You are correct, and I was being lazy. However, as long as Nielson's is in more than 1900 households (which I'm sure it is), a 1% difference is still going to be statistically significant.
And move what goalposts, exactly? My point is that very, very, very few Americans watch hockey, as evidence by the viewership figures for the NHL's most recent deciding game relative to the deciding games in the supposed other "big 4".
Can't we all just agree that we all hate soccer...........
No disrespect to our European members on the board......... :thumb:
Indeed, few Americans watch hockey. But that's not the point you're defending. The point you're defending is "no one watches hockey anymore."
First, you post a list of top-ranked sports programming, which shows no hockey. When the Stanley Cup final draws almost the same audience as the top program on the list, you drag in the Superbowl.
That's moving the goalposts. The proposition is not that hockey outdraws the Superbowl, but that it still draws an audience. In fact, Woods is wrong. Viewership is up.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Indeed, few Americans watch hockey. But that's not the point you're defending. The point you're defending is "no one watches hockey anymore."
First, you post a list of top-ranked sports programming, which shows no hockey. When the Stanley Cup final draws almost the same audience as the top program on the list, you drag in the Superbowl.
That's moving the goalposts. The proposition is not that hockey outdraws the Superbowl, but that it still draws an audience. In fact, Woods is wrong. Viewership is up.
Actually, it wasn't
my list. My comment was on grimes'
"Americans do watch hockey." comment. I pointed out that only 2% of Americans watch hockey (and I was largely being sarcastic, as is my nature). But you called it a "cheap trick".
Fair enough I thought. Then let's put Game 6's numbers into the context of other deciding games of the major sports, rather than meaningless NASCAR races or early round NBA playoff games. And the result leads to the same conclusion - Americans - either when looking at the entire population, or when comparing the Cup winning game to the deciding matches in other "major" sports - don't watch hockey.
Hey, if you think seven million Americans watching Game 6 is evidence that Americans do watch hockey, great. I think it is evidence that seven million Americans watched Game 6, which is minuscule in a number of contexts.
Dunce that I am, I correct myself.
I retract all accusations of goalpost transportation.
cferneyh Wrote:Fair enough I thought. Then let's put Game 6's numbers into the context of other deciding games of the major sports, rather than meaningless NASCAR races or early round NBA playoff games. And the result leads to the same conclusion - Americans - either when looking at the entire population, or when comparing the Cup winning game to the deciding matches in other "major" sports - don't watch hockey.
That hockey has fewer viewers than the other major sports is not exactly breaking news, and not really relevant here. Tiger's original comment was "nobody watches hockey
anymore." My point was that the numbers for game 7 suggest otherwise, as more people were watching this year than any time in recent history.
grimes Wrote:cferneyh Wrote:Fair enough I thought. Then let's put Game 6's numbers into the context of other deciding games of the major sports, rather than meaningless NASCAR races or early round NBA playoff games. And the result leads to the same conclusion - Americans - either when looking at the entire population, or when comparing the Cup winning game to the deciding matches in other "major" sports - don't watch hockey.
That hockey has fewer viewers than the other major sports is not exactly breaking news, and not really relevant here. Tiger's original comment was "nobody watches hockey anymore." My point was that the numbers for game 7 suggest otherwise, as more people were watching this year than any time in recent history.
Its still not enough to make a blip in the radar.
But Tiger, radar blips notwithstanding, is wrong.
He did not say "no one watches hockey," he said "no one watches hockey anymore." The implication is that viewership has collapsed. This is incorrect.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:But Tiger, radar blips notwithstanding, is wrong.
He did not say "no one watches hockey," he said "no one watches hockey anymore." The implication is that viewership has collapsed. This is incorrect.
Ah, but that depends on his reference point. If he's talking about compared to last year, he is incorrect. If he is comparing it to six years ago, he is correct.
He may be comparing to December.
The funny thing is that i bet more people watch hockey than golf though...
i don't mind playing it occasionly, but good god is golf ever fucking boring to watch...it's barely even a friggin' sport!
The Darkest Canuck Wrote:The funny thing is that i bet more people watch hockey than golf though...
i don't mind playing it occasionly, but good god is golf ever fucking boring to watch...it's barely even a friggin' sport!
Not a chance. Way more Americans watch golf than hockey - especially the majors.
I heard Tiger Woods hates the theme to Hockey Night in Canada so they are going to change it!
chris Wrote:The Darkest Canuck Wrote:The funny thing is that i bet more people watch hockey than golf though...
i don't mind playing it occasionly, but good god is golf ever fucking boring to watch...it's barely even a friggin' sport!
Not a chance. Way more Americans watch golf than hockey - especially the majors.
I mean world wide, and all levels of hockey though, including amateur, and not just watching it on tv, i mean actually going to games...i still believe way more people like to watch and attend hockey than golf overall.