2009 Stanley Cup final: Game 7 may have hit record ratings

by James Mirtle on Jun 14, 2009 5:45 AM CDT Comment 13 comments

More photos » by Carlos Osorio - AP

I'm no television ratings expert, but NBC's preliminary numbers from last night strike me as incredible, perhaps the best ever for a nationally televised NHL game in the U.S.

Here's ratings guru Mark Berman:

NBC reigned supreme on this second Friday in June, with the seventh (and final) game of The Stanley Cup Finals at an above-average 7.51 million viewers and a 3.0 rating/11 share from 8-11 p.m. in primetime. Personally, I have no recollection of a hockey game ever rating this high.

Neither do I. I've long heard (and believed) that Game 7 of the 1994 finals between the Rangers-Canucks was the top rated NHL game of all-time in the U.S., but I don't recall it being that high. That series was broadcast on two networks in the U.S. so the numbers were split, but if anyone has more information on that total, it'd certainly be relevant.

TV by the Numbers' Bill Gorman has a look at the average U.S. ratings for the finals dating back to 1995, but keep in mind that's for the total series. What I haven't yet seen is the highest individual game total.

A quick look at the ratings for each game this season indicates the average was about 4.8 per game, a number that's dropped down due to low ratings for Game 3 and 4 on Versus:

Game	Viewers
1	4.51
2	5.33
3	2.96
4	3.45
5	4.28
6	5.45
7	7.51
Avg.	4.78

Even with the Versus numbers included, those are the best finals ratings since ABC had the games back in 2002 (for three games of the Red Wings-Hurricanes series).

Here's Steve Lepore from Puck The Media on the Game 7 totals:

...the NHL brass will look at this as one of those watershed moments for hockey, where more people have watched a game than in years. When the CBC numbers get added in, it is likely the game will cross the 10 million mark, making it the first hockey game since the 2002 Gold Medal Match between the U.S. and Canada to do so.

We'll have to wait to see the final numbers, but early indications are they'll be big news when they're released.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Game 7 1994 Finals

It seems unlikely that anyone can arrive at a definitive number of viewers: the ESPN ratings were 5.2 but an ESPN rating point represents fewer viewers. The closest I can come on that is that in 2001 a ESPN rating point represented 864,000 viewers: it almost certainly was less in 1994. Then you have to subtract the fact that the ESPN broadcast was blacked out in NYC and Washington State. The MSG rating was 16.2 for NYC; a NYT article from that period says that represented 1.1 million viewers, Wikipedia says 1.6 million.

All of that doesn’t look 7.5 million to me. The US population in 1994 was 265 million, 15% less than today and there were probably fewer homes with tv (certainly fewer with cable) so that would have to be factored in.

by Big Picture Guy on Jun 14, 2009 6:38 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Any clue why a ratings point isn't universally a point?...

I have never heard this difference.

Mizzourah.net

by Big Head on Jun 14, 2009 8:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fewer people have cable and I would guess that’s based on the lower pct. of households with potential viewers. Updating that info, I found an SI article from 1998 which says

each ESPN rating point represents 760,000 households

by Big Picture Guy on Jun 14, 2009 9:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Hey maybe Hockey is finaaly on the rise!

by PensFanInMaryland on Jun 14, 2009 10:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

yep.

of course! and they never could have done it without shutting down the big screen at the mellon or public viewing at the Joe ;)

by Guyle on Jun 14, 2009 10:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

Yeah… that was smart thinking, eh? I read somewhere that it helped them get a .01 of a rating point…

by MarkJoel66 on Jun 14, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does this mean Fox Sports Net will let their national people talk about hockey again?

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on Jun 14, 2009 11:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Doubt it

Fox sports people can’t follow the puck unless it has the blue comet thingie on it…

by MarkJoel66 on Jun 14, 2009 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was told once that the rule for Fox Sports is, “no Gretzky, no hockey.” I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on Jun 14, 2009 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They should be all over this Coyotes story.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jun 14, 2009 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We certainly know ESPN won’t.

They’re too busy giving attention to the NBA on their OFF DAYS.

"Hey! Farmboy! Maybe you can't count, but there are four of us and one of you."

"So get some more guys and then it'll be an even fight."

by Afino on Jun 14, 2009 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

aint that some bs. i felt really really good shooting an email to the turico and vanpelt show ripping them for the simple fact that thier are giving airtime to a snoozer of a nba plaoffs when game 7 in the nhl was argueably one of the best hockey games ever played. its pathetic.

" Lord Stanley, etch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009

by oldtimehockey09 on Jun 14, 2009 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs