At a time when the economy is weak and growth is almost impossible to find, the NHL in the U.S. has a product worth watching and the numbers are starting to show it.
And now for something completely different: a positive story about the NHL and American television.
Friday is the best day for hockey fans on both sides of the border, a Game 7 showdown, winner-take-all affair between the Pittsburgh Penguins and Detroit Red Wings, two teams that deserve to be where they are and, quite frankly, deserve to lay claim to the Stanley Cup.
It's a no-brainer for Canadian fans: fire up the big screen, lay in the pop, booze and snacks, close the door on all outside distractions including where the Phoenix Coyotes might land, and enjoy.
Though residents of the true north strong and free tend to mock their American cousins, it's the same on the other side of the border. The only difference is, more Americans will be watching, more than usual, perhaps more than ever before.
Because while few people, especially people in media, care to admit it, the NHL had done a pretty fair job of managing its TV interests in the U.S. True, the Versus network isn't the end-all and be-all of sports television in the United States (and all have some surprising viewpoints on that farther down), but there are several surprisingly good things to report about commissioner Gary Bettman's much maligned stateside television package on its most riveting day.
Let's start with some positive press. Christine Brennan, the forward-thinking and well-connected columnist of USA Today fame, had a column in Thursday's paper noting that the NHL playoffs are worth watching anytime but especially in a Game 7 and that they are especially good in high definition television, something she says could well be the salvation of hockey on television in America.
Ms. Brennan, who unlike a great many other U.S. columnists has been seen in a hockey rink from time to time, makes it clear that basketball is king in the U.S. and that the ratings in the head-to-head showdown between the NBA final and the Stanley Cup final last Tuesday night proved it once again.
But she also points out that though hockey "got smoked" 2-1, a full 87 percent of the country didn't watch either and of those who made their choice, hockey was well worth watching and did pretty well in a country that does not fully or even near fully embrace the sport.
The big reason: "People who don't know and follow the sport can now actually follow the puck on a high-def TV" and that makes the game riveting in its speed, action and plays around the net.
Ms. Brennan backs up her point by quoting Neal Pilson, a sports television consultant who also used to head CBS Sports, who said: "High definition has been a great benefit for all sports, but it has been a unique benefit for hockey. Hockey is a very fast sport, the puck moves very quickly. Given the difficulty that people have had watching a hockey game compared to watching a baseball or basketball game, high definition can have a big impact. It allows you to see on TV what you can see in an arena and with great clarity."
Now I know those of us who have been lifelong hockey fans laugh at a comment like that because with a trained eye you can follow the puck with ease and if you're smart, you often watch what's happening away from the puck in order to understand where it's going to end up next, but for the untrained eye and for the millions of people who occasionally look in on a game and can't quite figure it out, being able to watch Friday night's championship showdown in HD is infinitely easier and likely infinitely more enjoyable when they can actually see the puck on Henrik Zetterberg's back or whether or not Rob Scuderi did or did not close a glove on it in the final seconds of play.
For those fans, that's a world of enjoyable difference and a boom to hockey on television for non-traditional hockey fans.
But there's more.
Bettman gets crucified, sometimes in media, sometimes from members of his own ownership group for the league's bastardized TV approach in the U.S., but one can argue it's starting to take hold.
NBC has been getting good to very good ratings for the games and Versus has had franchise record numbers and is starting to grow to the critical mass the league needs. It's not ESPN mass as Chicago Blackhawks owner Rocky Wirtz recently pointed out in a not-so-glowing assessment of the league's TV ventures in the states, but even Mr. Wirtz, a newbie to the owners chair despite a family history in the game, should understand that there's a history that needs to be understood.
The perception is that the NHL walked out on ESPN, but the truth is the sports giant put the league to the curb. After a few years of trying to make it go, ESPN and hockey had gone nowhere together and the company was offering the league the same deal that NBC had on the table. The highlight for them being a zero rights fee.
The company was betting that the league would take it because not being on ESPN was thought to be a death blow for the sport.
But Bettman saw a different truth. He saw that ESPN hadn't been all that great a partner to begin with and that from the moment the network acquired NBA rights the league began losing a great deal of promotion time. The network canceled shows like Hockey Tonight. The games themselves were moved from ESPN to ESPN 2 (which in the last year of the contract with the league was significantly smaller in size) and the games that were shown were pretty much treated as filler, something to be sandwiched in between one college basketball game and another.
In truth there was no real partnership, precious little exposure and even less of a presence in regards hockey-specific programming and the all important mentions on SportsCenter and the surrounding shows like "Cold Pizza" (since replaced by "ESPN First Take" and "1st and Ten" to show the network's commitment to football) and the like.
Meanwhile Versus offered the league real money, primetime slots and dedicated programming. True it wasn't on par with ESPN, but then ESPN wasn't exactly giving the league all that it had. It's also true Versus wasn't in as many homes and that you couldn't find it in hotels (a constant complaint of NHL writers), but hold on.
As a person who spends equal time on both sides of the border and a ridiculous number of nights in hotels, I can tell you with certainty that Versus does a fine telecast, every bit as good as ESPN ever did and that its between-periods show is first rate. I can also tell you from first-hand experience that it's impossible to find a regular-season NBA game in a hotel room in Canada and almost as difficult to find one in a Canadian home (got TSN2? Didn't think so).
Versus is in some 75 million homes in the U.S. today. That's up from 60 million when it started so it's growing. Sure it's not ESPN in numbers (some 96 million homes), but it's good, it's got plenty of hockey when you want it and it's growing. Versus, especially during the playoffs, has had first-rate pre- and post-game shows (something ESPN abandoned) and it's the one network in the country where you can find the NHL Entry Draft and the NHL Awards Show.
Most importantly people have found it. Ratings for NHL games are set to be up 20 per cent this season over last, 35 per cent in the playoffs.
On the downside, there is no sports highlights show like Sportsnet Connected or anything ESPN offers but Versus people will tell you they are starting to generate numbers and revenue along the lines of what ESPN had in the season prior to the lockout. Should it continue to grow as a network, those shows will come along.
In this economy its growth is still very much in question and it would be wise for the NHL to get at least a one-game-a-week presence on ESPN just to fill in the missing-homes gap until Versus succeeds. But for now, it's working.
In addition, as much as people don't seem to want to hear it, Bettman is correct when he stated in his state-of-the-league message at the start of these playoffs that it's better to have a partner that wants you and is willing to help grow you than one that doesn't. What he didn't say, but is no less true, is that it's also better to get money from someone rather that nothing from no one.
It's not much different with the much ridiculed NBC deal. Is it a good deal? No. Is it a deal that's better than no deal? Well consider this: Friday night's game, with no competition from the NBA, should pull in the best numbers for any televised hockey game since the lockout and, given the participants, could well be the most watched NHL over-the-air broadcast in league history.
It's not a perfect scenario, not even close, but at a time when the economy is weak and growth is almost impossible to find, the NHL in the U.S. has a product worth watching, a cable network that is showing some real growth and an over-the-air outlet that has its showcase final in primetime on a major U. S. network. Not to mention in a format that one of the most prominent columnists in a national newspaper is writing about in glowing terms and is even throwing in a few kind words about how the game itself is faster, better and more entertaining than in its pre-lockout past.
Sid the Kid and Malkin the Magician vs. the team for the ages and it's in every home, every bar and every hotel room in the country.
Personally, I can't find anything wrong with that. I can't imagine that any hockey fan, even the ones who don't like Gary Bettman, should either.