From: dougm@hal.com (Doug Moran)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Why hockey isn't popular in the U.S. (was Re: BOB GETS THE BELT BACK!)
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:45:13 GMT
Reply-To: dougm@hal.com (Doug Moran)
Distribution: na
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.; Campbell, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gizmo.hal.com
In-reply-to: vlad@erg.sri.com (vlad)

In article <1992Dec14.215409.16057@erg.sri.com>, vlad@erg (vlad) writes:
>In article <1gioanINN378@hal.com> dougm@hal.com (Doug Moran) writes:
>
>>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.

On the contrary -- compare how much time the puck spends in the center
zone in an average hockey game with the same thing in a soccer game.  I
contend that most of the time in a hockey game, you are either working
for a shot in the offensive zone, defending against same, or setting up
for a rush up the ice.  And the transition is much faster -- closer to
basketball than hockey.

>>o) The field is so large, you can only see it with a long shot, making
>
>The field is much smaller than baseball fields.

Actually, they are pretty much the same size.  But on TV, you're not
looking at the entire field, you're only looking at the pitcher and the
batter.  The perception for a TV viewer is that the field is immense.

>>o) Most goals look like accidents more than anything else
>
>Same in hockey.

I disagree strongly.  I have seen hundreds of goals scored in soccer (I
played for twelve years, and have watched rounds of World Cup
competition on the tube), and the vast preponderance look accidental.
In hockey, they look much more intentional.  The wrap-around and the
slap-shot, particularly.

>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.

I played soccer from the time I was 8, my brother from the time he was
five.  The same with all my soccer-playing friends.  And yet, *none* of
them watch soccer on TV.  On the other hand, I didn't see a complete
hockey game until last year.  The same with a number of my friends.  And
now we *do* watch hockey.

>>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.

Perhaps you're right about the number of players in front of the goal --
I would need to do more research.  And you're *certainly* right about
the puck size -- it's a big disadvantage.  However, my main point is,
much of the action in hockey takes place close to a goal, giving the
appearance of imminent scoring.  In soccer, this is not the case.
>>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?

Does a penalty give a team a *numerical* player advantage?  In soccer,
you get a free kick.  In football, yardage is awarded.  In basketball,
you get a free throw or an inbound pass and a change of possesion (oh
boy!).  In hockey, you get a man advantage.

>>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?

The key here is "thought of."  We're talking perception again -- when a
lot of Americans think "soccer" they think Latin American.  At least the
ones *I* talk to.

> 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 will refrain from the obvious joke here.

>>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?

How was basketball made popular in the last 20 years?  Look at the rule
changes:  addition of a 24-second clock, no zone defenses, addition of a
three point line, and so on.  All to emphasize scoring, which is what
American TV audiences (presumably) want.  And now, basketball is
enormously popular.

So, rather than suggest that scoring changes be introduced, I suggest
that you show the novice fan the shot count.  Show replays of the shots,
too.  Compare missed shots with ones that went in.  And so on.  If it's
true that American fans want more offense, what can we give them?  I
don't want to change the scoring, so show them the shot count.  That's
*some* offense, anyway.

>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.

Do you have some suggestions?  I threw some out; what are yours?
-- 
    Doug Moran        | A worldwide shortage of #2 pencils has left many tech
   dougm@hal.com      | writers unable to take notes or doodle during meetings,
 {...}!hal.com!dougm  | forcing them to pay attention or end the meeting by
 HaL Computer Systems | flinging live poisonous insects at the other attendees.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey