ESPN will NOT carry NHL next season

Status
Not open for further replies.

dunwoody_joe

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
1,581
0
atlanta
Visit site
The Messenger said:
Is that the Great Bettman's grow the game plan in the States giving away for free a national TV contract and broadcasting 11 regular season games a year?.

Wow the man is a genius .. Anyone in real life that produced those results would be fired so fast its not funny.

That is just pathetic .. Then he goes into CBA talks with the only option making the players accountable and partners in the business that shows such lofty creativity.

Remind me again how much a FREE national TV deal adds to total league revenue to bump that Hard Cap figure up ??

Hard to market anything when you have no product!

Put hockey back on the ice--that would be a start. Then slowly rebuild interest on a local level, then regionally. Then sell it nationally. That is the only way out of this mess.

When ESPN does come back, they'll pay!
 

LPHabsFan

Registered User
Jul 14, 2003
2,499
1,093
Montreal
Visit site
NJD Jester said:
It's interesting how these boards break when it comes to ESPN.

There are plenty of fans who feel ESPN has done more harm to hockey than good, in the way the games were presented and in the way the sport was pushed aside of other ventures (the NBA and ESPN original programming, for example).

Then there's the other side of the fans, who feel not being on ESPN brings the NHL down to Arena Football status -- marginalized because the WORLDWIDE LEADER IN SPORTS is no longer saving a seat for it at the table.

I find truth in both viewpoints. ESPN did a piss poor job selling the sport, from in-game promotion to its choice of announcers. (Brian Engblom, anyone? Steve Levy, for christsake?)

But the last time a "major" league tried to go it alone without any ESPN hands in its cookie jar was a few years ago, with something called the "XFL." And by Week 2, their highlights were about 33 seconds of airtime on SportsCenter.

At the same time they kept it in the national spotlight, they also helped the demise of hockey in the U.S. Part of it definately is the quality of the production but more of it was simply the choice of games. The only games they wanted to show involved Dallas, Detroit, Colorado, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Philly, and New York. When the largest market in the world are seeing teams like New York and Pittsburgh on a constant basis and with those teams being absolute crap (atleast the last few NHL years) then it's going to turn people away from hockey.
 

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,912
21,237
New York
www.youtube.com
The Messenger said:
Is that the Great Bettman's grow the game plan in the States giving away for free a national TV contract and broadcasting 11 regular season games a year?.

Wow the man is a genius .. Anyone in real life that produced those results would be fired so fast its not funny.

That is just pathetic .. Then he goes into CBA talks with the only option making the players accountable and partners in the business that shows such lofty creativity.

Remind me again how much a FREE national TV deal adds to total league revenue to bump that Hard Cap figure up ??

Pierre McGuire will be part of the NHL on NBC coverage

The NHL coverage on network TV in the U.S. is a weekend afternoon gig.NBC is not going to televise hockey during the fall.Saturdays are dominated by college football and Sunday is the NFL.They are not going to put the NHL on primetime.The NFL is the only sport which is able to generate enough viewers to justify putting a regular season sporting event on network TV at night.Even ABC felt the cost of Monday Night Football was not worth the cost to justify the ratings generated by MNF.NBC has Notre Dame football almost every Saturday afternoon.They cover all of the ND home games.Starting in the winter,NBC will devote a Saturday or Sunday afternoon to televising some regular season NHL games.The ratings are not there to garner a network tv deal with guaranteed money.Before Gary Bettman came,the NHL was not even on network tv.NBC would cover the NHL All Star game.That was it.Is it better to be on NBC or to not have any national TV coverage?The NFL dominates into January.ABC has scaled back the regular season coverage of the NBA.Those games do not appear on network TV until Christmas day and the bulk of the NBA on ABC games start in January/February.Not even Fox puts MLB games on primetime.It's weekend coverage starting in mid to late May and ends in early September

The NHL needs strong teams in their big TV markets:Rangers,Kings,Hawks,Flyers and Bruins
 

LPHabsFan

Registered User
Jul 14, 2003
2,499
1,093
Montreal
Visit site
RangerBoy said:
The NHL needs strong teams in their big TV markets: Bruins

Bruins don't matter. They can have the second best or even the best team in the eastern conference, be playing their most hated rival in the playoffs, and not even sell out their games.
 

Hasbro

Family Friend
Sponsor
Apr 1, 2004
52,413
16,379
South Rectangle
LPHabsFan said:
Bruins don't matter. They can have the second best or even the best team in the eastern conference, be playing their most hated rival in the playoffs, and not even sell out their games.
Jacobs and Wirtz are a blight on this league. I'm pro-owners, but I hope both get shot out of a cannon.
 

Isles72

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,520
465
Canada
missK said:
Maybe I'm confused but where has it been written that the NHL would stream games online next season? I've never seen, heard or read it anywhere.

I havent seen it either and I'm not sure why that impression was given in this thread .

streaming would be fine for those with laptops , but I couldnt imagine watching a game sitting at a computer desk for 3 hours - can you say , back pain ?

it's unfortunate that the nhl hasnt made the C'ice pkg more affordable to smaller cable co's .Apparently the fee's are quite high for the average joe cable co. to carry it so its not worth their while .They also dont have the channel space -technology to spare 10 or so dedicated spots for a sports pak when they could be used for PPV etc...

ahh well
 

WC Handy*

Guest
NJD Jester said:
But the last time a "major" league tried to go it alone without any ESPN hands in its cookie jar was a few years ago, with something called the "XFL." And by Week 2, their highlights were about 33 seconds of airtime on SportsCenter.

You must have forgotten that for years the NBA had nothing to do with ESPN and still to this day gets better ratings on TNT than ESPN.
 

ResidentAlien*

Guest
Isles72 said:
I havent seen it either and I'm not sure why that impression was given in this thread .

streaming would be fine for those with laptops , but I couldnt imagine watching a game sitting at a computer desk for 3 hours - can you say , back pain ?

it's unfortunate that the nhl hasnt made the C'ice pkg more affordable to smaller cable co's .Apparently the fee's are quite high for the average joe cable co. to carry it so its not worth their while .They also dont have the channel space -technology to spare 10 or so dedicated spots for a sports pak when they could be used for PPV etc...

ahh well
Ya I was wondering that too, maybe that MediaZone co. is going to do it, I watched some international games on it but wasnt really that impressed, plus at $5 a game that would be quite costly!
AS far as 3 hours at a computer desk, I would hedge a bet that most posters here spend that plus some at one already :sarcasm: Funny how sitting on a bar stool for 3 hours results in no back pain!
BUt for Center Ice , it's only $150.00 for the full season ( $99. if you wait till the all star break) and there were only a few of the PPV the Nucks played last year that werent shown..so I dont see where that is too high and Im thinking they may lower that for a year or so after this mess.

THe only bad thing about Center Ice is it goes right to blue screen immediately after the game, no post game stuff at all, which is alright most of the time, but that one time when its a first round, game 7, overtime, and your team loses and it goes right to blue screen with a big " Good NIght !"..you almost through the TV out the window...but hey..
 

Trizent

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
2,109
90
Oil Country
I bet they cut NHL CI to $99 Full Season in the USA for 2005-06 season. Maybe a free preview for month of October.

I think I paid 179CDN for CI on Expressvu in Canada.
 

Hunter74

Registered User
Sep 21, 2004
1,045
15
Im glad ESPN is gone now. Bad game coverage on TV hurts teh NHL more than it helps it. Yeah its nice to let peopel watch the games but when the provider does a horrible job it really makes the product look bad. I love hockey but watching games on ESPN was really hard esepcially if it wasn't even my team.

I hate the Leafs and CBC but they have the best setup when it comes to broadcasting games on TV. Other networks shoudl be forced to at least broadcast the same quality. You would thingk they would do this automatically but obviously they dont htink its worth it.

The NHL and NHLPA should regulate the quality of broadcasting so that providers like ESPN dont make hockey look bad.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
What's with the ESPN worshipping? You'd think a pro sports league can't survive without grovelling at the feet of a cable sports network whose average ratings arn't even all that good. If the NHL can get picked up by anyone, whether it be USA, Spike, FX, etc., they would be doing just fine for themselves. This "ESPN or bust" mentality is perplexing. Personally, I would love to see ESPN get cut down to size.
 

Dave is a killer

Dave's a Mess
Oct 17, 2002
26,507
18
Cumming GA
Bruwinz37 said:
I dont understand why any hockey fan doesnt get Center Ice anyway. I barely watched ESPN games so it didnt really effect me......besides playoffs and someone will pick that up anyway.

that's the best part of my paycheck, as soon as it is available, I buy it asap at the cheapest rate possible
 

DW3

Registered User
May 13, 2004
254
0
NJD Jester said:
It's interesting how these boards break when it comes to ESPN.

I find truth in both viewpoints. ESPN did a piss poor job selling the sport, from in-game promotion to its choice of announcers. (Brian Engblom, anyone? Steve Levy, for christsake?)

For get them, what about those idiots Clement and his partner ( I can't for the life of me remember his name). They were about as bad Melrose about hanging off somebody's butt.

IMO- Steve Levy and Darren Pang were the best announcing team they had. They made the broadcasts fun, but didn't talk to you like you were a 10 yr. old watching for the first time. They were pretty neutral in their announcing, not favoring one over another, and they broke the game down without insulting your intellegence.
 

Hasbro

Family Friend
Sponsor
Apr 1, 2004
52,413
16,379
South Rectangle
Epsilon said:
What's with the ESPN worshipping? You'd think a pro sports league can't survive without grovelling at the feet of a cable sports network whose average ratings arn't even all that good. If the NHL can get picked up by anyone, whether it be USA, Spike, FX, etc., they would be doing just fine for themselves. This "ESPN or bust" mentality is perplexing. Personally, I would love to see ESPN get cut down to size.
Well I don't think TNT, USA, FX, or Spike are going to drop what they are doing to cover hockey. I wish there was something better than ESPN, which has been on a steep decline since Olbermann left, but it's the only national sports net work.
 

DW3

Registered User
May 13, 2004
254
0
As for ESPN not covering the NHL, darn shame. Does this mean I don't get to see the Red Wings every other day? Does this mean that the "usual suspects" don't get over exposure while the rest of the league gets also run status? Let's get real here for a minute. ESPN's coverage hurt the NHL more then it helped it, because all the did was show the same 5 or 6 teams over and over. But where were those teams when it came time for the playoffs? Let's see... Detroit- Out by the second the last couple years. Col.- See Detroit. NYR- HAHAHA!!! But what about the past few Stanley Cup contenders? Calgary and T.B. got more coverage during the Cup final alone then they did all season combined (T.B.-2 games, Cal.-1).

Same the few years before. Anahiem's and N.J.'s 7 games during their finals were more then they recieved during the season. Carolina the year before only had one game shown during the regular season, but were ib the SCF.

Maybe if ESPN had a more balanced schedule, they would had higher ratings, since most people got tired of watching the same teams over and over and over again.
 

DW3

Registered User
May 13, 2004
254
0
WC Handy said:
ESPN already told the NHL that they'd only take a revenue sharing deal and the NHL told them to go to hell and that they're not taking less than $60M.

I don't know. ESPN already has the assets in place, so it's not like they have to worry about start up costs like with NBC. They'd be making money right away instead of a year or two later. Plus, if starts to make money (hopefully) maybe ESPN will show more games. Despite what I said above, I'd still watch it because some hockey is better then no hockey.
 

Hunter74

Registered User
Sep 21, 2004
1,045
15
You would think local coverage and NHL center ice would be enough for the NHL's fan base.

Why deal with a National broadcaster that makes you feel like your league is mickey mouse? To add to it there incompetent coverage hurts your sport than than help it?

I live in Ontario and love the Flames. If I want to watch more Flames hockey I get NHL center ice on either satelite or cable. Not gonna sit around and waite for the CBC or TSN to decide to show another team besides Toronto. I cant waite that many years.
 

Tekneek

Registered User
Nov 28, 2004
4,395
39
txomisc said:
Not that I really want to, but I'd gladly pay twice as much for Center Ice.

You'd pay twice as much after all of this? P.T. Barnum would love you. If they increase the price at all from the 2003-04 season, I am going to cancel.
 

Tekneek

Registered User
Nov 28, 2004
4,395
39
WC Handy said:
You must have forgotten that for years the NBA had nothing to do with ESPN and still to this day gets better ratings on TNT than ESPN.

It's because ESPN does a horrible job. When they don't have an exclusive, they lose. If you're just an NBA fan, you'd rather watch a channel that actually does a good job putting on the game. If you're an NHL fan, you've got Center Ice and will almost always prefer one of those games to the NHL broadcast. When faced with competition, ESPN almost always loses. Maybe the media, advertisers, and the masses in general will finally believe that after the way NBA ratings have shaken out. ESPN expected the NBA to save them, but the ratings are still circling the bowl.
 

DW3

Registered User
May 13, 2004
254
0
Center Ice is good, but only if you can get it. Around here the only way to get it is through satellite TV. That's a lot of hassle just for my hockey. My cable has Fox, I get the Blue Jackets, so that'll do for me.
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
Very twisted article IMO. ESPN and Bettman have stopped negotiating for the time being, but Bettman will crawl back to ESPN shortly and offer a smaller deal or a profit sharing deal. The NHL will do anything it can to stay on ESPN and they will come to some sort of deal. Wait, that last sentence sounds familiar....Bettman will come to a deal with anyone???...what am I thinking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->