by professor ggrib
Hockey could by a made for TV sport. It has continuous action, brutality, blood, drama, and crowd involvement. The TV coverage is not solely reliant on long distance lenses and families/grandparents are in evidence in the cheering fans attending the games. But this is not the case. Hockey predates TV by a long shot. It’s just that the two are a natural fit.
True the TV coverage has evolved greatly since the 50’s. What little I can remember of that coverage was pretty much a single camera mounted above the ice and panning back and forth to follow the puck. [Although I’m sure there was more]
Now, of course the game is a media circus, complete with pretty females and “expert” analysis. But the playoffs have given NBC what they payed for. From close games to blowouts. Major markets and hockey hot beds, Time zone coverage in prime time. Streaks, adversity, about all you can imagine.
But the games themselves have shown a parity of talent/effort. For example in round 2. Of the 4 series [2 Eastern and 2 Western] 3 of them went the full 7 games with the other going 6. So NBC paid for NHL playoff coverage and got 27 out of a possible 28 games. Translation- that’s a lot of money going into the coffers of the involved parties.
Even round 1, the Jackets did their part of playing the underdog team making good and testing the Penguins far beyond what was expected . Promoting national interest in the David/Goliath modern story.
And above all, for the hockey fan some damn good hockey