Ratings Don't Need Your Validation

While the NHL was off last Saturday night, the events of that evening had to make Gary Bettman and a few NBC executives shudder. Golden State beat back Oklahoma City to force a Game 7 that wouldn't just go against their Stanley Cup Final Game 1 broadcast on NBC, it took out most of a captive Bay Area audience that would now watch the Warriors instead of the Sharks. And the early numbers are not promising: hockey scored a 2.8 rating on NBC (not terrible by any stretch, only series with the Blackhawks did better), but Thunder/Warriors did 11.2 on TNT, which is coincidentally the highest ever NBA rating on cable.

Hockey fans, as defensive as any group of fans this side of soccer, are naturally scrambling to find explanations for this. From talking about NBC's total ownership of hockey coverage in the US to demographics and everywhere in-between, hockey fans are trying to ascertain why such a massive disparity exists between two sports that were once about dead equal in popularity. Something this stark only elucidates a gap that has been well known, but hasn't really been able to be seen in this clear detail.

Part of this difference has to do with the way the sport is marketed in this country. The focus is put on rivalries, which isn't a bad decision because the NHL is filled with great rivalries. But often times those rivalries are focused on to a point of over-exposure, even if those games and series are worth the wait. Adam Silver's NBA on the other hand doesn't need teams or markets in the Finals, because his league only needs certain players in the big show to succeed. A decade ago, Golden State and Cleveland were both basketball wastelands, but thanks to clever marketing and jaw-dropping performances, not anymore. There would be panic in some circles if Memphis and Toronto played in the NBA Finals, but once a new force builds in the league, they quickly find a way to market it to the public and make sure they find something to latch onto in case they get big.

Gary Bettman's NHL has hitched their wagon so tightly to rivalries and certain teams (also by extension, certain markets), that if those markets are gone, so too go the ratings. While the early and mid-2000's were a wasteland of small-market American teams against smaller market Canadian teams, or series like New Jersey-Anaheim, the ratings on ABC were better on average than they are now on NBC. During the dead-puck era, and when the Finals were almost exclusively blowouts, FOX did better, though not by much. The best NBC average for the Final is 3.3 when the Blackhawks played the Bruins in 2013. ABC's worst since they picked up the Finals in 2003 was a 6.2 in 2007. The NHL has always been playing catch-up, and will continue to do so.

Hockey's relative struggles in the US can also be attributed to demographics, and of course the sheer ease with which anyone can play basketball that's not even close to present in hockey, but that doesn't translate entirely to TV ratings. While this Stanley Cup Final is full of stars on both sides, the series is still pushed as Sharks-Penguins, not Thornton-Crosby, etc. Golden State-Cleveland is still that, but it's more Steph-Lebron, and there you have a winner. The NHL's small cadre of superstars all exist in major markets, and beyond that it seems like the stars on the other teams across the league are left in the cold. If the Raptors made the NBA Finals, NBA executives wouldn't be hugely pleased, but they'd still find a way to market DeMar DeRozan and Kyle Lowry to make up for it.

But the NHL's biggest problem is keeping fans of teams who aren't in the Final (and the rest of the playoffs) to stick with it after their team is eliminated. Thunder fans, though by in large probably angry with basketball, will still watch Cavs-Dubs, as will fans in New York, LA, Boston, etc. NHL teams have such tribal fanbases that it has become accepted that some fans like their team well beyond like the league and the sport of hockey. Sharks-Penguins is a hockey purist's dream Stanley Cup Final, with storylines everywhere, fast paced up and down play and engrossing action from start to finish, but yet it seems that many in Chicago, Boston, Detroit, New York, etc. are missing out. How does the NHL fix this problem? It's a riddle they've yet to come close to solving. Once they crack it, maybe then the NHL's ratings will finally show some upward growth.

While there is concern in the corridors of the NHL's New York offices about the ratings dilemma, they're certainly not complaining about the money they're making. Safe to say, the NHL has never made a financial windfall like they're currently stuffing into their coffers, indifferent TV ratings aside. Hockey as a sport has always been outstripped in popularity by baseball, basketball and football, and some of that stems from the days when it was basically impossible to watch the Stanley Cup Final on TV. But the NHL has yet to capitalize on the momentum it has seen from big market teams becoming dominant of late and using that to market not only the markets, but the stars everywhere else too. It's only upward momentum of late was the John Scott controversy they created themselves and tried desperately to kaibosh not knowing what they had.

Maybe NBC and NBCSN's ratings will go up as Sharks-Penguins continue because of the teams involved and the style of play, but everyone has a feeling as to what the ceiling is going to be. No amount of griping from hockey's die-hards is going to change what already was inevitable.

In other words, if you want casual fans to watch, pray for overtime and a long series, which has been the formula for the Stanley Cup Final forever.

Ads on Jerseys! Cue Moral Outrage!

Now that the Philadelphia 76ers have officially become the first "Big Four" American sports team to have an ad on their jersey, the fears of so many sports fans have come home to roost. "Jerseys are sacred, and shouldn't be defiled by sponsorships", they cry. "Ads are everywhere else around us, why should they be on jerseys?" they ask. Not only was this coming for years, especially under the stewardship of the more progressive Adam Silver, ads on jerseys aren't as sacrilegious as everyone might have expected.

First, let's take a look at the new StubHub patch adorned on the Sixers classic look:

We're partnering with @Stubhub as our official jersey patch sponsor! #StubHubSixers

[ 👕 » https://t.co/RQEXl0BPUj ] pic.twitter.com/95jofobxj8

— Philadelphia 76ers (@Sixers) May 16, 2016

The patch is as small as advertised, and actually blends in quite nicely with the color scheme of the jersey. Unlike with soccer kits, where the sponsor is the most noticeable logo, on these jerseys they are an accessory, adornment to what you actually want to see, which is the team name and number. After long enough, most fans will either accept that the patch is there, or not even consciously notice the ad because it's become part of the uniform.

StubHub is paying the Sixers $5 million per season for this ad patch, which is quite a lot of money for an incredibly small rectangle most fans won't notice unless the broadcasts do a close-up on any given player. $5 million is not an insignificant amount of money, even in an NBA where the salary cap is going to explode because of an influx of TV revenue. While the ad money will probably help the bottom line look a bit nicer, this new money could easily be used to spend more on players and coaches, lower ticket and concession prices and spend on arena upgrades without fleecing taxpayers for it.

There are complains that some teams will be able to goose even more money out of sponsors for this patch because certain teams are bigger names than other. The Lakers will be able to charge more for an ad than say the Hornets, for example, and that's not surprising. That's been the case in soccer for years, but unlike in soccer, where teams sell almost everything individually, in the NBA, most revenue is still collected and pooled together and distributed evenly, which combined with the soft cap, is supposed to level the playing field. Ad revenue from a jersey patch isn't going to put the Lakers or Knicks over the top because they already are swimming Scrooge McDuck style in a vat of gold, where the ad revenue could make a significant difference for a team like Indiana, Milwaukee or Utah.

American sports were always outliers when it came to ads on jerseys, as the rest of the world certainly lapped our big four in that regard. It was always a race against time as to when Pandora's Box would have to be opened, because even with the "sanctity of the jersey", money always talks. The concept angers more people than how the ads have actually been executed, especially since future leagues will go the NBA's route with the patch rather than the full adornment common in soccer because in business, copycats rule all.

So the day has finally come when ads have spoiled the protected surface of the American sports jersey. Society is ruined and the sports-industrial complex in this country is crumbling beneath our feet. Or, by December of 2017, no one will even notice the ads and many will wonder why it took so long for this "dipping a toe in the pool" to come around in the first place.

Change is inevitable, and with the amount of changes that come to sports uniforms anyway, why shouldn't we be surprised that ads come with it? Any way to make money is a good way to make money and stay ahead.

If the abject terror that are the Philadelphia 76ers see it, why shouldn't everyone else?