From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Why hockey isn't popular in the U.S. (was Re: BOB GETS THE BELT BACK!)
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:34:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Dec8.042139.17681@serval.net.wsu.edu>, jjungbau@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Jim Jungbauer) writes:
> I think you're way off here, Gary.  To say that Americans don't like hockey
> because it is fast-paced is ridiculous.  

 Ummm no - it isn't. Now I will give my seasonal essay on "why hockey is not
popular in the united States" - by Gary Newell - 12/92

 There are many reasons why hockey fails to incite the passions of many American
sports fans but none so obvious than the fast-paced, continuous, unpredictable
action that is so key to the sport. Thnik about it - whhat sports are the
most popular in the United states? Baseball and Football. What do these games 
have in common? Not much in terms of the nature of the game or the amount
of physical contact, burt they do have a great deal in common when one looks
at the pace that these games are played. They are what I like to refer to as
"predictable" games. Not predictable in the sense that we can say exactly
what result the next play will have, but predictable in the sense that we know
when the play will occur and when it will stop.

 In baseball we have the classic confrontation of the pitcher and batter. We
know that when the pitcher winds up the play is about to begin, after the
pitch, if there was no hit, we are sure that nothing will happen again for 
another 20-25 seconds or so until the next pitch comes. Each "play" lasts all 
of 3 seconds unless there is a hit and then we might see a 10 second play.
Football? Same thing - the play will not start until the teams  finish the 
huddle, come to the line, and then snap the ball. The play in terms of action
is lucky to last 8 seconds and then both teams break again for a bit more
*strategy*. And with *strategy* we come to the second key reason why
US fans are not drawn to hockey.

 The frequent breaks in both baseball and football allow for "game analysis"
the likes of which perhaps only chess can out do. We have light-pen driven
devices that allow color analysts to mark-up replay after replay in 
super slow motion using helmet cams and 12 different angles over and over
again, and yet we still haven't missed a second of the "action"!! We will
be able to hear a complete thesis on why the wide-out pass didn't work 
on third down and still have time to grab another beer and be back for the
next snap. In baseball we get a *complete* run-down of the status of
the game after almost every pitch. We find out the inning, the how many
outs there are, how many men are on base, who is at bat and what the
ball and strike count is between almost every pitch of the game. We get
many chances to learn about why the outfield is pulled to the left or why
the infield is playing deep, we learn why the next pitch is likely to be
a curve ball on the outside of the plate or why the Red sox might pinch hit 
 - in short, it takes longer to discuss what might happen and what we should
expect to see happen than it takes for it to actually happen. This my friends
is strategy. Americans love it - they want analysis - don't believe me?
Look at the money these "color analysts" make - look at the name recognition
folks like John Madden have, the fame that is thrown their way? Why? 
Because they analyze for us - they make even the most clueless bozo in the
world able to feel like he "knows" what is going on. They take the mystery out
of the game for the masses and allow the informed fan to sit back arguing
with the analyst who is 2000 miles away about his analysis while allowing the
dolt to have a clue as to what is going on. But what about hockey? We can
do the same there right? I don't think so. The play can continue for
3-4 minutes at a time without a whistle. The next break is simply not
guaranteed to occur in the next 20 seconds or the next minute as it is
in baseball and football - no, it will happen when it happens. And when is
that you ask? Ah yes - the third reason Americans do not like hockey - the
learning curve.

 So you want to teach your friend about baseball and he has never seen
a game before? OK - first off try to talk only when the action is on
and let the analyst teach them for you but if you must play teacher
then focus on the pitcher vs. batter duel. Explain the concept of a 
Ball and Strike, an out and a basehit and you are far enough along to
expect them to be able to grasp most of it - face it - 3 strikes and
you are out, 4 balls and you walk and although there are exceptions
to these rules they rarely occur. Football? 10 yards and you get
to keep going but you only have 4 chances to get 10 yards - tough? No
penalties? Sure plenty of them and we get to see them played out from
the previously mentioned 15 angles with electronic inking to boot.
Pass that line get a touchdown - simple. Hockey? Not so simple. First
we have lines which unlike football are  a) different colors and b) 
not spaced evenly or in any inuitive distribution. We have circles and
dots and they appear to have inconsistent roles in the game. We need
to explain offsides to our potential new hockey fan - but of course we
need to explain offside passes as well as offsides and while we're at
it we better explain why sometimes an offsides is not an offsides. If
that isn't enough, then the wonderful concept of icing comes into play
but of course we need to explain that sometimes icing isn't icing at all 
(shorthanded) or that it can be "Waived off" again for no appearant reason
to the new fan. Our new fan is likely to miss some action until he
or she adjusts to the flow of the game. Some of you might remember the days 
when "how do we make it easier to see the puck on TV" was a major
concern of the NHL. Why? Because they found that one of the biggest complaints
of new fans was that they could not see the puck - they didn't know the likely
flow of the puck and so they spent a great deal of their time scanning the
screen for a 4 pixel black spot. 

 We often hear that alleged "wouldbe fans" would come to hockey in droves if 
only it did not have fighting. Interesting - these are the same fans who
watch 15 bench-clearing brawls in baseball, countless fights in football 
(including the frequent cheap shots) and fighting that takes place in
basketball but do not seem driven to stop watching those games. But are
these people lying about their feelings for hockey? Well, not really. What
is happening seems clear to me. They watch a game or two that they simply
do not understand. But do they understand the fights? Of course they
do - there isn't a human being beyond 6 years old who doesn't know what a
fight is. *That* they *understand* - why the whistle blew when that
guy was skating up the ice they haven't a clue about but they know that
those two guys just knocked the shit out of each other because one didn't
like the way the other one banged him - they've mastered that aspect of the
game. Screw the various lines and faceoffs and seemingly inexplicable
whistles - they are just something that happens between fights - and hey
they *know* fighting. So, what happens to this viewer? First he probably
does not enjoy the game because he frankly didn't know what the hell was
going on - the learning curve for hockey is high, the amount of outside
analysis is greatly limited by the continued flow of action (it doesn't
make much sense to go back and look at a pass that happened 3 and a half
minutes ago) while waiting for a faceoff - you barely have time to give
the current status of the game - period, score, time left etc.), and
for many americans the idea of playing a sport on ice is a bit bizarre and
foreign. So now he or she knows they didn't enjoy the game - but why?
Well it is clear isn't it? The only thing they did understand fully was
the fighting and so since this is something that they have mastered it makes
the most obvious target for their disapproval. They are not going to say - well
I watched the game for 3 hours but I don't know what is going on - nor
are they likely to admit that the reason they did not enjoy the game was due
to their own innocent ignorance of the game - instead most americans are
going to figure that they a) didn't like the game and b) saw fights which
they knew - so obviously their negative feelings *must* be due to the
fights they saw.

 Still don't buy it? OK - let's look at some other sports. Basketball is 
frequently presented as a counter to this argument. But is it really
an unpredictable game with little opportunity for endless analysis and
over examination? At one time it may have been but not any more. Watch a
game - keep track of the longest span of time which goes by without
a whistle for a foul or a time out (including TV timeouts of course). Not
much time - plenty of opportunities to get in the Bud commercial and still
hit the electronic inking interface to explain why elliott was so wide
open for that three point shot or why the double team on Jordan has been
ineffective. The action in the game is also extremely predictable, though
more similar to hockey than either baseball or football, the usual half-court
offense is focussed onto one area of the floor anwe *KNOW* that something
is going to happen in the next 15 seconds (it takes 7 or 8 to move the ball up
court - plenty of time for the color man to set up the play) - you can often
find 4 minute spans in hockey where very little happens - no shots, no
good hits, nothing but sloppy play around center ice and line changes. Not
in basketball - no sireee - plenty of shots and action and in fact we'll
put in the 24 second clock and make sure they do it even faster!! 

 Soccer - I rest my case. There are few sports with more similarities than
hockey and soccer in the United states. 10-15 years ago this country started 
a serious campaign to make soccer succeed in the united states? Well folks
it didn't work. Why? Because it is not the type of sport americans like.
It is slow paced, has unpredictable breaks in the action, and simply
doesn't lend itself to over-analysis. The scary part
for hockey is that soccer is popular at the youth level - has been for some
years now - and it is still not going anywhere. Unlike hockey, it is
cheap to play, can be played anywhere in the country and is easily organized.
And yet it hasn't gone anywhere as a national sport? No fights there folks.
Can't blame fighting for soccer's problems. So what hope does hockey
have? a) Stop looking to non-traditional areas for new support b) stop
catering to the new found political correctness in sports movement that
seems to have chosen hockey as its favorite target and c) attempt to
counter the cheap-shot stick work which has blossomed in the NHL since the
increase of non-North American players in the league.




			gln

Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey