BleacherCoaches.com

Your argument that the NHL is just as popular as the NBA is ludicrous. There is a reason why the NHL is on the Vs. network. There is a reason why the NHL gets terrible TV ratings. You are basing your entire argument on attendance. This is only one measure of popularity. Here are some others:

1. International audience. The NBA has a huge international audience in places like China and Europe. People all over the world know who Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, and Yao are.

2. TV audience. Your argument that you don't know any body who watches regular season NBA does not really prove anything. The NBA is very big in urban areas. I grew up watching mostly college basketball. When I became friends with some guys from Philly, I realized that they only watched the NBA, even during the regular season. Did you realize that a regular season game this year got higher ratings than any game of last year's MLB National League Championship.

3. Player marketing. Check out the highest selling jerseys. You see a lot of NBA guys and NFL guys. Where are the hockey guys?

Bottom line: Hockey is a niche market sport. It is popular in Canada and some parts of the northern US. On a scale of sports in the US, it is probably fourth, but it is a distant fourth.

I almost forgot. Your comment about the Stanley Cup being the greatest trophy in sports is bogus. Wouldn't the greatest trophy be the one that is most sought after? If so, the two greatest would have to be an Olympic gold medal and the FIFA World Cup. Far more people aspire to those to than any other. In the US, it would have to be the Lombardi Trophy. You might be right in Canada, but they also like the Iditarod and doesn't Curling have some trophy.

Learn your facts. The Iditarod is an American race. Your argument doesn't hold much water either way

Oh how quickly we forget that Gary Thorne and Bill Clement used to do hockey broadcasts for ESPN every weekend and the playoffs were largely hosted on ESPN before the lockout. The NHL did what it needed to do after it lost a lot of its fan-base and financial worth after losing a whole season. They signed a T.V. deal with VS., which is by far NOT the best station in the world, but it's a start. ESPN was in the contract bidding process in 2005 and decided to pull out. What would have happened had they stayed in and gained those rights. I bet they're wishing they would have right now with Pittsburgh and Detroit in the Finals. You watch and see if those games on NBC aren't some of the highest ranked in the week if this series goes deep.

How can you bash the NHL for being on VS. when the most prominent game of these NBA playoffs have been on TNT? I'm sure TNT is known for it's long history of great sporting events throughout it's lifetime, but that's not much better than having the playoffs on VS. Watch and see if hockey doesn't take off after this year. Look for more and more games to be on NBC and when the VS. contract runs out in a few year, see if ESPN doesn't try to take hold of some of that cookie.

P.S. the Buffalo-Pittsburgh game set a 12 year old record amidst the Florida-Michigan Outback Bowl game. That's pretty good, my friend.

Flybynight, I did not say it was Canadian, I said Canadians probably were into it. It was also said sarcastically along with the curling comment. When you say an argument doesn't hold water, you should actually attack part of the argument. I'm not sure you are mentally ready for bleachercoaches.

Ham, you actually make a decent argument and I appreciate that. Now, the Buffalo game that your referred to got a 5 share whereas the Lakers-Suns game got a 12 share. That means the Lakers-Suns game on ESPN drew more than twice as many viewers as the hockey game. Furthermore, the hockey game was a special event played outside. The Lakers game was just a regular season game with Shaq playing his first game in Phoenix.

I bash VS. because it is not offered on basic cable and satellite packages and TNT is. VS definitely is not on par with ESPN, which carries the other NBA games. As for the Detroit-Pittsburgh final, that is intriguing, but a Celtics-Lakers final would definitely trump it.

The real way to settle the argument is to look at what is covered by major media outlets. The NBA always takes precedence.

Nice try with China and Europe. Where do hockey players come from, Wildcat? What's the biggest sport in Russia? Basketball is big in Yugoslavia and Italy.

I'm not even saying that the NHL is "better". I'm just saying that for YOU to claim that the NBA is so much more superior is failed logic, based on nothing but "media outlets". What media outlet? NBC? They show hockey games too. TNT and VS? Both stations have the worst commentating in their respective sport. TSN is just as big in Canada as ESPN is in the United States. It might even be bigger.

And then the claim of "well the NBA is bigger in urban centers". Do you really need me to explain this? "inner-city youth" in NYC play basketball. Those city-kids in other places play hockey. There is no difference here.

I'll tell you what: I think you'd agree that NYC is a basketball city, right? Pair the Knicks attendance records with a traditional hockey city like Montreal or somebody.

All I am saying is that the NHL is doing better and is heading, slowly, in a good direction, but should have played-up more to the Canadian fans who make up a big portion of their fanbase.

As for the NBA... is there any more evidence of how terrible a league is other than this: a team who is the worst team in the NBA gets 2 players and they go from last place to championship FAVORITES within a span of like 6 months. Name me another league where that is possible. That does NOT show strength, that shows SEVERE weakness of your franchises.

If nothing else, at least hockey is a team sport. If you watched so much college ball as you claim you have, then there is no way in hell you can watch today's NBA and tell me that it is quality basketball. There are TWO teams, Wildcat!

Did I say that the Stanley Cup was the greatest trophy in sports, or did I say this:

There is no trophy in sports better than the Stanley Cup

I meant aesthetically. All the players names are on the cup!!!! Each player gets to keep it for a day! Pantera put a dent in it!

Ok back on subject...

The Lakers looked like true Champions last night. Not only did they provide the offense that we are all accustomed to seeing (over 100), but they also pushed the pedal when they needed to (9 points in last 1:30 of the 1st Half). That last surge was a real crusher.

Odom played like a beast all night, 20 points, 12 rebs, 4 blocks. Duncan scored half the points he had in game 1 and really looked out of tune all night, like the rest of the team.

The Lakers defense, yes thats right, defense, really looked strong (holding the defending champs to 71 points on 33% shooting night and 6/23 behind the arch.)

It will be interesting to see how the Spurs mix things up on Sunday. The Spurs have opened the last series 0-2 and ended up comming back for the win(although the Hornets didnt have the MVP, Odom+Pau, nor the experience these Lakers have). It will also have to see if a few nights off will give them back their legs that have been missing since the opening half of game 1.

I did not see Game Two, but the Spurs looked pretty good last night. I kind of expected it because their backs were against the wall. Game Four tonight is really important because if the Lakers win, the series is effectively over, but if the Spurs win, I think it will go seven games.

The Celtics-Pistons series is also looking like a seven gamer. I like the Pistons because of their experience at this point. For all of the greatness that Garnett, Pierce and Allen have, they have never done much in the playoffs.

TAE, I don't know how you can honestly argue that the NHL is on a par with the NBA. I actually agree with your comment about the aesthetics of the Stanley Cup. The BCS should take a page out of their book and get rid of the crystal football.

You keep talking about Canada. Canada is not highly populated. I will stipulate that Canadians prefer hockey. As for the US and the rest of the world, basketball is a bigger game.

If you watch the NBA now, it is much more similar to college basketball than it was ten years ago. You no longer see one-on-one isolations the way you did. Watch the way the Lakers move the ball around.

As for moving two players and going from worst to first, that is possible because basketball teams rely on less players. Most teams only play 8-10 guys per game with the stars getting lots of minutes. Individual players are extremely important. This is why the draft is so important. This is why teams would tank if there was not a lottery.

If I had to rank the best to worst American leagues in terms of # of teams versus dispersion of talent, I would say this:

1. NFL, no doubt
2. NHL
3. NBA
4. MLB

Even with 30 teams, the NBA and MLB are spread way too thin. There are people in both of those leagues who have zero business playing in a professional league. Baseball is by far the worst. But I do think there's a pretty big gap between 2 and 3, above. There are simply too many teams.

I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that you are only as good as the teams you play against. So if the bottom of the NBA and MLB are really as bad as they are, then how good are some of these other teams?

I went to see Dallas and Indiana about a month before the season ended. If that Pacers team wasn't the worst basketball I've ever seen, I don't know what was. And they were deadlocked in the playoff race. What does that tell you? I played against kids in the North Star Christmas invitational that were better basketball players than half those idiots on the Pacers roster.