[News] NHL players will not participate in 2018 Olympics?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The owners get their buildings payed by tax payers, and earn a good chunk if their income from people who don't even watch games. It would be nice if they could just give a little something back to the public instead of trying to use this as leverage for concessions by the players.

I like this, make Olympic participation a condition of any arena deal.

[sureLoss]

No increase expected in NHL ratings after Olympics
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/S...teNHLbump.aspx

With the NHL scheduled to resume its season this week, executives close to the sport are monitoring whether an Olympic halo effect will draw more interest to the league. But based on a review of TV ratings from past years, analysts say the NHL should not expect much of an Olympic bounce — a situation that could reinforce the question about whether the league will allow its players to participate in future Olympic Games.

“An NHL ratings bump from the Olympics has never happened before,” said Horizon Media research director Brad Adgate. “They have two different allegiances. The Olympics is event programming: a live sporting event that’s on a global stage with national pride at stake. The NHL hasn’t reached that level yet.”


Four years ago, the U.S.-Canada gold-medal hockey game from Vancouver posted huge television numbers: a 15.3 rating and 27.6 million viewers for its Sunday afternoon broadcast on NBC. Those levels were on par with NFL playoff games from the previous month.

But NHL games on NBC and NBCSN, which was then called Versus, registered only a small subsequent lift — immediately and years later — from those games. The year before the 2010 Olympics, NHL games on NBC during March and April averaged a 0.7 rating; in the months after the Vancouver Games (in March and April 2010) they averaged a 0.8 rating. NBCSN posted similar numbers: In March and April of 2009, NHL games averaged a 0.1 rating; in March and April of 2010, they averaged a 0.2.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

No increase expected in NHL ratings after Olympics
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/S...teNHLbump.aspx

In one case, they increased by over 10%, in the other they doubled. Those sound like significant increases to me.

I don't know that national broadcast ratings of random games is any kind of measuring stick anyway. Most hockey fans watch their team on their RSN or in person anyway.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

In one case, they increased by over 10%, in the other they doubled. Those sound like significant increases to me.

I don't know that national broadcast ratings of random games is any kind of measuring stick anyway. Most hockey fans watch their team on their RSN or in person anyway.

I believe what the article is saying after the Olympics they don't expect to see an increase to the ratings.

(i.e. comparing NBC ratings before and after the Olympics).

[sureLoss]

The article's point is that even during a primetime Olympics, with a highly watched gold medal game, with a USA team, there was an insignificant increase after Vancouver.

There is most likely not going to be an increase after Sochi.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

The article's point is that even during a primetime Olympics, with a highly watched gold medal game, with a USA team, there was little increase after Vancouver.

There is most likely not going to be an increase after Sochi.

But it said that NBCSN's ratings doubled. What would it take to be called a large increase?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

But it said that NBCSN's ratings doubled. What would it take to be called a large increase?

Can't find the table now but the Margin of Error is pretty high for TV ratings that low. +- 0.1 IIRC. That's why it is pretty insignificant.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Can't find the table now but the Margin of Error is pretty high for TV ratings that low. +- 0.1 IIRC. That's why it is pretty insignificant.

Maybe, but it kind of strikes me as just using or misusing some stats to back up whatever point they were trying to make. The nbc ratings suggest a more legitimate 10% boost. Seems to me that if the NHL had an opportunity to grow their audience by 10% every 4 years, that would be pretty significant.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Maybe, but it kind of strikes me as just using or misusing some stats to back up whatever point they were trying to make. The nbc ratings suggest a more legitimate 10% boost. Seems to me that if the NHL had an opportunity to grow their audience by 10% every 4 years, that would be pretty significant.

You're kidding, right? You are trying to pass off a 0.1 to 0.2 increase as significant, and you're accusing someone else of "misusing some stats"? No dude. A tenth of a point is not significant, even if you try to dress it up in percentages. You can't even necessarily argue that that pittance of an increase is actually related to the Olympics.

[868904]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Not really, no. Like the WJC, a U-22 tournament would gravitate toward 20-21 year olds, and those players are unquestionably not amateurs. In fact, you still have the problem where the best players in that age group are in the NHL and won't be going. Even in Europe, the best 19-20-21 year olds will have been playing pro for several years.

Well even the WJC are missing a few phenoms each year, but it's still considered best on best. You could have exemptions for a certain number of "pros".

Or you could just take the whole WJC format and rules and throw it into the Olympics.

Even with a couple of pros sprinkled in, it's still more amateur than what the Olympics are now with full NHL representation.

[Resolute 14]

The Olympics haven't been amateur for decades. Hockey's been pro (for everyone but Canada and the US) since the 1950s, even as they just played pretend.

But this proposal fails to address a fundamental problem: Why would anyone other than Canada or the US support such a change?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

But this proposal fails to address a fundamental problem: Why would anyone other than Canada or the US support such a change?

Perhaps the IIHF would go for it if it had a big enough piece of the "World Cup of Hockey" pie - though that might negate the NHL's incentive.

[flamesfan1297]

Of it was just say under 23 year old players allowed, would the NHL still send those polayers and keep playing without them? Would the WJC be canceled every four years ?

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

Of it was just say under 23 year old players allowed, would the NHL still send those polayers and keep playing without them? Would the WJC be canceled every four years ?

The NHL would release about as many players as they do for the WJC. Almost none.

[Rerun]

Same story... different day/year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/sp...2014%20&st=cse

Commissioner Gary Bettman on Thursday offered the most publicly detailed list of reasons yet for the National Hockey League’s longstanding position not to commit to participation in the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia.


“It costs us money; it disrupts our season,” Bettman said about the N.H.L. shutting down for two weeks every four years to take part in the Winter Games. “The value of the contracts of our players who are here: $2.1 billion. To be at these Olympics we must basically hand over control of our most important asset, our players.”....


....“It’s a balancing act,” Bettman said. “It’s absolutely possible that there are lots of things we can do together. But we’ve got to look at the impact of shutting down from a business, momentum and impact standpoint. We have a multibillion-dollar business that we’re responsible for.”

[landshark]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Same story... different day/year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/sp...2014%20&st=cse

Yeah, I'm getting the idea that all of the recent talk from NHL brass is just the first shot over the bow - the opening negotiation. These days negotiation are ALL 100% brinksmanship. Go all the way to the edge, THEN take a step back...

They'll be there in 2018, but they want to squeeze A LOT more out of the IOC next time.