First of all, let me say fuck you to the NHL for being the worst run league in professional sports.
The Stanley Cup Playoffs are the best of any of the four major sports. They allow enough teams into the playoffs for it to matter to a wide variety of its fan base (unlike football and baseball) without watering down the talent level (like the NBA). For example, the first two NHL teams in each conference that missed the playoffs this year had records of 38-33-11 and 40-32-10. In my opinion, OT losses in hockey aren't the same as regular losses because of the shootout. Having player vs. goalie is a scenario that doesn't demonstrate who was the better team that night. It benefits teams that have a goalie that can exceed against better shooters or teams that have a number of better shooters/stick handlers. Some examples of the shootout records for teams this year including their spot in the overall standings:
1. Washington Capitals 5-6
2. San Jose Sharks 7-6
5. Vancouver Canucks 4-4
26. NY Islanders 8-6
29. Toronto Maple Leafs 4-4
30. Edmonton Oilers 8-6
I think I have made my point that OTL should be considered differently than regulation losses, but I don't want to get off track. If you still don't agree, I'll concede that the Montreal Canadiens technically had a losing record of 39-43 when combining losses and OT losses, but they were the only .500 or lower team.
The NBA, on the other hand, waters down the first few rounds with poor teams. This year's playoffs were a rarity because only one team (the Chicago Bulls) had a non-winning record. However, every other season since 2005 has included 3 playoff teams that ended the regular season .500 or worse (every one of which was in the Eastern Conference).
The NHL playoffs are also different in the sense that a hot goalie can propel a team deep into the bracket. Lesser teams are also more likely to pull off upsets by working harder than their opponents. In the NBA, an all-star player can disguise a lack of team effort for at least the first round or two.
Many sports writers and analysts, even those that aren't hockey fans, agree that the Stanley Cup playoffs are some of the most exciting games in sports. This year has already offered a number of close games, surprises from unexpected teams, and exciting action. The Coyotes and Wings scoring 5 goals in 5 minutes in game 2? Ridiculous. So why in the hell is the league still begging NBC (the worst run network on TV today) and Versus to play its games?
I was disappointed, but not extremely surprised, to find tonight's game 4 was not on TV here. I checked the NHL website to see if I could watch the game from my new laptop. After all, CBS is willing to stream every March Madness game online for free even though they did not make money on this year's tournament. What I found is that I can watch each of tonight's four games... for $19.95. That's not a "playoff pass" - that's just for 4 games.
The NHL has tried to regain the tremendous amount of respect, money, and fanbase that it lost with the boring "trap era" games (thanks New Jersey Devils!) and the lockout. They have instituted a number of great changes, including the rule changes to increase scoring and the Winter Classic. However they will not be able to grow any more unless they put their product out there for people to watch. ESPN will show almost anything and has made a huge push to buy the rights to more sporting events (MNF, early Masters coverage, bidding for the NCAA tournament) so why wouldn't they be willing to show the NHL playoffs. This would fill a significant void they have in a time of the year without college football or basketball. As I type, they are currently showing a movie about fantasy baseball, SportsCenter, and an NFL Draft Preview. Hockey may be a niche sport, but I can't believe their ratings wouldn't improve if they were airing the Stanley Cup playoffs right now instead.
4 comments:
Hockey's rating would improve for sure if it was on ESPN...but would ESPN's? There's a reason they show poker, draft specials, etc.: low production costs and decent viewership. Even if the NHL got decent viewership, ESPN's production costs would be much higher.
They've had to have looked into bringing the playoffs to ESPN. It just must not make financial sense. They've been leading with hockey highlights (or sometimes top three highlights) the past couple days...interest must be there for them to do that, right?
And I know this was a pretty strong year as far as records for teams in the playoffs...has that always been the case?
I agree with your points, but I was glad that Versus didn't have the Red Wings game. That meant I got to see it on FSD.
I would love to see hockey televised nationally on a major network like ESPN. (Although Mike is probably right that they have decided against it for financial reasons)
Records for "last one out" teams in each conference
2008-2009
41-30-11 & 40-33-9
2007-2008
43-33-6 & 41-35-6
2006-2007
40-31-11 & 44-31-7
2005-2006
41-33-8 & 42-32-8
It is actually a normal trend for the first one out to be .500 or even better than .500 if you add L and OTL, which is a statistical anomoly since more teams make the playoffs than miss the playoffs.
Yeah, that's very interesting to me. Thanks for looking that up. You definitely wouldn't think it would be the norm for plus-.500 teams to continuously miss the playoffs.
But that's a very good thing. It's why upsets, like 8 over 1 or 7 over 2 aren't completely shocking I suppose. Those are some good 7 or 8 seeds!
Post a Comment