semi-final match in the 1984 CC and the exciting 3 game final at the 87 CC.

To me that was the NHL's high point. When Ziegler announced the addition of Ottawa and Tampa, I had high hopes, but they fizzled quickly when Anahaim and Miami were added on top of that.

The funny thing is that when the league went from 6 teams to 18 teams in 7 years between 1967 and 1974, I only felt excitement (maybe because I was in my 30s and felt I had what it took to play for either the Scouts or Capitals). The early 90s were very different.

And for me, it is hard to pick any 5 year period in that time. But I can honestly say I haven't felt any excitement since Lemieux skated through the entire Hawk team to score that bloody shorthanded goal in the 3rd period of game 1 that cut the Hawks lead to 4-3 (I'm not bitter!) on May 26, 1991!
Hawk fans remember!


Erica
Arena attendance has increased steadily over the the last 40 years reaching 92.3% capacity last year. Your own team in Pittsburgh hit an attendance record in each of the last two years. Of the 17 cities still in existence that were in existence in 1990 and are still in existence, 16 hit new a capacity records in the last two years (the exception being the Rangers which have had 18,200 fans at every game since the 1970s)..

The increased ratings is also based on on the 17 cities still in existence. Some teams like Philadelphia have had a 9.3% increase in television ratings between 1990 and 2007, some teams like Chicago, only 0.4% (but as well all know, the Wirtz family has never shown home games on local television).

But, both arena attendance and local television viewership in on the rise.

By the way, TV 'ratings' are population independent. They are a percentage of televisions tuned on at the time to that particular channel. So, it is misleading. Using that analysis, the 2.1 rating for the Stanley Cup final last year is a huge increase in viewership over the 2.4 for the Stanley Cup final in 1973. But all anybody really looks at is that even though the number of actual viers increased from 1.93 million in 1973 to 2.58 million last year...the ratings dropped from 2.4 to 2.1.

To me, it's all an illusion. Over the last 15 years, the thing that has turned me off hockey the most has been the neutral zone trap. But................I watch far more hockey now than I did 10 years ago. To me, people haven't tuned out....they're still tuned in....just bitching about everything more. I'm a cranky old man.....even I complain about it.

Lubers,
I'm using absolute numbers in the case of arena attendance. Of course, the NHL currently has no guidelines in place to actually verify that a ticket claimed to be sold was actually sold. And with the current CBA, it does a team more harm to claim a ticket was sold if it wasn't. The attendance number is published in the NHL Guide and Record Book on an annual basis.

As for television ratings, I can only go by the information provided to the league by the local and national broadcasters. As we all know, these numbers are just estimates and extrapolated out because nobody knows for sure exactly how many people are watching what program at what time.

Answer 8

Mid 80's to early 90's with Gretzky and Mario hitting their prime probably brought in a whole new generation of fans. As far as momentum going foreward, right now looks good for a bunch of reasons. Proven by the fact that the biggest complaint in hockey is the commissioner. Maybe its just me, but if thats your biggest complaint, there can't be too much to complain about.

Answer 9

1990-1994.

Remember how many stars were in the stands? The ratings were through the roof. Then, the ultimate: the Los Angeles and (sadly for me) the New York teams went to the Finals. The NHL had it made while the NBA was floundering; hockey had the continent by the short and curlies.

Then they say, "Hey, let's not start the next season!"

And that was the end of that.

Answer 10

No question about it 1984-1989. Why? The Great One. When he was on the Oilers, he was the strongest.

Now, don't get me wrong, there were others. Mid 90's to 1999 with Dallas, Detoit, Colorado & New Jersey; great CHAMPIONSHIP teams!

Hard to say for sure, but I'd go with 1984-1989.