NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

[JDUBBS1280]

Welcome to the internet. Are you new here?

Right back at ya.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Two years. Right?

He can't answer. He's too busy trying to come up with asinine justifications for why any hockey played before the NCAA era is meaningless.

 

[4four4]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

He can't answer. He's too busy trying to come up with asinine justifications for why any hockey played before the NCAA era is meaningless.

lol. We all know it helps his argument.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

Who was the defending national champion that year?

Minnesota obviously. However, they weren't world beaters that year, and did not win the WCHA. As to the question of why the 2003 Frozen Four was a dud, I would think the fact that the Gophers had won the previous year to actually help viewership. The thought behind that is that a previous run to the title the year before would increase interest in the program, leading the more casual fan to watch. It is just a theory though, impossible to prove at this point in time.

Two years. Right?

I was merely messing with Jdubbs by this point in time. I'm not sure USCHO has broadened the advanced search scope, but if they have, I have stated on numerous occasions that I respect what Minnesota has done with their program, and the past few years are an aberration, not the norm. I have also stated that tDon is one of the best coaches in college hockey, and that it would be foolish to fire him (and not in the "he sucks so keep him please" kind of way).

He can't answer. He's too busy trying to come up with asinine justifications for why any hockey played before the NCAA era is meaningless.

Sorry, as I had stated I was pretty busy.

Also, I believe my formula for greatest programs of all-time show that I do not think the pre-NCAA era is meaningless. It was a significant portion of that formula (and obviously helped Minnesota tremendously in those rankings). As for the current thread I'm on, the formula I have developed for specific years is largely based on national success. Since pre-NCAA Tournament saw very few "national" games, it would not accurately reflect just how good some of those teams were. Perhaps some day I will get around to that.

lol. We all know it helps his argument.

I'm not sure what "argument" you are talking about. The only argument I have made in this thread concerns a statement that so many people expected Minnesota to destroy New Hampshire that they didn't tune in to watch the game. It is pretty clear that that point has been made.

If you are referring to pre-NCAA hockey, please look at my response to Jdubbs.

 

[HoosierBBall_GopherHockey]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

This sums up my feelings over this "argument."

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

I never once said that the Gophers were "world beaters" in 2003, or that they won the WCHA that year. However, they did look really good at the end of that year and rolled fairly easily (until the semifinal) through the playoffs. And you have to take my statement in context. I said a possible explanation for the low viewership of the 2003 final may have been that many didn't expect the final to be a close game. Just a theory. And regardless, it doesn't change the validity of my point as it relates to the larger discussion we were having until this discussion got side-tracked.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

This sums up my feelings over this "argument."

I agree.

Also, the argument doesn't even make any sense. If the reason why the 2002 game was the most watched in history was because of the large following of gopher fans, why wouldn't they tune in to the 2003 game if they were expected to win, and produce back to back champions for the first time in ages?

 

[JDUBBS1280]

I agree.

Also, the argument doesn't even make any sense. If the reason why the 2002 game was the most watched in history was because of the large following of gopher fans, why wouldn't they tune in to the 2003 game if they were expected to win, and produce back to back champions for the first time in ages?

Could be a lot of reasons. I just threw one guess out. Maybe it fell on a bad weekend (someone threw out Easter as one example, but what else was going on that night?). Maybe the game wasn't as hyped with the Gopher fan base. The 2002 championship came after a 30-yr championship drought for MN. Your guess is as good as mine. Still doesn't change the fact that they were part of the most viewed game in college hockey history.

And AGAIN, that wasn't even my point to support the fact that the Gophers have a large national fan base. I have met many, many, many fans from other states who follow the team. I posted an article from a BC student who was compelled to visit. It's a difficult thing to prove with Internet articles to link to.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

This sums up my feelings over this "argument."

No, that sums up the argument that the NBC TV deal is going to significantly alter the NCAA hockey landscape.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

Could be a lot of reasons. I just threw one guess out. Maybe it fell on a bad weekend (someone threw out Easter as one example, but what else was going on that night?). Maybe the game wasn't as hyped with the Gopher fan base. The 2002 championship came after a 30-yr championship drought for MN. Your guess is as good as mine. Still doesn't change the fact that they were part of the most viewed game in college hockey history.

Since it I believe it was April 12th, I'm going with either the Prince Laurent - Coombs wedding, or the 14th Annual Thunder Over Louisville.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Since it I believe it was April 12th, I'm going with either the Prince Laurent - Coombs wedding, or the 14th Annual Thunder Over Louisville.

Stupid.

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

Could be a lot of reasons. I just threw one guess out. Maybe it fell on a bad weekend (someone threw out Easter as one example, but what else was going on that night?). Maybe the game wasn't as hyped with the Gopher fan base. The 2002 championship came after a 30-yr championship drought for MN. Your guess is as good as mine. Still doesn't change the fact that they were part of the most viewed game in college hockey history.

And AGAIN, that wasn't even my point to support the fact that the Gophers have a large national fan base. I have met many, many, many fans from other states who follow the team. I posted an article from a BC student who was compelled to visit. It's a difficult thing to prove with Internet articles to link to.

Easter was not on Frozen Four weekend in 2003, but it was in 2009, which is the third (soon to be fourth?) highest rated FF Championship game.

The Gopher drought was 23 years, a few shy of the 30 you state. I also think that Gopher fans would have wanted to see their team become the first to win back-to-back titles in 31-years. The drop off of 1.4 million viewers from 2002 to 2003 belies your claim of a large national fan base. As for Joe's BC article about visiting Mariucci, not once did he state he was a Gopher fan, just the he wanted to see a game at the arena. Furthermore, he went not to see a men's game, but to see the BC women play the Gophers.

Sean

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Easter was not on Frozen Four weekend in 2003, but it was in 2009, which is the third (soon to be fourth?) highest rated FF Championship game.

The Gopher drought was 23 years, a few shy of the 30 you state. I also think that Gopher fans would have wanted to see their team become the first to win back-to-back titles in 31-years. The drop off of 1.4 million viewers from 2002 to 2003 belies your claim of a large national fan base. As for Joe's BC article about visiting Mariucci, not once did he state he was a Gopher fan, just the he wanted to see a game at the arena. Furthermore, he went not to see a men's game, but to see the BC women play the Gophers.

Sean

Did I ever say Joe was a Gopher fan? It was asked if fans with no Minnesota connections come to see the Gophers play. That's the best proof I could find they do. They do. A lot. And he said right at the beginning of his article that the genesis of the trip was to see the Gophers play at Mariucci, he just planned it out so that he could see the BC women play. Nice try though. And at the end he says that there will "always be a special place in my heart" for the Gophers.

Let me ask you this. Has ANYONE ever published such an admiring article about any other opposing fan base and arena? If so, I'd like to see it.

BTW - I just love how much this is eating at you . Enough that you need to nit-pick details to desperately try and prove me wrong. 23 years instead of 30 years? Really, that makes a huge difference? So what is your hypothesis as to why the TV ratings for the 2002 Championship were so high? Did people tune in to watch Maine? Do we need to compare ticket prices and attendance at Maine and Minnesota?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

So what is your hypothesis as to why the TV ratings for the 2002 Championship were so high? Did people tune in to watch Maine?

I personally think they did. The Maine story was every bit as compelling as Minnesota's that year. Long time, beloved coach dies of cancer at the start of the season. Team dedicates it's season to him. Makes it all the way to the championship game against a traditional power playing basically on home ice.

 

[SteveF]

The game was tied 1-1 until midway through the 3rd. It was not a blowout. The Gophers certainly pulled away in the second half of the 3rd, but it was a close game for a majority of the time.

He was one of the million people who didn't watch it

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

TV ratings from one year to the next can fluctuate quite a bit when we are talking such small numbers. Game 2 of the World Series this year will be credited with a rating of about 10, meaning around 11.4 million or so homes were tuned in. I can assure you next year's game 2 will not be seen in 20 million homes, even if the Dodgers and Yankees are the two teams.

Little things completely unrelated to the actual event can cause a few hundred thousand more homes to tune in. What was the weather like that weekend? If the weather was unexpectedly completely crappy throughout the Midwest or northeast that alone alone could account for an extra 350,000 homes in 2002, or bleeding off 500,000 the next year. No one knew what to expect when CBS showed the 1979 Daytona 500 live, flag-to-flag for the first time ever. The ratings success was a welcome surprise. But they credited a lot of it on the fact that the entire eastern third of the nation was experiencing a winter storm the likes of which had not been seen in decades. We got 2 feet of snow in my hometown in Southwestern MI, the entire upper Northeast was pounded worse, and much of the mid Atlantic was socked in as well with snow and freezing rain. People had nowhere to go, so more tuned in to TV.

To credit only the greatest single sports entity that ever was and their hordes of unceasingly loyal fans for the rating in 2002 shows a lack of understanding or acknowledging what are likely many relevant factors. It also fails miserably to then explain 2003. I don't recall making other arrangements in 2009 when the Phils returned to the World Series just because they won it in 2008.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

I personally think they did. The Maine story was every bit as compelling as Minnesota's that year. Long time, beloved coach dies of cancer at the start of the season. Team dedicates it's season to him. Makes it all the way to the championship game against a traditional power playing basically on home ice.

You're entitled to your opinion. While that certainly could be part of it, I don't think that's why ratings were so high. If you look at the reaction in Minnesota after the Gophers on, you'll get a pretty good idea as to how much Gopher fans were wanting that championship.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

TV ratings from one year to the next can fluctuate quite a bit when we are talking such small numbers. Game 2 of the World Series this year will be credited with a rating of about 10, meaning around 11.4 million or so homes were tuned in. I can assure you next year's game 2 will not be seen in 20 million homes, even if the Dodgers and Yankees are the two teams.

Little things completely unrelated to the actual event can cause a few hundred thousand more homes to tune in. What was the weather like that weekend? If the weather was unexpectedly completely crappy throughout the Midwest or northeast that alone alone could account for an extra 350,000 homes in 2002, or bleeding off 500,000 the next year. No one knew what to expect when CBS showed the 1979 Daytona 500 live, flag-to-flag for the first time ever. The ratings success was a welcome surprise. But they credited a lot of it on the fact that the entire eastern third of the nation was experiencing a winter storm the likes of which had not been seen in decades. We got 2 feet of snow in my hometown in Southwestern MI, the entire upper Northeast was pounded worse, and much of the mid Atlantic was socked in as well with snow and freezing rain. People had nowhere to go, so more tuned in to TV.

To credit only the greatest single sports entity that ever was and their hordes of unceasingly loyal fans for the rating in 2002 shows a lack of understanding or acknowledging what are likely many relevant factors. It also fails miserably to then explain 2003. I don't recall making other arrangements in 2009 when the Phils returned to the World Series just because they won it in 2008.

This is one thing we can agree on

Too many factors to really determine what caused either the high ratings in 2002 or the low ratings in 2003. We can only speculate based on what we know, and I just threw out some guesses. Personally, I don't think it's any coincidence that Minnesota was part of the mostly widely watched game ever. Considering the TV ratings they get in-state, the fact they hadn't won a championship in 23 years, and the national fan base they have (even if some are only casual hockey fans), it isn't too surprising to me. Hell, I bet plenty of NoDak, Wisconsin, ect fans watched just because they hate us so much and didn't want us to win. Who knows.

That said, and this isn't directed towards you, I don't know how many times I have to reiterate that this whole discussion was merely a side discussion. It probably wouldn't have become such a big discussion if some BU fan hadn't gotten so butt hurt about the fact that the 2002 TV ratings were so high.

In the end, this discussion is irrelevant to the larger point I was trying to make, and that is the fact that the NBC TV deal will likely have no significant impact on the balance of power in college hockey. The conference realignments undoubtedly will.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

I remember that the 2002 championship was a big deal, I went a friend's house and watched the game. I didn't watch the 2003 game, I don't remember why, there was something else going on, but I do remember when we all heard that the Goph's won, wherever we were. So I am one of the "casual Gopher fans" that felt the need to watch the '02 championship, but had something better to do for the '03 championship.

 

[Priceless]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

I personally think they did. The Maine story was every bit as compelling as Minnesota's that year. Long time, beloved coach dies of cancer at the start of the season. Team dedicates it's season to him. Makes it all the way to the championship game against a traditional power playing basically on home ice.

Plus we had all those fans in California tuning in

Amazing that you guys are still going at it. Let the guy from Minnesota think they're awesome...we know the truth