Stanley Cup Final: Tampa Bay Lightning vs. Chicago Blackhawks

[Boston Leaf]

I could care less who wins.. Not a fan of either team. Chicago is amazing but they have already won 2 recently ...thats enough.. Don't like TB telling opposing fans they are not welcome basically.. Where do they get the nerve to do that..

 

[hockeyfan1]

This is silly...nothing new though that hasn't been tried in similar ways by other pro sports teams before:

...a new team policy forbidding non-Lightning logos in club areas of Amalie Arena in the playoffs.

"Chase Club and Lexus Lounge ticket holders,? reads a statement on the team?s Ticketmaster site, "please note that for all 2015 NHL Playoff Games at Amalie Arena, only Tampa Bay Lightning team logos will be permitted in these areas. Fans wearing visiting team logos will be asked to remove them while in the Chase Club and Lexus Lounge areas"

...if you happen to hail from out of state, you may not be able to get into the building at all.

"Sales to this event will be restricted to residents of Florida,? reads the same statement.

?We?re not going to apologize for trying to create a home environment for our season ticket members and our team,? said Lightning VP of communications Bill Wickett.

The entire state of Florida has some insecurity about its fan bases, at least in pro sports. It?s almost become a pastime to post photos of gaping swaths of empty seats from stadiums around the state. But when the home teams are good, they draw. And they draw real fans. A lot of those fans are either new to the state or new to the team or both. The better policy is to welcome everyone to watch one of the best teams in hockey and gleefully send the opposing fans home after a good time and a bad loss. Maybe they will change their minds about their teams the way they changed their minds about their earlier residence.


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tampa-bay-lightning-restricting-tickets--opposing-logos-for-playoffs-001003954.html

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

So Tampa was something like 41-0-2 this season when leading after 2 and they coughed up the 1-0 lead.  That will be tough to come back from, I imagine it is pretty deflating.  Lots of time left though.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Chicago  2  Tampa Bay 1  Chicago leads series 1 game to 0.

Chalk this one up as the one that got away. For the Tampa Bay Lightning, this served as a hockey lesson in a Stanley Cup Final playing against a much more craftier & experiened opponent.  Ouch,  that hurt...

... but they brought the hurt on themselves by hanging back too much.  Heck, they even failed to take a shot on goal for what seemed like an eternity in the third period period before they got going again, and when they did awaken from their slumber,  Chicago's Crawford was there minding the net quite efficiently, mind you.

After Alex Kilborn's "behind the back" goal (tapping the puck without looking with his back to the side of Crawford that sent the it flying past the surprised 'keeper), in the first period, the Lightning held on to the lead until midway through the third period when the 'Hawks struck.

Vermette, then Teravainen (on a screened Tampa goaltender Ben Bishop), were the only two goals Chicago would need for the victory.  Both Blackhawk goals were scored minutes apart.  Game over.

As disappointing a loss as it was, Tampa Bay's speed proved troublesome for Chicago, as it led eventually led to Kilborn's opening goal.

(Tampa Bay coach Jon) Cooper was satisfied at his team limiting the chances against, but the exclamation point wasn?t there when it had to be.

?We had chances to put them away. We didn?t put them away,? he said. ?And once you do that, to me, that was letting them hang around.?

?We have to regroup here,? captain Steven Stamkos said. ?No one said it was going to be easy.?

No.  It won't be.

Read more about it here:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/blackhawks-rally-late-win-game-1-vs-lightning/

 

[ZBBM]

Crawford is kind of meh.

 

[L K]

Hossa pushes Bishops pad and the puck goes in and Glen Healy calls it incidental contact...

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I think Bishop had to pee.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Tampa Bay 4  Chicago 3  Series tied at 1 game apiece.

Oh, oh.  Not this time.  The Tampa Bay Lightning were not about to lose yet another game in the Stanley Cup Final at home to Chicago.  Not as in losing the lead in the second period when the 'Hawks scored two goals a few minutes apart.  Not in the third period, when Chicago came back to tie it up from a 3-2 deficit.  Not...again...

...enter the "Triplets" line as in Palat-Johnson-Kutcherov.  Thanks to Nikita Kutcherov, the Lightning were able to take the lead going into the third period,  when Kutcherov redirected a Jason Garrison shot from the point past Chicago netminder Corey Crawford.  But, it didn't end there, as the 'Hawks Brent Seabrook put one past Lightning goaltender Ben Bishop to tie the game.

Moments later, during a powerplay, defenceman Jason Garrison, who by the way had a big game for the Lightning scored from the point sending the puck sailing past Crawford and giving the Lightning the 4-3 lead, eventually resulting in the victory.

Whew.  Close game.  Both team's exchanging goals.  But Tampa Bay figured out what they needed to do and completed the task.  No more lessons to learn.

Ben Bishop, for undisclosed reasons left the game twice -- both times in the third period and the second time was for good.  Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy took up his position in net and for the remaining twelve or so minutes that he played, he foiled some Chicago scoring attempts. Vasilevskiy also made history -- first goaltender since Lester Patrick (in 1928) to have won a game in a  Stanley Cup Final in a relief role. 

Now, the series shifts to the "Madhouse on Madison" in Chicago.  No doubt that the 'Hawks will refocus and the Lightning will continue their playing game.  It'll be of particular importance for Tampa Bay to have their key players find the net, much like the way Tyler Johnson and Kutcherov did here in Game 2.

More here:
http://www.nhl.com/gamecenter/en/recap?id=2014030412

 

[Kin]

Good article from Puck Daddy about the ratings for this year's finals:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/why-don-t-more-americans-watch-the-stanley-cup-final-060821376.html

The tl:dr version is that the leagues "good" ratings are almost entirely tied to local TV numbers and that if a fanbase's local team isn't in it, regional interest is pretty small. The NHL has gotten terrifically lucky over the last ten years with who's made the cup finals and how that's resulted in ratings but if we ever see a Columbus-Arizona final or something along those lines the ratings will be terrible.

 

[ZBBM]

Good article from Puck Daddy about the ratings for this year's finals:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/why-don-t-more-americans-watch-the-stanley-cup-final-060821376.html

The tl:dr version is that the leagues "good" ratings are almost entirely tied to local TV numbers and that if a fanbase's local team isn't in it, regional interest is pretty small. The NHL has gotten terrifically lucky over the last ten years with who's made the cup finals and how that's resulted in ratings but if we ever see a Columbus-Arizona final or something along those lines the ratings will be terrible.

Two quick thoughts;

1.  Who cares?  Aside from Bettman et al. So the NHL will never be the NBA. So it remains a regional sport with passionate fans. That's ok. Why is GW so worked up? 

2.  He glosses over the recent final that totally undermined his thesis:  LA v NJ. Two biggest markets in the US.


Actually a third thought: the problem (if it is one) is indeed the stupid length of the season. Duh, Gary.

 

[Kin]

1.  Who cares?  Aside from Bettman et al. So the NHL will never be the NBA. So it remains a regional sport with passionate fans. That's ok. Why is GW so worked up?

Because it's bad for the sports financial health going forward? Because the worse and worse the ratings are and the less profitable the package is for NBC the more and more likely it is they'll have influence on things like scheduling?

2.  He glosses over the recent final that totally undermined his thesis:  LA v NJ. Two biggest markets in the US.

NJ is only one of the "biggest markets in the US" if you assume NYC hockey fans are going to be watching the Stanley Cup finals because the Devils are in them, an assumption these numbers paint as pretty far fetched even if common sense didn't do that for you.

The NJ vs. LA series was one between one team that isn't really in a huge market and doesn't have a big regional following(the Devils) and another team that is in a big market but doesn't have much penetration in that market(the Kings are probably the 8th or 9th biggest team in the LA market) and without a big regional following. 

Phoenix is a big market too but it's not just about the size of the market. It's about how many people will actually watch. You're kidding yourself if you don't think this is going to be of significant concern to networks if we start getting less idea matchups in the finals.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Good article from Puck Daddy about the ratings for this year's finals:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/why-don-t-more-americans-watch-the-stanley-cup-final-060821376.html

The tl:dr version is that the leagues "good" ratings are almost entirely tied to local TV numbers and that if a fanbase's local team isn't in it, regional interest is pretty small. The NHL has gotten terrifically lucky over the last ten years with who's made the cup finals and how that's resulted in ratings but if we ever see a Columbus-Arizona final or something along those lines the ratings will be terrible.

Two quick thoughts;

1.  Who cares?  Aside from Bettman et al. So the NHL will never be the NBA. So it remains a regional sport with passionate fans. That's ok. Why is GW so worked up? 

2.  He glosses over the recent final that totally undermined his thesis:  LA v NJ. Two biggest markets in the US.


Actually a third thought: the problem (if it is one) is indeed the stupid length of the season. Duh, Gary.

It's June, nearly mid-June and we're still with a Stanley Cup Final.

The playoffs should have been over by the end of May-first week of June (at the latest).  That would also mean shortening the season (reducing the number of games overall), having the season finish by mid-March, and the playoffs begin the before the end of the last week in March.

That way by the time the month of April arrives, we're way into the first round already and so on and so forth.

I would welcome some sort of change in terms of the season and playoff schedule per se.

 

[Kin]

The idea that this is an issue related to the length of the season is absurd. He's talking about the variations in ratings from one year to the next while the length of the season remains largely constant. The Philly-Chicago series wasn't played in a 70 game season. The ratings this year, driven hugely by Chicago and the midwest corridor, are good.

 

[hockeyfan1]

The idea that this is an issue related to the length of the season is absurd. He's talking about the variations in ratings from one year to the next while the length of the season remains largely constant. The Philly-Chicago series wasn't played in a 70 game season. The ratings this year, driven hugely by Chicago and the midwest corridor, are good.

My comment was not referring to the article but just on a general viewpoint of the number of games played regardless of the playoffsratings, etc., just stating about shortening the season a bit. 

Strictly speaking, would there be any harm in doing so?

 

[ZBBM]

1.  Who cares?  Aside from Bettman et al. So the NHL will never be the NBA. So it remains a regional sport with passionate fans. That's ok. Why is GW so worked up?

Because it's bad for the sports financial health going forward? Because the worse and worse the ratings are and the less profitable the package is for NBC the more and more likely it is they'll have influence on things like scheduling?

2.  He glosses over the recent final that totally undermined his thesis:  LA v NJ. Two biggest markets in the US.

NJ is only one of the "biggest markets in the US" if you assume NYC hockey fans are going to be watching the Stanley Cup finals because the Devils are in them, an assumption these numbers paint as pretty far fetched even if common sense didn't do that for you.

The NJ vs. LA series was one between one team that isn't really in a huge market and doesn't have a big regional following(the Devils) and another team that is in a big market but doesn't have much penetration in that market(the Kings are probably the 8th or 9th biggest team in the LA market) and without a big regional following. 

Phoenix is a big market too but it's not just about the size of the market. It's about how many people will actually watch. You're kidding yourself if you don't think this is going to be of significant concern to networks if we start getting less idea matchups in the finals.

You seem to have fallen prey to the widespread and unquestioned assumption that, unless whatever you're engaged in is growing, it must be failing.  Cancer wards around the world are filled with people who will tell you it ain't necessarily so.

The league is in good financial shape right now and there's no inherent reason to think it can't be viable at that level indefinitely, as a regional sport.

As for your second point, perhaps you failed to notice that "L.A. v. New York" was cited as an example of a successful matchup in the same paragraph.  Same TV market as L.A. v. N.J.  Did all the folks in L.A. suddenly decide to watch the Kings that time because they were matched up against the Rangers (which GW elsewhere cites as being NOT an example of a Yankees-like draw) instead of the Devils?  Of course not.  GW gets it right that hockey IS a regional game, but the reason the ratings for the final aren't as high as for other sports has to do more with the fickleness of nontraditional markets than matchups per se.

And your comment that there isn't an issue with the length of the season misses the obvious possibility that the ratings just might be higher across the board if the final were played during a time of the year when people in the US have at least a recollection of winter, icy surfaces, etc.

 

[Kin]

You seem to have fallen prey to the widespread and unquestioned assumption that, unless whatever you're engaged in is growing, it must be failing.  Cancer wards around the world are filled with people who will tell you it ain't necessarily so.

Well, the "Worst Analogy of the Year" award is still months away but already we have some strong early contenders.

The league is in good financial shape right now and there's no inherent reason to think it can't be viable at that level indefinitely, as a regional sport.

That "Good financial shape" is in large part due to a TV rights bubble that's already showing signs of popping. Sportsnet is killing themselves trying to increase ratings right now and regional rights are more or less tapped out. Showing hockey on TV can't be a loss leader for the networks, it doesn't attract that many eyeballs. It acually has to be profitable programming for rights fees to stay where they are, let alone grow.

As for your second point, perhaps you failed to notice that "L.A. v. New York" was cited as an example of a successful matchup in the same paragraph.

Nope. I noticed. The whole premise of the article is that, as with this year, even having one team in a large market with good penetration and good regional following can drive ratings into "good" territory. Rangers/Kings has that. Kings/Devils doesn't.

The Rangers not being "like the Yankees" is specifically a reference to their status among neutral NHL fans, not in NYC in particular. The Rangers are a huge draw among the Rangers fans, of which there are many.

Seriously, are you suggesting that the Devils in the SCF is a huge draw among Rangers fans?

  Same TV market as L.A. v. N.J.

Actually, traditionally Newark isn't considered part of the NYC TV market.

And your comment that there isn't an issue with the length of the season misses the obvious possibility that the ratings just might be higher across the board if the final were played during a time of the year when people in the US have at least a recollection of winter, icy surfaces, etc.

That's a lovely supposition but it's part of a different conversation.

 

[L K]

Ben Bishop is getting lit up high glove side  because 1/3 of his goals are scored against glove side in the playoffs.  Glen Healy is an unbelievable moron.

 

[L K]

Also it's pretty clear that it wasn't the runs that was affecting Bishop at this point.  He's hobbling on the ice and comes out for the 2nd period.

 

[dappleganger]

Ben Bishop is getting lit up high glove side  because 1/3 of his goals are scored against glove side in the playoffs.  Glen Healy is an unbelievable moron.

True dat.

 

[L K]

Saad runs over Bishop and it gives Tampa a 5 on 3.