FanIQ News: HDTV is helping lure Americans to hockey -

10/29/09

4

All very interesting. While I thoroughly enjoy the NHL and rank it only below NFL in terms of personal preference, HDTV is certainly a big factor in increasing viewership. With the pinpoint of action being so hard to follow (the puck), the clarity of HD does definitely contribute and assist in nullifying those difficulties.

While all sports are definitely better in HD (I would find it very difficult to watch a televised sporting event any other way), the NHL needs to find a way to get their games broadcast in that way on a more constant basis. As a Sharks' fan, Versus is the only time when I get to watch the games in HD, and I feel it is similar for fans across other markets as well.

10/29/09

100%InjuryRate

3

Raider_Dave wrote:

All very interesting. While I thoroughly enjoy the NHL and rank it only below NFL in terms of personal preference, HDTV is certainly a big factor in increasing viewership. With the pinpoint of action being so hard to follow (the puck), the clarity of HD does definitely contribute and assist in nullifying those difficulties.

While all sports are definitely better in HD (I would find it very difficult to watch a televised sporting event any other way), the NHL needs to find a way to get their games broadcast in that way on a more constant basis. As a Sharks' fan, Versus is the only time when I get to watch the games in HD, and I feel it is similar for fans across other markets as well.

Hockey is kind of weird. It's awesome to see live, but much less fun on TV. However, it's the exact reverse for football.

10/29/09

mk_donley

1	Looks like ESPN and Fox Sports' loss is HDTV's gain LOL!

10/29/09

Raider_Dave

2	100%InjuryRate wrote: Hockey is kind of weird. It's awesome to see live, but much less fun on TV. However, it's the exact reverse for football. I agree 100%, and not just because I'm a Raiders' season ticket holder. /sadtrombone

10/29/09

Dubya

1

HD has had more of an impact on the NHL than the other 4 major sports. True it is easier to follow the puck, but you also get to see more of the ice as well. I'm an avid hockey fan so I could watch it on a 15-inch black and white TV if I had to (I have at camp hehe). I feel bad for you Dave. The Penguins local Broadcast (Fox Sports Network Pittsburgh) is showing 70 games in HD this season. I'm pretty sure the other 12 games are on Versus and NBC so they will be in HD as well. I'm also with you in that I watch Football and Hockey first. I am just more entertained by those sports than baseball and basketball although I do watch them. Last night I watch the Penguin game then turned on the World Series saw it was 6-0 and turned it off.

10/29/09

Raider_Dave

2

Dubya wrote:

HD has had more of an impact on the NHL than the other 4 major sports. True it is easier to follow the puck, but you also get to see more of the ice as well. I'm an avid hockey fan so I could watch it on a 15-inch black and white TV if I had to (I have at camp hehe). I feel bad for you Dave. The Penguins local Broadcast (Fox Sports Network Pittsburgh) is showing 70 games in HD this season. I'm pretty sure the other 12 games are on Versus and NBC so they will be in HD as well. I'm also with you in that I watch Football and Hockey first. I am just more entertained by those sports than baseball and basketball although I do watch them. Last night I watch the Penguin game then turned on the World Series saw it was 6-0 and turned it off.

I appreciate the sympathy, and the Sharks' local affiliate, Comcast, says that the games are broadcast in HD, even though they aren't. It's all good though, lucky for me, I enjoy hockey enough to watch it in standard definition when that's the only option. Either that or I just go to the games, which are 1,000 times better than any other option.

P.S. - Comcast sucks

10/29/09

MarkTheShark

5	100%InjuryRate wrote: Hockey is kind of weird. It's awesome to see live, but much less fun on TV. However, it's the exact reverse for football. You are not drinking enough before the game.........or too much

10/29/09

jacksonmacdonald

1	I think hockey is better to watch live But that is me living and watching UVM hockey not even broadcasted on TV or in HD but the games i have seen in HD were much better than NHL on just mormal cable I still like some football games better live but the biggest one i have been to is BC so how should i know All i can say is good for hockey and the NHL

10/29/09

MarkTheShark

1	jacksonmacdonald wrote: I think hockey is better to watch live But that is me living and watching UVM hockey not even broadcasted on TV or in HD but the games i have seen in HD were much better than NHL on just mormal cable I still like some football games better live but the biggest one i have been to is BC so how should i know All i can say is good for hockey and the NHL Go Catamounts!

10/29/09

jasonwrites

0	HD is a boon for all sports, but I'd agree it is particularly a huge boost for viewing hockey. What is total suckage is the fact that DirecTV now refuses to carry Versus. That's a lose-lose for both companies. (We, of course, are DirecTV customers).

10/29/09

johndh04

0	He is so right. Try watching HD then switching to regular. YOU CANT EVEN SEE THE PUCK! Its incredible.

10/29/09

ML31

0

Raider_Dave wrote:

All very interesting. While I thoroughly enjoy the NHL and rank it only below NFL in terms of personal preference, HDTV is certainly a big factor in increasing viewership. With the pinpoint of action being so hard to follow (the puck), the clarity of HD does definitely contribute and assist in nullifying those difficulties.

While all sports are definitely better in HD (I would find it very difficult to watch a televised sporting event any other way), the NHL needs to find a way to get their games broadcast in that way on a more constant basis. As a Sharks' fan, Versus is the only time when I get to watch the games in HD, and I feel it is similar for fans across other markets as well.

The Sharks have more HD games this year than ever. I think it's 50.

But I agree it needs to be 100%.

10/29/09

ML31

0	100%InjuryRate wrote: Hockey is kind of weird. It's awesome to see live, but much less fun on TV. However, it's the exact reverse for football. I think hockey works fine on TV, myself. I also think that almost every sport is better live. One notable exception to that is the NFL. It's WAY better on TV and actually sucks in person.

10/29/09

ML31

0

Dubya wrote:

HD has had more of an impact on the NHL than the other 4 major sports. True it is easier to follow the puck, but you also get to see more of the ice as well. I'm an avid hockey fan so I could watch it on a 15-inch black and white TV if I had to (I have at camp hehe). I feel bad for you Dave. The Penguins local Broadcast (Fox Sports Network Pittsburgh) is showing 70 games in HD this season. I'm pretty sure the other 12 games are on Versus and NBC so they will be in HD as well. I'm also with you in that I watch Football and Hockey first. I am just more entertained by those sports than baseball and basketball although I do watch them. Last night I watch the Penguin game then turned on the World Series saw it was 6-0 and turned it off.

I don't think it is being able to follow the puck as much as it is you can see more of the ice. So much goes on away from the puck TV tends to miss it. The wider screen makes the game better to watch.

10/29/09

ML31

0

Raider_Dave wrote:

I appreciate the sympathy, and the Sharks' local affiliate, Comcast, says that the games are broadcast in HD, even though they aren't. It's all good though, lucky for me, I enjoy hockey enough to watch it in standard definition when that's the only option. Either that or I just go to the games, which are 1,000 times better than any other option.

P.S. - Comcast sucks

No nearly as much as Direct TV sucking.

I'm waiting to see if what was true of the Giants will be true of the Sharks as well.

All summer long, DTV had a channel devoted to the HD side of CSN-BA. But it ONLY when HD for the game itself. Pre and post games were not available. In fact, nothing but the game itself was made available. Not only that, but even when games WERE being shown in HD to those with Comcast cable, DTV was NOT showing the HD broadcast. I'd say only about 65% of the HD games were made available to DTV. That pissed me off all summer long.

So far this year, there has been one Sharks game that the schedule claimed was in HD that I did not get in HD. I called a friend who had comcast to ask if the game was in HD for him. He said it was not. My guess is that there was some kind of equipment problem that night. So more time is needed to see how they treat this.

In any event, as soon as my intro rate from DTV expires in a few months I plan on switching back to Comcast cable so I can get more HD than DTV gives me. Plus this whole VS thing is pissing me off. With cable, I don't have to deal with that crap.

10/30/09

Dubya

0

ML31 wrote:

I don't think it is being able to follow the puck as much as it is you can see more of the ice. So much goes on away from the puck TV tends to miss it. The wider screen makes the game better to watch.

My point exactly. At least for fans that have watched or played hockey. I know that people I try to get to watch hockey just want to see the puck. That is how it starts though. Until the rules are learned and you can see where the play may be going. Football is set up for TV I agree, but I love attending the games. There are things you can see live that you never see on TV.

10/30/09

nyrangers

1

Disagree. HDTV may make hockey "easier" and better to watch, but as long as nobody cares about it in the first place ratings are not going to go up. People are not going to start watching hockey simply because they can, or at least think they will be able to, see the puck and watch the action more clearly. People can't follow the puck because they don't watch the game enough. Granted, hockey in HD is SPECTACULAR and I wish I had that luxury, but real hockey fans have no problem following the action.

HDTV will not increase ratings. Only real coverage on real networks will.

10/30/09

TheRoss

0

As someone who doesn't really follow hockey, it's not going to make me watch anymore than I do, which is next to none. They show Greys Anatomy in HD too, and that doesn't make me want to watch.

I grew up in Georgia. Snow and ice are rare here. As a kid, we didn't have a hockey team here, because the Flames had already left. Not to mention, you can't exactly just go out and skate here. The mantality and exposure to hockey in most states just isn't there. Not to mention that a lot of the teams are in Canada.
I don't have a problem with hockey, but I just don't have a reason to be interested in it. But the only thing that would really make a difference in my opinion, is greaternetwork coverage, and a Michael Jordan/Tiger Woods type of American star to garner more casual interest in the sport.

10/30/09

ML31

0

TheRoss wrote:

As someone who doesn't really follow hockey, it's not going to make me watch anymore than I do, which is next to none. They show Greys Anatomy in HD too, and that doesn't make me want to watch.

I grew up in Georgia. Snow and ice are rare here. As a kid, we didn't have a hockey team here, because the Flames had already left. Not to mention, you can't exactly just go out and skate here. The mantality and exposure to hockey in most states just isn't there. Not to mention that a lot of the teams are in Canada.
I don't have a problem with hockey, but I just don't have a reason to be interested in it. But the only thing that would really make a difference in my opinion, is greaternetwork coverage, and a Michael Jordan/Tiger Woods type of American star to garner more casual interest in the sport.

I grew up near the Bay Area in California. I was very young when the Seals were here but I never knew they existed at the time! Yet I discovered hockey when we got cable in the early 80's. And really appreciated it. Proving that one does not need to grow up amid snow and ice to like hockey. There are only 6 Canadian team, BTW. I wouldn't call that "a lot".

I do agree that a big American star would help. But there have been great Americans recently in the game... Chris Chelios, Mike Modano, Jeremy Roenick... And the games were on ESPN in their hayday. That didn't seem to help the League any. So I'm thinking if there can be some kind of American version of Gretzky it might help. But then, how often does a player like Gretzky come along? As great as Ovetchkin is, he still hasn't done what the Great One has in terms of bringing attention to the game.

10/30/09

Raider_Dave

1

TheRoss wrote:

As someone who doesn't really follow hockey, it's not going to make me watch anymore than I do, which is next to none. They show Greys Anatomy in HD too, and that doesn't make me want to watch.

I grew up in Georgia. Snow and ice are rare here. As a kid, we didn't have a hockey team here, because the Flames had already left. Not to mention, you can't exactly just go out and skate here. The mantality and exposure to hockey in most states just isn't there. Not to mention that a lot of the teams are in Canada.
I don't have a problem with hockey, but I just don't have a reason to be interested in it. But the only thing that would really make a difference in my opinion, is greaternetwork coverage, and a Michael Jordan/Tiger Woods type of American star to garner more casual interest in the sport.

For comparing Hockey to Grey's Anatomy, you need to go sit in time out.

And also for the record, only 6 of the 30 NHL teams are in Canada.

11/5/09

joncool65

0	there's nothing quite like a shiny hockey rink at the beginning of a game, seeing it live is just incredible doesn't even look real.