A blog piece about the NHL putting all their eggs in one

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

Link

It's from a caps fan, but it's not crosby bashing. Is the league going about things the wrong way. Mark Cuban just said in Toronto on saturday, that the NHL suffers an inferiority complex, and could be on the same level as the NBA in the US with some proper marketing.

Any thought? Ideas on whats going wrong?

Of Eggs and a Basket

Yesterday, hockey fans were treated to one of the sappiest exhibitions of hero worship it has ever been my experience to witness. One could excuse it if it was the case of a young player looking to one of his NHL heroes as an example for his own play, or even a long-time fan who finally gets to meet his favorite player that he’s watched for years.

But no, this was a fawning of the most inexcusable kind – media covering a game, openly cheering the routine and exaggerating the mundane in a single player’s efforts. And in my mind, it reflects a problem the NHL is creating for itself in what looks for all the world to be blissful ignorance.

Watching and listening to the NBC coverage of the Pittsburgh Penguins and Philadelphia Flyers yesterday, I had to wonder if even Sidney Crosby would have been embarrassed at the praise being spread on him thickly like too-sweet an icing on a birthday cake. Pierre McGuire was especially offensive, but he wasn’t alone. Let me point out, I’m a fan of the Washington Capitals, so the thought of rooting for or even acknowledging the talent of a Penguin comes hard. There are too many bitter playoff memories to sift through. I’m mindful that what follows could be construed as “Crosby-bashing.†It is not meant to be. I happen to like Crosby’s play. I like the edge and determination he brings to his effort; he doesn’t just fall back on his supreme skill, something it would be tempting for a player of his talent to do.

But the increasing oneness with which Crosby and the league are portrayed – that this, as McGuire put it with respect to a goal scored by Mark Recchi yesterday, is “all about Sidney Crosby†– poses what in my mind is a potential problem for the league.

In no other professional team sport in North America have the league in question and their broadcast partners put their eggs into one basket in the manner the NHL and its partners seem to be in the case of Crosby. Baseball sells the timelessness of the game, its rivalries, and its records. Football sells the logos of its respective teams, regardless of which player s might wear them, and the “event†nature of each game. Basketball, which no longer has the icons of Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or Michael Jordan manning the court, seems to have struggled to find a consistent theme.

It is basketball provides possibly the most instructive example of the problem. The NBA was in a state of disrepair in the 1970’s, suffering – fairly or not – an image of a drug-addled league of limited appeal. It was, for lack of a better term, no more than a “niche†sport. Earvin Johnson and Larry Bird entered the league in 1979 and rescued the league from decline. They were succeeded by Michael Jordan, whose unique gifts were just what the NBA needed to achieve new heights. The talents of Commissioner David Stern can’t be underestimated here, either, but the point is that the NBA was able to put a face on its product (or in this case, “facesâ€).

But the matter isn’t quite that simple, and this is what I think is the problem facing the NHL and the matter of Sidney Crosby. Johnson, Bird, and Jordan were three of the greatest players in the history of the NBA. They largely defined the league for two decades. But despite their respective talents, the quality they had in common was that they won. Had their teams not won 14 titles over a period of 17 seasons in which at least one of them played, none would be revered to the extent they are today, and the league likely never would have returned to the status it enjoys today.

And that is where Mr. Crosby enters. At the moment, to paraphrase McGuire, “it’s all about Sidney Crosby.†Quite a burden for a 19-year old to bear. But he’s been training for it since he was in his early teens, much as Wayne Gretzky did in his early years.

This is different. When Gretzky entered the league, it was a “major†league in name only, and it was before the advent of free agency, multi-million dollar player contracts, billion-dollar network contracts, and the Internet. The manner in which the league, its media partners, and its marketing strategy have invested in the product named “Crosby†has the effect of putting all of their respective eggs into one basket.

It’s quite a gamble, because as we’ve noted, Johnson, Bird and Jordan won . . . often. And, they had help. Michael Jordan never won an NBA championship without Scottie Pippen at his side. Larry Bird had Kevin McHale and Robert Parrish and others. Magic Johnson had Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and James Worthy. Hockey is even less-forgiving to the “star†culture than basketball. Wayne Gretzky had Mark Messier and Jari Kurri, among others, and never won a Cup after leaving Edmonton. Mario Lemieux had Ron Francis, Kevin Stevens, and a young Jaromir Jagr (Jagr, it should be noted, didn’t have that support structure as he matured, and he has no Cups since those early Penguin days). And, hockey puts a premium on the contributions of all players up and down the bench – more so than perhaps any other major team sport.

The Crosby Strategy works only if Crosby wins. But hockey isn’t a “star-centric†sport any more than the other major team sports are or, in this instance, as much as the NHL might want it to be. It is a sport that needs contributions from the unsung, from the player who will put himself in harm’s way in front of the net to be there when the opportunity presents itself to bang home a goal from close range, from the player who will sacrifice himself to get in the way of a 100-mile-an-hour slap shot, from the player who will take a hit for the team to make a play. These are the little plays that make hockey what it is, the kinds that contribute as much to winning as a guy sliding on his knees to deflect the puck into the net and be the subject of highlight clips all over North America.

The NHL has a lot of marketing capital invested in Sidney Crosby. But being supremely skilled isn’t enough. Crosby had that highlight clip goal against Tampa Bay last week when he slid on his knees to convert a pass from Mark Recchi.

The Penguins lost the game. Is there a moral in that?

[Trooper 8]

Decent write up, but the NHL has to start somewhere. Crosby was the easiest to throw out there because he is good in front of the camera and speaks English. AO still sounds Russian, Malkin can't speak English at all, and lots of other players are pretty much boring to hear interviewed. Hockey players are a humble bunch by pro sports standards. While I hate the NFL and NBA egos, they do make for great interviews and drama. The NHL has little of that and therefore they have to manufacture hype.

The broadcast on Saturday was probably the worst broadcast of a pro sporting event I have ever heard. I'm a Pittsburgh fan I should point out. It was half marketing Crosby and the other half was just because the announcers had nothing constructive to say during the game so they kept talking about Crosby. Equally amusing was how they got on the issue of Crosby losing faceoffs. You would have thought he wasn't trying or had his stick upside down. "He HAS to win that faceoff!" As if he was being lazy and was losing them by choice.

Ferraro and Hull were so bad between periods it was laughable. “Rutuu doesn’t belong in this league!†they spouted. As if Rutuu is the only chippy, borderline cheap player in the league. Nothing was said when Forsberg elbowed Talbot in the mouth, that was cited as a “savvy veteran play†or when Foppa went headhunting and put his shoulder in Malone’s chin, the same type of play Scott Stevens has been criticized for but Malone wasn’t looking and was tied up with Hatcher.

His point about the NHL being the only league with unsung heroes is wrong though. There are plenty of rebounders in the NBA, unrecognized linemen and blocking backs in the NFL, and defensive catchers in MLB who never get mentioned during broadcasts as well.

[Chadd 916]

I don't believe the NHL can market a single player as effectively as the NBA can. Bird, Magic and Jordan would each play the vast majority of a game while a "star" forward in the NHL plays no more than 1/3 of a game in most cases.

A single star can often win for you in the NBA, but not so in the NHL. Look at Carolina's team from last year. One guy wasn't everything to the team.

The NHL should be marketing the speed and power of the game. Huge (clean) hits, shots breaking the glass, quick and creative plays as well as many of the players. By focusing everything on one player they run the risk of a backlash against that player (and the league) by people who don't want to be force-fed a steady diet of over the top praise.

[RadioGaGa 162]

...By focusing everything on one player they run the risk of a backlash against that player (and the league) by people who don't want to be force-fed a steady diet of over the top praise.

Even if that WAS the way to go...what happens if that guy gets hurt...then what happens to the marketing plan?

[Chadd 916]

Decent write up, but the NHL has to start somewhere. Crosby was the easiest to throw out there because he is good in front of the camera and speaks English. AO still sounds Russian, Malkin can't speak English at all, and lots of other players are pretty much boring to hear interviewed.

At least Ovechkin is funny. Crosby couldn't possible be more bland in his interviews. I have no problem with the NHL starting with Crosby, though that implies they plan on doing more and that's something that we have yet to see from the NHL.

[Trooper 8]

Decent write up, but the NHL has to start somewhere. Crosby was the easiest to throw out there because he is good in front of the camera and speaks English. AO still sounds Russian, Malkin can't speak English at all, and lots of other players are pretty much boring to hear interviewed.

At least Ovechkin is funny. Crosby couldn't possible be more bland in his interviews. I have no problem with the NHL starting with Crosby, though that implies they plan on doing more and that's something that we have yet to see from the NHL.

You're right, and I think your point about forcefeeding and the backlash it will create is right on if they don't continue building across the league. Of course, hate is good marketing, too.

[Chadd 916]

Decent write up, but the NHL has to start somewhere. Crosby was the easiest to throw out there because he is good in front of the camera and speaks English. AO still sounds Russian, Malkin can't speak English at all, and lots of other players are pretty much boring to hear interviewed.

At least Ovechkin is funny. Crosby couldn't possible be more bland in his interviews. I have no problem with the NHL starting with Crosby, though that implies they plan on doing more and that's something that we have yet to see from the NHL.

You're right, and I think your point about forcefeeding and the backlash it will create is right on if they don't continue building across the league. Of course, hate is good marketing, too.

People aren't going to watch someone that they don't like and all of this verbal fellating of Crosby is annoying a lot of people. The NHL has to find a way to make team fans into fans of the sport. How many times have you heard "my team is out of the playoffs so I don't care who wins"? Most hockey fans just don't care if their team isn't playing. With the NFL people will sit and watch whatever teams happen to be playing on Sunday or Monday night, and often on any given Sunday afternoon. If the NHL could turn their existing fanbase into fans of the sport and not just their team, they would go a long way towards improving their TV ratings.

[Trooper 8]

Decent write up, but the NHL has to start somewhere. Crosby was the easiest to throw out there because he is good in front of the camera and speaks English. AO still sounds Russian, Malkin can't speak English at all, and lots of other players are pretty much boring to hear interviewed.

At least Ovechkin is funny. Crosby couldn't possible be more bland in his interviews. I have no problem with the NHL starting with Crosby, though that implies they plan on doing more and that's something that we have yet to see from the NHL.

You're right, and I think your point about forcefeeding and the backlash it will create is right on if they don't continue building across the league. Of course, hate is good marketing, too.

People aren't going to watch someone that they don't like and all of this verbal fellating of Crosby is annoying a lot of people. The NHL has to find a way to make team fans into fans of the sport. How many times have you heard "my team is out of the playoffs so I don't care who wins"? Most hockey fans just don't care if their team isn't playing. With the NFL people will sit and watch whatever teams happen to be playing on Sunday or Monday night, and often on any given Sunday afternoon. If the NHL could turn their existing fanbase into fans of the sport and not just their team, they would go a long way towards improving their TV ratings.

I guess it depends, guys like TO draw ratings and TV time and pretty much everyone hates him.

[Chadd 916]

I guess it depends, guys like TO draw ratings and TV time and pretty much everyone hates him.

In a lot of cases, it's the only game on at that time and it backs up my point that football fans will watch other teams, especially if it could be a good game.

[Trooper 8]

One thing to consider, and I tell this to my friends who think soccer is just on the brink of breaking out and Beckham is going to be the savior, is that there is only a pool of sporting interest so big. People have X amount of time to spend watching and following sports. The NHL is behind football, basketball, baseball, and probably NASCAR and golf in this country. It's a niche sport, maybe no amount of marketing is going to elevate it to the level hockey fans think it deserves.

[hockeymom 2]

The NHL should be marketing the speed and power of the game. Huge (clean) hits, shots breaking the glass, quick and creative plays as well as many of the players.

Add in rivalry between teams and "Back in the day" when my job was to put bums in the seats even tho' there were bums on the ice (Canucks) my proposal was exactly this Chadd.

If you can't sell a winning team, sell the game. Nothing is faster than hockey; the raw power is awesome. The anticipation of big hits and shots breaking glass are not dis-similar to Nascar fans waiting for an accident.

The Canucks didn't go for it then (I always suspected it was because a "person with breasts" proposed it) and the NHL isn't going for it now. They are looking at the success the NBA had and borrowing their marketing plan. It is a different game, with a different fan base.

[mack 44]

It's sad to think that pre-Lock-out v1 that the NHL was actually more popular than the NBA.

[Chadd 916]

It's sad to think that pre-Lock-out v1 that the NHL was actually more popular than the NBA.

Two or three years of big name stars and major market teams winning the cup can change that quickly.

[MDE3 0]

I go back to the media and advertising sales as the greatest nemesis for the game of hockey.

The game is watched by passionate (television) fans...the majority of whom have played or have family who have played. If there are too many ads....the ratings drop because fans (and players too) lose their emotional momentum..and thus (as fans )their attachment/interest in the game....and so ratings drop.

On the other hand...without frequent stoppages in play....there is not too much airtime to sell. So then hockey as a sport becomes a much less lucrative (read "interesting") prospect to large networks who value their sports spectacles mostly in terms of their facility to generate advertising sales.

As an exercise....time the amount of "play time" for a football game, versus "ad time", and then do the same for hockey. If you did it for all major sports you might just find that the "most popular" sport, is in fact the one which hosts the greatest number of ads....and the "least popular" the one which has the least "ad time" vs "play time".....just a hunch.

The ad sales people will immediately begin the "chicken vs the egg" analogy of which came first....however given the formalized analyses done by all networks on their programming and demographics...hockey at this juncture will always come up short.

The salvation has always been, and will remain the need to create more drama to rev up the emotional involvement of the fans with the game itself, so they do not drift away while the ads corral the play...Fighting in the sport was the traditional rallying point to accomplish this, but no longer is this an acceptable nor broad enough stimulus. So now the new cry is the speed, power and skill...and Crosby has been selected to carry the torch...simply because of fan demographics. (not to mention a fairly healthy dose of the needed talent)

Make no mistake....the drama is needed to rev up the emotions required to keep the sport on the tube...but for kids who get their jollies watching "extreme sports", hockey no longer seems to cut the mustard as a serious cow prod for the youth market.

The real solution is to get more young kids playing the sport beacuse hockey fans are players, ex players or families of same....and the most likely scenario to accomplish this will be to get grass roots hockey being played across the land by the kids again....

Hence inline hockey needs a serious revival...street and ball hockey....because "natural ice" just ain't avaiable to often any more.

I think it's kind of ironic how for years ice hockey mavens who tended to pooh pooh the sport of roller hockey, may in fact have to depend on it to become the saviour of the future of the sport (in the USA).

[cbettner66 0]

I guess it depends, guys like TO draw ratings and TV time and pretty much everyone hates him.

In a lot of cases, it's the only game on at that time and it backs up my point that football fans will watch other teams, especially if it could be a good game.

one thing you have to keep in mind though is the nfl plays the least amount of games of any league* - so its more likely they are going to have high ratings to begin with

NFL 32 teams X 16 games = 512 games a year

NHL 30 teams X 82 games = 2,460 games a year

NBA 30 teams X 82 games = 2,460 games a year

MLB 30 teams X 162 games = 4,860 games a year

*unless you count MLS which is 12 teams X 32 games = 384 games a year

[Hordie Gowe 17]

Hockey is a regional sport and the NHL refuses to understand that idea. The biggest mistake the NHL made was going for the TV money on OLN(Versus) or whatever they are calling themselves. They should have taken the lesser ESPN deal. But after listening to Gary on CBC last night it is clear he is so far out of touch with reality that all the crazy things being done with the league make much more sense.

[Chadd 916]

Hockey is a regional sport and the NHL refuses to understand that idea. The biggest mistake the NHL made was going for the TV money on OLN(Versus) or whatever they are calling themselves. They should have taken the lesser ESPN deal. But after listening to Gary on CBC last night it is clear he is so far out of touch with reality that all the crazy things being done with the league make much more sense.

There was no money in the ESPN deal. They would have had to pay ESPN for their production costs and then split any remaining revenue between them. Not to mention all of the games would have been moved to ESPN2 and that's only available in 10% more households than VS.

[hockeyherb 1]

I don't know how much $ they got from VS channel, but I think they need to take a chance with a higher profile channel like ESPN, even if it ends up most games are on the Deuce.

I would never switch my TV to VS if it wasn't for being a hockey fan already, yet ESPN is on a ton in my house, as I'm sure it is in many male sports fans homes. So the cross promotion opportunities would raise the profile of the game a lot. It's all about the eyeballs for the promos. That's when having good marketing is going to pay off, when more people actually know when games are on and who's playing and why they should watch it.

Even when I travel, I've yet to see VS available in a hotel room but ESPN2 is almost always available.

It was probably a bigger gamble financially, but I think the upside for the NHL being stuck on VS is limited.

[Chadd 916]

I don't know how much $ they got from VS channel, but I think they need to take a chance with a higher profile channel like ESPN, even if it ends up most games are on the Deuce.

I would never switch my TV to VS if it wasn't for being a hockey fan already, yet ESPN is on a ton in my house, as I'm sure it is in many male sports fans homes. So the cross promotion opportunities would raise the profile of the game a lot. It's all about the eyeballs for the promos. That's when having good marketing is going to pay off, when more people actually know when games are on and who's playing and why they should watch it.

Even when I travel, I've yet to see VS available in a hotel room but ESPN2 is almost always available.

It was probably a bigger gamble financially, but I think the upside for the NHL being stuck on VS is limited.

VS gets great ratings during the Tour de France over the summer and used it to promote the NHL. That's equivalent to ESPN using monday night football to promote hockey.

ESPN didn't cross promote the NHL in the last year of their contract when they had money invested in the contract. In fact they had pulled down their marketing of the NHL year by year during the time it was on the network. Why would they suddenly start using airtime to promote the hockey broadcasts if there was nothing on the line for them? They would have used the airtime to promote other "events" that would have provided them a greater return on their investments.

Going with VS wasn't great for the NHL but there wasn't really another viable alternative. With the quality of the game improving there is a chance they can get ESPN to offer a realistic contract next time it comes up for a bid.

[tokes 0]

one thing you have to keep in mind though is the nfl plays the least amount of games of any league* - so its more likely they are going to have high ratings to begin with

NFL 32 teams X 16 games = 512 games a year

NHL 30 teams X 82 games = 2,460 games a year

NBA 30 teams X 82 games = 2,460 games a year

MLB 30 teams X 162 games = 4,860 games a year

*unless you count MLS which is 12 teams X 32 games = 384 games a year

Divide those numbers by two. Yeah, each team in the NHL plays 82 games but you have to have an opponent, right? 82 x 30 /2

[Jason Harris 31]

The NHL has to find a way to make team fans into fans of the sport. How many times have you heard "my team is out of the playoffs so I don't care who wins"? Most hockey fans just don't care if their team isn't playing. With the NFL people will sit and watch whatever teams happen to be playing on Sunday or Monday night, and often on any given Sunday afternoon. If the NHL could turn their existing fanbase into fans of the sport and not just their team, they would go a long way towards improving their TV ratings.

I don't agree with this, Chadd, at least when comparing solid fans versus casual fans. There's no doubt the NFL picks up the casual fan for Sunday or Monday nights, while the NHL seldom picks up casual fans. However, I think of hockey fans as the type that watch any game that's on, whereas I don't think that is true with NBA or MLB fans.

They may already be doing this, but I think the NHL has to get behind the whole One Goal proposition. Build the fan base by getting more people to play the game.

[Chadd 916]

The NHL has to find a way to make team fans into fans of the sport. How many times have you heard "my team is out of the playoffs so I don't care who wins"? Most hockey fans just don't care if their team isn't playing. With the NFL people will sit and watch whatever teams happen to be playing on Sunday or Monday night, and often on any given Sunday afternoon. If the NHL could turn their existing fanbase into fans of the sport and not just their team, they would go a long way towards improving their TV ratings.

I don't agree with this, Chadd, at least when comparing solid fans versus casual fans. There's no doubt the NFL picks up the casual fan for Sunday or Monday nights, while the NHL seldom picks up casual fans. However, I think of hockey fans as the type that watch any game that's on, whereas I don't think that is true with NBA or MLB fans.

They may already be doing this, but I think the NHL has to get behind the whole One Goal proposition. Build the fan base by getting more people to play the game.

Maybe it's just the local market but most Flyer or Penguin fans I know don't care about anything other than their guys. I also honestly believe the one goal proposition will fail unless they address the root cause of the expense of hockey, the cost of ice. Inexpensive equipment is available but inexpensive ice in the US doesn't exist.

[Jason Harris 31]

I also honestly believe the one goal proposition will fail unless they address the root cause of the expense of hockey, the cost of ice. Inexpensive equipment is available but inexpensive ice in the US doesn't exist.

I think the NHL and One Goal should make a push behind roller hockey, since that can be played anywhere. From there, they'd have to try to transition the roller players to "upgrade" to ice hockey.

[Chadd 916]

I also honestly believe the one goal proposition will fail unless they address the root cause of the expense of hockey, the cost of ice. Inexpensive equipment is available but inexpensive ice in the US doesn't exist.

I think the NHL and One Goal should make a push behind roller hockey, since that can be played anywhere. From there, they'd have to try to transition the roller players to "upgrade" to ice hockey.

I agree. I've been saying for years that the NHL should create a summer inline league to continue promoting the sport in the off season as well. Somewhat like the NBA did with the WNBA.

[cbettner66 0]

I also honestly believe the one goal proposition will fail unless they address the root cause of the expense of hockey, the cost of ice. Inexpensive equipment is available but inexpensive ice in the US doesn't exist.

I think the NHL and One Goal should make a push behind roller hockey, since that can be played anywhere. From there, they'd have to try to transition the roller players to "upgrade" to ice hockey.

i think the hardest thing about having a roller league would be checking/contact - the ice is more forgiving than a floor mainly because you can slide on it after falling