Is a strike in the NFL and/or NBA exactly what the NHL needs to get back on the sports map?

Chris S..................MLB's revenues in 2008 were $6.7MM, the NBA's revenues in 2008-09 were $3.6MM..................it seems that baseball is light years ahead of the NBA. To answer the question.......The NHL's TV contract with ESPN came due during the last NBA strike (1998-99). The deal negotiated was for less than the Fox deal, and the viewership during the strike did not increase. It's unlikely that an NBA strike now would result in an increase in viewers for the NHL (the two leagues market different niches). ESPN has always claimed that hockey has been a money-loser for them, and are unlikely to rush to conclude any deal under the NHL's current demaneds (which ESPN was not willing to meet in January 2008 and NBC and Vs were)

did you watch basketball during the NHL strike? i didn't. i doubt the NHL would get many spill over fans. hockey will always be a canadian love and an american interest.

You have your facts mixed up. A strike/lock-out does not immidiately land you at the bottom.....do you think that if the NFL went on strike that it would then fall below basketball or hockey in terms of anything? Revenue? Ratings? Popularity? The NHL has had popularity and revenue increases every year.....even after the lock-out (it wasn't a strike). ESPN can't just rush to the NHL to get a contract! TV rights have already been contracted out so they couldn't try to negotiate a new contract until their current contracts expired (in 18 months I think). NO, this is not what the NHL has been "waiting for." How can you run a sport league business on the premise of HOPING that other sports have labour stoppages? It should also be noted that hockey is a ..........can't think of the word I am looking for (somebody help me out).........niche type of sport (close enough) in that you are a hockey fan or you aren't. Go to an NBA game.....and go to an NHL game and you will find the bulk of the fans are a different beast.

The poorest NFL team (Raiders) are worth $800 million. In contrast, the richest team in the NHL (Leafs) are only worth $470 million. As much as I hate to say it, repeats of classic NFL games on TV would get more ratings in the US than live hockey games. And while the NFL is obviously the most marketed football in the US, you have to remember that there are only 32 teams in the USA. There are 120 NCAA FBS schools in the USA who have bigger stadiums and more of a cult following. Then you have thousands of other FCS, Div-3 and high schools that get more people in their seats than the Florida Panthers. Why do you think there hasn't been an NFL team in LA since the Rams? They're happy with USC and Cal. Trust me, the NFL could take as long of a break as it wants and football will stay strong in the US.

Even before the lock out the NHL was still the number four sport in the USA. It's just the way it is.

The sport is popular enough to support a 56.x million cap (excuse the thrashers/coyotes/Bettmans playthings). I don't need my sport to 'be the most popular' I like hockey the way it is. Hockey would probably get more fans from ruling out fighting then a strike. Forget that.

It couldn't hurt. But for what the NHL needs, a lockout by the NFL would only be a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Hockey could be the one major sport that is actually a niche sport. Its regional appeal is what limits the game in its worldwide popularity - or lack of it. As for the average American viewer, I doubt that the numbers would increase significantly. There's no quick fix for what ails the NHL.

Yeah. That's why I'm kind of hoping for a NFL strike in 2011.

Basketball is lightyears ahead of the MLB will the NHL get a boost? yes but the strike will not last that long, and both the NBA and NFL will bounce back in a BIG way. (Plus, you never know if they get something done before the season) but I like hockey, so If the NHL can get a boost, I'm all for it. Sid the Kid and Ovechkin.