Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

NBA Playoffs, Game 7, Golden State vs Oklahoma drew 15.9 million viewers, and Game 1, Warriors vs Cleveland drew 13.1. Meanwhile, San Jose (Same market as Golden State), drew 4.08 million viewers. NBA commissioner must have thrown away David Stern's super star rule book. Lebron has been treated like a normal player, and the NBA is a much improved product over the last couple seasons. The NHL is trudging away in obscurity, as Gary Bettman hides his product on NBC. Some say the NBA Sucks, but the NHL doesn't get enough attention to even judge.

Gil Dobie wrote:NBA Playoffs, Game 7, Golden State vs Oklahoma drew 15.9 million viewers, and Game 1, Warriors vs Cleveland drew 13.1. Meanwhile, San Jose (Same market as Golden State), drew 4.08 million viewers. NBA commissioner must have thrown away David Stern's super star rule book. Lebron has been treated like a normal player, and the NBA is a much improved product over the last couple seasons. The NHL is trudging away in obscurity, as Gary Bettman hides his product on NBC. Some say the NBA Sucks, but the NHL doesn't get enough attention to even judge.

Well, the NBA does suck, but is marketed much better than the NHL. Right now, 75% of the content on ESPN.com is NBA/Steph Curry/LeBron James.
Ratings will always be better for the NBA than for the NHL. Basketball is much easier on the TV eyes than hockey. Hockey is played at 2X the speed of basketball, played in a rink over 2X the size of a basketball court, and with a puck a fraction the size of a basketball. For the casual watcher or the novice, it's not easy to follow on TV.
However, the two are very comparable in live attendance. Last year 105K turned out at Michigan Stadium to watch a mediocre Red Wings team take on a horrible Maple Leafs squad. No two NBA teams could ever draw that many fans to attend a game no matter what kind of promotion was attempted.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alishagraus ... a91a11cf4f

Luckily, it’s not all doom and gloom for the NHL these playoffs. The NHL has one of the youngest fanbases in all of sports and, as it tends to be upscale, it’s one that advertisers find very attractive. To that end, the NHL has sold about $5 million more in ad revenue through these playoffs than last year, helping cushion the blow of lowered ratings.

Baldy wrote:Right now, 75% of the content on ESPN.com is NBA/Steph Curry/LeBron James.

The NHL still exists?

Baldy wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:NBA Playoffs, Game 7, Golden State vs Oklahoma drew 15.9 million viewers, and Game 1, Warriors vs Cleveland drew 13.1. Meanwhile, San Jose (Same market as Golden State), drew 4.08 million viewers. NBA commissioner must have thrown away David Stern's super star rule book. Lebron has been treated like a normal player, and the NBA is a much improved product over the last couple seasons. The NHL is trudging away in obscurity, as Gary Bettman hides his product on NBC. Some say the NBA Sucks, but the NHL doesn't get enough attention to even judge.

Well, the NBA does suck, but is marketed much better than the NHL. Right now, 75% of the content on ESPN.com is NBA/Steph Curry/LeBron James.
Ratings will always be better for the NBA than for the NHL. Basketball is much easier on the TV eyes than hockey. Hockey is played at 2X the speed of basketball, played in a rink over 2X the size of a basketball court, and with a puck a fraction the size of a basketball. For the casual watcher or the novice, it's not easy to follow on TV.
However, the two are very comparable in live attendance. Last year 105K turned out at Michigan Stadium to watch a mediocre Red Wings team take on a horrible Maple Leafs squad. No two NBA teams could ever draw that many fans to attend a game no matter what kind of promotion was attempted.

Sure they could, although who would want to attend? Half of those people couldn't see much of anything of the game. Biggest NBA crowd I know of is 62k who came to watch the Bulls play the Hawks in the Georgia Dome in the late 90's. But why does it matter? For the NHL, live attendance is about the extent of their reach, and most NHL teams play in the same stadiums that the NBA teams play in, so the live attendance should be about the same. But the TV audience is just staggeringly different. Unless the NHL is planning substantially more outside games, why does it matter?

GannonFan wrote:

Baldy wrote: Well, the NBA does suck, but is marketed much better than the NHL. Right now, 75% of the content on ESPN.com is NBA/Steph Curry/LeBron James.
Ratings will always be better for the NBA than for the NHL. Basketball is much easier on the TV eyes than hockey. Hockey is played at 2X the speed of basketball, played in a rink over 2X the size of a basketball court, and with a puck a fraction the size of a basketball. For the casual watcher or the novice, it's not easy to follow on TV.
However, the two are very comparable in live attendance. Last year 105K turned out at Michigan Stadium to watch a mediocre Red Wings team take on a horrible Maple Leafs squad. No two NBA teams could ever draw that many fans to attend a game no matter what kind of promotion was attempted.

Sure they could, although who would want to attend? Half of those people couldn't see much of anything of the game. Biggest NBA crowd I know of is 62k who came to watch the Bulls play the Hawks in the Georgia Dome in the late 90's. But why does it matter? For the NHL, live attendance is about the extent of their reach, and most NHL teams play in the same stadiums that the NBA teams play in, so the live attendance should be about the same. But the TV audience is just staggeringly different. Unless the NHL is planning substantially more outside games, why does it matter?

Uhh, they play the Final Four in football stadiums every year...

Grizalltheway wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Sure they could, although who would want to attend? Half of those people couldn't see much of anything of the game. Biggest NBA crowd I know of is 62k who came to watch the Bulls play the Hawks in the Georgia Dome in the late 90's. But why does it matter? For the NHL, live attendance is about the extent of their reach, and most NHL teams play in the same stadiums that the NBA teams play in, so the live attendance should be about the same. But the TV audience is just staggeringly different. Unless the NHL is planning substantially more outside games, why does it matter?

Uhh, they play the Final Four in football stadiums every year...

Domed football stadiums, yes, and the attendance is 50k to 60k. I think they hit 79k when they played in Dallas. Not sure getting to 105K is really worth it, but I guess if the video screen was like the one in Dallas it would be fine.

GannonFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Uhh, they play the Final Four in football stadiums every year...

Domed football stadiums, yes, and the attendance is 50k to 60k. I think they hit 79k when they played in Dallas. Not sure getting to 105K is really worth it, but I guess if the video screen was like the one in Dallas it would be fine.

They were 74-75k in Houston this year for each Final Four session

On top of that:
The games were broadcast in 188 countries
The title game had an average of 17.8m people watching at any given time
There were 1,672 credentialed media for the Final Four
There were 9 million people who used "official Final Four" social media hashtags (doesn't include people like me to didn't use those tags but still tweeted about it)
There were over 19,000 fans that went to the practices
There were over 220K fans who went to the music festival at the final four

The upcoming final four sites University of Pheonix Stadium, Alamodome, US Bank Stadium and Mercedes Benz Dome (Atlanta) could/likely will all well suprass 75K per session. This year was the 8th straight year over 70K were at the games. Prior to 09 you'd have a point. Since then? Nope.

The final four and title game were on TBS this year - a station with a tiny fraction of the number of potential viewers as NBC

You can scream about "We had 105K at one hockey game" all you want. That was between two of the largest fan bases in the NHL and two of the most storied franchises. Minnesota (the state of hockey) didn't sell out TCF Bank Stadium which holds 52K.

The reality is the NHL is dwarfed by NCAA and NBA basketball. Hell, I'd bet the high school football/basketball games on ESPN draw comparable numbers.

Hockey in person is superior to the NBA in every way. On TV it's not even close to basketball.

clenz wrote:
Hockey in person is superior to the NBA in every way. On TV it's not even close to basketball.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Made it to a Sixers game this year after many years not going and we had a blast. Hockey is cool if you're close to the ice - from the second level in most arenas it's just okay.

clenz wrote:

GannonFan wrote: Hockey in person is superior to the NBA in every way. On TV it's not even close to basketball.

NBA is not enjoyable to watch in person or on TV.

GannonFan wrote:

clenz wrote:
Hockey in person is superior to the NBA in every way. On TV it's not even close to basketball.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Made it to a Sixers game this year after many years not going and we had a blast. Hockey is cool if you're close to the ice - from the second level in most arenas it's just okay.

I love basketball in person. I've only been to two NBA games - one Wolves game in the Target Center and one preseason game in Cedar Rapids last year when the Wolves played the Bucks and got to see Wiggins and Parker go one on one in their first NBA action. Target Center seats were "meh" and the area in CR is only 6K people so all seats are good but this was my view



Both were very enjoyable. College basketball games are a blast.

There's just something about the energy of a hockey crowd compared to an NBA crowd. It's more college basketball like. There's more excitement. More energy. Granted I've not been to an NHL game, but have been to many USHL games in these arenas





Much smaller than NHL stadiums, obviously. However, the intensity in those places is nuts and that's for 16-17 year old high school kids who aren't from the area.

The say that Silver has done away with Stern's super star rule book is an outright lie.

Curry, LeBron etc all get away with much, much more than the average NBA player. Both could be called for traveling on most every play.

Curry will routinely take 5-6 steps.

clenz wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Made it to a Sixers game this year after many years not going and we had a blast. Hockey is cool if you're close to the ice - from the second level in most arenas it's just okay.

I love basketball in person. I've only been to two NBA games - one Wolves game in the Target Center and one preseason game in Cedar Rapids last year when the Wolves played the Bucks and got to see Wiggins and Parker go one on one in their first NBA action. Target Center seats were "meh" and the area in CR is only 6K people so all seats are good but this was my view



Both were very enjoyable. College basketball games are a blast.

There's just something about the energy of a hockey crowd compared to an NBA crowd. It's more college basketball like. There's more excitement. More energy. Granted I've not been to an NHL game, but have been to many USHL games in these arenas





Much smaller than NHL stadiums, obviously. However, the intensity in those places is nuts and that's for 16-17 year old high school kids who aren't from the area.

Anything where you're closer to the action is better. Sitting in the nosebleed seats at the Wells Fargo Center watching NHL hockey is just not a great experience unless you love hockey. Granted, probably the same for basketball or even any sport.

dbackjon wrote:The say that Silver has done away with Stern's super star rule book is an outright lie.

Curry, LeBron etc all get away with much, much more than the average NBA player. Both could be called for traveling on most every play.

Curry will routinely take 5-6 steps.

Where have you been? Traveling was abolished in the 80's in the NBA.

My first (and only) NHL game was literally the back row of Rexall Place in Edmonton. Total dump, but it was still awesome and got me hooked.

SDHornet wrote:

dbackjon wrote:The say that Silver has done away with Stern's super star rule book is an outright lie.

Curry, LeBron etc all get away with much, much more than the average NBA player. Both could be called for traveling on most every play.

Curry will routinely take 5-6 steps.

Where have you been? Traveling was abolished in the 80's in the NBA.

Along with carrying thanks to Dr. J., MJ, Iverson, etc.

IMO, college basketball is much more interesting and exciting to watch than pro basketball so you can't use Final 4 numbers when comparing the NBA to the NHL. They're 2 different games with different appeals and fan bases.

Speaking as a Chicagoan, the Blackhawks are one of if not the top game in town. Granted their recent success has played a huge role in their popularity but so has changes in management that has made the game more accessible and popular (Rocky Wirtz changed the culture when he took over after his dad, Dollar Bill Wirtz, passed away). Chicago is a Blackhawks town, clearly ahead of the Bulls and also ahead of the Cubs and White Sox because they split the baseball loyalties and fighting with the Bears for the top spot.

UNI88 wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Where have you been? Traveling was abolished in the 80's in the NBA.

Along with carrying thanks to Dr. J., MJ, Iverson, etc.

IMO, college basketball is much more interesting and exciting to watch than pro basketball so you can't use Final 4 numbers when comparing the NBA to the NHL. They're 2 different games with different appeals and fan bases.

Speaking as a Chicagoan, the Blackhawks are one of if not the top game in town. Granted their recent success has played a huge role in their popularity but so has changes in management that has made the game more accessible and popular (Rocky Wirtz changed the culture when he took over after his dad, Dollar Bill Wirtz, passed away). Chicago is a Blackhawks town, clearly ahead of the Bulls and also ahead of the Cubs and White Sox because they split the baseball loyalties and fighting with the Bears for the top spot.

Go back a decade, or just over, and the Hawks weren't drawing dick for games though

I've had season tickets to the Timberwolves and the Wild and attended many Minnesota North Stars games. Also attended a Stanley Cup Finals game, front row seats. While hockey is a great game, it's been dumbed down in recent years, and stuck on NBC (No Body Cares) network. Given a choice, I would take the NBA over the NHL with today's product of each league. Silver has done a great job, while Bettman still stinks.

dbackjon wrote:The say that Silver has done away with Stern's super star rule book is an outright lie.

Curry, LeBron etc all get away with much, much more than the average NBA player. Both could be called for traveling on most every play.

Curry will routinely take 5-6 steps.

So did Wilt Chamberlain, back in the day. 'Twas ever thus: the superstars have their own rulebooks.

The 2010 NBA All-Star Game, drew 108,713 to Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas

Ivytalk wrote:

dbackjon wrote:The say that Silver has done away with Stern's super star rule book is an outright lie.

Curry, LeBron etc all get away with much, much more than the average NBA player. Both could be called for traveling on most every play.

Curry will routinely take 5-6 steps.

So did Wilt Chamberlain, back in the day. 'Twas ever thus: the superstars have their own rulebooks.

It's pretty consistent across the board, stars, superstars and many regular players generally travel. It's the foul touches on the superstars that have improved. Letting them play is FANtastic.

clenz wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
Along with carrying thanks to Dr. J., MJ, Iverson, etc.

IMO, college basketball is much more interesting and exciting to watch than pro basketball so you can't use Final 4 numbers when comparing the NBA to the NHL. They're 2 different games with different appeals and fan bases.

Speaking as a Chicagoan, the Blackhawks are one of if not the top game in town. Granted their recent success has played a huge role in their popularity but so has changes in management that has made the game more accessible and popular (Rocky Wirtz changed the culture when he took over after his dad, Dollar Bill Wirtz, passed away). Chicago is a Blackhawks town, clearly ahead of the Bulls and also ahead of the Cubs and White Sox because they split the baseball loyalties and fighting with the Bears for the top spot.

Go back a decade, or just over, and the Hawks weren't drawing dick for games though

True, thus the impact of the culture change that Rocky initiated.

Arguing about which is better, the NBA or NHL is like arguing between Trump and Clinton. They BOTH suck.

AZGrizFan wrote:Arguing about which is better, the NBA or NHL is like arguing between Trump and Clinton. They BOTH suck.

Neither sucks as bad as Trump and Clinton.