Then how are they beneficial to the league. I don't want your opinion. Just the facts that you can back up.
- Daveflyers36

Exposure/growing the game is the only real benefit for the league and thats certainly something hard to prove as a benefit to justify shutting down for....

There where some in the main blog who claimed that NBC has made statements that they set record viewer numbers for Olympic hockey over/above any playoff/outdoor game so if thats true it certainly gave the league exposure..Does that equal growth for the game??..No one knows..

Exposure/growing the game is the only real benefit for the league and thats certainly something hard to prove as a benefit to justify shutting down for....

There where some in the main blog who claimed that NBC has made statements that they set record viewer numbers for Olympic hockey over/above any playoff/outdoor game so if thats true it certainly gave the league exposure..Does that equal growth for the game??..No one knows..
- Fruitcakenipple

I am not denying that it does wonders for the Olympics. The players have been playing in the olympics for how many years now? And still the only time hockey has great ratings is when? Every 4 years meaning that the league has yet to capture those people who only watch hockey in the olympics and chances are they won't.

Not if it is still gaining fans and growing the game. You are never going to capture all of those fans. So much of growing the game is exposure and nothing gives hockey a wider audience than the olympics.
- rmdevil313

If viewership drops 95%, the impact is lessened. What good is wider exposure if it's just every four years?

Then how are they beneficial to the league. I don't want your opinion. Just the facts that you can back up.
- Daveflyers36

The entertainment business is based on popularity. People need to be exposed to your product for it to gain popularity. This is hockeys biggest stage. After the US beat Russia millions of people were talking about TJ Oshie. That kind of exposure is good for business. The tournament is basically a two week advertisement for the NHL. I don't know how you can't see that getting better ratings than your own finals is bad for the league.

This isn't something that can be quantifiably measured, or at least I don't have access to the numbers. The NHL pays people to do that. Even in Bettman's best interest to be as big of a downer about league participation (since the players and IOC are both heavily in favor bettman has the leverage) and he could hardly hide his excitement in interviews during the olympics. This is a strong sign of the kind of exposure the olympics bring.

I am not denying that it does wonders for the Olympics. The players have been playing in the olympics for how many years now? And still the only time hockey has great ratings is when? Every 4 years meaning that the league has yet to capture those people who only watch hockey in the olympics and chances are they won't.
- Daveflyers36

You expect all these people to be instantly enamored with the sport and start following. That's not how things work.

If viewership drops 95%, the impact is lessened. What good is wider exposure if it's just every four years?
- Jsaquella

The growth isn't as dramatic as the NHL goes to olympics and starts drawing similar ratings. And if viewership does drop 95% then they still gain 5%.

The entertainment business is based on popularity. People need to be exposed to your product for it to gain popularity. This is hockeys biggest stage. After the US beat Russia millions of people were talking about TJ Oshie. That kind of exposure is good for business. The tournament is basically a two week advertisement for the NHL. I don't know how you can't see that getting better ratings than your own finals is bad for the league.

This isn't something that can be quantifiably measured, or at least I don't have access to the numbers. The NHL pays people to do that. Even in Bettman's best interest to be as big of a downer about league participation (since the players and IOC are both heavily in favor bettman has the leverage) and he could hardly hide his excitement in interviews during the olympics. This is a strong sign of the kind of exposure the olympics bring.
- rmdevil313

You keep posing arguements that benefit the olympics. There is no denying this is great for the OLYMPICS!!!!!!!!!!! But in the end the league does not benefit because as you have said many times, more people are watching the olympics than they are the NHL. Where is the benefit for the league? You have yet to answer that question. You only speculate that the league benefits but yet viewership for the league is still at the bottom.

You expect all these people to be instantly enamored with the sport and start following. That's not how things work.
- rmdevil313

I know that is not how it works because after the hangover of the Olympics ends, so does the people's interest in the sport leaving only the core fans the NHL left behind to cater to those that only care about the sport every 4 years.

The growth isn't as dramatic as the NHL goes to olympics and starts drawing similar ratings. And if viewership does drop 95% then they still gain 5%.
- rmdevil313

The problem is, that they're not gaining much, if any. A lot of folks watch the Olympics, regardless of the sport, and then ignore that sport for four years. It happens to hockey as well, unless the US does well.

The other nations involved usually already have good participation numbers.

And to be totally frank, if the NHL was getting a bump of 5% of the Olympic viewers per game, then Bettman would be jumping at the chance to have the NHL back in 2018

The problem is, that they're not gaining much, if any. A lot of folks watch the Olympics, regardless of the sport, and then ignore that sport for four years. It happens to hockey as well, unless the US does well.

The other nations involved usually already have good participation numbers.

And to be totally frank, if the NHL was getting a bump of 5% of the Olympic viewers per game, then Bettman would be jumping at the chance to have the NHL back in 2018
- Jsaquella

The problem is that hockey doesn't have a "casual" fan base. They either watch it or they don't. The olympics are a different animal. People watch it BECAUSE it's the olympics. After the olympics are over, so is their interest.

The problem is that hockey doesn't have a "casual" fan base. They either watch it or they don't. The olympics are a different animal. People watch it BECAUSE it's the olympics. After the olympics are over, so is their interest.
- Daveflyers36

Exactly. People who watch the Olympics watch the spectacle more than the sport. I know people in my wife's family who will watch Germany and Latvia play a boring 4-1 game and act like it's great and then complain when I'm watching the Kings play the Blackhawks in a close game.

They see those five rings and will happily watch trash, because it's the Olympics.

The problem is, that they're not gaining much, if any. A lot of folks watch the Olympics, regardless of the sport, and then ignore that sport for four years. It happens to hockey as well, unless the US does well.

The other nations involved usually already have good participation numbers.

And to be totally frank, if the NHL was getting a bump of 5% of the Olympic viewers per game, then Bettman would be jumping at the chance to have the NHL back in 2018
- Jsaquella

How else to you expect to reach out to other markets?

The problem is that hockey doesn't have a "casual" fan base. They either watch it or they don't. The olympics are a different animal. People watch it BECAUSE it's the olympics. After the olympics are over, so is their interest.
- Daveflyers36

Which is why the NHL and Bettman want to try and build a casual fanbase. The NHL is much more marketable to those who didn't know about TJ Oshie now that he's a household name. This is how marketing works. Why do you think they have the all star game?

How else to you expect to reach out to other markets?
- rmdevil313

By concentrating on markets that might be pulled in and retained past the Olympics. I'd bombard every NBC football game with NHL commercials, and jam in a highlights package every Sunday night half time.

I'd have a good rivalry game scheduled for 3pm on Super Bowl Sunday every year. I'd make sure that I kept playing NHL games during February, when other viewing choices are less available.

What good is exposure if it's not being retained? You know when the Olympic audience is retained? When the games are in North America and the US team has success. That's the market that Bettman and the NHL care about.

Which is why the NHL and Bettman want to try and build a casual fanbase. The NHL is much more marketable to those who didn't know about TJ Oshie now that he's a household name. This is how marketing works. Why do you think they have the all star game?
- rmdevil313

TJ Oshie went from media darling to trivia answer as soon as the US failed to medal.

By concentrating on markets that might be pulled in and retained past the Olympics. I'd bombard every NBC football game with NHL commercials, and jam in a highlights package every Sunday night half time.

I'd have a good rivalry game scheduled for 3pm on Super Bowl Sunday every year. I'd make sure that I kept playing NHL games during February, when other viewing choices are less available.

What good is exposure if it's not being retained? You know when the Olympic audience is retained? When the games are in North America and the US team has success. That's the market that Bettman and the NHL care about.
- Jsaquella

An ad campaign like that is limited in its effectiveness. If you like whats being advertise, you know when to tune in. At the olympics, you get an untapped market to sit down an watch an entire game. Its a much better way to familiarize people with the game and its stars. Its the same reason Crosby is always in the Winter Classic. They want to draw the casual viewer in things like the olympics, winter classic, and all star game. Yes, some people won't watch another sport until the summer olympics, but that is far from a majority of the people. Your point about it being only four years is valid, but that is why I think the NHL needs to expand the international game. This has only helped countries in soccer. Disagree with the olympics only being useful if America wins or its in NA. These conditions certainly help a lot, but any publicity is good publicity.

An ad campaign like that is limited in its effectiveness. If you like whats being advertise, you know when to tune in. At the olympics, you get an untapped market to sit down an watch an entire game. Its a much better way to familiarize people with the game and its stars. Its the same reason Crosby is always in the Winter Classic. They want to draw the casual viewer in things like the olympics, winter classic, and all star game. Yes, some people won't watch another sport until the summer olympics, but that is far from a majority of the people. Your point about it being only four years is valid, but that is why I think the NHL needs to expand the international game. This has only helped countries in soccer. Disagree with the olympics only being useful if America wins or its in NA. These conditions certainly help a lot, but any publicity is good publicity.
- rmdevil313

The Olympics, on the Big Ice, are very dissimilar to the NHL.

To be quite honest, the Olympics were actually pretty boring. If I was a casual fan, watching this tourney wouldn't have pushed me to watch more NHL games.

Hell, the two most compelling games of the entire tournament were the US-Canada women's games.

As for expanding it internationally, why should the NHL care about that? They have no teams based overseas and most European nations care as much for Olympic or World Championship gold as a Stanley Cup, if not more.

Soccer is a bad comparison, too. Soccer is an easy sport for anyone to play. To play hockey, you need infrastructure or cold temps. You need expensive equipment. Any dirt poor kid can fashion a soccer ball and find a field to kick it around with his friends.

I am not denying that it does wonders for the Olympics. The players have been playing in the olympics for how many years now? And still the only time hockey has great ratings is when? Every 4 years meaning that the league has yet to capture those people who only watch hockey in the olympics and chances are they won't.
- Daveflyers36

The greatest growth period for the NHL, and game of hockey, is roughly the last twenty years. Coincidentally, almost exactly the same period since they made the olympic hockey tournament matter, by sending NHLers.

Can we conclusively say that's because of the Olympics? Obviously not. I wouldn't even suggest it's mostly because of either. But to suggest there is no way it had any effect is pretty naive too.

The problem is that hockey doesn't have a "casual" fan base. They either watch it or they don't. The olympics are a different animal. People watch it BECAUSE it's the olympics. After the olympics are over, so is their interest.
- Daveflyers36

Care to back that up with hard facts, like you've told others to do?

The Olympics, on the Big Ice, are very dissimilar to the NHL.

To be quite honest, the Olympics were actually pretty boring. If I was a casual fan, watching this tourney wouldn't have pushed me to watch more NHL games.

Hell, the two most compelling games of the entire tournament were the US-Canada women's games.

As for expanding it internationally, why should the NHL care about that? They have no teams based overseas and most European nations care as much for Olympic or World Championship gold as a Stanley Cup, if not more.

Soccer is a bad comparison, too. Soccer is an easy sport for anyone to play. To play hockey, you need infrastructure or cold temps. You need expensive equipment. Any dirt poor kid can fashion a soccer ball and find a field to kick it around with his friends.
- Jsaquella

The NHL should care about the game internationally because there is a lot of money over there. The NHL gets 10 million annually from the Nordic countries for broadcast rights. That's a lot for a countries that are 8 hours ahead and have no team. Factor in merchandise and all the other countries with deals and they are making a nice profit internationally that can certainly be grown.

You can't let the obstacles of growing the game get in the way either. Yes its true hockey is more difficult to grow but that doesn't mean it can't be done. The US has done a good job of growing their game domestically even in more untraditional markets.

Growing a sport takes time obviously. I think the Olympic impact would be best measured by participation in youth leagues and such. Just looking at ratings is short sighted, no matter who is looking at them. I think the impact of a particular year's games would be seen 8+ years after that particular year. Youth is more impressionable than adults just tuning in just because its the Olympics.

Anyways, no one has any real data about this either way, or I haven't seen any posted here. And I love hockey, but honestly, I can live without NHL hockey for 2 weeks. They already play too many games as it is. Owners worry about the injuries caused by an extra 6 Olympic games, yet don't mind the contribution to injury caused by having too many regular season games. I know why they do... it's just funny to me.

You keep posing arguements that benefit the olympics. There is no denying this is great for the OLYMPICS!!!!!!!!!!! But in the end the league does not benefit because as you have said many times, more people are watching the olympics than they are the NHL. Where is the benefit for the league? You have yet to answer that question. You only speculate that the league benefits but yet viewership for the league is still at the bottom.
- Daveflyers36

These posts are so annoying. You are asking something that is impossible to quantify as a 3rd party.

You could say this about any form of advertisement. Can you show me the benefit of TV commercials for McDonald's? Can you show me the exact benefit of billboard signs on highways? Can you show me the benefit of newspaper advertising? Maybe there is a way to quantify these things, but as a 3rd party, we are not privy to them. Only those within the companies will know.

The thing is, the Olympics are part of the entire marketing/advertising package of the NHL. To isolate just the Olympics and give a quantifiable increase in NHL revenues is like trying to isolate newspaper advertising from TV advertising from a specific company, say McDonald's as example. They advertise everywhere. It's all part of the bigger package.

Outside ticket sales, can you quantify how much of an impact the outdoor games have on revenues? Can you quantify the guy that saw the outdoor game, then bought tickets, or a jersey, who wouldn't have otherwise?

It's the same thing with the Olympics.

As I, and others have said, I don't think it's a coincidence that NHL revenues have skyrocketed (exponentially more than inflation, or the just the extra revenue from TV deals) since NHL players started going to the Olympics.

Are there other factors too, like advertising, the outdoor games etc? Of course. It's all part of the package. It's impossible to isolate one variable here. Based on the ratings at 7am on a Saturday morning, it seems to me that the Olympics is a huge part of the NHL's advertising package.

Someone posted earlier that he got into hockey in 1980 because of the miracle on ice. There are obviously kids still getting into the sport because of Olympic exposure. This is not about changing a 45 yr old's opinion of certain sports. This is about 'getting them while they are young'. Entire families huddle around the TV during the Olympics, and hockey is a part of that. Kids are seeing a sport that a family may have never even put on the TV before. Having the best players in the world as a showcase for these new fans is only going to help.

And after the Olympics are over and done with, those people go back to not watching hockey for another 4 years. The NHL gains very little in the marketplace by the way of new fans to justify shutting down the entire league for a small percentage of its players to play for their country. Non hockey fans living in lets say Florida are not going to become fans of the blackhawks because of how much they liked Patrick Kane in the olympics nor will they start to root for the panthers or lightening because of a player on another team. The olympics end and so does their interest..... until next time.
- Daveflyers36

After the Olympics are over, the countries that are second tier develop more and better players with the interest generated by the opportunity to participate in an Olympic sport. Players are beginning to develop in Austria and Switzerland, where there were none before, who have the ability to compete in the NHL. The same may soon be true of more players in Latvia, Norway, Italy (third-tier hockey countries). If the NHL really wants to expand, the players have to come from somewhere. Those new sources of talent are a resource that is a direct result of the Olympics.