I'm getting very tired of the "small market" label

[pk500]

Lord, if I read one more story about the Stanley Cup Finals that calls Edmonton and Carolina "small market teams," I think I'll vomit.

Yes, they're both small-market teams. And if you're a hockey fan, who the f*ck cares? If Medicine Hat was playing Moose Jaw for the Stanley Cup, I'd watch.

If Green Bay played Pittsburgh or Indianapolis in the Super Bowl, would that make it less attractive than Chicago against the Jets, especially if the small-market teams played attractive football?

Sure, "big market teams" attract the interest of non-hockey fans. But I don't really care. Hockey always has been a niche sport in the States and probably will stay that way. It has a stable CBA, great competitive balance, a great new rules package, a national TV deal with a committed, growing partner and sells 91 percent of its seats during the regular season, a better figure than just about any U.S. team sport.

So at this point, I don't care if people in "big markets" don't watch the Stanley Cup Final because it's between little old Edmonton and hick backwater Carolina.

I just can't wait for the Finals, and I'd say that regardless of who is playing.

But the idea that this isn't an attractive final because they're not "large market teams" is a joke. Many of the "large market teams" in the NHL either suck (Chicago, Islanders, Kings) or play uninspiring hockey (Rangers, Devils, Flyers, Stars). I'd rather see exciting, skilled small-market teams like Edmonton and Carolina any day.

Roll on the Finals!

Take care,
PK

[fsquid]

I've only seen "small market" teams used when talking about the TV ratings expectations for the finals.

[pk500]

I've only seen "small market" teams used when talking about the TV ratings expectations for the finals.

I've seen it in a number of wire service and Web previews of the Finals, including the AP.

Here's an interesting analysis of the Finals by Scott Burnside of ESPN. He uses the "small market" label, but I'll let it pass since I think Burnside is a very good writer and knows the game well.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs2 ... LHeadlines

Take care,
PK

[dbdynsty25]

Who cares how they refer to the teams and their market? What effect does that have on you? It's a serious question.

[sfz_T-car]

It doesn't matter to the hardcore fan but it does impact the TV ratings.

Let's face it, if you're a casual fan in the NY Metro area, you'll be more inclined to tune in if it's the Isles, Rangers or Devils. Some players with star power wouldn't hurt either. With the lockout fresh in people's minds, it's crucial for the league to get the game in front of people's eyeballs. The finals matchup isn't going to help in this area, no matter how good the hockey is.

[pk500]

Who cares how they refer to the teams and their market? What effect does that have on you? It's a serious question.

Good question, too.

I sort of alluded to the answer in my original post, saying that as a hockey fan, I would watch any two teams play in the Stanley Cup Final. But it does bother me in any sport that the size of the markets from which the teams come supposedly is a determining factor in the potential quality of a championship series.

It's just a lazy, lazy angle that's getting played out by the media. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Take care,
PK

[Badger_Fan]

I don't think that it's as lazy an angle as you suggest, especially this year. The NHL is trying to reassert itself as a major sports league in North America, so the viewership of the Stanley Cup Finals is a pretty big deal. You start out with the fact that many people have missed the playoffs because of the crappy tv deal. Add in the fact that larger markets probably won't be tuning into see Edmonton and Carolina and you have zero momentum gained for a league that has had a pretty entertaining playoffs. That's sad.

[Feanor]

But the idea that this isn't an attractive final because they're not "large market teams" is a joke. Many of the "large market teams" in the NHL either suck (Chicago, Islanders, Kings) or play uninspiring hockey (Rangers, Devils, Flyers, Stars). I'd rather see exciting, skilled small-market teams like Edmonton and Carolina any day.

Roll on the Finals!

Take care,
PK

What exactly is "uninspiring" hockey? The Stars, Flyers and Rangers all scored a lot of goals this season, and played in a lot of entertaining games. The Oilers aren't more skilled or more exciting to watch than those three teams - they're just better. Which is why they made the Finals and the Stars, Flyers and Rangers lost in the first round.

[pk500]

I was off-base in depicting the Rangers that way, as Renney did a nice job and created an up-tempo team.

But Dallas and the Flyers still play a lot of dump-and-chase hockey with big guys. Both Edmonton and Carolina have more speed and carry the puck into the zone more often than both of those teams, and I consider that to be more inspiring hockey.

Sorry, but a team coached by Ken Hitchcock and with Bob Clarke as the GM never is going to play firewagon hockey.

Take care,
PK

[lexbur]

Well, "casual fans" in the big cities, or ANY city in the US for that matter, won't be watching the first two games at all.

This is how the NHL is trying to reach out to the fans and grow their fan base after the lockout?

What a joke.

[F308GTB]

But the idea that this isn't an attractive final because they're not "large market teams" is a joke. Many of the "large market teams" in the NHL either suck (Chicago, Islanders, Kings) or play uninspiring hockey (Rangers, Devils, Flyers, Stars). I'd rather see exciting, skilled small-market teams like Edmonton and Carolina any day.

To you, fans of the teams, and hardcore watch-all-hockey fans it's attractive. To the league and advertisers it's not. In Houston, whenever a final is talked about involving "small market" teams, it's always in the context of media ratings (and how the league offices hate such a series) and never quality of play.

Paul, I think you're just grumpy this morning living in small market hickville yourself. Time to move to a real metropolis.

[sfz_T-car]

PK's over-the-top sexual metaphors about a Buffalo-Edmonton finals would have overcome any ratings issues caused by small market teams.

Carolina? Meh, I'm not feeling it.

[pk500]

I don't think that it's as lazy an angle as you suggest, especially this year. The NHL is trying to reassert itself as a major sports league in North America, so the viewership of the Stanley Cup Finals is a pretty big deal. You start out with the fact that many people have missed the playoffs because of the crappy tv deal. Add in the fact that larger markets probably won't be tuning into see Edmonton and Carolina and you have zero momentum gained for a league that has had a pretty entertaining playoffs. That's sad.

The NHL never has been a major sports league in America, at least in terms of TV.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/w ... index.html

When Gretzky led the Kings to the Stanley Cup Final in 1993 against Montreal, a marquee matchup if there ever was one, the entire series pulled a 1.3 rating on ESPN. So this idea that the NHL pulled in boffo U.S. TV ratings when Gretzky and Lemieux were in their primes is a myth.

Yes, it hurts from a perception standpoint when columnists rip the NHL as being irrelevant because of its TV ratings. Too bad the same columnists didn't research any facts, because hockey never has spun the Nielsen meters in the U.S.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Well, "casual fans" in the big cities, or ANY city in the US for that matter, won't be watching the first two games at all.

Really? Syracuse isn't a city? Indianapolis isn't a city? Both have OLN on their basic cable packages. Just two examples.

OLN isn't a perfect world, by any stretch. But as a hockey fan, OLN's coverage has been miles better than ESPN's, in my opinion.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Paul, I think you're just grumpy this morning living in small market hickville yourself. Time to move to a real metropolis.

Nah, I'm fine where I am. I've been to Houston a number of times, and the chances of me moving there are nil!

Take care,
PK

[lexbur]

Really? Syracuse isn't a city? Indianapolis isn't a city? Both have OLN on their basic cable packages. Just two examples.


Take care,
PK

Sorry. I didn't realize that. I thought you had to pay extra for it everywhere.

[Dave]

It is on regular cable here in what is probably the highest-rated market without a team involved, Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Here, the NHL playoffs have gotten better ratings than the NBA playoffs despite being on OLN. No surprise, really, especially with the Wolves stinking up the joint this year.

[Zlax45]

It is on regular cable here in what is probably the highest-rated market without a team involved, Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Here, the NHL playoffs have gotten better ratings than the NBA playoffs despite being on OLN. No surprise, really, especially with the Wolves stinking up the joint this year.

It is on regular cable in Boston too...

[Programmed2Kill]

Well, I know what MY problem is with the NHL...they took the strategy out of the game letting two-line passes become legal. Now any team with wheels can run circles around slower teams. That works in international games and in Europe because of the bigger rinks, but not in NHL rinks. Spped guys are just going to fly past you. Any other year, the Flyers, even with the injuries, would've made it to the second round or further. I was shocked and amazed to see Detroit go out so fast. It was a damn blur.

I don't like this version of the NHL. I can't even watch a game. The Flyers would have a 4-0 lead. They would lose 5-4. What kind of crap is that? I've never seen a Flyers team do that. It made me lose interest quick in the whole season. I like offense like the next guy, but have in come in the form of great strategy and/or talent. I'd much rather have the much-n'-grind hockey with traps and everything, just have the refs call games so that traps don't completely take over games. Much better than the junk out there now. You can't keep a lead anymore, even when you play decent defense. That sucks. Have we heard of a goaltender that has been absolutely on fire, standing on his head? Nope. That's impossible in this version of hockey.

As for the small market thing, that will always be the case because the NHL expanded entirely too much, just like the rest of the major sports.

[rubba19]

Personally, I think the NHL is much better, and the Flyers totally misread the changes and signed oafs like Rathje and Hatcher who are no good 25 feet away from their own goal.

I'm also sure if you asked anyone who has ever played competitively (not just NHL), 90% would like to score. Oh, there always those chosen few who would rather play D, but that's why they are 4th line guys.

I would say that 27 of the 30 teams understood what it would take to win with the new rules. Toronto, Philly, and Chicago didn't. St. Louis couldn't win with any rules.

So, P2K, don't blame the rules, blame the management for not understandint them.

And, "small-market" is such a owner and media-concieved term. Fans of a particular team don't really care how big there town or media coverage is.

[pk500]

Have we heard of a goaltender that has been absolutely on fire, standing on his head? Nope. That's impossible in this version of hockey.

Have you watched the playoffs past the first round this spring? Have you seen Ryan Miller play all spring? Dwayne Roloson? Cam Ward? Ilya Bryzgalov?

Apparently not.

This might be an all-time first -- a sports fan complaining that teams actually can mount comebacks in the third period and make games exciting. Jay-zus, who wants to see a team rally from a 4-2 deficit and win 5-4 when that 4-2 deficit can sit stagnant for the final 20 minutes of a game?

Unbelievable. My bald spot grows due to incessant scratching.

It's not the NHL's fault that the Flyers have one of the worst GM's in the league who apparently has pictures of the Snider family in compromising positions. Clarke totally misjudged the "new NHL," bringing in mastodons like Hatcher who can't move their feet. John Ferguson made the same mistake in Toronto.

Take care,
PK

[Feanor]

But Dallas and the Flyers still play a lot of dump-and-chase hockey with big guys. Both Edmonton and Carolina have more speed and carry the puck into the zone more often than both of those teams, and I consider that to be more inspiring hockey.

Sorry, but a team coached by Ken Hitchcock and with Bob Clarke as the GM never is going to play firewagon hockey.

Take care,
PK

I didn't see Forsberg, Gagne, Nedved, and Pitkanen dump the puck in too much this year. Maybe you should watch a few more Flyers games next year - their style of play might surprise you. I do agree that Carolina play more of a skilled puck possession game, but Edmonton change their style too much for me to really make a comparison.

I'm a bit offended at being lumped in with the Devils. The Flyers were nowhere near as methodical/disciplined/boring as New Jersey were in 05-06. The Flyers scored 263 goals and gave up 253 thanks to injuries and generally sloppy defensive play. The Devils scored 233 and gave up 225.

But there's probably not much point talking about the Flyers with someone who's got such a hatred of their GM. No wonder your opinion of how they play is out of date. I don't agree with many of his moves - I'm still pissed he signed the Beezer over Curtis Joseph in the late 90s. But he's far from being one of the worst GMs in the league. If he was, the Flyers wouldn't have gotten stars like Carter, Richards, Gagne and Pitkanen in the draft despite never having picks early in the first round because they always make the playoffs. And they wouldn't have landed big free agents like Roenick and Forsberg.

[pk500]

But there's probably not much point talking about the Flyers with someone who's got such a hatred of their GM. No wonder your opinion of how they play is out of date. I don't agree with many of his moves - I'm still pissed he signed the Beezer over Curtis Joseph in the late 90s. But he's far from being one of the worst GMs in the league. If he was, the Flyers wouldn't have gotten stars like Carter, Richards, Gagne and Pitkanen in the draft despite never having picks early in the first round because they always make the playoffs. And they wouldn't have landed big free agents like Roenick and Forsberg.

And what has that gotten the Flyers? How many Cups during Clarke's regime? Zero. How many trips to the Finals in the last 15 years? One.

And the team's bankroll had nothing to do with landing Roenick and Forsberg? It would have been very interesting to see where those guys would have went if the current CBA was in place. Maybe Philly still. Maybe not.

OK, Clarke may not be one of the worst GM's in the league. But he's certainly not among the best. The way he constructed this year's team is proof.

Put it this way: If you could have any GM in the league, would you keep Clarke? I know I would keep Kevin Lowe in a heartbeat, as he grasped the "new NHL" as well as any GM and landed Pronger, Peca, Spacek and Roloson in key offseason and in-season deals. Without those deals, the Oilers don't make the playoffs, let alone the Finals.

Take care,
PK

[10spro]

With this year's new CBA and much improved game rules if the NHL hasn't caught the minimal attention of the US audience, it'll never will, small market or not. The new CBA has allowed a team like the Oilers to compete for top-tier players, Pronger, a former league MVP, and Mike Peca, a two-time winner as the NHL's top defensive forward, were acquired last summer, and the dividends have been immediate.

Previously, EDM was always a team amidst the mill rumour that was going to be moved, the money wasn't there and even if it was, the lower CDN loonie didn't help. Canadians teams were at a HUGE disadvantage in order to have a competitive team.

Then you have a team like CAR going to the finals for the second time in four/five years, a laughing stock before the season began and yet they surprised everyone by being one of the most consistent TOP teams in the league thourought the season.

You would think fans there would watch this exciting team right? How's number 21 in attendance sound to you? I think this topic was discussed before, but new CBA or not, small market or not, it's more of a cultural difference when it comes to Hockey between the States and Canada.

Football, baseball, basketball and any college sports are always going to rank ahead of the NHL in America. One guy for sure wished the finalists would be different is G. Bettman. But as a hockey fan, this final among two speedy teams is enticing. Who'll win the important faceoff between Brind'Amour & Peca? Can Ward outlast Roloson? Those are the points that really matter to me now.

[pk500]

But as a hockey fan, this final among two speedy teams is enticing. Who'll win the important faceoff between Brind'Amour & Peca? Can Ward outlast Roloson? Those are the points that really matter to me now.

Very well said, 10s. And with my team in the Finals, I don't really care much about the "bigger picture" or the "good of the game" right now.

My Oilers are in the Finals for the first time in 16 years -- that's all that matters to me now that I've had my little catharsis about the "small market" label. The Finals are an intensely personal thing for me now, and I don't care if I'm the only one watching in the States. This series selfishly is all about me and my team now.

I'm sure those who have enjoyed seeing their longtime favorite teams in the championship round can relate.

Take care,
PK