I'm probably spoiled. I went to my first hockey game this year and we just happen to have one of the best teams in the NHL in the Predators. I dig it as a casual spectator, but you'll never find me purposely watching a game on TV unless it's at a bar with friends.
Live hockey is pretty damn cool to watch and I agree that it takes a ton of skill to do what they do.

ok well i never saud the thing about playing as a kid, but i guess i partially agree with it. i played baseball through college and it's by far my favorite sport to watch partly because i can relate to the experience of playing.

with hockey, you can't even play in the back yard or have some small component of the paly be a bonding experience with your dad or something. you know, you can have a catch with a baseball or football or shoot some hoops very easily. unless you have a huge paved area or a frozen pond, you aren't playing much hockey at home, and there's no fun as far as i can see in passing a puck back and forth. so no emotional connection + no personal experience + toothless russians = who cares?

Maybe but they've failed to generate the excitement that Madden and other games have when they're released. My younger cousins don't play it and I loved blades of steel and the other one that let you design your own players.

HAHA!! Awesome.

I played my fingers to the bone playing that game.

HIT THE BODY! HIT THE BODY!!

hmm... i don't know about the urban factor. by the time i was in college, there were three minor league hockey teams within 60 miles of my parents' home in rural pennsylvania. you may not see the NHL, but hockey's around in the north. of course, i also realize that's the exception.

nhl 07 is also very good. and madden has been rotten for 2 years straight.

i have to say, another problem with hockey (that football shares, but has somehow transcended) is that the atheletes are all covered up with gear and the television angle on the game is far away. that makes it very hard to see emotion in the players and to take an interest in them personally. look at the star power in the nba. that league has sucked for years, the qality of play steadily declining, and it's still more popular because it's so easy to get to know the players. if hockey couldn't turn gretzky and mario into more ubiquitous stars, then there's no one who will be the jordan of the nhl.

If this cartoon came out today, the Gretsky character would be either Tiger Woods or Dale Jr but defintely not a hockey player.

I guess it's just experience because mine is completely different than that. I live about 30 minutes form the Ocean and there are about 3 ice rinks in the area that have hockey teams that kids play on all the way up to age 18. One of my sisters friends has an 11 year old kid who is unbelievable and will probably play in college. I think the lack of ability to play is more an issue because most likely your folks didn't care about hockey either so there were no steps taken to get you to play. However, the possibility definitely exists.

Just like you could play a pick up game of football with no pads, two hand touch, etc. you can play street hockey which doesn't really require much equipment at all. It just removes the ice skating or whatever. The possibilities exist. I imagine you got into baseball because your dad really loved it, played it, or watched it on tv all the time. It's sort of the same reason I did--my older brother played and all that too.

You're probably right. I mean in context of the South & West, where it's hot as balls. I've never seen an ice skate.

BTW, I pretty much became a hockey fan playing EA Sports NHL '92, '93, and '94.

Yeah, but take the skating out of hockey and it's a completely different game. You can be as good with your stick as you want, but unless you are an excellent skater, you will completely suck at hockey.

And, in most places, parents not caring about hockey isn't so much the issue...parents not being able to afford to fork over hundreds of dollars for ice time is. If those three ice rinks near your home were free and available for pick up hockey whenever kids wanted to play, your town is most assuredly in the minority.

As a sport, I find it roughly 10,000 times more entertaining than football, baseball, basketball etc. As for why it's not popular in the US? I have no idea. Probably most of the variables people have already mentioned contribute to a degree. I suspect its mainly a cultural phenomenon.

94 is the best game ever made

I agree with a lot that's been said: doesn't translate to TV, didn't grow up playing it, etc... But I also think the media plays a huge role. American sports media just does not understand hockey the way they do other sports & nor do they care to.

None of the big "all sports guru's" who either work for or constantly appear on ESPN seem to be very hockey knowledgable. PTI, Around the Horn... stuff like that either ignores hockey or gives it a mediocre effort.

Eklund wrote a blog when the Phantoms won the AHL Calder Cup a couple years back during the NHL lockout & how people kept calling in this Philly sports radio show wanting to talk about it & the host wouldn't take the calls. He only wanted to talk Eagles football so he cut the hockey callers off.

Here in LA the countries second largest market & home to 2 teams who for a lot of the years since 1993 have out drawn the Lakers & Clippers it sucks. The cities biggest paper has 1 decent hockey writer & they reassigned her to be a columinst. So her weekly Tuesday hockey column is gone & barely any of her stories are about hockey. The two teams beat writers are absolute jokes. Kings beat writer doesn't travel anymore. And I think we end up with more from the AP story. The Kings have 1 decent beat writer who writes for an a variety of local papers owned by the same co. & I'm not sure if they spring for travel. One person on all the sports radio here has some hockey knowledge but he's teamed with guys who only dream is to wake up one morning with Kobe's dick on thier breath.

I'm sure it's the flip up in Canada. If you like the NFL, MLB or NBA you have to search out knowledgable homegrown sources[/url]

fuck yes. many hours wasted (literally) on this game in college.

You gotta love the South East Division & their style:

1. Build a blueline that can't buy a headline (Havelid, Sarich, Hedican... who are these guys?)

2. Bulk up on forwards

3. Win the Cup

4. Spend the next few seasons hanging out between 7th & 9th place

And Thrillhouse '96 is the best ever. '94 was so much better than 95 after about a month of 95 I flipped back, but 96 is the best. I even looked on E-Bay Monday & came pretty close to buying a system & NHL '96.

In the modern era, an athlete needs to be smart to be able to play pro hockey. SMARGTG NOK GOOG.

i haven't watched ATH in years, but tim cowlishaw used to be a regular and covered the stars for years and always brought up hockey when he had an opportunity. also, PTI gets roenick or hull for five good minutes during the season and maybe barry melrose for the playoffs. they surely don't cover hockey nearly as much as the other big sports, but they give it air. again, these shows are about pulling ratings and hockey doesn't pull ratings, so discussing it a lot isn't much of a draw. if i want hockey coverage, i'll watch barry melrose and john buccigross on espnews.

Does the PA guy still call for "FAAAAAAAANG FINGGGGGGGGGGGGGERS!" at every opportunity? haha

Good to see the Preds dominating this year.

ESPN covered hockey much more thoroughly when they actually carried the games; notice how ESPN has downplayed Arena Football and NASCAR for the last several years until now that they carry them they are everywhere. That's just business.

I mean the NHL ALL Star Game didnt outdraw Law & Order reruns on cable.

Also, I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the lack of black players and fans. That can't help the popularity factor here in the U.S.

Can we get affirmative action to issue a mandate forcing NHL teams to play more African-Americans?

GREATEST GOALIE EVER?


He certainly has more rings than any other.

An example of sports writers just not caring:

A few months back ESPN magazine wrote an article on how damn tough the Southeast division is, how much talent they have, and the unfortunate aspect of less people excited about the sport. They had little pictures of star players and little blurbs about why they were so special, etc. There was a picture of Brind'Amour and it said, "Rod Brind'Amour was a key factor in bringing Atlanta the cup last year". Uh, ok ESPN.

I love hockey. The year, for the first time, I decided to get the NHL Center Ice package - mainly so I could watch the Sabres. But often I'll watch other games, too.

One thing that I don't think that has been mentioned is that, with the exception of Dallas (and even that only goes back to 1990) hockey is still relatively new to the south. And, for most of the time those teams have existed, most of them haven't been good- until recently. Success does wonders for a fan base, and I think we're seeing that in Tampa and Raleigh. But the teams need to stay competitive for a while, too -people new to a sport probably aren't going to have the kind of loyalty it takes to cheer on a loser.

But I agree, the bigger issues are probably poor translation to TV (although, I don't see how anyone could argue that playoff hockey is boring to watch on TV), and the fact that the climate in the south is essentially too warm for hockey. Look at all the places in the US where hockey is popular - Michigan, New England, New York, PA, Minnesota- all cold weather places.

Plus the season is way too long. There are far too many games where they players really aren't going all out.

Though I have to say, what Damen says about LA is weird - all the success they've had over the years, 2 teams, and so little coverage. LA is just kinda weird overall, though.

Ken Dryden might disagree with you.





Ken Dryden might disagree with you.