Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
It's a paradox of the NHL that business reasons stand in the way of improving the product on the ice. I don't think you could find anyone who would disagree that bigger ice surface and a shorter season would make for a much more entertaining game. But at this point, it's pretty clear that the actual product on the ice isn't the commercial draw of the sport. It's all about a pro jock culture serving as a backdrop for corporate schmoozing. Luxury box dining options and jersey sales matter more than excitement on the ice.
|
A bit of an overstatement, but I think there's certainly some truth to this.
I also think the long season is partially a problem of short term profit reigning over the long term profit.
Now, this could of course be a North American feature, but I find it odd that so many "hockey fans" seem to actually be simply fans of their own team, and simply stop watching when their teams season it's over. The team is the real product, not the league. This is a clear limitation in the games marketability. (It also creates an urge to support teams in non-profitable locations to broaden the games audience)
People watch good sports even if they're not invested in the teams/athletes. But they don't tune in to watch almost meaningless mid-season grinds by two tired teams.
So when the season is too long, the product suffers for the casual fan. On the other hand, the avid fans really watch all the hockey they can anyway. I would certainly watch more other hockey games if the Flames wouldn't be playing so often.
So because the Flames play so often, I watch other teams less, and because I watch other teams less, I'm even less invested in them. Which also makes me know less and care less about the opposing teams when they play against the Flames.