From: vlad@erg.sri.com (vlad)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Why hockey isn't popular in the U.S. (was Re: BOB GETS THE BELT BACK!)
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:54:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA

In article <1gioanINN378@hal.com> dougm@hal.com (Doug Moran) writes:
>In article <28032@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, gln@cs (Gary L. Newell) writes:
>
>> 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, 

Unlike the fast-paced American favorites like golf and baseball.


>>and simply
>>doesn't lend itself to over-analysis. 

As far as overanalysis potemtial goes, both soccer and hockey are the same.


>Soccer has a number of disadvantages as far as it being a television
>spectator sport (vital for popularity in the US):
>
>o) Most of the action takes place at midfield
>o) There are very few shots on goal
>o) Players spend almost as much time passing the ball backwards as
>   forwards (try explaining *that* to a novice!)

Th esame is true in intelligently played hockey games. It is hard for me to
imagine why this would present a problem to any novice with normal mental development.

>o) The field is so large, you can only see it with a long shot, making

The field is much smaller than baseball fields.

>   the action look far away and (let's face it) slow

But rocket-speed compared to baseball and golf.

>o) Most goals look like accidents more than anything else

Same in hockey.

>>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.
>
>That's why it's so popular at the youth level.  Soccer is probably the
>most fun sport to *participate in* there is.  Personally, I have
>competed in baseball, basketball, swimming, fencing, ultimate frisbee,
>track, and soccer, and soccer is far and away the most fun (although
>ultimate is pretty close).  But as far as watching it, forget it.

The reason why Americans do not like watching soccer has little to do with
the game itself. It is all due to what one grows up with. Believe me, any
European or South American fan will find soccer mre exciting than baseball.


>The main difference between soccer and hockey to me is that in hockey,
>it almost always looks like you're about to score, whereas in soccer, it
>*never* looks like you're about to score.  And when there *is* a score,
>there's frequently so many people in front of the goal, you can't tell
>who *did* score.

This is simply wishfull thinking. In reality, there more people in front of
the goal in hockey than in soccer. Moreover, with the soccer ball being
large and puck being tiny, soccer goals are easy to see while hockey goals
require 10 instant replays just to decide if the puck crossed the line.

>Hockey has other advantages:
>
>o) there are many fewer people on the rink
>o) a penalty takes a player off the ice

Yes, that's hte first thing that a fan looks in a sport: does a penalty
take players off teh ice?

>o) off-sides is *much* simpler
>o) the action is faster
>o) Hockey is thought of as a Canadian sport, while soccer is thought of
>   as a Latin American sport. 

Have you ever heard of England? Is it REALLY in South America?

 While there are plenty of Quebecois in
>   hockey, they also speak English.  Where do the best soccer players
>   come from?  Brazil, Spain, Italy, Germany, and so on.  There is a
>   language barrier, and a cultural barrier.

I am glad that all those swedish and Russian hockey players speak better
English than English and Irish soccer players.

>I think hockey *can* be made popular in the US.  How?  I don't have all
>the answers, but some ideas (for televised games, at least)
>
>o) Keep a running tally of shots-on-goal, and replay them during breaks
>   in the action.  This will help educate the fans on how to watch the
>   game.

How would emphasizing one trivial aspect of the game educate the fans? Is
that how you watch hockey: look fo rshots and disregard actual play?

>o) Explain the jargon.  What's offsides?  What's a two-line pass?  Why
>   are there delayed penalties?  What's this icing business?  What's a
>   "line"?  Why is it important?
>o) Point out the non-obvious things.  Tell folks that a new line is now
>   on the ice.  When changing on the fly, do a quick-cut to the bench to
>   *show* fans what it means -- don't just keep the camera on the
>   defenseman sitting behind his own net with the puck.  During breaks
>   in the action (especially before power plays) *explain* power play
>   strategy, both offensive and defensive.  Throw in more stats, such as
>   goalie save percentage and GAA.  (You want more baseball fans, you
>   use more stats).
>o) Personalize the players helmets.  The goalies frequently have unusual
>   helmets -- why not the players?  Encourage it.  It's tough to tell
>   those guys apart, especially when they're wearing helmets with masks.

>I think that hockey *can* be made popular in the US -- it just needs
>some thought and energy.  Hell, this old-time baseball fan has become a
>serious hockey fanatic.  If me, why not others?  Here's hoping.

I am afraid that it takes more than the above suggestions (most of them
amounting to telling announcers how to annouce) to make a difference.

Vlad

Employer disagrees
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey