-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Proof that nobody cares about hockey
- Thread starter ansky212
- Start date
More like a lack of a following specifically on the West Coast (see: Chicago and Detroit being a Western Conference semifinal).ansky212 said:
TheBigA said:
People who disparage hockey tend to forget that our neighbor to the north turns out by the millions to watch, and play, and talk endlessly about hockey. Not only the NHL which Americans are singularly aware of, but all levels beginning with the 4-year olds. A national crisis in Canada was narrowly averted when Wayne Gretzky was traded from Edmonton to L.A. several decades ago. Canucks take their hockey very seriously - as does most of the northeast and upper midwest USA. Even in my neck of the woods, Sonoran Desert, USA, it is very difficult to get ice time due to the many hockey leagues - from Mites all the way to the Old Timers.
landtuna said:
And the Black Hawks, Red Wings, and Bruins are drawing a lot of Phoenix-area eyeballs for NBC. All have big followings here. The Rangers, Penguins, and Senators a bit less-so. The California teams are non-entities.
Now if we only had a hockey arena that wasn't 30 miles away (over an hour's drive through rush-hour Phoenix traffic for most games) from where 90% of the sport's local fans live... ;D
Golf is the more boring game to watch on TV next to a televised chess match.
Now soccer is exciting, yet for some reason it is not popular in the USA. Wonder why?
Now soccer is exciting, yet for some reason it is not popular in the USA. Wonder why?
Getting back to last night's game being on CNBC: A number of Hockey playoff games have aired on CNBC in the last month. This is not their only venture into sports. They show Olympic Hockey and Boxing every four years, and most recently, the first night of the Westminster Dog Show.
I'm an African-American and a native Kentuckian...and I will watch all the hockey I can get! I've ben a fan since I DX'ed Marv Albert doing Ranger games on WNBC-AM and Dan Kelly on KMOX-AM in the Sixties-I go way back!
I've had the opportunity to run camera, videotape or EVS (digital replay) for NHL, AHL and ECHL games since 1985, and the one problem I see is that you just can't replicate the amazing experience of being at the rink. I still think the NBC/CBC partnership is doing a very good job this season on the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
My most memorable experience was running high cover camera at old Chicago Stadium during the 1992 playoffs. The setup position was way up at the top level of the old barn, right beside the pipes of the mighty Wurlitzer organ and the goal horn. The spot was so loud engineering had to give me an extra audio amp on my headphone line to get my director's calls clearly...and the crowd noise did NOT stop until the end of the game.
The fire marshal always winked at Stadium management and listed the attendance at 18,865...but there were always 21,500 jammed into every crevice for a Black Hawks game.
I've had the opportunity to run camera, videotape or EVS (digital replay) for NHL, AHL and ECHL games since 1985, and the one problem I see is that you just can't replicate the amazing experience of being at the rink. I still think the NBC/CBC partnership is doing a very good job this season on the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
My most memorable experience was running high cover camera at old Chicago Stadium during the 1992 playoffs. The setup position was way up at the top level of the old barn, right beside the pipes of the mighty Wurlitzer organ and the goal horn. The spot was so loud engineering had to give me an extra audio amp on my headphone line to get my director's calls clearly...and the crowd noise did NOT stop until the end of the game.
The fire marshal always winked at Stadium management and listed the attendance at 18,865...but there were always 21,500 jammed into every crevice for a Black Hawks game.
landtuna said:
The problem with soccer is the general lack of scoring. The field of play is much too large which is why most of the time is spent with guys just running back and forth (but that's a discussion for another day). The other problem is that they can arbitrarily decide to add time to the end of the games, which makes them so anti-climactic. You're never going to see a buzzer beater or walk off homer which is what makes other sports more exciting.
ansky212 said:
When I was a bit younger I played indoor soccer. It is sometimes called "wall ball" because it is played on a tennis-sized court surrounded by walls so the ball cannot go out of play. Each side has six players, four "runners" and one goalie and the goal is just a bit larger than a good-sized fireplace. The action is quick, much like basketball or hockey and scoring is higher than the outdoor version but not as automatic as basketball. It is a lot of fun to play but is not a good spectator sport because of the walls. Playing inside an air-conditioned facility is also a huge plus for those of us living in the desert.
Outdoor soccer is always going to suffer in warmer climates due to the laws of the game. No real time substitution (and limited substitution at that). Like hockey, it is impossible to keep up a high tempo over a long period of time and on the fly substitutions should be allowed. Towards the end of the game players are laying down trying to get rid of cramps. There are also too many stoppages. Injury time has gotten to be a joke with players not penalized for flopping and too many plays out of bounds. The off sides rule tends to bunch players up and makes it very difficult to advance the ball. The only really exciting play in soccer is the corner kick which often results in an interesting offensive and/or defensive play.
When I was officiating I always maintained that Americans would not tolerate the referee being the only source of time keeping and I note that now some games do have a public game clock. That should be mandatory. All too often the end of the game comes at a time when the trailing team has an offensive play building and the ref blows the whistle. This tends to enrage fans and we've all witnessed what happens when fans run wild. It was enough of a problem that I used to let the current play end before ending the game regardless of time.
...and they have maybe an eighth of the population of the United States, if we're generous. The NHL left Atlanta, a top-ten market, for Winnipeg, a market that makes Green Bay look big. All told, the NHL is a bigger deal than MLS or the WNBA, but I don't want to hear that Canada makes them a major league on par with baseball, basketball, or football. That Phoenix is excited about hockey but is cursed by shitty arena placement is interesting, though; with the Quebec scare, has there been any talk about a new one, or moving into wherever the Suns play assuming they don't already?landtuna said:
That's funny, because I once read a soccer fan's comment that had that exact complaint about MLS' old countdown clock, that an opposing team couldn't get one last push before the clock ran out. I suspect they would say if you were blowing the whistle the instant the clock said you should, if you weren't acting the way you did and waited for the current play to end before blowing the whistle, you were doing it wrong.landtuna said:
- Status