Wednesday, January 28, 2009

My middle names are wrong and right

A recent Harris Decima Poll has certainly added some much needed clarity to the issue of fighting in hockey, specifically which groups are in favour and which groups would like to see it removed from the game.

The Harris Decima poll in question offered up these interesting gems:

  • Overall, 54% of respondents said they thought fighting should be banned from the NHL, while 40% said it should not be banned.
  • However, those who follow the game very closely hold a very different view. Among
    these respondents, 68% believe that fighting should stay in the NHL, while 31% prefer
    too see it banned.

That's some great data, but the real nugget that's missing is how many Canadians comprise each of these segments?

I asked Harris Decima for it and they very kindly and quickly got it to me (Thanks Harris Decima! Even though I work with two of your competing firms, if I ever have research needs you're the first firm I'll call).

Here's that key data:

  • Follow hockey very closely: 12%
  • Follow somewhat closely: 26%
  • Not very closely: 61%

Now, I'm somewhat surprised that only 38% of Canadians follow hockey closely or somewhat closely and only 12% follow the game very closely. But moving past that for a moment, and without getting into the semantics of how a person self-identifies into one of these groups, in terms of for/against fighting that breaks down to:

  • 8% of Canadians follow hockey very closely and want fighting to remain in the game
  • 4% of Canadians follow hockey very closely and want fighting removed from the game
  • 14% of Canadians follow hockey somewhat closely and want fighting to remain in the game
  • 12% of Canadians follow hockey somewhat closely and want fighting removed
  • 18% of Canadians do not follow hockey and want fighting to remain in the game
  • 38% of Canadians do not follow hockey and want fighting removed
Or for those who like blurry pictures:

Looking at this data, it's interesting that less than 1% of Canadians that follow very or somewhat closely said "don't know/no answer" compared to 5% among those that don't follow the game closely and those who are furthest from being fans are the most in favour of banning fighting.

It also strikes me that if I'm the NHL looking to grow revenues, the next obvious question is: what can be done to convert 61% of Canadians into more engaged hockey followers.

If it involves banning fighting (and here we have absolutely no data, just pure conjecture) the math isn't in favour of the hardcore hockey fan that likes fighting. Every 10% from the non-follower audience that's converted is the equivalent of 50% of the hardcore followers and 25% of the middle tier.

Personally, I'm on the fence on this one. Rather than outright banning fighting, I'd like to see the NHL continue to move towards reducing the number of fights in the game.

  • Apply the instigator rule and toss out any player that initiates a fight after a clean hit. This is becoming more and more prevalent and really needs to be removed from the game;
  • Make fighting a 10 minute major; and
  • Use match penalties and intent to injure penalties to remove some of the worst stick work, cheap plays, head shots and hits from behind.

As always, the Barilkosphere has generated lots of must read content on the topic of banning fighting. The Godfather PPP has an epic post (with tremendous commentary) here; Down Goes Brown has his always incisive thoughts here and here; and Cox Bloc weighs in over here.

8 comments:

  1. Every 10% from the non-follower audience that's converted is the equivalent of 50% of the hardcore followers and 25% of the middle tier.

    While this is true, it may be misleading. Keep in mind that the NHL has been around for almost 100 years and has apparently only managed to capture 38% of the population as even casual fans. Adding another 10% on top of that based on one rule change would be extremely unlikely. Chances are, any boost from a fighting ban would be small (and maybe also temporary, although again this is all guess-work).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't you think that we should give the new OHL a season and see what that does to fighting before making a change in the NHL?

    As I think DGB said, any rule changes are a one way ticket.

    ReplyDelete
  3. DGB - completely agree with your assessment but have absolutely no faith in the NHL "brain" trust.

    ReplyDelete
  4. tbot - I think a whole pile of things should happen before the NHL considers making a move on fighting, including extensive studies of other leagues (like the Q and OHL) that have changed their policies in regards to fisticuffs.

    The law of unintended consequences can be a real bitch and the last thing I'd want is for the NHL to be populated by 200 Jarko Rutuus who have no fear of retribution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great post, Michael. It's truly amazing that no one in the main stream sports media goes and asks Harris Decima for this extra research.

    The debate continues...

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1) So the NHL should change its rules to try to placate folks who don't watch its product, and instead try to alienate the folks who do?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Faux - Let me be perfectly clear: I'm not advocating for any rule changes. I don't care if fighting stays or goes (I think the risk of unintended consequences is the real problem here).

    That said, if I were the NHL and was trying to grow the game I would definitely be exploring what it would take to move the needle on the 61% of people who don't watch my product. And it wouldn't be much of a leap to look at these numbers and wonder if removing fighting might bring more fans (and threfore more revenue) into the fold.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete