Actually I think the office would prefer a Rangers/Hawks series. The Kings makes it horrible, time scheduling wise. Also you have the Hawks being in 3 and possible winning the 3rd in the last 5 cup finals. That's verging on dynasty.
Actually I think the office would prefer a Rangers/Hawks series. The Kings makes it horrible, time scheduling wise. Also you have the Hawks being in 3 and possible winning the 3rd in the last 5 cup finals. That's verging on dynasty.
yeah i think it is a win either way.... New York is the top TV market, Los Angeles is Second and Chicago is Third.... no matter how you slice it he is going to havehuge ratings for the Cup Finals
yeah i think it is a win either way.... New York is the top TV market, Los Angeles is Second and Chicago is Third.... no matter how you slice it he is going to havehuge ratings for the Cup Finals
The most watched Stanley Cup Final game in history was 5/18/1971 Game 7 versus Montreal and Chicago 12.41 million viewers.... I will bet one game in this years cup finals either beats or gets damn close to that.... Now I know he won't get all of it but there is almost 13 million potential viewers in New York and Los Angeles markets alone.
The most watched Stanley Cup Final game in history was 5/18/1971 Game 7 versus Montreal and Chicago 12.41 million viewers.... I will bet one game in this years cup finals either beats or gets damn close to that.... Now I know he won't get all of it but there is almost 13 million potential viewers in New York and Los Angeles markets alone.
He 100% wants L.A and not Chicago. Dynasties are not good for TV ratings and the numbers show it. The top 9 ratings for a game in the finals of all time are two teams playing eachother when neither team was even in the finals the season before nevermind a winner of it.
Not a single game from the 4 in a row the habs won in the late 70's or the 4 in a row the islanders won in the early 80's or when philly repeated in 75 or any of the oilers finals from the 80's or any repeating team is even in the top 9 all time ratings for stanley cup finals games. The pittsburgh/detroit rematch in 09 made in the 10 slot of all time but it was their game 7 that made it, the rest of the series did not come close. Fans DO NOT like dynasties, the are boring, people like to see new teams playing, new styles colliding.
The lion and the tiger may be more powerful, but the wolf doesn't perform in the circus.
He 100% wants L.A and not Chicago. Dynasties are not good for TV ratings and the numbers show it. The top 9 ratings for a game in the finals of all time are two teams playing eachother when neither team was even in the finals the season before nevermind a winner of it.
Not a single game from the 4 in a row the habs won in the late 70's or the 4 in a row the islanders won in the early 80's or when philly repeated in 75 or any of the oilers finals from the 80's or any repeating team is even in the top 9 all time ratings for stanley cup finals games. The pittsburgh/detroit rematch in 09 made in the 10 slot of all time but it was their game 7 that made it, the rest of the series did not come close. Fans DO NOT like dynasties, the are boring, people like to see new teams playing, new styles colliding.
He 100% wants L.A and not Chicago. Dynasties are not good for TV ratings and the numbers show it. The top 9 ratings for a game in the finals of all time are two teams playing eachother when neither team was even in the finals the season before nevermind a winner of it.
Not a single game from the 4 in a row the habs won in the late 70's or the 4 in a row the islanders won in the early 80's or when philly repeated in 75 or any of the oilers finals from the 80's or any repeating team is even in the top 9 all time ratings for stanley cup finals games. The pittsburgh/detroit rematch in 09 made in the 10 slot of all time but it was their game 7 that made it, the rest of the series did not come close. Fans DO NOT like dynasties, the are boring, people like to see new teams playing, new styles colliding.
I completely disagree, People do love dynasties, for good or bad. You have that dynastie team that people love or people hate, either way they watch.
Also, how in the world can you even use data from the 70's and 80's. Of course it had horrible ratings. People in the U.S. just slightly watch hockey now, back then then had less than any clue about it, besides in the north east.
He 100% wants L.A and not Chicago. Dynasties are not good for TV ratings and the numbers show it. The top 9 ratings for a game in the finals of all time are two teams playing eachother when neither team was even in the finals the season before nevermind a winner of it.
Not a single game from the 4 in a row the habs won in the late 70's or the 4 in a row the islanders won in the early 80's or when philly repeated in 75 or any of the oilers finals from the 80's or any repeating team is even in the top 9 all time ratings for stanley cup finals games. The pittsburgh/detroit rematch in 09 made in the 10 slot of all time but it was their game 7 that made it, the rest of the series did not come close. Fans DO NOT like dynasties, the are boring, people like to see new teams playing, new styles colliding.
I completely disagree, People do love dynasties, for good or bad. You have that dynastie team that people love or people hate, either way they watch.
Also, how in the world can you even use data from the 70's and 80's. Of course it had horrible ratings. People in the U.S. just slightly watch hockey now, back then then had less than any clue about it, besides in the north east.
I completely disagree, People do love dynasties, for good or bad. You have that dynastie team that people love or people hate, either way they watch.
Also, how in the world can you even use data from the 70's and 80's. Of course it had horrible ratings. People in the U.S. just slightly watch hockey now, back then then had less than any clue about it, besides in the north east.
Lipps it's the games from the 70's that make up the top games viewed so your thinking is completely off base. In fact 6 of the top 8 stanley cup finals games ever viewed in history are from the 70's bud so you are very wrong. Here is a copy and paste of the top 8 stanley cup finals games viewed in history right up until today. They started keeping track in 1966 so sorry man your theory is backwards. The ratings then were MUCH better as the numbers below show you. Ontop of just the raw numbers keep in kind the general population of both Canada and the United States has ballooned over the last few decades so there are A LOT more people to draw from now then there was back in the early 70's when these numbers for these big games were so high. In 1973 there were 2.3 Billion people on the earth and today we have about 7 Billion, those numbers are in line with the massive population increase in north america over that time span, which just further makes those huge numbers from the early 70's all that more amazing. Your numbers are below. The dynasty numbers are nowhere close to the numbers for the games between fresh new teams playing that had not been there the year before and it's not an opinion, it's statistical fact.
1. 5/18/71, Montreal-Chicago – Game 7, 12.41 million, CBS
2. 5/11/72, Boston-NY Rangers – Game 6, 10.93 million, CBS
3. 5/10/73, Montreal-Chicago – Game 6, 9.41 million, NBC
I completely disagree, People do love dynasties, for good or bad. You have that dynastie team that people love or people hate, either way they watch.
Also, how in the world can you even use data from the 70's and 80's. Of course it had horrible ratings. People in the U.S. just slightly watch hockey now, back then then had less than any clue about it, besides in the north east.
Lipps it's the games from the 70's that make up the top games viewed so your thinking is completely off base. In fact 6 of the top 8 stanley cup finals games ever viewed in history are from the 70's bud so you are very wrong. Here is a copy and paste of the top 8 stanley cup finals games viewed in history right up until today. They started keeping track in 1966 so sorry man your theory is backwards. The ratings then were MUCH better as the numbers below show you. Ontop of just the raw numbers keep in kind the general population of both Canada and the United States has ballooned over the last few decades so there are A LOT more people to draw from now then there was back in the early 70's when these numbers for these big games were so high. In 1973 there were 2.3 Billion people on the earth and today we have about 7 Billion, those numbers are in line with the massive population increase in north america over that time span, which just further makes those huge numbers from the early 70's all that more amazing. Your numbers are below. The dynasty numbers are nowhere close to the numbers for the games between fresh new teams playing that had not been there the year before and it's not an opinion, it's statistical fact.
1. 5/18/71, Montreal-Chicago – Game 7, 12.41 million, CBS
2. 5/11/72, Boston-NY Rangers – Game 6, 10.93 million, CBS
3. 5/10/73, Montreal-Chicago – Game 6, 9.41 million, NBC
Wednesday's game 5 was a 16 rating in Chicago and a 3 rating in LA. LA doesn't give a garbage about hockey.
Which is exactly why he wants L.A in there and not Chicago. Come on guys, you don't promote a product to the area that is already buying it, you promote it to the area that you need to elevate interest in. Business 101
The lion and the tiger may be more powerful, but the wolf doesn't perform in the circus.
Wednesday's game 5 was a 16 rating in Chicago and a 3 rating in LA. LA doesn't give a garbage about hockey.
Which is exactly why he wants L.A in there and not Chicago. Come on guys, you don't promote a product to the area that is already buying it, you promote it to the area that you need to elevate interest in. Business 101
Which is exactly why he wants L.A in there and not Chicago. Come on guys, you don't promote a product to the area that is already buying it, you promote it to the area that you need to elevate interest in. Business 101
Business 101, you go to the markets that will pump up your advertising and get you the most bang for your buck, not one that gets a 3 rating and you have to give back money to your advertisersbecause you are getting a 3 rating.
Which is exactly why he wants L.A in there and not Chicago. Come on guys, you don't promote a product to the area that is already buying it, you promote it to the area that you need to elevate interest in. Business 101
Business 101, you go to the markets that will pump up your advertising and get you the most bang for your buck, not one that gets a 3 rating and you have to give back money to your advertisersbecause you are getting a 3 rating.
So then just give up on the rest of the league so people in one city can watch? Sorry that's insane. The new markets must be built up. With that thinking then the league might as well just go back to 6 teams right now or maybe 12 at most.
Hell if Pittsburgh had not been "gifted" Sydney Crosby in the NHL's secret lottery that franchise would have already folded, which is sio pathetic there are no words for it, having at that point already won 2 stanley cups. As fate would have it the NHL got "lucky" and the Penguins got good again and won another Cup saving the almost folded and broke franchise.
The lion and the tiger may be more powerful, but the wolf doesn't perform in the circus.
So then just give up on the rest of the league so people in one city can watch? Sorry that's insane. The new markets must be built up. With that thinking then the league might as well just go back to 6 teams right now or maybe 12 at most.
Hell if Pittsburgh had not been "gifted" Sydney Crosby in the NHL's secret lottery that franchise would have already folded, which is sio pathetic there are no words for it, having at that point already won 2 stanley cups. As fate would have it the NHL got "lucky" and the Penguins got good again and won another Cup saving the almost folded and broke franchise.
I thought the conversation was about tv ratings not clothing merchandise?
And sorry I don't get the carolina and edmonton references? So terrible teams not being popular equates to dynasties being popular? Sorry I don't get the correlation.
The lion and the tiger may be more powerful, but the wolf doesn't perform in the circus.
I thought the conversation was about tv ratings not clothing merchandise?
And sorry I don't get the carolina and edmonton references? So terrible teams not being popular equates to dynasties being popular? Sorry I don't get the correlation.
So then just give up on the rest of the league so people in one city can watch? Sorry that's insane. The new markets must be built up. With that thinking then the league might as well just go back to 6 teams right now or maybe 12 at most.
Hell if Pittsburgh had not been "gifted" Sydney Crosby in the NHL's secret lottery that franchise would have already folded, which is sio pathetic there are no words for it, having at that point already won 2 stanley cups. As fate would have it the NHL got "lucky" and the Penguins got good again and won another Cup saving the almost folded and broke franchise.
What the hell are you talking about ? Whatever team makes the finals is the team that makes it. I am just saying certain teams/markets will drive more money. And Chicago going to the finals will make the NHL more money that LA LA land.
Sorry LA fans.
But really, not many people in LA really care about the Kings. But those that do are really dedicated.
So then just give up on the rest of the league so people in one city can watch? Sorry that's insane. The new markets must be built up. With that thinking then the league might as well just go back to 6 teams right now or maybe 12 at most.
Hell if Pittsburgh had not been "gifted" Sydney Crosby in the NHL's secret lottery that franchise would have already folded, which is sio pathetic there are no words for it, having at that point already won 2 stanley cups. As fate would have it the NHL got "lucky" and the Penguins got good again and won another Cup saving the almost folded and broke franchise.
What the hell are you talking about ? Whatever team makes the finals is the team that makes it. I am just saying certain teams/markets will drive more money. And Chicago going to the finals will make the NHL more money that LA LA land.
Sorry LA fans.
But really, not many people in LA really care about the Kings. But those that do are really dedicated.
I thought the conversation was about tv ratings not clothing merchandise?
And sorry I don't get the carolina and edmonton references? So terrible teams not being popular equates to dynasties being popular? Sorry I don't get the correlation.
I know you don't get it PB. You have two small market teams that made the cup and no one beside those fans and hardcore hockey fans even gave a crap. Also yes merch makes a huge difference. You got dynasty teams people buy more of their merch.
I thought the conversation was about tv ratings not clothing merchandise?
And sorry I don't get the carolina and edmonton references? So terrible teams not being popular equates to dynasties being popular? Sorry I don't get the correlation.
I know you don't get it PB. You have two small market teams that made the cup and no one beside those fans and hardcore hockey fans even gave a crap. Also yes merch makes a huge difference. You got dynasty teams people buy more of their merch.
Here ya go PB , take a read here about why the NHL wants big market teams making the finals instead of the "new" teams you say most want to see in the finals. These guys know a little something about money in sports and what they want. Of course LA is a big market, but the team is not.
Here ya go PB , take a read here about why the NHL wants big market teams making the finals instead of the "new" teams you say most want to see in the finals. These guys know a little something about money in sports and what they want. Of course LA is a big market, but the team is not.
What the hell am I talking about? Wow ok relax chief lol, I posted numbers for you which you chose not to respond to which clearly show your statement of the ratings for games in the 70's being much weaker was completely wrong, they were not at all weaker. You said this to me in response to my showing you that the numbers were not strong for any of the dynasties in the 70's or 80's but your reasoning was dead wrong. The 70's were very strong just not once one team starting winning all the time. Nobody wants to tune in to watch the same crap happen over and over again. Montreal over 4 years in the finals won 16 games and lost 3, if you think people find that intriguing no offence but you're out to lunch. That is not exciting, intriguing or suspenseful, it's straight up boring. The numbers also show that the top viewing of big games came between teams that had not even played in the finals the year before. Those numbers, not me and not you, but those numbers tell us that viewers enjoy seeing NEW teams playing in the finals just like we will have this year between L.A and Chicago.
And I get IT, I just don't get your direction. I was answering about viewership in the finals comparing new teams to teams that had been there the previous year and you mentioned merchandise.
I could come right back with all the merchandise sold for the Maple Leafs, perrenial losers, we could talk about the business they do and all they do is lose. There are other examples too. As for Edmonton in the finals, not sure where you are getting nobody caring from??? If you mean the States well ofcourse they are Canadian, Americans don't give a crap about pretty much anything in the world that is not American so why would hockey be different? In Canada the country was going crazy for the Oilers that season, absolutely crazy. It was on in all the bars and what not, everyone was watching. Carolina is one of those cities that it's just pathetic that hockey is even in so that's a terrible example. It's not my fault bettman is obsessed with forcing awful hockey cities in America down everyones throat.
When the Flyers finished dead last in the NHL in 2004 guess what their attendance was? 6th in the NHL. When the Penguins finished dead least in the NHL in 2002 guess what their attendance was? dead last in the NHL.......A solid fan base is a solid fan base. Pittsburghs is phoney so they have tried to promote the game and imo make Pittsburgh a winner for the good of the game and they succeeded but if they become bad again the franchise will once again be in trouble, not true fans of the game. Chicago has a very old and very strong fanbase being an original six team and they are not going anywhere. The NHL would LOVE for L.A to one day be like Chicago with hockey or at least somewhere close to it, which will never happen but that is their goal. They have been pounding hockey into California ever since the season Bettman took over.
So we will agree to disagree on this and i'm heading out for beers. Don't have much of an interest, pretty much zero in fact in this final so probably won't be around here either as I will only watch it like I did the Devils/Kings final which is if it's on at a bar or on a friends tv etc..I truly have no plans to watch it. My brothers teams are the bruins and hawks so i watch them and watching the habs new york was a little intriguing to me but with chicago about to be out, that about does it for me. Enjoy the finals and have a good summer pal!
The lion and the tiger may be more powerful, but the wolf doesn't perform in the circus.
What the hell am I talking about? Wow ok relax chief lol, I posted numbers for you which you chose not to respond to which clearly show your statement of the ratings for games in the 70's being much weaker was completely wrong, they were not at all weaker. You said this to me in response to my showing you that the numbers were not strong for any of the dynasties in the 70's or 80's but your reasoning was dead wrong. The 70's were very strong just not once one team starting winning all the time. Nobody wants to tune in to watch the same crap happen over and over again. Montreal over 4 years in the finals won 16 games and lost 3, if you think people find that intriguing no offence but you're out to lunch. That is not exciting, intriguing or suspenseful, it's straight up boring. The numbers also show that the top viewing of big games came between teams that had not even played in the finals the year before. Those numbers, not me and not you, but those numbers tell us that viewers enjoy seeing NEW teams playing in the finals just like we will have this year between L.A and Chicago.
And I get IT, I just don't get your direction. I was answering about viewership in the finals comparing new teams to teams that had been there the previous year and you mentioned merchandise.
I could come right back with all the merchandise sold for the Maple Leafs, perrenial losers, we could talk about the business they do and all they do is lose. There are other examples too. As for Edmonton in the finals, not sure where you are getting nobody caring from??? If you mean the States well ofcourse they are Canadian, Americans don't give a crap about pretty much anything in the world that is not American so why would hockey be different? In Canada the country was going crazy for the Oilers that season, absolutely crazy. It was on in all the bars and what not, everyone was watching. Carolina is one of those cities that it's just pathetic that hockey is even in so that's a terrible example. It's not my fault bettman is obsessed with forcing awful hockey cities in America down everyones throat.
When the Flyers finished dead last in the NHL in 2004 guess what their attendance was? 6th in the NHL. When the Penguins finished dead least in the NHL in 2002 guess what their attendance was? dead last in the NHL.......A solid fan base is a solid fan base. Pittsburghs is phoney so they have tried to promote the game and imo make Pittsburgh a winner for the good of the game and they succeeded but if they become bad again the franchise will once again be in trouble, not true fans of the game. Chicago has a very old and very strong fanbase being an original six team and they are not going anywhere. The NHL would LOVE for L.A to one day be like Chicago with hockey or at least somewhere close to it, which will never happen but that is their goal. They have been pounding hockey into California ever since the season Bettman took over.
So we will agree to disagree on this and i'm heading out for beers. Don't have much of an interest, pretty much zero in fact in this final so probably won't be around here either as I will only watch it like I did the Devils/Kings final which is if it's on at a bar or on a friends tv etc..I truly have no plans to watch it. My brothers teams are the bruins and hawks so i watch them and watching the habs new york was a little intriguing to me but with chicago about to be out, that about does it for me. Enjoy the finals and have a good summer pal!
Here ya go PB , take a read here about why the NHL wants big market teams making the finals instead of the "new" teams you say most want to see in the finals. These guys know a little something about money in sports and what they want. Of course LA is a big market, but the team is not.
Lipps you did not even get what I was saying. New teams meaning a team that had not been in the finals the previous season. I was not talking about small market and big market. I was referring to the stats on the ratings that I posted for you. None of those were small market teams bud. This article has zero to do with what i was talking about. I'm not sure what you were reading but this is not all what I was saying. New teams means a team that was not in the finals the year before lol, not some new crappy franchise or a team that had never been there before. Did you look at the ratings I posted? I'm thinking no? All of those were popular teams from big market cities that were in the top ever rated games. But in those examples none of the teams had even appeared in the finals the season before, that was my point. Somewhere you glossed over that and got something entirely different out of what I was saying.
I'm exhausted now, Hopefully the beers and wings help me lol.
I agree on the Under and seeya next season!
The lion and the tiger may be more powerful, but the wolf doesn't perform in the circus.
Here ya go PB , take a read here about why the NHL wants big market teams making the finals instead of the "new" teams you say most want to see in the finals. These guys know a little something about money in sports and what they want. Of course LA is a big market, but the team is not.
Lipps you did not even get what I was saying. New teams meaning a team that had not been in the finals the previous season. I was not talking about small market and big market. I was referring to the stats on the ratings that I posted for you. None of those were small market teams bud. This article has zero to do with what i was talking about. I'm not sure what you were reading but this is not all what I was saying. New teams means a team that was not in the finals the year before lol, not some new crappy franchise or a team that had never been there before. Did you look at the ratings I posted? I'm thinking no? All of those were popular teams from big market cities that were in the top ever rated games. But in those examples none of the teams had even appeared in the finals the season before, that was my point. Somewhere you glossed over that and got something entirely different out of what I was saying.
I'm exhausted now, Hopefully the beers and wings help me lol.
Lmao OF COURSE Bettman and the NHL want a Final between Los Angeles vs New-York !!!
--> 2 of the 3 biggest States by GDP
That very good for your sport ; The economists are going to speak about it, the Stars and the businessmen are going to speak about it, Wall Street, everybody is going to speak about it.
A dynasty is also good for your sport, but it's not close.
Lmao OF COURSE Bettman and the NHL want a Final between Los Angeles vs New-York !!!
--> 2 of the 3 biggest States by GDP
That very good for your sport ; The economists are going to speak about it, the Stars and the businessmen are going to speak about it, Wall Street, everybody is going to speak about it.
A dynasty is also good for your sport, but it's not close.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.