The truth behind the Winter Classic
January 4, 2010 · 19 Comments
We’re back up sooner than expected, no thanks to Telnet, after technical trouble appeared to have us done until Thursday.
So, a quick post on the disappointing NBC rating for the New Year’s day Winter Classic. The overnight rating of 2.6 was down 10.3 percent from 2.9 a year ago. (A rating is the percentage of potential U.S. households tuned in.)
A surprise? Well, maybe. There were some compelling reasons to watch. It was Fenway Park, after all, and Boston-Philadelphia, is arguably the biggest rivalry in U.S. hockey – two big, mean teams that hate each other; Bobby Orr-Bobby Clarke, taking us back to 1974, Flyers beating the Bruins to win their first Stanley Cup, Orr in tears. Ask Orr what he thinks of Clarke and we’re guessing an honest answer would be, “Not much.”
It was a perfect day for an outdoor game and the NBC pictures, particularly the shots from the aircraft, were wonderful. Why not a larger TV audience? Others have hit on the main points. For the casual fan, there wasn’t much offense, but what do you expect on bad outdoor ice? It was close, physical, and the conclusion, a come-from-behind win by the home team, followed the Hollywood script.
The problem is, if you’re NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and desperate to be the person responsible for growing the NHL game in the United States, a close, well played game appeals only to hockey’s core audience. The casual fans couldn’t have cared less. Bring on the snow, and, hey, where are Alex and Sid? There were no big names in this game, which is to say Alex Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby weren’t there.
But let’s not get too serious about the Winter Classic. It’s a gimmick, a novelty that earns some extra money for the clubs, and, in a perfect world, would kick-start NBC’s NHL coverage.
This is not about good hockey or anything meaningful. Hockey is an indoor sport. And the TV numbers are never going to move much, just as the NHL will never rank higher than a distant fourth behind the three big leagues.
That’s the truth behind the hype.
The CBC, by the way, drew 1.616 million for the game, comparable to an audience for the Saturday night 7 p.m. ET game.
One last audience: 3.3 million for TSN’s New Year’s Eve junior game between Canada and the United States. That’s big, TSN’s four largest audience ever.
Filed under Article Posts · · 
Email This Article
Kevin makes a good point. If you want this game to have more atmosphere, they have to find a way to get the stands closer to the action. They need to find a stadium where they can put the ice right up against one set of stands, and then put up temporary seating on the other side and at the ends. Having the ice out in the middle of the field doesn't make for appealing TV.
Here's why I didn't stay tuned into The Winter Classic after watching for a couple of minutes: There was no atmosphere. Yeah, there were 37,000 or so fans in the stands with the crowd all mic'ed up and all the glitz and pageantry that the NHL puts on for the event, but not being able to see any spectators onscreen, and having a couple of cheesy oversized pucks behind the far-side glass as decoration, add in two boring teams playing (up until the games final minutes) boring hockey wearing the worst throwback jerseys I've seen on NHL teams meant the game had all the feeling of watching a beer-league match on the local cable access channel. The Flyers are a bad hockey team, and in spite of the fact they're doing well this year, whenever I've seen a game featuring the Bruins this year, they've played such insipid hockey, that I find myself looking for the remote.
The NHL wants to market itself with this game, so market it! This is a signature event that shouldn't be shopped around among the teams like awarding the entry draft. You know who the most dynamic, exciting teams are, so go ahead and give it to one of them. Pittsburgh, Washington, Detroit, find a way to play it in San Jose. Then match up another exciting team against them, and give people a reason to skip watching the Saniflush Toilet Bowl or whatever. I'm surprised these two dog teams drew as much of an audience as they did.
If Alex and Sid are the only way the league can market itself then it truly is in a lot of trouble. Because what would be worse than a weak rivalry between two middling teams would be to forget the teams entirely and focus on Alex vs. Sid. Instead of Clarke and Orr might as well get Alex and Sid to go out and shake hands and then they zoom the camera on the hands and show them crushing each others hands and then they turn around the flash an advertisement. Talk to Boudreau and Bylsma and ensure that they match lines so Alex and Sid are always on together. Whenever they are not on the ice (over thalf the game) you can just have a lot of side-entertainment and advertisements for the 'casual fan' that doesn't want to see hard hockey but only wants to see the superstars. Flyers have Pronger, Bruins have Chara, Flyers have a good core of good forwards, as do the Bruins. In the end that meant that the teams were the focus.
Secondly, the whole idea of the Winter Classic was a classic matchup between two traditional rival teams right? And since when have Washington and Pittsburgh been traditional rivals? Back in 2004 the only rivalry the two teams had was the race to get Ovechkin.
Flyers-Bruins isn't as as Flyers-Rangers, Flyers-Devils or Flyers-Pens. However the Flyers played the Bruins when they owon their first cup, so in that way it goes back to an old rivalry. It was only later that the Atlantic rivalries became so much more huge.
There are way too many people saying 'I told you so' and that it should have been Washington-Pittsburgh instead. Firstly, if we start thinking like this then let's forget the winter 'classic' completely why don't we? Let's just have a battle between the two biggest stars of the league. We'll have Caps-Pens going for the next few years and if Tavares or Hall become league superstars then we'll get rid of whichever one of Crosby or Ovechkin is fading and replace them. That would be great for the ratings right! If Alex and Sid are the only way the league can market itself then it truly is in a lot of trouble.
I agree with Dano. They could have the game at the Laval football stadium. It would be nice to see where my taxpayer's dollars went.
You're welcome Quebec citizen.
As a die hard bruins fan the last team I think of for a rival is the Flyers. Rangers make more sense just because it is the city rivalry at that point taking place where a rivalry exist–FENWAY.
Also, it seems that the media is divided on the the success of this year's game. Most of the print media didn't like it, while the TV talking heads loved it and think that it will be hard for the next year to get the this level. The fans loved it, which tell me the print media didn't get the access to view the game as much as the rest of the media/fans and just complaining.
As for next year—I say have Colorado play Montreal in an old battle of Quebec in Quebec city wrapped around their winter carnival!
One big problem was the Capital One Bowl, Penn State played in it against another high ranked team LSU. I'd guess there may be more Penn State fans in the Philly area than Flyer fans. Put on top of that a great game between Northwestern and Auburn in the Outback Bowl and Bobby Bowden's final game coaching Florida State as they upset West Virginia in the Gator Bowl, and its easy to see what people were watching. I'm a huge hockey fan, and yet I found myself wanting to watch the end of the Outback Bowl more than the second period. The game was just a bit boring, which would have been fine if it was the first or second outside game, but its the fourth.
Hey Guest: If you read the post, Houston does state "arguably" the best rivalry, but while you throwing out rivalries, I would eliminate Devils/Flyers Devils/Rangers right away, and would probably rank Flyers/Bruins right up there with the top rivalries, with perhaps Chicago/Detroit and Pittsburgh/Philly ahead.
Do some research, Flyers-Bruins is nowhere close to the "biggest rivalry" between American teams … How about Rangers-Devils? Rangers-Flyers? Devils-Flyers? Any of those are bigger rivalries. So was last years Hawks-Wings game.
Perhaps "no compelling reason to care about the outcome" is one of the reasons that the ratings are down. There really was no spectacle. It was just another dull regular season game in a fringe sport (in the US) between 2 middle of the road teams.
If the NHL had a clue, which they DON'T, they would play the all-star game as the winter classic. It would provide the hungover couch potato something to stare at and the fringe fans something to latch onto. But being the NHL they wouldn't do that as they know only how to milk an event til it's bled dry to the point where their core fans turn up their nose at it.
If the winter "classic" was the all star game they might even attract a few new fans although they would quickly revert back to non-fans after watching some of the other regular season games when one of the many tallent-free teams come to visit their chosen rooting interest.
Or maybe the novelty of the outdoor gimmick is wearing off.
The ice was fine. He was wrong about that. Why all the hand-wringing about the ratings? Do you really think that multitudes of non-hockey fans are going to tune in just because the game is outdoors? They're still unfamiliar with the sport, have no rooting interest, don't know the teams and players and have no compelling reason to care about the outcome.
Did you even watch the game? Chris Pronger said it was the best ice he played on all year. I guess to have a blog you got to be negative.
Face the Facts (Army)…….Hockey is a great great sport. Being American, it's easy to understand why hockey has had a lukewarm response in the states. The warmer the climate, the less interest. Kids aren't going to find a frozen pond around Miami, Los Angeles and Phoenix to play a pick up game the way they can in Boston, Detroit, Minneapolis, and most anywhere in Canada. Go anywhere worldwide where winters are cold, I'll bet you can find a hockey game. And no, we all don't think that all Canadians love the game. But the hockey atmosphere in Canada is incredible.
Dude… I've lived in Canada my whole life. And I've never come across a "frozen pond" on which I could magically play hockey. You've been watching too many Tim Horton's commercials. Kids increasingly grow up in this country playing soccer now.
Yeah, I'll agree with mlbfan.
I'm Canadian, and I find myself increasingly turned off from the game. Firstly, I don't like the 'you're Canadian, so you have to like hockey and dislike MLB/NBA/NFL' attitude that some possess.
Secondly, I can't stand the oversaturation of hockey coverage in this country (Hello AM 640, every network on trade deadline day and July 1st).
And finally, I can't stand the way people buy into these beer commercials that tell us that it's practically a patriotic duty to be a hockey fan. I'm a MLB/NBA fan – does that make me less of a Canadian than an NHL fan? Please. Being a Canadian is not defined by what sports you like to watch.
Dude….are you kidding me? That's the stupidest thing I have ever read.
Try driving 20 minutes out of your melting pot – and get out and experience the country, maybe you'll cross a 'frozen pond' or two.
Face the facts………it's hockey and a 4th rate sport. Being a Canadian, I'm always amused that Americans think ALL Canadians love this game!?!? I gave it up in the mid 70s when the goons took over. Surprised that anyone watched this so called spectacle…….I didn't, and obviously others didn't bother. Ho hum.
If you "gave it up in the mid 70s# , why you bother to submit your obviously useless opinion? Concentrate on football and leave hockey alone.