ESPN will NOT carry NHL next season

[Trizent]

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.

USA will not be interested in full slate of NHL games. I could see them cherry picking a few games in the playoffs (one of the Conference Finals and non-NBC Cup Finals), but that is about it. Spike and FX are a step down. Perception is a big thing, if the US media perceives that hockey is dying then advertising dollars are harder to come by. Proof of this is US media said that NHL was the next thing in mid-90s and NHL got a 120M / season from ABC/ESPN. That money wasn't based on reality, it was based on perception.

 

[Patman]

USA will not be interested in full slate of NHL games. I could see them cherry picking a few games in the playoffs (one of the Conference Finals and non-NBC Cup Finals), but that is about it. Spike and FX are a step down. Perception is a big thing, if the US media perceives that hockey is dying then advertising dollars are harder to come by. Proof of this is US media said that NHL was the next thing in mid-90s and NHL got a 120M / season from ABC/ESPN. That money wasn't based on reality, it was based on perception.

Perception is killing hockey as we speak and remaining on ESPN isn't going to change anybody's mind. We've got to get out of this mindset of catering to the clearly uninterested and start working something in hockey's favor as there is a point where you have to stand up for yourself. The key for the NHL is to get the product on to as many TV screens as often as possible... if ESPN won't do that for hockey then maybe somebody else should. ESPN will not do any favors for a sport they don't like and the negative perception will continue. Moving away from ESPN will remove that constant negative perception... in reality its the 1970s and the 1980s again and people still fail to realize this. We have moved back into the era of the regional markets and the national games when we can framework. This doesn't mean we can't improve our situation but the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" isn't part of the solution... as long as they parrot the "not good enough for us" line hockey has no chance since ESPN will define it as a B level sport.

The NHL needs to re-establish a reputation and if ESPN is still going to talk down hockey then they aren't part of the solution. Focus regionally, get some channel that will dedicate themselves towards hockey, and then you start building back to prominence. Its rebuilding... consolidate first then work up the ladder.

 

[Trizent]

Good post. WIth ESPN2 only showing 40 regular season games (likely most HD which is what NHL wants), the focus would have to be regional, which really it always has been. Local TV packages far more valuable to teams than national package. The deal ESPN killed still had ESPN and ESPN2 showing a ton of NHL playoffs.

ESPN has got outstanding cable clearances better than 99% of the cable channels out there. Better than FX, Spike (channels brought up as possible replacements).

I agree that ESPN won't be treating NHL as major league. But the thing with that is that unfortunately, the NHL isn't.

 

[DW3]

USA will not be interested in full slate of NHL games. I could see them cherry picking a few games in the playoffs (one of the Conference Finals and non-NBC Cup Finals), but that is about it. Spike and FX are a step down. Perception is a big thing, if the US media perceives that hockey is dying then advertising dollars are harder to come by. Proof of this is US media said that NHL was the next thing in mid-90s and NHL got a 120M / season from ABC/ESPN. That money wasn't based on reality, it was based on perception.

Ask NASCAR if FX is a step down. Heck, NASCAR fans are the kind of people the NHL wants. Fanatical to the extreme. If it has their favorite driver on it, they'll buy it. If their driver sponsers it, they use it.

KFC saw quarterly profits rise for the first time in over a year when they had Earnhardt Jr. on their buckets. UPS business increased when they started sponsoring Jarrett. If the NHL could tap into even a fraction of that, the financial rewards would make everybody happy.

 

[Trizent]

Subscribers in US Homes Cable

1. ESPN 89,900,000
5. USA Network 89,200,000
6. Spike TV 89,100,000
11. ESPN2 88,800,000
20. QVC 88,100,000


FX isn't close to the top 20 with 85,500,000. I didn't realize that Spike TV was so high.

I think I was too hard on FX, but they are a step down. A huge step down? No. Will FX be committed to wall to wall NHL playoffs coverage? Not likely. Positives about FX is that they target males 18-34.

Figures are of April 2005.

 

[WC Handy*]

Those numbers are surprising, Trizent.

According to THIS the ratings of NHL games on ESPN2 is about half of what they are on ESPN. That would lead me to believe that ESPN is in many more households than ESPN2.

 

[RangerBoy]

Those numbers are surprising, Trizent.

According to THIS the ratings of NHL games on ESPN2 is about half of what they are on ESPN. That would lead me to believe that ESPN is in many more households than ESPN2.

ESPN and ESPN2 are usually found right next to each other on most cable and satellite systems in the U.S.ESPN has so much programming that they put it on ESPN2.They go hand in hand

 

[Trizent]

ESPN better match-ups generally speakling and more exclusives. ESPN2 games all were blacked out in the markets of the 2 teams playing.

 

[DW3]

Subscribers in US Homes Cable

1. ESPN 89,900,000
5. USA Network 89,200,000
6. Spike TV 89,100,000
11. ESPN2 88,800,000
20. QVC 88,100,000


FX isn't close to the top 20 with 85,500,000. I didn't realize that Spike TV was so high.

I think I was too hard on FX, but they are a step down. A huge step down? No. Will FX be committed to wall to wall NHL playoffs coverage? Not likely. Positives about FX is that they target males 18-34.

Figures are of April 2005.

Well according to a rumour I heard somewhere, USA is getting WWE wrestling back, so scratch them off the list (that and I have trouble imagining them as a hockey station). IMO- Spike or FX, even though they're not top 20 (like 85.5 mil. is worse then the 0 we're looking at right now) would be the best bets for the NHL.

 

[WC Handy*]

Well according to a rumour I heard somewhere, USA is getting WWE wrestling back, so scratch them off the list (that and I have trouble imagining them as a hockey station). IMO- Spike or FX, even though they're not top 20 (like 85.5 mil. is worse then the 0 we're looking at right now) would be the best bets for the NHL.

Since when did the presence of WWE automatically mean a channel is unwilling to take on other.. uh real.. sports?

 

[Dr Love]

I dont understand why any hockey fan doesnt get Center Ice anyway.

Because you have to have digital cable or satellite to get the package. And most people have regular cable.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Because you have to have digital cable or satellite to get the package. And most people have regular cable.

Maybe they should stop being cheap

 

[JimBones]

IMO- Spike or FX, even though they're not top 20 (like 85.5 mil. is worse then the 0 we're looking at right now) would be the best bets for the NHL.

If HD hockey is the ultimate goal (and I think it should be), Spike and FX aren't going to help. It was like pulling teeth here in Atlanta just to get ABC-HD for MNF (which we didn't get until the season ended). Yelling at them about missing ESPN2-HD hasn't seemed to do anything thus far. I would hate to (1) wait for Spike or FX to get HD programming and (2) wait for my cable company to actually pay for it.