The OFFICIAL 2008-09 NHL Playoffs Thread

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by watravaler

True, but I see Toews as the leader of the team/top 5-10 NHL player/elite NHL captian for at least ten years. Who knows how long his legs will last after he hits 30, but this guy is Yzerman all over again, imo, of course. If the Wirtz' return to their ridiculous ways(and I'm far from sold on the "new" Wirtz, then this could be a 3-5 year ride, followed by empty seats. Nevertheless, the amount of young talent Chicago has assembled after years of high-draft picks is mind-boggling, kind of similar to the DevilRays situation in MLB. Only a true idiot, or a moron who only cares about the bottom line(I'm looking at you Wirtz family) can screw up this situation. Bottom line, it's about friggin time!

I'm just sayin', 15 years is forever in sports. There are so many promising teams/players that just don't work out. Injuries, contract disputes, off ice issues, on ice issues, dressing room issues... what if Kane sleeps with Toews girlfriend? Or his mom? What if they are motherlovers gone wrong?

Ok, I'm getting jokey, but you get my point. Do the Hawks have a promising young core? Absolutely. Are they set for 10-15 years? I don't think you can ever make that kind of assumption.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Walker's sucker punch of Ward was just a different kind of sucker punch is all.

When I was playing hockey, if an opposing player was facing me with his gloves off, I had a pretty good idea what they were looking to do. Ward is a professional. He's been around. He's paid his dues. He knew exactly what was about to happen and took one for the team.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

When I was playing hockey, if an opposing player was facing me with his gloves off, I had a pretty good idea what they were looking to do. Ward is a professional. He's been around. He's paid his dues. He knew exactly what was about to happen and took one for the team.

100% true.
doesn't make Walker any less of a douchebag for doing it though

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DataKing

Served him right! I still hate the Avs...those great Wings/Avs matchups were some of the nastiest hockey I've ever seen. You know things are rough when the goalies decide to duke it out.

That rivalry *was* 90s playoffs hockey. I remember watching a ton of playoff hockey in the dorms and those were great matchups. Hey, wait. You were there

SI

[Dr. Sak]

Fluery with a HUGE save on Ovechkin early.

[sterlingice]

Holy crap- 2 goals 8 seconds apart. Soft, soft goal against Varlamov for that second one.

SI

[JPhillips]

That really dumb slash was the beginning of both goals. Discipline has been a problem for DC all year long.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That really dumb slash was the beginning of both goals. Discipline has been a problem for DC all year long.

And a dumb play by Federov.

[Logan]

Gross period by Wash.

[Logan]

No no...that was gross.

[sterlingice]

Oh god. Time to make the change in net

SI

[Logan]

No no no...that was gross.

Jesus.

[sterlingice]

Well, that's that. I'd say it's been fun, but this game 7 has just been ugly. Hopefully tomorrow night's games will be better.

SI

[Tekneek]

5-0. Outshot 23-10. Not looking good for Washington tonight. They made it an exciting series, though.

[bbor]

Na-na-na-na.......

[sterlingice]

You know what the best thing to do to start a 3rd period down by 4? Get a double minor for hitting the star player of the other team so that the best case scenario is down by 4 with 15 minutes left to go...

SI

[yacovfb]

Not sure I get the Caps fans' reactions at the end of this. Sure, if your team is the underdog who falls short you applaud. But the Caps were the 2nd seed and this was the 2nd round. And the score was 6-2. Just seems weird to applaud that.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Were they really the underdog though?

Maybe heading into this series some thought they were, but heading into the playoffs in general?

[yacovfb]

I was saying that the Caps weren't the underdog...

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by yacovfb

Not sure I get the Caps fans' reactions at the end of this. Sure, if your team is the underdog who falls short you applaud. But the Caps were the 2nd seed and this was the 2nd round. And the score was 6-2. Just seems weird to applaud that.

Given that the Caps were amongst the worst teams in the league until the last couple of years and that this year was really truly a breakthrough year for them (they got in by the skin of their teeth last year), it's understandable to me why the fans would applaud for a generally successful season even if the playoffs didn't finish like they had hoped (also have to remember they didn't get out of the first round last year). Now, if the Caps keep this stretch going for maybe another two years and were consistently winning the Southeast, yet coming up empty in the playoffs, then I think I could see this as being a little strange.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by yacovfb

I was saying that the Caps weren't the underdog...

Sorry read that wrong

[Logan]

So last night had to have hurt the NHL right? You finally get a ton of national publicity for a game and then one team completely shits the bed making it no contest. Anybody who was tuning in solely because of the increased interest will probably never come back.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Logan

So last night had to have hurt the NHL right? You finally get a ton of national publicity for a game and then one team completely shits the bed making it no contest. Anybody who was tuning in solely because of the increased interest will probably never come back.

Whatever.

I grow a bit tired of these mythical people out there who would be hockey fans so long as there was no fighting, there was 4 on 4 hockey all the time, there was 4 on 4 hockey in OT in the playoffs, a Game 7 was perfectly competitive and exciting, but not a blowout, or if only Scott Walker had been suspended for punching (sucker or not) Aaron Ward in the face.

I am sure there are still potential fans out there, but if people are so fickle as to "never come back" because one game (of an amazing series) didn't quite live up to their expectations, then they really aren't going to be fans of the sport. Even if last night's Game 7 was the "greatest game ever", there's no way in hell these people are going to watch some Caps/Predators game in the middle of February.

Take me for instance. After hearing so much about the Bulls/Celtics playoff series a couple weeks ago, I decided that I would check out game 6. I am not a real basketball fan, but I know a little bit about. I tuned into the 4th quarter of game 6. It was pretty good. The game went into triple OT. Despite how close the game was, I found the OT to be completely unwatchable. For every 20 seconds of live action there were 4 minutes of commercials. I saw more footage of "TNT Original Series" than I did actual basketball. I was so bored by all the stops in play that I kept going back to game 1 of the Hakws/Canucks game. That said, even if the OT had delivered the goods, I still wouldn't have become an NBA fan. Sure, I might tune in to part of an occassional playoff game, but I would rarely sit down to watch a regular season Pistons game.

[Dr. Sak]

The game was so boring that I turned over to the Phillies-Dodgers game on ESPN only to hear Chris Berman go on a 10 minute talk about how great the hockey playoffs have been.

[wade moore]

To Logan's point - this season is the first time I've ever watched more than 60 seconds of an NHL game - playoff or otherwise. And I watched probably a total of 8 or 9 periods.

If the Caps go another round I probably would have watched all of their games.

Now, I could care less.

Would i start watching regular season games? Doubtful. But high-ratings playoff games are still a very good thing.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by wade moore

To Logan's point - this season is the first time I've ever watched more than 60 seconds of an NHL game - playoff or otherwise. And I watched probably a total of 8 or 9 periods.

If the Caps go another round I probably would have watched all of their games.

Now, I could care less.

Would i start watching regular season games? Doubtful. But high-ratings playoff games are still a very good thing.

Obviously high-ratings for playoff games are a very good thing. And it's great that the Caps run got you to watch 8-9 periods.

Still, you didn't just tune in to Game 7. Also, let's say the Caps lost 4-3 in triple OT, would you have "cared more" about the next round of the playoffs? Would that have made you start watching regular season games?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

So last night had to have hurt the NHL right?

Doubtful there'd be much impact. Truth is, the audience is still so relatively small that even if the game sucked it really couldn't have turned off all that many people and it's still just one game of several that were likely sampled by new(er) viewers.

Consider this if you will, last week's Wednesday WAS-PIT matchup was the most watched NHL semifinal game on cable in 7 years. It drew 1.5 million viewers, a 1.3 cable household rating. That means it had the same audience as TNA Wrestling on Spike. How relevant does the latter program strike you in the big picture?

It's great for the league (and Versus) to be able to talk about 19% increase in M18-34 and what not but the reality is that the audience is still on the very small side.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Doubtful there'd be much impact. Truth is, the audience is still so relatively small that even if the game sucked it really couldn't have turned off all that many people and it's still just one game of several that were likely sampled by new(er) viewers.

Consider this if you will, last week's Wednesday WAS-PIT matchup was the most watched NHL semifinal game on cable in 7 years. It drew 1.5 million viewers, a 1.3 cable household rating. That means it had the same audience as TNA Wrestling on Spike. How relevant does the latter program strike you in the big picture?

It's great for the league (and Versus) to be able to talk about 19% increase in M18-34 and what not but the reality is that the audience is still on the very small side.

Despite my comment about people "never coming back" I really didn't even mean all that from a ratings perspective. More like you have national media, guys who aren't hockey fans, talking up this game and anyone who tuned in probably thought it was a complete joke along the lines of, "this is really the best you got?" Right or wrong, it just doesn't paint the league in a positive light is all I'm saying.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Obviously high-ratings for playoff games are a very good thing. And it's great that the Caps run got you to watch 8-9 periods.

Still, you didn't just tune in to Game 7. Also, let's say the Caps lost 4-3 in triple OT, would you have "cared more" about the next round of the playoffs? Would that have made you start watching regular season games?

Well, it made me turn on game 7 mid-2nd period and then immediately click it off.

I doubt ANYTHING will make me watch regular season games. Any game that has more than 30 or so regular season games makes me not watch the regular season.

But, it may have made me more vested in future playoffs. I saw the appeal to an individual game. It was a lot more fun than I remember in the past.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Well, it made me turn on game 7 mid-2nd period and then immediately click it off.

I doubt ANYTHING will make me watch regular season games. Any game that has more than 30 or so regular season games makes me not watch the regular season.

But, it may have made me more vested in future playoffs. I saw the appeal to an individual game. It was a lot more fun than I remember in the past.

Well, the Caps should continue to be a good and exciting team for a while, which should draw you back to the game during the playoffs. The series was great and did it's job, regardless of the lackluster Game 7.

There's no doubt that a more exciting Game 7 would have been a better outcome for the NHL and such, but I don't think the fact that it was a blowout really matters that much at all. Game 7 was still the lead story on Sports Center and they had a couple of different segments on it.

If folks tuned into Game 7 and then decided not to watch anymore hockey because they said "this is really the best you got?", they would very likely have found some other reason not to watch after the game was done.

[DataKing]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That rivalry *was* 90s playoffs hockey. I remember watching a ton of playoff hockey in the dorms and those were great matchups. Hey, wait. You were there

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

Despite my comment about people "never coming back" I really didn't even mean all that from a ratings perspective. More like you have national media, guys who aren't hockey fans, talking up this game and anyone who tuned in probably thought it was a complete joke along the lines of, "this is really the best you got?" Right or wrong, it just doesn't paint the league in a positive light is all I'm saying.

Because it was a blowout? All sports have blowouts, I don't think that paints an entire league in a negative light.

At least there was a lot of scoring.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Doubtful there'd be much impact. Truth is, the audience is still so relatively small that even if the game sucked it really couldn't have turned off all that many people and it's still just one game of several that were likely sampled by new(er) viewers.

Consider this if you will, last week's Wednesday WAS-PIT matchup was the most watched NHL semifinal game on cable in 7 years. It drew 1.5 million viewers, a 1.3 cable household rating. That means it had the same audience as TNA Wrestling on Spike. How relevant does the latter program strike you in the big picture?

It's great for the league (and Versus) to be able to talk about 19% increase in M18-34 and what not but the reality is that the audience is still on the very small side.

I wish we could know what the ratings would have been if it were on a "real" network.

[DataKing]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I wish we could know what the ratings would have been if it were on a "real" network.

What sort of ratings were NHL playoff games getting on ESPN pre-lockout? That would probably be a pretty good indication.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I wish we could know what the ratings would have been if it were on a "real" network.

Ayup

SI

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I wish we could know what the ratings would have been if it were on a "real" network.

By real you mean like ESPN, a channel that everyone nationally gets, right? (I know a lot of people get Versus but I'm sure ESPN's numbers are still much, much bigger)

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by DataKing

What sort of ratings were NHL playoff games getting on ESPN pre-lockout? That would probably be a pretty good indication.

Perhaps. This has definitely been a very hyped game/series, though. The possibility of gaining a lot of fans was riding on it (perhaps there is some hyperbole there) and a lot of people either don't get the network, or don't even know the network exists. If they just happened across it in their standard TV lineup... (although, if they just happened across it, would they know the hype?)

This was built up much like a Yankees vs. Red Sox playoff series, but there are a ton of people that couldn't watch it.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by samifan24

By real you mean like ESPN, a channel that everyone nationally gets, right? (I know a lot of people get Versus but I'm sure ESPN's numbers are still much, much bigger)

Correct. Or better yet, NBC. (but that's "too cheap to pay for cable" guy speaking)

[DataKing]

Went and did a little digging. Here are the Nielsen Ratings for the Stanley Cup finals since 1995. It looks like NHL ratings may very well be recovering from the lockout. Last year's Detroit/Pittsburgh series was close to what the big networks were getting before the lockout.

Year	Viewers (million)	Network	Teams
1995	5.21	FOX	New Jersey Devils vs. Detroit Red Wings
1996	5.09	FOX	Colorado Avalanche vs. Florida Panthers
1997	6.37	FOX	Detroit Red Wings vs. Philadelphia Flyers
1998	4.83	FOX	Detroit Red Wings vs. Washington Capitals
1999	4.87	FOX	Dallas Stars vs. Buffalo Sabres
2000	5.51	ABC	New Jersey Devils vs. Dallas Stars
2001	5.06	ABC	Colorado Avalanche vs. New Jersey Devils
2002	5.77	ABC	Detroit Red Wings vs. Carolina Hurricanes
2003	3.63	*ABC/ESPN	New Jersey Devils vs. Anaheim Ducks
2004	3.29	*ABC/ESPN	Tampa Bay Lightning vs. Calgary Flames
2005			Strike, no season
2006	2.83	**NBC/OLN	Carolina vs, Edmonton
2007	1.76	NBC/VS	Ottawa vs. Anaheim
2008	4.48	NBC/VS	Pittsburgh vs. Detroit

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by samifan24

I know a lot of people get Versus but I'm sure ESPN's numbers are still much, much bigger

Just under 100 million households for ESPN, about 75 million for Versus (by way of comparison Versus has slightly fewer than The Golf Channel, slightly more than Speed Channel).

There was some somewhat disingenuous article in USA Today last week that pointed out the lower numbers on Versus and mentioned how ESPN got higher ratings for the College World Series, Pro Bowling, and the Little League World Series than Vs. gets for the NHL playoffs. The disingenuous part is that even if you put the ratings back to their previous level on ESPN, based on the figures he used the CWS would still outdraw the NHL, the bowling would be about even, and the LLWS would be just a little behind. The writer tried to make it sound like it was all about the network and that just isn't the case.

The problem is hockey on TV not translating very well to general audiences in the U.S. regardless of what network it's on. Regional sports networks have been posting record high numbers for the past several years, presumably the rooting interest overcomes the issues with hockey & TV, but that's never been the case on a national level.

edit to add: Even NBC, which certainly doesn't have a distribution problem, got first round numbers below 1.0 to 1.4 ... with the Rangers-Caps to pulling the same HH rating of 0.7 as Poker After Dark which airs at 2am.

Separately, for ESPN to put the hockey back on (which they've been rumored to be interested in doing since before last season), the rights fees would almost have to be minimal to almost non-existent. NBC pays the league not a dime for the rights, Versus/Comcast paying around $70 million a year for the cable rights, but you can bet that unless ESPN has lost their minds they'd be a lot closer to what NBC paid, with Versus probably not objecting since they could then start cutting their losses with reduced payments too. Otherwise ESPN would be nuts since they can put the CWS or bowling on air for a relatively minimal cost.

re-edit: And even with zero rights fees, just the cost of production, NBC has not yet committed to carrying the playoffs beyond this season.

[Pumpy Tudors]

This is just me being goofy, but I find it funny how those ratings DataKing posted list "OLN" as one of the networks for 2006 (using the 2006 name of the network), but check out the teams they show in the 2003 Finals. Funny, I watched that whole series in 2003 and don't remember the "Anaheim Ducks" playing.

[Fidatelo]

Although I've never really understood the whole "hockey is hard to watch on TV" thing, I wonder if HD will help to alleviate that problem? I think I orgasmed the first time I watched a game in HD.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Although I've never really understood the whole "hockey is hard to watch on TV" thing, I wonder if HD will help to alleviate that problem? I think I orgasmed the first time I watched a game in HD.

I never really understood it either. HD should help in that regard, but I've always thought that that the, for the most part, the whole "hockey is hard to watch on TV" thing was just an excuse for people who just don't like or are not all that interested in hockey. Even if they are watching the game in HD, they will find some other excuse not to watch.

Still, the difference between watching hockey in HD and non-HD is immense. If I actually could get some of the Center Ice Package channels in HD, I would watch a lot more hockey over the course of the regular season.

[samifan24]

I always thought that when people said "hockey is hard to watch on TV," they were referring to the fact that it can be difficult to understand the rules if you're a new fan and not yet used to the pace of the game.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by samifan24

I always thought that when people said "hockey is hard to watch on TV," they were referring to the fact that it can be difficult to understand the rules if you're a new fan and not yet used to the pace of the game.

Wouldn't that apply to almost any sport?

I agree with H_B, it seems just like an excuse.

[sterlingice]

Yeah, I've never quite understood that either. It's great to watch on tv, personally. And I'm one of those poor bastards who still doesn't have an HD tv.

SI

[lordscarlet]

I think "hard to watch on tv" does have to do with the pace of the game and speed of the puck. That's why FOX tried to put the light on it. People unaccustomed to hockey (like myself) have a real hard time following where the puck is while also trying to figure out the rules. No other sport (that is widely successful) has the same speed and "object" size (baseball is about the same, but does not have the speed factor -- soccer the same, but the ball is much larger).

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by samifan24

I always thought that when people said "hockey is hard to watch on TV," they were referring to the fact that it can be difficult to understand the rules if you're a new fan and not yet used to the pace of the game.

I always understood it (and it's always been explained to me) that it's because people can't see/follow the puck. Hence, Fox's brief "glow puck" experiment.

[Logan]

Yeah my moron roommate claims to not be able to follow the puck on his top of the line 52" Sony that we keep in the living room. I try really hard not to call him an idiot to his face though, since he's a black belt and also huge.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I think "hard to watch on tv" does have to do with the pace of the game and speed of the puck. That's why FOX tried to put the light on it. People unaccustomed to hockey (like myself) have a real hard time following where the puck is while also trying to figure out the rules. No other sport (that is widely successful) has the same speed and "object" size (baseball is about the same, but does not have the speed factor -- soccer the same, but the ball is much larger).

Another problem with broadcasting hockey is the color of the ice surface. White is one of the hardest colors to make look good on television. Green, on the other hand, is one of the easiest.

A good friend of mine is the producer for the Dallas Stars' television broadcasts (the local ones on the Fox Sports Dallas or whatever), he has said numerous times that getting the white ice surface to look good is that hardest thing they do.