How to grow the game?

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

I never said that the Olympics was the only way to grow the game in the US. Obviously the grassroots programs do help.

I lived in California for 4 years, and I was there during the Vancouver Olympics. I have a number of American friends and colleagues who have followed the NHL more closely since those Olympics.

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin View Post
Keep NHL players in the Olympics and continue to have the World Championships. This grows the game all over the world, especially in the USA.

Yes you did.

The majority of people watching the Olympic hockey are already hockey fans, and it will attract some adults to the game. The kids that need to be attracted to the game, and playing the game, are the kids in the grass roots programs. Kids like Emerson Etem, Seth Jones and others from non-traditional hockey markets got into the game through these programs. The traditional US hotbeds, Michigan/Minnesota/New England/Wisconsin have had hockey programs going back 30-40 years because of the NHL viewership and sponsor programs. People want to credit the Miracle on Ice team but ask the question, whey did those kids start playing hockey?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Skimmed a lot of the later responses but I think the question is too vague. What is the exact goal? To grow it in the States? In Europe? In countries that don't currently play or have very good teams?

Certainly we don't need to grow it in Canada.

A lot of these ideas are good, but I don't think you can really pick any of them till you narrow down your actual goal because different ideas will work better or worse in different countries, and depending on what you actually want to accomplish. I would argue, that you can't grow it all evenly anyway. You'll want to work on one area than move to another as you build momentum.

Interesting, I seem to recall that the game is actually shrinking in Canada. I can't recall where I read it (and would be happy to be wrong), but I thought minor hockey enrollment was down, and a large number of players walked away at Bantam.

[Daradon]

It is shrinking, I don't disagree with that. I think the biggest reason was due to cost, but increased interest in new sports is eroding it a little too.

That said, I still there there is more than enough interest. Both for playing and watching, not sure why we'd need to saturate it further.

No reason why Canadian's can't do other things as well. It'll still always be more popular here than anywhere else by a wide margin.

The one suggestion I would have, and it I'm not sure how it would be done, but it would help all, is just to keep costs down. It's getting ridiculous to put kids through it.

[Bourque's Twin]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin View Post
Keep NHL players in the Olympics and continue to have the World Championships. This grows the game all over the world, especially in the USA.

Yes you did.

The majority of people watching the Olympic hockey are already hockey fans, and it will attract some adults to the game. The kids that need to be attracted to the game, and playing the game, are the kids in the grass roots programs. Kids like Emerson Etem, Seth Jones and others from non-traditional hockey markets got into the game through these programs. The traditional US hotbeds, Michigan/Minnesota/New England/Wisconsin have had hockey programs going back 30-40 years because of the NHL viewership and sponsor programs. People want to credit the Miracle on Ice team but ask the question, whey did those kids start playing hockey?

You don't have very good reading comprehension skills. Please point out where in my quote I said "The Olympics is the only way to grow hockey in the USA."

Again, I never disagreed with the grassroots argument. I agree with you.

If you want to argue against my points, please tell me why my friends / colleagues, who have had no exposure to grassroots hockey programs, started following hockey more closely after the 2010 Olympics.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I think this whole Backstrom situation is a negative for the NHL going to the Olympics. Casual fans will see he tested positive without looking into the situation to find out why he tested positive. This helps create an image that hockey and the NHL are not clean, which will detract from the game IMO.

Good grief, it was one player banned for taking a longtime med. last I checked folks are still buying tix to the nfl despite the numerous players with legal issues.....

Growing the game will take money to build more rinks, money to have more franchises be it an any level.......perhaps we can have a carbon finer tax and it would push some folks back to wood sticks, and for the rest who continue to buy carbon fibre sticks -they will fund new rinks........

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Itse: that's all fine and good but a) who pays for it and b) who compensates the teams? What if a Tavares is injured even before the season starts?

Well, the question injuries etc is a problem for any tournament, for example the summit series kind of things. But basicly, since every country would only host games that their team is playing in, it would actually probably be a way to generate money for the national hockey associations.

And what is the goal of the tournament? just to win one series?

Well, what's the point of the of a summit series? To settle who's better, Canada or Russia. If you're the number one ranked country in the world, or you beat the #1 ranked country, you can call yourself pretty darn good. That's what people do in sports.

You have multiple serieses going on at the same time, so that you would get as many hockey fans and sports fans in general tuned into hockey at the same time, really just like any tournament. Maybe they watch the other games, maybe they don't, but that I think is always a risk with any tournament. However, every team is guaranteed a full series of meaningful games against an opponent they should able to beat, and the whole thing would have a common name and a common tradition to build around.

Ultimately you try to get to challenge the #1 ranked country and beat them good and proper.

The Swiss want to play the big 6, not Germany. When does that happen?

They need to get up in the rankings, which is done either by winning these tournaments or doing well in the olympics or the World Championships. (Btw, there's effectively a Big 7 if you count Slovakia, which I think you should.)

Alternatively, the countries could make deals about such stuff to make sure there's enough variation.

The idea is to supplement the olympics with a tournament type that I think many hockey fans would like, that's doesn't really cost much to organize and could be done in a relative short period. No country would need to build new facilities, you don't need new hotels to host everyone etc. Many countries could be a part of it, the way many countries are a part of the soccer/volleyball/basketball qualifications.

The problem with international hockey (to the NHLs point of view) is it needs a desired result. If the US don't win, it doesn't matter in the US. I'm sure you and most Finns watched Canada-Sweden today. Americans did not. I'm not sure Americans even watched their own team play for bronze yesterday.

If we're talking about the growth of hockey, really I think we should not be overly worried about the US all the time. Sure, the US is a big market with a lot of money, but Europe has more than double the population and surprisingly many countries have decades of hockey tradition that's not well known or appreciated. There is competition from soccer and other sports, but there's competition everywhere. I feel that trying to give the national teams of "small" hockey countries like Italy, Germany and France a boost is actually a more cost effective way of growing the game than trying to turn Arizona into a hockey state.

Besides, I think it's an advantage of hockey that it's a sport where the US can win gold, but isn't guaranteed to do so. It doesn't necessarily appeal to every sports fan in the US, but every country wants to see their country win a tight game or a series.

Once again, soccer has been doing a much better job of this IMO. There really aren't that many actual competitors for a UEFA championship, let alone a World Cup championship. Only eight teams ever have won the FIFA World Cup, in comparison to six countries that have won olympic gold in hockey, and really there are less serious competitors than people like to think. However, the tournaments are big, and with all the qualifications and rankings etc, even the smaller countries have many ways of getting recognized for their efforts. There are lots of small steps to make, and a big deal is made of each of those steps.

The typical hockey attitude towards the smaller hockey nations is in contrast very dismissive and often downright rude. For example, these olympics were a big step forward for Austria. They had a mostly homegrown team (not a bunch of imported Canadians) that did pretty well in the tournament. If this was soccer, people who watched this tournament would four years from now remember it, and the Austrians would feel pretty good about their hockey program. But we're talking about hockey, so the attitude is that nobody cares.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

Good grief, it was one player banned for taking a longtime med. last I checked folks are still buying tix to the nfl despite the numerous players with legal issues.....

Growing the game will take money to build more rinks, money to have more franchises be it an any level.......perhaps we can have a carbon finer tax and it would push some folks back to wood sticks, and for the rest who continue to buy carbon fibre sticks -they will fund new rinks........

You missed my point. I am not saying current fans will be put off by the test result. But to a new fan, they won't necessarily look into the situation to find out why he failed the test. A new fan could most certainly be put off the sport if they don't look into it and assume its a PED that was taken, especially if they are from the US and hear about PEDs in baseball on the regular

[driveway]

The best way to build hockey fans is to have people play hockey. So, in order to grow hockey, what needs to be looked at are the obstacles to people playing. These obstacles are, in order of importance:

1. The cost of the game. This includes equipment and ice time.

2. Access to ice.

I'm going to focus on the first problem.

One can go on and one about best-on-best tournaments and their value, quality television, etc., but if you really want more people playing, the cost of equipment needs to come down.

What I'd like to see is the major manufacturers, Nike and Adidas, be asked by the NHL to produce a "starter set." This would be a complete set of safety-rated gear, everything a kid needs to start playing hockey. This gear should be available for kids aged 6-12 in appropriate sizes. The price for the complete set should be no more than $100 USD.

The NHL and I'd suggest the IIHF should help the manufacturers subsidize these starter kits, in particular I'd suggest the NHL offer free, or low-cost sponsorship to Nike and Adidas, allow them to slap players and logos all over the gear without having to pay for it.

Obviously, the manufacturers should be able to produce better gear for kids which commands higher prices. But if we want people playing the game, a parent, school, or club should be able to put a 7-year old kid on the ice in new, safe gear, for a hundred bucks.

As people improve and continue in the sport, they'll want to get better, more expensive gear, but I can't think of anything that would be better for hockey, short of a global ice-age, than high-quality, low-cost hockey gear.

[FlameZilla]

[Derek Sutton]

What is the end result with growing the game? Are we looking for global participation, an increase in youth registration, producing one more NHLer or perhaps one day having a 32 team Olympic tournament? I persoanlly can't see how growing the game makes the game better. I also believe the term, growing the game, is a phrase from Garry Bettman which means "More money for the NHL." Does the NBA worry about growing basketball? Does the NFL worry about growing football? They like to succeed within the borders of the USA, but outside of that I don't think the other leagues are concerend about the gorwth of their sport as much as they are worried about more money from fans and tv deals. I don't really see the benefit, nor the logistics of growing hockey around the world, likely just more money for the NHL.

On a national level, where do you go from here? If ever there was a time for kids to want to get playing hockey, it is now,today, the day after double gold and all the hype surrounding #wearewinter. Do we as a country or does Hockey Canada really need to constantly push for more kids to register for hockey? If the parents can afford it or they want to out there kid in hockey, they will.

Minor hockey is constantly under the microscope, the crazy parents (which are prevelant in all kids sports), injuries to kids and of course the cost. The most ironic thing in all of this, when it comes to minor hockey and growing the game is the cost. Hockey has to charge high fees to keep the numbers DOWN in many cities accross the Province. With lower registration fees, numbers would get too high creating numerous problems ranging from no ice to not enough coaches to becomming a baby sitting service. Several minor hockey organizations have created rec divisions which encourages kids, who would otherwise quit hockey, to keep playing into their midget years. This does keep kids playing but does not grow the game, just prepares them for the beer leagues.

As for the NHL do they further expand within North America or they expand to Europe? Would that be trying to grow the game or just getting a share of the pie from untapped markets?

[Itse]

Spreading the sport would create a larger junior pool, which would create more talented players, which would make for better hockey.

Personally I would also love to see hockey become more competitive internationally. I would find it more entertaining than status quo.

Of course these are personal preferences.

[GirlySports]

Itse: what you describe the NHL will never go for. They barely want the players to go to the Olympics now let alone an additional 7-game series. The summit series wasn't really to prove who was the best at first, it was supposed to be a friendship series and the Amateur champs had no chance against the profesionals. It was only when Canada's status was threatened did the series become a battle. I agree with your idea to promote hockey around their world, but that needs to be an IIHF mandate, they needs to present ideas to the NHL.

The soccer example works because FIFA and UEFA are strong and promote both country and club continental championships. In hockey the NHL is king and the IIHF is weak. NHL teams wouldn't even play non-NHL teams let alone allowing their players to play internationally.

I agree with Derek Sutton above. It's not in the interest of the NHL or NBA to grow the game internationally. It's the IIHF. Why is it the NHL has to push a best-on-best tournament? Why doesn't the IIHF do it? Get rid of that ridiculous World Championship in May and have a bi-annual World Cup in August. They could have done this decades ago. But instead hockey is in little pockets... North America does their own thing with the old Canada Cup. Soviets did their own thing with the old Izvestia tournament. The IIHF needs to create it's own world cup with qualifying and everything and most importantly pay compensation to all clubs, not just NHL teams.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Itse

Spreading the sport would create a larger junior pool, which would create more talented players, which would make for better hockey.

Personally I would also love to see hockey become more competitive internationally. I would find it more entertaining than status quo.

Of course these are personal preferences.

Logically your first sentence makes sense but I don't really see it that way. There is so much more to becomming even a junior level hockey player then exposure to the game. Currently there may be the odd kid that does not get involved who could become a "real player" but if they or there parents are not 100% comitted the chances of any kid playing past minor hockey is very slim. First and foremost their parents have to be into it to get the kids to wherever, whenever.

I would say that the number 1 thing in order to grow the game, in regards to producing more/ better players, would be time and fianancial commitment from the parents.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Doesn't make you #######, it's just an odd thing to say. If you love hockey, you'd want it to grow, no?

No, because it doesn't really mean anything to an average fan. The only thing I'd be interested in is a Champion's League type tournament. And since the television revenue won't be there, and arena capacities in Europe are much smaller, combined with lower ticket prices, the NHL won't be interested because it's not financially worth it to them.

The order of importance to me is this Club, the National team, and then NHL hockey in general. It doesn't really impact my enjoyment if more people are playing or watching in non-traditional markets. All that matters is that my Club is protected in case of declining revenues.

This game is always going to have a problem growing at a grassroots level because of its prohibitive cost and its requirement for ice. That's never going to change so I don't really worry about it.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

You missed my point. I am not saying current fans will be put off by the test result. But to a new fan, they won't necessarily look into the situation to find out why he failed the test. A new fan could most certainly be put off the sport if they don't look into it and assume its a PED that was taken, especially if they are from the US and hear about PEDs in baseball on the regular

The amount of people who will remember this outside of Sweden in a few days is miniscule. If it was Crosby, Ovi or a big name maybe... but a new fan isn't going to know Backstrom.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by driveway

The best way to build hockey fans is to have people play hockey. So, in order to grow hockey, what needs to be looked at are the obstacles to people playing. These obstacles are, in order of importance:

1. The cost of the game. This includes equipment and ice time.

2. Access to ice.

I'm going to focus on the first problem.

One can go on and one about best-on-best tournaments and their value, quality television, etc., but if you really want more people playing, the cost of equipment needs to come down.

What I'd like to see is the major manufacturers, Nike and Adidas, be asked by the NHL to produce a "starter set." This would be a complete set of safety-rated gear, everything a kid needs to start playing hockey. This gear should be available for kids aged 6-12 in appropriate sizes. The price for the complete set should be no more than $100 USD.

The NHL and I'd suggest the IIHF should help the manufacturers subsidize these starter kits, in particular I'd suggest the NHL offer free, or low-cost sponsorship to Nike and Adidas, allow them to slap players and logos all over the gear without having to pay for it.

Obviously, the manufacturers should be able to produce better gear for kids which commands higher prices. But if we want people playing the game, a parent, school, or club should be able to put a 7-year old kid on the ice in new, safe gear, for a hundred bucks.

As people improve and continue in the sport, they'll want to get better, more expensive gear, but I can't think of anything that would be better for hockey, short of a global ice-age, than high-quality, low-cost hockey gear.

You can get starter kits for younger kids that range in price from $80 - $120. Canadian Tire has the Jonethan Toews sets that basically include pants, shin pads, elbow pads, shoulder pads, gloves and a small bag. The set is made by Bauer.

Chevy had (maybe still has) a promotion where you can get a voucher for a free helmet for a five year old registered in minor hockey. You go down to your local dealership and show them that your kid is registered in minor hocky and their birth year. They give you a certificate for a free helmet from Sport Chek. There are also other coupons for equipment from Bauer in the package.

Access to ice is an interesting question. With the reduction in minor hockey registration, ice is becoming more and more available in some communities. Larger centers like Calgary probably do suffer from a lack of available ice because of the huge growth rate of the city over the last decade.

One thing that Red Deer does very well, I'm not sure about Calgary, is buiding and maintaining out door rinks. Not sure how many we have here in Red Deer, but pretty much every community has one, with boards, lights, and hockey goals. Only the older neighborhoods have heated shack's to put your skates on though. I take my six year old son out on our local rink a few nights a week if the weather is good.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

You can get starter kits for younger kids that range in price from $80 - $120. Canadian Tire has the Jonethan Toews sets that basically include pants, shin pads, elbow pads, shoulder pads, gloves and a small bag. The set is made by Bauer.

Chevy had (maybe still has) a promotion where you can get a voucher for a free helmet for a five year old registered in minor hockey. You go down to your local dealership and show them that your kid is registered in minor hocky and their birth year. They give you a certificate for a free helmet from Sport Chek. There are also other coupons for equipment from Bauer in the package.

Access to ice is an interesting question. With the reduction in minor hockey registration, ice is becoming more and more available in some communities. Larger centers like Calgary probably do suffer from a lack of available ice because of the huge growth rate of the city over the last decade.

One thing that Red Deer does very well, I'm not sure about Calgary, is buiding and maintaining out door rinks. Not sure how many we have here in Red Deer, but pretty much every community has one, with boards, lights, and hockey goals. Only the older neighborhoods have heated shack's to put your skates on though. I take my six year old son out on our local rink a few nights a week if the weather is good.

I live in Lethbridge and we have ZERO outdoor rinks. The chinooks we get would be big problems for maitaining an outdoor rink though.

Are minor hockey numbers down in Red Deer? Has this been the recent trend?

I don't see kids qutting as "failure" at growing hockey, they tried it and it is not for them, for whatever reason.

I think that if hockey was only 1x/wk, be it a practise or a game more kids would be playing but...would that be growing the game?

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

You can get starter kits for younger kids that range in price from $80 - $120. Canadian Tire has the Jonethan Toews sets that basically include pants, shin pads, elbow pads, shoulder pads, gloves and a small bag. The set is made by Bauer.

Chevy had (maybe still has) a promotion where you can get a voucher for a free helmet for a five year old registered in minor hockey. You go down to your local dealership and show them that your kid is registered in minor hocky and their birth year. They give you a certificate for a free helmet from Sport Chek. There are also other coupons for equipment from Bauer in the package.

Access to ice is an interesting question. With the reduction in minor hockey registration, ice is becoming more and more available in some communities. Larger centers like Calgary probably do suffer from a lack of available ice because of the huge growth rate of the city over the last decade.

One thing that Red Deer does very well, I'm not sure about Calgary, is buiding and maintaining out door rinks. Not sure how many we have here in Red Deer, but pretty much every community has one, with boards, lights, and hockey goals. Only the older neighborhoods have heated shack's to put your skates on though. I take my six year old son out on our local rink a few nights a week if the weather is good.

What you're informing us only has to do with Canadian deals. Are any of those in America? Over 300M Americans, 10x the Canadian population.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

I live in Lethbridge and we have ZERO outdoor rinks. The chinooks we get would be big problems for maitaining an outdoor rink though.

Are minor hockey numbers down in Red Deer? Has this been the recent trend?

I don't see kids qutting as "failure" at growing hockey, they tried it and it is not for them, for whatever reason.

I think that if hockey was only 1x/wk, be it a practise or a game more kids would be playing but...would that be growing the game?

I grew up south of Lethbridge, so I know what you mean about the out door rinks. In the 80's we played a lot on frozen dugouts or on the Milk River. However that was very weather dependant.

Minor hockey enrollment is down. However, Pond Hockey enrollment is way up. In a city of 100,000 people, we only have 6 Initiation teams. I think there is about that or more for Pond Hockey. Pond Hockey requires a lot less commitment. One ice time a week and no tournaments. Enrollment fee is half of minor hockey.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

What you're informing us only has to do with Canadian deals. Are any of those in America? Over 300M Americans, 10x the Canadian population.

You tell me, I don't live in the US so I can't comment.