Replies

The biggest problem with the NHL has nothing to do with marketing. It's the fact that hockey does not translate well to television at all.

I can remember about a half-dozen cases in recent years where I took someone (as an adult) to an NHL game for the first time in his/her life. In every case this involved a person who never liked hockey but was willing to give it a shot, and in every case these folks became instantly hooked on the game. One guy was an immigrant from Europe who had been a soccer fan all his life, and he's never been the same.

The thing that he finds most fascinating about hockey? The speed, first and foremost, but here's his money quote: "It's so neat the way the players come on and off the bench even while the game is going on and the puck is in play!"

It's the fact that hockey does not translate well to television at all.

I've heard that before, and I remember Fox's noble but failed experiment with computers to make the puck more visible.

I have never found hockety to be problematic on TV ... IF YOU HAVE GOOD CAMERAS AND A STATION THAT KNOWS HOW TO USE THEM.

I am a lapsed Kings fan from the Triple Crown era. I lived in CT. The Kings would typically get second place in the Norris division (behind Montreal), and the Bruins would typically win the Adams division. Around Round 2 the Kings would play the Bruins. The folks at WSBK-TV38 were exceptional with their coverage. But when I stayed up late to watch the games in L.A. (where the Kings wore those crazy Dr. Dentons) the cameras were largely obscured by PEOPLE SITTING IN FRONT OF THEM! This was in the old forum, but for some reason the Lakers games in the same building didn't have that problem. The cameramen (or the guy at the switchboard) could not antipate where the puck was going. No zoom-ins behind the net. Awful. You'd think a big city based famous for TV and movies would have done better.

Of course, it might be better now. I haven't kept up.