Not being able to recognize players does hurt marketing of the game.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....
Try showing more games during the regular season and build the recognition there... Don't whine once the playoffs are here...
The NBC Chief has a pointless point. What an idiot.
You're kidding right? Don't they have numbers and NAMES on their backs? Please do not ruin hockey, please.
Blake, I'm a season ticket holder - didn't miss a home game all last season and went to a few roadies, and with maybe half a dozen exceptions, I couldn't pick any of the Komet players out of a police lineup unless they were wearing their jerseys. I doubt that any Blackhawks fan all of a sudden thinks that some imposter has stolen the "88" jersey just because Jonathan Toews grew a beard.
And, JR1, between the NHL Network, NBCSN, and NBC, there are 5-7 games on "nationally" each week, and the regional sports channels show practically every one of their teams' games. This is not that much different than how baseball is broadcast, though baseball has better penetration by having their national games on ESPN.
Maybe we ought to have someone mandate that all NBA players must grow beards and wear helmets (with visors, of course). That would even things out!! LOL!
While I can understand his frustration on a professional level, his comparison is weak. Sometimes popularity is on a cyclical basis. If one finds that this isn't the reason then the sport (most likely the NHL, needs to address the problem). There are ways, but none are "overnight" solutions.
I think NBC knew what it was getting itself in for when they purchased the Outdoor Network(?). Turned it into NBCSN and inherited the NHL contract.
Without any statistics (just my own opinion), there are a lot of reasons the NBA is more popular. Some have to do with the hockey "markings" on the ice and the understanding of them by the populace. Some may be a familiarity problem with the sport itself...and getting much deeper, some are a result of social and cultural differences.
Will an increase in scoring help jumpstart hockey's popularity? Do you increase scoring by the narrowing of goaltender pads? Do you encourage more fighting in the game? How do you draw more fans into an arena or watch on TV?
Frankly, I think the advent of high definition TV was perfect for hockey (and the PGA, too).
If you can address some of these problems, hockey may make some inroads.
Having The Eagles close to the Avalanche, rally does not help the Avalanche. The Eagle player has to go back thru San Antonio anyway. I think the bonus for us having Lake Erie was that we got some Lake Erie players playing( non- Avalanche players) for us form time to time.
It worked because its 4 hrs away. Sometimes its not the NHL signed kid coming from the AHL affiliate but the Kid that signed with the AHL team and the management not wanting him sitting in the stands but rather skating somewhere. I would prefer keeping the AHL team closer to us regardless of the NHL team.
Ron, only ONE of those channels mentioned can everyone get with just a regular antenna...the rest have to be purchased thru expensive cable, satellite, or internet packages...
Soooo, one game per week is played nationally for everyone...realistically.
This Colorado affiliation ordeal is turning into another 7-10, 2 month fiasco.....lol
Just read that Missouri has signed a two year agreement with the Islanders. AHL affiliate is the Bridgeport Sound Tigers. You remember them, right? They gave us Luciano Aquino a few years back. (Thank you, Islanders). Didn't Bingham go from Fort Wayne to Bridgeport as an assistant coach?? Think so. There has been some familiarity between Komets and Islanders at least. (Doesn't mean that whatever familiarity is "good", however).
Missouri is owned by the Hunt family. Kids, you might want to look this family up. Same family that basically bankrolled the American Football League ( owned the Dallas Stars which turned into the Kansas City Chiefs after one season) at its birth. Also active in American politics (you can look that up and all that went with it).
Nothing about this move makes any geographic sense. States of New York and Connecticut are very close. Missouri, not so much.
Wondering and questioning the Avalanche about their decision is just speculation and would be redundant.
Bigger question now is who will the Komets lose for Guggenberger? Trade needs to be completed by 3pm tomorrow. Maybe the effect would be easier if the K's had their affiliation questions answered, but they don't. But, basically, I don't think it matters much. (I'm hoping that the K's sign Guggenberger).
As far as the "affiliation". It was August when the Komets and Ducks made their agreement. We know how well that worked out.
Sorry, I have to correct something in my last post.
It wasn't the Dallas "Stars" (too much hockey on my mind), it was the Dallas "Texans" that became the Kansas City Chiefs.
Funny that I made that mistake. I loved the old AFL.
In fact I tell people that the three best things of the 1960's were John F. Kennedy, the American Space program, and the American Football League...(and not necessarily in that order).