Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Canadians overestimate how big the Winter Olympics are in the U.S. and most of the rest of the world. They get a fraction of the viewership of the Summer Olympics. In the U.S., a small proportion of the female TV audience will tune in to watch the figure skating, and a fraction of the male audience will tune in to watch hockey. And as you note yourself, they tuned in back in 1980 when there weren't NHLers playing. They'll tune in again when it's not NHL players. In fact, most TV viewers in the U.S. won't know the difference - they'll just cheer for some guys wearing the a U.S. uniform, the same way they cheer for a volleyball team wearing a U.S. uniform.
So I don't think the audience of casual fans who will turn away from Olympic hockey with no NHLers is all that large. And the hardcore fans will tune in to a World Cup.
|
I agree with you on all accounts. But the point is, that even with the smaller US viewership than the summer games, it's significantly bigger than anything hockey could generate on its own.
And getting the Americans to tune in and watch the "guys in the jersey" is what the NHL wanted,to then try and make those guys in the jerseys house hold names that people would care about and start to follow (and therefore care about) and watch them in the NHL.
Never really thought about it before, but how much did Canada winning the Salt Lake and Vancouver games over the US cost the NHL? Imagin if Kane, Roenik or Hull had netted a golden goal for the US. Not trying to say it would have launched the NHL into a brand new realm, but if an US hockey star could have been associated with a moment, it would have been huge.