ESPN Dumps NHL

[Dr Love]

Its both, HNIC can draw people into watching hockey and will increase the amount of viewers, ESPN wont because their coverage is terrible.

No,it's because hockey is not as popular of a sport as you think it is.

 

[GKJ]

No. But who wants to watch the 10th place Ducks vs. the 10th place Blackhawks?

Or the 12th place NYR vs. 10th Bruins?

People who will watch. I bet more people in Boston would watch them play the Rangers when they're both bad than people in Anaheim who are in 3rd play the 6th place Blue Jackets.

 

[Steve L*]

I'm interested in exactly what a good broadcast means to you?

At this point, a video feed with sound would be good for me.

Thats because you and me are hardcore fans, we would watch a video feed with sound but the average sports fan wouldnt, hence my reasoning that a better broadcast would result in more viewers.

Camera angles, commentary and the quality of picture are very important in a broadcast.

 

[Dr Love]

Thats because you and me are hardcore fans, we would watch a video feed with sound but the average sports fan wouldnt, hence my reasoning that a better broadcast would result in more viewers.

Camera angles, commentary and the quality of picture are very important in a broadcast.

You're putting the cart before the horse. People aren't going to suddenly start watching hockey because the coverage is good. They're going to watch hockey because they are interested in it. If the quality of the broadcast was the determining factor in watching a game, half the people who watch a football game announced by Joe Buck would turn off their TVs.

 

[Steve L*]

No,it's because hockey is not as popular of a sport as you think it is.

Its a catch 22 situation, its not going to be more popular unless the on ice product and the coverage is improved.

There are borderline interest sports for me like NASCAR that I wouldnt watch with US coverage purely for the amount of ads then run each race. The coverage is so bad that I wouldnt be able to build up an interest there.

 

[blitzkriegs]

Again, also not out of the question. ESPN said they were the ones who were going to wait until July 1. We still have 4 more days until the clock strikes June.

I agree with you. ESPN may just be wanting the same deal as NBC. Why not? Why should ESPN pay and NBC not?

Maybe the NHL does have a backup network that no one knows about. Sounds odd, but really could be the case.

 

[Dr Love]

Its a catch 22 situation, its not going to be more popular unless the on ice product and the coverage is improved.

Bingo! The coverage is far, far less important than the on-ice product.

 

[Gary Buttman]

Maybe the NHL could stay on the NBC/GE team and put games on USA Network. What else do they have on? THey could run a bunch of NHL games, if they wanted to pony up the $$. Although having ESPN was key because theyre one of the few cable networks to do HDTV, and I'd bet ESPNHD is the biggest of the HD cable channels when it comes to how many different providers its on. TNT, maybe? Theyre in HD, as is....um...actually thats it. Damn.

Or...FX? I think theyre launching an FX HD soon. And that would be a Fox thing. Who knows...maybe Spike TV isnt that far off. The more HD the better, though.

 

[Steve L*]

You're putting the cart before the horse. People aren't going to suddenly start watching hockey because the coverage is good. They're going to watch hockey because they are interested in it. If the quality of the broadcast was the determining factor in watching a game, half the people who watch a football game announced by Joe Buck would turn off their TVs.

I take it youve never watched am F1 race with ITV coverage?

They had people switching off in masses because they took an ad break in the last two laps of a race.

 

[Dr Love]

Maybe the NHL could stay on the NBC/GE team and put games on USA Network. What else do they have on?

WWE.

TNT, maybe?

Have the NBA, aren't going to add the NHL as well.

 

[blitzkriegs]

People who will watch. I bet more people in Boston would watch them play the Rangers when they're both bad than people in Anaheim who are in 3rd play the 6th place Blue Jackets.

The locals will. But the key this is making the players household names. The NHL does not do that. Somehow Lebron became a household name and now people actually watch Cavs games. The Heat were nobodies before Shaq came to town. Now people watch. coincidence?

 

[hockeytown9321]

They're about to lose WWE which is their main cash cow. They might bring over Smackdown, but I don't think it will happen. Vince McMahon is about ready to move back to USA.



I know everyone wants the NHL to go to Spike, but I don't understand why the NHL fits into Spike's plan. TNT, fine. FX, maybe, UPN you have a chance. TBS, doubt it. I don't think the NHL fits on a station that includes Slamball, Ride with the Funkmaster, and Mythbusters.


Someone tell me who is going to be lining up for the NHL's services...

Spike could care less about losing WWE. They're perfectly happy to build around the UFC reality show, and they're going to start airing old UFC matches. They also spent millions on the CSI syndication rights. Even though WWE does big ratings for them, and puts them in the top 2 or 3 rated cable networks, Spike was paying them about 500K a week based on a deal signed 5 years ago, when wrestling was on fire. It was doing ratings in the 5's and 6's, now its in the 3's. And wrestling has never, and will never be able to get ad rates that reflect their ratings because their average viewers have the lowest per capita income of anything on TV.

There's no chance of Spike bringing over Smackdown, first, its under contract to UPN until Spetember 2006, and even if they wanted to, the new USA deal would prevent it because of exclusivity.

TNT or TBS won't go for the NHL. Maybe if AOL still owned the thrashers there'd be a chance, but not now. Their sports money is going to go to the NBA and the Braves.

FX might have some interest, but it'd be a very small rights fee and they're a weaker network than Spike.

Fox Sports obviously would have interest, but its not feasible to do a national deal with them.

USA just spent alot of money getting the WWE rights, and they already televise golf which carries a high rights fee. I doubt they'd have much interest.

There's really nowhere else to go, unless the NHL starts paying for TV time, like an infomercial. That's something I joked about a few months ago, but nothing would suprise me anymore.

 

[Dr Love]

I take it youve never watched am F1 race with ITV coverage?

They had people switching off in masses because they took an ad break in the last two laps of a race.

Well, with an example like that, I can't argue. You win. One time in a F1 race the network did something incredibly dumb and thus your claim is completely validated.

 

[GKJ]

I agree with you. ESPN may just be wanting the same deal as NBC. Why not? Why should ESPN pay and NBC not?

Maybe the NHL does have a backup network that no one knows about. Sounds odd, but really could be the case.

I find it hard to beleive that another network would neogeotiate a new TV deal in the middle of the lockout, where the marketplace isn't even defined.

 

[Gary Buttman]

WWE.


Have the NBA, aren't going to add the NHL as well.

WWE's one night a week. And their other TV deal, the PGA, is in the afternoon's and they do that quite well. HD's really gonna be important, though...they really need to go back to ESPN or find some network thats planning an HD launch this summer.

The way I look at FX or USA is that they are produced by their parent companies, just placed on taht station. Like Spike TV's games would be produced by CBS if they got the deal. Imagine the big channel's production, just on a cable outlet.

 

[Steve L*]

Bingo! The coverage is far, far less important than the on-ice product.

But if hockey isnt my main interest and I have the choice between the NHL with a really annoying commentator or another sport, Im going with another sport because I cant spend 2 hours listening to an idiiot, luckily I can just take a pee break when Cherry comes on HNIC.

 

[Steve L*]

Well, with an example like that, I can't argue. You win. One time in a F1 race the network did something incredibly dumb and thus your claim is completely validated.

Havent ESPN missed the end of games before? I know for sure theyve missed the start of them.

If I have a choice of HNIC and ESPN and the Flyers arent involved, Im picking HNIC 100 times out of 100. Its not unreasonable to think others are doing the same with other sports.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by blitzkriegs
No. But who wants to watch the 10th place Ducks vs. the 10th place Blackhawks?

Or the 12th place NYR vs. 10th Bruins?

People who will watch. I bet more people in Boston would watch them play the Rangers when they're both bad than people in Anaheim who are in 3rd play the 6th place Blue Jackets.

But how many of those people in Boston would be watching the game on FSN New England, rather than ESPN, and the same with Anaheim and FSN West. ESPN needs to market nationwide and not just to the local team markets where they have competition.

 

[Dr Love]

The locals will. But the key this is making the players household names. The NHL does not do that. Somehow Lebron became a household name and now people actually watch Cavs games. The Heat were nobodies before Shaq came to town. Now people watch. coincidence?

The NBA (as in the NBA front office) didn't make either one of them a household name. Shaq made himself a household name by being an all time great, LeBron was hyped to no end when he was in HS.

 

[AXN]

They might get the same deal. I am pretty sure that ESPN wants the NHL to get the CBA first. Once that happens they will broadcast NHL games. I don't think they want to take the risk of not having another season.

 

[Dr Love]

But how many of those people in Boston would be watching the game on FSN New England, rather than ESPN, and the same with Anaheim and FSN West. ESPN needs to market nationwide and not just to the local team markets where they have competition.

None since ESPN had exclusive rights.

Putting on a bad team in a big market brings in better viewership than a decent team in a bad market.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Just like everyone else here, you have no clue what network would be interested in what, so please quit pretending to. Thanks.

Actually, as I've pointed out, I know quite a bit about the TV industry and where networks are planning on spending their money. If you choose to ignore my knowledge, thats cool. But don't question it. Thanks.

 

[Sixty Six]

Actually, as I've pointed out, I know quite a bit about the TV industry and where networks are planning on spending their money. If you choose to ignore my knowledge, thats cool. But don't question it. Thanks.

The problem is you just say you know things, you haven't backed it up so i know i'll atleast continue to question you until you back up what you say.

 

[thinkwild]

Since hockey is Canada's sport, giving the USA a Canadian feed for hockey where they give it more attention could be a good thing for American hockey fans. But it could become more TSN/Sportsnet than CBC doing that broadcast in the future, as CBC are having their money problems keeping up with hockey on TV . Some of the teams parent companies are now hockey broadcasters and have more money than CBC.

I know in Canada anyway, when we get NFL games on TV, there are certain teams we see more than others. We would unlikely often get the equivalent of a Nashville-Florida game. Is hockey meant for national audiences? I think its a regional sport, and so should probably get regional tv. Regional TV contracts I bet amount to more than national contracts. Harder to share though

Canadian TV contracts I dont believe are going down. Perhaps Canadian teams should just keep all the canadian tv money and let the american teams split all the ESPN money. That would help the disadvantaged Canadian teams this lockout was to help. Wasnt it?

If the NHL is getting less tv money, I'd thikn they will have a harder time revenue sharing

 

[Hockeyfan02]

I also like that the NHL is going to lose a lot of money because of this. Less money means players get paid less and tickets should be cheaper.

And after the NHL cuts prices to get their fans back, if they do come back, tickets will not be cheaper. I don't get why people think this will be the case. Gee if the teams start spending less, they'll want to cut ticket prices. No, they'll want to increase profits and will leave ticket prices the same.

For those saying the other cable networks will be lining up I have one question: will these be the same networks that were lining up for the free World Championship broadcasts and declined the offer? This is a big deal, whether you hate ESPN or not.