Fundamentally flawed

Feeling inspired by yesterday's blog posting, I sat down and watched the entire Red Wings/Penguins Game 3 last night. Admittedly it was the first time that I had watched a full hockey game since Game 6 of last year's Stanley Cup in Pittsburgh in which the Wings wrapped up their claim of Lord Stanley's Cup.

I loved it.

Versus does a very nice job with their hockey coverage. I expected to get low-resolution video with cheesy-looking graphics - along the lines of a regional channel, like Fox Sports. But I was pleasantly surprised by a very high-quality broadcast with sharp visuals, nice sound clips and a broadcast team that had some personality. There were several times that I caught myself laughing out loud at some of the snarky comments that the play-by-play guy (whose name I never really caught), which never happens.

The game was a lot of fun, too. Within a few minutes, there was already a barrage of goals. And TV ratings can attest to this: the more offense there is, the better the ratings are. Take football out of the equation, because it is going to get the ratings regardless, and see what you are left with. Basketball gets higher ratings, and the lower-scoring baseball and hockey get lower ratings. If you took a look at the ratings, I think that it would reflect that trend as there wasn't another goal scored until the final ten minutes of the third period, and ratings would start to slowly decline and stay steady from that point in the third on.

For a stretch of years in which defense became the primary focus in the NBA, the Finals ratings suffered, starting in the 2004 Finals in which the Detroit Pistons and San Antonio Spurs. Not until last year when the high-scoring Lakers and the capable Celtics met in the Finals did the ratings improve close to their previous levels.

Now offense has taken center-stage in the NBA Playoffs, and the ratings are at levels that they haven't been at for nearly eight years.

To the NHL's credit, they took measures to increase the speed of the games and the volume of goals scored after the lockout a few seasons ago. Am I suggesting that they make more changes to increase the goals scored and thus the TV ratings? Not at all, I am completely and unequivocally against changing the structure of a game just to increase TV ratings. One round of changes is enough.

But as I watched the game, several things started to dawn on me. I realized why NHL ratings have always been lower than those of the other sports.

First of all, it's a very regional sport. Hockey is very, very big in the North, Northwest and Northeast, but the farther south you go, the less interest there is. That's not the case with the three other big sports. Football is universally loved everywhere, as is baseball, and basketball is becoming more and more universally enjoyed each year. Sure, teams can be added in San Jose and Tampa Bay and Phoenix, but it will take a long time to infuse hockey into areas that typically experience temperatures in the 80's and 90's and rarely experience naturally occurring ice of any sort. People start to wear light jackets and pants in these places at about 70 degrees! Good luck getting those people to go to hockey games.

The other big reason is that the stars aren't always in the game. Out of a possible 60 minutes Sidney Crosby was only in the game for about 22 minutes. Henrik Zetterburg played for 24 minutes. I understand that these are pretty standard amounts of playing time for the top players, but I'm used to LeBron James playing for 45 of 48 minutes. I'm used to Tom Brady being on the field for over half the game as his offense methodically works itself down the field. I'm used to Alex Rodriguez playing defense for half of every inning and going up to bat every 2 or three innings. As shift changes typically occur as the cameras are away from the bench in hockey, its hard for casual fans to tell whether or not the player they're supposed to be watching is even out on the ice. If these are the players that they are supposed to be watching, they want to see a lot of them; they don't want to have to look for them every other minute or two just to lose them again in a few moments.

As much as I want hockey to elevate itself back to the levels of the other three big sports in America, it has several fundamental flaws that it must overcome, somehow. It has gotten off to a good start, but it must continue to build upon the success it has experienced this season.

Two great playoff seasons? Who knew?

The late months of spring have been very generous to sports fans in delivering an exceptional NBA playoff season filled with intrigue and excitement. There have been a bunch of plotlines that have interwoven and played off of one another to create the most enthralling second season that I can remember, which is basically the post-Michael era.

Already, as we lead up to Game One of the NBA Finals on Thursday, we have seen perhaps the closest seven-game series in the history of the playoffs between the #2 Boston Celtics and the #7 Chicago Bulls, which seemed like it had more overtime play than regulation; the relentless march through the first two rounds and subsequent fall of King James and his Cavaliers, the personification of “the bigger they are, the harder they fall”; and several other series that either went six or the full seven games.

Little do most people know, however, that another great playoff season is taking place simultaneously with the NBA. A playoff season that already featured a match-up between its two best players, just as many close series going six or seven games as the NBA and a Finals rematch from last season filled with intrigue.

Of course, I'm speaking of the NHL. I must admit, I haven't watched a majority of the games in the NHL Playoffs. I've been catching the highlights every morning on SportsCenter. In general, I've never watched a lot of NHL. But I want to. It is something that I want to get hooked into.
But the NHL isn't helping me out at all, which is the underlying reason why a lot of people don't consider it one of the Big Four American sports. I can name a few of its biggest stars. I can tell you which teams are supposed to be good and which ones aren't. But outside of that, my hockey knowledge is pretty scarce.

Instead I'm getting hooked into the NBA and the MLB. What is the difference between these two leagues and the NHL? Marketing strategies. Think about it: How many times have you seen the puppet Kobe/LeBron commercial? How about the Shaq Scrabble commercial? Who can say they haven't seen a commercial with Derek Jeter?

When was the last time you saw a national advertising campaign with Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin portrayed by an inanimite object? Outside of the local Rahmani commercials, have you ever seen Pavel Datsyuk on a commercial? Evgeni Malkin? Ricky Nash? Ilya Kovalchuk? Teemu Selanne? Joe Thornton?

Have you ever even heard of these guys?

I'm sure if you asked casual sports fans to name the five best players in the NBA, they could give you a pretty reasonable list. Same for the NFL and, to a lesser extent, MLB. And a lot of them could even name the team they play for. But not the NHL.

The key to the NHL's success is the marketability of its biggest stars.

But here's where the NHL runs into a catch-22: In order to get these stars to shine a bit brighter in the night sky that is the sports landscape they must get a national TV deal. But in order to get a big TV deal, the stars need to be marketed more.

In other words, the NHL is going to have to take a short-term financial loss in order to orchestrate a advertising campaign to get these players exposed. The results may not be immediate, but if people know the players – especially the big ones – they are more likely to tune into the games. Even casual sports fans that I know tuned into the NBA playoffs this year because of the exposure that Kobe and LeBron received, and that was evident from the high ratings that they have raked in.

And when people start tuning into the NHL – after they find the Versus network – they will finally get a stable, big-time national deal.

Maybe then more people will enjoy two playoff seasons instead of just the one each spring.

MLB All-Star game losing its shine

MLB rewarding steroids user?

It appears baseball has found itself in quite a conundrum. Los Angeles Dodgers outfielder/performance enhancing and women's fertility drug abuser Manny Ramirez is an uncomfortably close 4th place in the National League All-Star voting as of this writing with 442,763 votes, just over 34,000 behind New York's Carlos Beltran.

What? Please stop for a moment and think about this. We are in the “steroid era” of baseball. All we hear about is how disappointed we are in such former stars as Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens, yet the fans are still rewarding Manny with a potential All-Star game appearance? Heck, the Dodgers may even be rewarding him if he has a contract caveat that pays him a bonus should he make the All-Star team.

Why is there not a rule that stipulates that players who have been caught using performance enhancing drugs are ineligible to participate in the game? I am losing a lot of faith in the management of Major League Baseball for not taking a more proactive approach in curbing the use of steroids. By allowing Manny to potentially participate, what is the message that Commissioner Bud Selig is sending? Is it perfectly acceptable for players to violate the current drug policy and still be shown for display on a night that is meant to display the most positive aspects of the league?

Here's something I just stumbled upon. Apparently baseball does have a policy in regards to this situation, and it states: “A player shall be deemed to have been eligible to play in the All-Star Game if he was elected or selected to play; the commissioner's office shall not exclude a player from eligibility for election or selection because he is suspended under the program.”

Honestly, I'm starting to think that the league executives are simply putting on a facade of caring about steroids usage in their league. Think about it, their most profitable times came as a direct result of steroids users; the McGwire/Sosa home run race of '98, Bonds' single season home run record and Bonds' chase for the all-time home run record. If they really wanted to cut down on steroids usage, they would not have budged on issues like this and the rule in the paragraph above. They must not have been too concerned if they let offenders of the current drug policy still participated in their premier showcase event outside of the World Series.

Of course the better part of me dismisses such notions, but the MLB allowing Manny to potentially participate after breaking what would appear to be the league's most sacred rule raises a lot of questions in my mind: Is the league more concerned with ticket sales and TV ratings than the integrity of its game? It needs to balance those two very carefully or else it could end up on the wrong side of both of those issues.

The best of the best?

Who can tell me definitively what the purpose of the All-Star game is?

How about Dodgers manager Joe Torre?

“To me, I think the significance of the All-Star Game is to reward players who have a good first half.” Sounds reasonable. Let's get a second opinion.

What are your thoughts, Charlie Manuel? You must have a valid opinion, being a world champion manager for the Phillies and all.

“The All-Star Game is for the fans and I think if (Manny) got voted in, then it would be appropriate for him to play.” So it's not about rewarding the best players from the first half? It's a popularity contest?

We need a tiebreaker. How about the league? They should be a definitive source.

According to a 2003 New York Times article: “Despite initial opposition to the idea, the Players Association agreed yesterday to a two-year experiment that will link the outcome of the All-Star Game to home-field advantage in the World Series.”

So now the game is about home-field advantage in the World Series?

The league seems to be in a state of perpetual miscommunication on this issue. There cannot be three different aims for this single exhibition game. It just won't work and all it will do – and it certainly has done – is cause controversy. Is that really something the league wants on its biggest night outside of the playoffs? Sure it generates discussion, but its also turning viewers off to the game.

Out of the four major sports – NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL – the baseball All-Star game is the only one that is experiencing a downturn in television ratings. Last year's edition of the midsummer classic did have more views than any other since 2002, but a lot of that can be attributed to the setting at Yankee Stadium. Overall, The game has been on a downward trend since the 2001, and the game two summers ago got the lowest ratings since the 1970's.

Obviously something must be done by the executives of the league to turn this trend around, since the World Series home-field advantage thing just isn't working out (a debate for a later posting). It is on that note that I present my idea to boost ratings: add another game.
I call it the “All-Stats” game. More often than not, the players that are doing the best are often pushed out of the All-Star game because of the fans' votes. In order to get some more exposure, these players should have a game of their own. What would happen is that after the All-Star rosters are announced, a team from each league would be compiled from the remaining players featuring the two best offensive and defensive players at each position, based on statistics, and the top two pitchers from the major pitching stat categories (ERA, Wins, Strikeouts and Saves). These teams would be managed by the manager from each league that had the largest win-loss improvement from the previous year at the All-Star break.

I will argue that this game would be much more exciting and intriguing than the All-Star game and would draw back the baseball purists who have been turned off by the politics of the midsummer classic. In addition, it would be another game worth of revenue for the league, the stadium and Fox Sports, who covers the game.

Because, as seems to be a recurring theme on this blog, everything boils down to money.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4215510
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4210101
http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/weekly-ratings-mlb-all-star-game-leads-fox-to-ratings-win/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/16/nba-all-star-game-ratings_n_167404.html
http://www.nfl.com/probowl/story?id=09000d5d806a6a1a&template=with-video&confirm=true
http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/nhl-all-star-overnights-up-12.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUKN1436552520080715

Think I made some great points? Did I say something that you disagree with? Anything that you think I missed? Let me know: comment below.