Where are the (hockey) stars?

In the Dallas Morning News (5/10/2003) hockey writer Tim Cowlishaw asks, "...where are stars?" He posits that the absence of star players in the Stanley Cup playoff games is a disaster for the NHL playoff ratings and goes on to say that the NHL needs to open up the offense to attract viewers.

Where are the stars? On ESPN and ABC, they think they are in the booth talking about anything but the game. It's like they are saying, "hockey is so hard to follow, the fans must tune in to hear us talk." No, not really. As a fan, I want to see the game on the ice, and I want to hear about the game that is on the ice, not the game that the broadcasters think should be on the ice or might have been on the ice, or whatever.

Cowlishaw does have a point about the game needing more scoring from the star players. As he said to me in an email:

They need more genuine scoring chances from great players (Modano, etc.) being allowed to skate and stickhandle. The only way to score goals today with goalies looking as if they weight 350 pounds is to throw it at the net and hope it hits off something. Ugly goals.

Anaheim's Jean-Sebastien Giguere is listed as 6'0" 185, Dallas' Marty Turco is listed as 5'11" 183, but in net they look more like Shaquiel O'Neal and Nick Van Exel. If Jiggy is wearing legal equipment, either Marty needs a new equipment contract or the rules do need to change. Actually, Marty's more athletic style may require lighter, smaller or less restrictive equipment than Jiggy's positional style, but even Patrick Roy and Ed Belfour don't wear pads quite like that.

More offense isn't the key to improving the sport, more excitement is. More real scoring chances would help but scoring alone won't do it. Seeing the puck stop in the net isn't very exciting if you don't know how it got there and after the puck stops, all goals look pretty much the same so 1 or 10, the excitement is the same. A 1-0 game can be a lot more exciting and interesting to watch than an 11-10 game and certainly more exciting than a 10-1 game. In the NHL all star game, you know they are going to score, the only question is how much. But it is only exciting if you can see it and know how it happens. In a low scoring game, excitement comes from the suspense of not knowing who is going to score first (if at all). It is a different kind of excitement, but no less thrilling to watch.

If the NHL wants to attract more TV viewers, it needs to present a product that is attractive to viewers. Hockey is not the easiest sport to watch on TV. The puck is small and travelling at high speed. And compared to other sports, so are the players. The result is action that is hard to follow.

I never watched hockey until 1998 when I was fortunate to see two games at the Corel Centre as a guest of Corel Corp. while on a business trip to Ottawa. The game is much more visible live than on TV because you can see the whole rink and once you understand the game (and there is nothing like watching your first game with a bunch of Canadians to help understand the game), you can "read" the ice and anticipate the puck. It make the action so much easier to follow.

Hockey on TV suffers from two things: Static, "traditional" camera placements, and broadcasters that often seem more interested in discussing NHL news around the league and their own careers than what is happening on the ice.

Camera placement in hockey mimic the placement in football and basketball. Both are slower sports. Football is not continuous action so there is more time for instant replay. Basketball, like hockey, is continuous action, but the ball is much bigger than the puck, doesn't move nearly as fast and is thus easier to follow. Some serious consideration needs to be given to creative camera placement. Overhead would be good. Modern technology allows split-screen broadcasts and a three screen arrangement of overhead view of the rink on one side with one camera following the puck and one focused on the goalie on the other might be something worth considering even though it would be most effective on large screen HDTV.

The broadcasters are another matter. Their role should be to tell the viewer what is happening on the ice. The NHL should hire Dallas Stars broadcasters Ralph Strangis and Darrel Reagh as consultants to develop and train all hockey broadcasters. The fact that Ralph and "Razor" simulcast TV and radio makes their games calls much more effective. They describe the action. The viewer knows what is going on and why. Technology could help here as well. I have found that the radio broadcast often runs 3-7 seconds ahead of the TV broadcast. As a result, I turn down the TV and listen to the radio. I get the same call, but since it comes ahead of the play, I know what is about to happen rather than what just happened. It makes a big difference. Perhaps the NHL should require 5 second video delay in all broadcasts. That alone would make the action easier to follow. And if the action is easier to follow, there will be more fans to follow it.