Hockey Ratings a "Monster"

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by tripin_billie

Lots of NHL ads. This and the Winter Classic are really starting to build momentum for hockey.

Don't worry, somehow Betman will be able to squander it.

[Acey]

In the US this will have about 1/5 the viewers of the Super Bowl (which broke the record and hit almost 107 million viewers this year). The game yesterday was close to 25 million viewers... you say it's unreal but that's pretty good. In the States the Super Bowl is much more than a football game, probably half of the people watch it just because it's a party, an excuse to eat, and the commercials. Obviously not the case for this game since NBC had no commercials during the periods. Hockey fans should be pretty happy with the number of Americans that watched this.

[robocop]

well at the very least, 2/3 of all Canadians watched it live, the only people who missed it were working, blind or bedridden.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Or overseas, on a bus, on a hockey roadtrip in Scotland

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Don't worry, somehow Betman will be able to squander it.

If Bettman squanders anything it is because he got permission for the board of governors to squander....not sure why this doesn't sink in

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Netskot

I can't believe just how far off those are from Superbowl numbers when this game was 10x more exciting.

Unreal.

Superbowl is pretty damn exciting too.

[Kaesar]

16.6mil avg, 26.5mil watched part of it.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=312025

I guess you have to hate hockey a lot to be in that 20%.

[pewpew]

16.6 million viewers in Canada
27.6 million viewers in the USA

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Don't worry, somehow Betman will be able to squander it.

actually, with these numbers and the $160M at the gate, you can see why Bettman and the owners might want to play hardball on Sochi, 2014

Since it is about growing revenues, I would think the NHLPA would want a cut as well

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Kaesar

16.6mil avg, 26.5mil watched part of it.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=312025

I guess you have to hate hockey a lot to be in that 20%.

Just to add.. These numbers are strictly in Canada. Something like 80% of the nation watched a portion of the game!

[hwy19man]

Great ratings as it does beat the 2002 gold medal game that was on the CBC.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

If Bettman squanders anything it is because he got permission for the board of governors to squander....not sure why this doesn't sink in

I think we can all agree the board hired the idiot, but it doesn't alter the fact that he's an idiot.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

actually, with these numbers and the $160M at the gate, you can see why Bettman and the owners might want to play hardball on Sochi, 2014

Since it is about growing revenues, I would think the NHLPA would want a cut as well

Early to mid morning games in europe mean the viewership will likely be lousy compared to Vancouver, the IOC will keep their cash, if the NHL and NHLPA don't want to play the IOC won't care, it will be a promotional loss to the league not to the games, actually the ratings in europe might be better if there are no NHL players because the european teams all have more of a chance of winning.

Who bothers to watch olympic basketball when you know who's going to win.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Early to mid morning games in europe mean the viewership will likely be lousy compared to Vancouver, the IOC will keep their cash, if the NHL and NHLPA don't want to play the IOC won't care, it will be a promotional loss to the league not to the games, actually the ratings in europe might be better if there are no NHL players because the european teams all have more of a chance of winning.

Who bothers to watch olympic basketball when you know who's going to win.

I'm confused, on the one hand you're arguing that the timing would result in lousy viewership, while on the other you're arguing that not participating would be a loss to the league. Which one is it? A tournament sparsely watched likely doesn't outweigh the negative impacts that a condensed schedule and 2 week break has on the NHL. Not to mention the lingering spat with the KHL and the Russians over transfer rules.

[Azure]

Pretty amazing viewership.

In the US that would be something like 250 million people watching at one point.

[Hemi-Cuda]

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/03/01...-million/43413

“We’ve been fortunate to have a front-row seat to observe a nation of fans that appreciates winter sports, is proud of their winter sport heritage and celebrates success – no matter which country wins – so it was only fitting yesterday when Sidney Crosby scored the goal to give Canadians the gold that meant so much to this country,” said Dick Ebersol, Chairman, NBC Universal Sports & Olympics. “‘O Canada’ will never be the same.”

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm confused, on the one hand you're arguing that the timing would result in lousy viewership, while on the other you're arguing that not participating would be a loss to the league. Which one is it? A tournament sparsely watched likely doesn't outweigh the negative impacts that a condensed schedule and 2 week break has on the NHL. Not to mention the lingering spat with the KHL and the Russians over transfer rules.

About a third of NHL teams lose money while operating, so a 2 week shut down saves the league money. But you could be right, it may make sense to say no and keep the league going.

The viewership in the US will totally depend on their teams success, and even then will be lousy compared to this year. It is possible that none of the US networks will bother to pick the games up any way, they have been a brutal loss of money lately.

[metallicat]

I heard on the radio this afternoon that Canadian viewership peaked at a staggering 28 million.