ESPN Dumps NHL

Status
Not open for further replies.

salty justice

Registered User
May 25, 2004
7,194
0
Los Angeles
Im happy about this, I dont want to watch ESPN or support it.

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.

This will also open up new and probably better opportunities. Id rather have some 2nd rate channel gamble and pick up 3 or 4 games a week then see Detroit or Colorado once a week on ESPN.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
SneakerPimp82 said:
Gorgeous, so unless you have a satellite or subscribe to Comcast, you're basically f**ked as far as seeing any regular hockey. Beautiful.


It's worth it anyways. Cost me $150 last year but it was worth it. I am a die hard hockey fan who gets to watch CBC on Saturday nights is like watching God at work.



I don't even like the Maple Leafs but I usually watch all their home games just because of the atmosphere it brings to my television.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
WC Handy said:
ESPN hasn't done jack to expose hockey or get people interested in the game. What makes you think they would start now? Hockey always has been and always will be something ESPN puts a half assed effort into.

ESPN put a lot of work into the NHL, they were broadcasting 3-4 games per week and had NHL2Nite on 5 times a week. Crappy teams in their major markets and crappy games were more of a culprit.

Interestingly, nothing on espn.com.
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
Does anyone think think could be a Bettman/ESPN bluff to pressure the NHPLA into a settlement?

All of a sudden the NHLPA may have to rush to get a deal done, when they do, ESPN will magically agree to a new TV deal for less than they were offering before and both Bettman and ESPN win at the expense of the NHLPA.

Or am I giving Bettman/ESPN too much credit here?
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
Steve L said:
Does anyone think think could be a Bettman/ESPN bluff to pressure the NHPLA into a settlement?

All of a sudden the NHLPA may have to rush to get a deal done, when they do, ESPN will magically agree to a new TV deal for less than they were offering before and both Bettman and ESPN win at the expense of the NHLPA.

Or am I giving Bettman/ESPN too much credit here?



Anything can happen. Frankly, a deal should get done by any means necessary, whatever it takes, even if it's done dirty, because chances are next time there is a lockout neither of these guys will be around for it.
 

Nifty=HHOF

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
1,551
0
Depressed Yankee Land
SneakerPimp82 said:
Well stated, I think if multiple networks are able to pick up the NHL(nfl has fox, abc and cbs, nba has tnt and abc and nbc) and make it available in different formats, that might be the best possible solution remaining. Granted the nhl won't get as sweet a deal as the other major sports, but it's a start.

Didn't they try this in the late 80's where foxsports or some arrangement of local cable sports carried the games? I remember it being a disaster and didn't they basically beg ESPN to take them back
 

SneakerPimp82

Registered User
Apr 5, 2003
2,072
300
Saint Louis, MO
WC Handy said:
The NHL has had 5 minutes since this news was released to discussion options with other networks. Perhaps we should wait and see before jumping to this conclusion.

But it's the current situation, which network is gonna pick up the NHL without robbing the league blind or making another half-assed effort at presenting the NHL product? It's not just about getting a network to show the games, it's properly portraying the product...as you said in your ESPN statement.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
TiesRLikeWins4Us said:
Good.. I hate ESPN.

I hope the NHL gets on Spike.


What would be even better is that the NHL gets on ESPN and somewhere else. I think the NHL wouldn't mind this so they can make another deal without a no-compete clause.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
TiesRLikeWins4Us said:
Good.. I hate ESPN.

I hope the NHL gets on Spike.

I image that the NHL would go on ESPN for free before they'd agree to go on Spike. The stigma that would be attached to the league for being on that station probably isn't worth the money they'd offer.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
SneakerPimp82 said:
But it's the current situation, which network is gonna pick up the NHL without robbing the league blind or making another half-assed effort at presenting the NHL product? It's not just about getting a network to show the games, it's properly portraying the product...as you said in your ESPN statement.

I suppose I'm just confident that there is a network (or two) out there that will treat the NHL better than ESPN did.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
Niftyone said:
Didn't they try this in the late 80's where foxsports or some arrangement of local cable sports carried the games? I remember it being a disaster and didn't they basically beg ESPN to take them back


ESPN dumped the NHL this time around.
 

Dr Love

Registered User
Mar 22, 2002
20,360
0
Location, Location!
WC Handy said:
ESPN hasn't done jack to expose hockey or get people interested in the game. What makes you think they would start now? Hockey always has been and always will be something ESPN puts a half assed effort into.
Oh not this argument again. What more did you want them to do?
 

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
WC Handy said:
I suppose I'm just confident that there is a network (or two) out there that will treat the NHL better than ESPN did.

Yea im sure networks are lined up trying to get a sport where ratings are garbage and are in the middle of a lockout that could go on for another year. NHL really ****ed up this time. Still a good idea to try to destroy the Union bettman? You had already won the war.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Scugs said:
This isn't all Bettmans fault. The NHL has told the NHLPA that once something like this happens, the pie is going to get alot smaller.. The NHLPA doesnt seem to think so, but they'll see soon enough.

I agree, to a point.

But Bettman and the NHL have had a take it or leave it attitude throughout this entire ordeal.
And that's just not the way to get deals done, even if it appeals to the moronic general public which usually likes tough-talking idiots.

I know that it takes two to tango. I know that player salaries are ridiculous.

But I also know that it was Bettman and the NHL who LOCKED OUT the players and have played lead in this reckless game of chicken.

Ultimately, Bettman and the NHL are the stewards of the league. And once again, they've proven inept.

This isn't just about $60Million. That's a pittance. This is about exposure on America's sports channel. So now there is no ESPN. Probably not any ESPN II. Of course, that means ESPN will have ZERO interest in publicizing the game. Hockey highlights will fall deeper into the sportscasts. We won't see NHL Tongiht, or NHL teams featured on the season.
Corporate sponsors will be a lot more likely to pull the plug.

Seriously, the league just lost an entire season. And now, if the CBA ever gets signed, it is going to need all the good publicity it can get.

Kiss it goodbye in the USA.
Kiss it goodbye.

We might be on the verge of contraction.
 

BitterEnd

Registered User
Dec 24, 2004
44
0
McDonald19 said:
If thats the case then I hope Fox Sports steps up and buys the NHL rights for 10 years and starts a national sports network.

I wouldn't hold my breath for that one. Fox tried hockey and it failed miserably.
I wouldn't expect them or any network to offer anything significant for hockey in the near future.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Dr Love said:
Oh not this argument again. What more did you want them to do?

To start with, a little bit of constitency in their scheduling. Wednesday Night Hockey might as well have been named "Wednesday Nights where we don't have a mid-major basketball game to show Hockey".
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
WC Handy said:
I image that the NHL would go on ESPN for free before they'd agree to go on Spike. The stigma that would be attached to the league for being on that station probably isn't worth the money they'd offer.

Ha! the NHL is in no position to choose. They'd be lucky if Viacom offered them the same deal NBC did for the national TV deal.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
TiesRLikeWins4Us said:
Good.. I hate ESPN.

I hope the NHL gets on Spike.


Yeah, because nothing says "fringe sport" louder than broadcasting an NHL game between COPS, elimidate and professional wrestling.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
FLYLine4LIFE said:
Yea im sure networks are lined up trying to get a sport where ratings are garbage and are in the middle of a lockout that could go on for another year. NHL really ****ed up this time. Still a good idea to try to destroy the Union bettman? You had already won the war.

How did Bettman already win the war? His owners clearly feel that they need linkage at a point lower than the players have ever offered up until this point. If the owners didn't feel this way, collectively, then they would have fired him by now.

As for the networks. Yes, there is a chance that many networks would be interested in the NHL. The rights to broadcast the games will be cheap, the games have a specific demographic that advertisers target, and it would provide an entry to sports for any network considering such a thing.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
hockeytown9321 said:
Ha! the NHL is in no position to choose. They'd be lucky if Viacom offered them the same deal NBC did for the national TV deal.

And what meetings between the NHL and potential networks were you a part of?
 

Dr Love

Registered User
Mar 22, 2002
20,360
0
Location, Location!
WC Handy said:
To start with, a little bit of constitency in their scheduling. Wednesday Night Hockey might as well have been named "Wednesday Nights where we don't have a mid-major basketball game to show Hockey".
Blame the NHL for not negotiating that into their contract. ESPN has a contract with the NCAA to show X amount of basketball games. If it'll bring in better ratings, and thus, more money, then there's nothing wrong with showing a mid-major game over a hockey game. ESPN is a business, it's not here to cater to you.
 

Donnie D

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
796
62
Visit site
I never can figure out the people on this board. This is, just like the CBA, a business decision - and only that. ESPN might have been willing to take a loss on hockey when it was without the NBA, but now, why bother? They have more college basketball games to pick from during much of the same period as they could possibly need. Add to it the NBA and MLB and ESPN has about as much live programming as they need. At one time they broadcast Australian Rules Football. They no longer need that to fill their time, and they don't need the NHL either. In fact the Australian Rules just might get better ratings.

Who would take the league? Well no one with the stature of ESPN. Face it, the league needed the name ESPN more than ESPN needs the NHL. This should once again prove to everyone that, in the lower 48, hockey is a minor sport. I know that's hard to believe for those of us who live and breathe hockey.

No this isn't a grand plan by Bettman and ESPN. This is ESPN saying, "we don't need you anymore." The problem for the sport is that Bob hasn't figured out that no one, ok only a tiny few, even care if they settle. He is looking for major league compensation for a minor sport.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->