"ESPN Remains Interested in the NHL"

[Staalweiser]

This move by ESPN is too cut-off the potential competition that Comcast represents. The money ESPN spends to keep control of the NHL is nothing compared to the potential loss of revenue is Comcast is successful.

Agreed. I think it's pretty obvious that ESPN only wishes to keep the NHL so it doesn't allow Comcast to grow as "competition". They don't care about the NHL, it's merely a business move. They would rather have the NHL and bury it than allow it to catch fire on a different network thus drawing viewers away from their channel.

But, since I live in Australia, this is the only chance I get to see hockey (barring a game every two weeks on Fox) - so GO ESPN GO!

 

[RLC]

This move by ESPN is too cut-off the potential competition that Comcast represents. The money ESPN spends to keep control of the NHL is nothing compared to the potential loss of revenue is Comcast is successful.

So, they buy the NHL, bury it and keep Comcast on the outside looking in. Taking the NHL back is a 'Bury Comcast' maneuver by ESPN.

I"m all for trying something new with a hungry, growth-oriented partner, as opposed to an ossified one with a history of treating the sport badly, no matter how many homes their channel reaches.

Ta,

I agree totaly. EPSN because it its established, looks at ratings only
and maximizing thier profits and thats fine. BUt for the NHL, getting bumped at any time is unaceptable and getting buryed is the worse thing of all.
Comcast want to expand and be a player, a direct competition to ESPN. They will activly promot what they have.
I think ESPN will use the right to match just to bury the NHL and use it a filler material and keep Comcast behind the eight ball

 

[chiavsfan]

Unfortunately ESPN has been going with less and less actual "games" and going with their "Original Entertainment" programming. Hockey just dosen't fit with "Around the Horn" and "Pardon the Interruption." No to mention the new whatever the heck show it is with the "Know nothing" Steven A. Smith.

Look for a sporting event on ESPN now, and here is what you will find

Poker
Pool
Outdoor Game re-runs
"Original Entertainment"
Girls Softball
WNBA
and the Occasional MLB game

ESPN sucks, and if the NHL is serious about starting over fresh, then recycling the old ESPN "do nothing for hockey" mantra would be the WRONG way to go

 

[dwkdnvr]

I agree that ESPN this past year neglected hockey with backing down from the World Junior Finals. But if the NHL wants to get back in the main stream of sports in USA they have no other choice but go to ESPN. OLN in main stream sports in the USA is just known for the showing the Tour de France every July. It is what is Out Door Life. It a different audience than mainstream USA sports. ESPN probably eaches to 175 to 200 Million homes in America while OLN probably from 125 to 150 homes in America. (That is my estimate if somebody has exact please correct me) The NHL needs to grab the most people they can get.

Sorry, but I disagree completely with your post. It represents all the mistakes in conventional thinking that IMHO lead me to hope that the Comcast move is a good thing. Basically

- Hockey needs ESPN to be a 'legitmate' sport. Well, we tried that, and it failed. The 'ESPN crowd' - both viewers and all the new 'analysts' they have on have voted clearly and unambiguously that they have at best no interest in hockey, and at worst they have nothing but contempt.
- Hockey will grow by attracting 'conventional sports fans'. I now doubt this. In my experience, a large fraction of hockey fans in the US are NOT conventional sports fans. My wife for example is a rabid hockey fan, and couldn't give a rat's a$$ about any other sport. IMHO 'sports fans' that have interest in hockey will find it even on OLN. Given the trend in ESPN coverage towards polarization (they're clearly going down the talk-radio path) way more conventional sports fans will take more pleasure in dumping on the NHL than they will get from trying to give it a chance.
- We need to get in as many homes as possible. I don't think hockey is the type of game that 'most people' will fall in love with due to a casual viewing. We've heard the complaints for years, and it basically comes down to the fact that uninitiated fans have a very tough time following a game. Given that, folks will have to make some level of effort to get to know the game well enough to follow - this implies that a properly targeted marketing campaign to the correct audience is likely to be more valuable than simple broad coverage. IMHO OLN has a better chance of drawing a more open-minded fan than the group-think influenced ESPN crowd.
- OLN is the wrong brand. Let's face it - if cycling fans will turn on the 'hunting and fishing' channel to watch their sport, hockey fans will do the same. Plus, I really believe that OLN will shift focus, particularly if they're serious about going after an NFL package.

Anyway, IMHO the single biggest overriding consideration is the HD coverage - not only ensuring it is prominent, but also what they do with it. The same stale tired coverage in HD isn't going to be particularly compelling to folks. However, HD is still so 'exciting' to people that MANY non-fans will likely tune in to HD broadcasts occasionally just out of curiosity. If the viewing experience is compelling, I think there's a very good chance to capture an audience even if they don't fully appreciate the game to start with.

A secondary concern is a predictable/consistent set of auxiliary programming. A daily wrap-up show like NHL2Night (not necessarily the same people/format, but a daily scores/highlights/analysis slot), plus a weekly wrap focussing on broader analysis could be important to gaining/maintaining an audience. This is IMHO where ESPN screwed hockey over so badly - as soon as they moved NHL2Night to a sporadic schedule, they were nailing the coffin shut. It IS a tough call as to how to schedule it to address both east coast and west coast audiences, but something is needed.

Anyway, regardless of what's 'best', ESPN still holds all the cards with their right to match. If they match and guarantee 2 HD games a week in predictable/decent time slots, it may not end up being a complete disaster.

 

[Spydey629]

Unfortunately ESPN has been going with less and less actual "games" and going with their "Original Entertainment" programming. Hockey just dosen't fit with "Around the Horn" and "Pardon the Interruption." No to mention the new whatever the heck show it is with the "Know nothing" Steven A. Smith.

Look for a sporting event on ESPN now, and here is what you will find

Poker
Pool
Outdoor Game re-runs
"Original Entertainment"
Girls Softball
WNBA
and the Occasional MLB game

ESPN sucks, and if the NHL is serious about starting over fresh, then recycling the old ESPN "do nothing for hockey" mantra would be the WRONG way to go

You forgot the X Games.

 

[chiavsfan]

You forgot the X Games.

Shoot, I forgot. How will I ever forgive myself.

 

[ABunker]

Weren't they starting a professional Hot Dog eating circuit too?

 

[rekrul]

espn getting the NHL and intentionaly buring it sounds a bit dumb. if you pay $100 mil for two seasons you would think at least you might try to get more viewers than you got last year in the time slot with NCAA basketball. Also wouldn't it be smart for the "marketing genius" that gary bettman is to make sure in a solid agreement that ESPN be held liable to not only show games but premote them.

Lets not forget that right now OLN get 1/10 the viewership in primetime that ESPN gets. Even the rebranding of the channel and turning into a legit sports network will have far fewer eyeballs to see sidney crosby, rick nash or any new star emerge into what we all hope will be an exciting NHL 2.0.

Part of the reason X-games, outdoor games and poker are on so much and premoted is that ESPN has some if not all owenership of those. It would make sence to me to see if Disney was interested in buying into the league somehow, then at least find a few voices beyond Buccigross and Hradek that love hockey get them on the airwaives.

 

[Lou is God]

This move by ESPN is too cut-off the potential competition that Comcast represents. The money ESPN spends to keep control of the NHL is nothing compared to the potential loss of revenue is Comcast is successful.

So, they buy the NHL, bury it and keep Comcast on the outside looking in. Taking the NHL back is a 'Bury Comcast' maneuver by ESPN.

I"m all for trying something new with a hungry, growth-oriented partner, as opposed to an ossified one with a history of treating the sport badly, no matter how many homes their channel reaches.

Ta,

Very good point, I think giving exclusive rights to the ESPN would be unwise, but letting them broadcast some games would not be. There is no real reason why the NHL can't have two partners the same way the NBA has with ESPN/TNT.

The more exposure the better.

 

[no13matssundin]

This move by ESPN is too cut-off the potential competition that Comcast represents. The money ESPN spends to keep control of the NHL is nothing compared to the potential loss of revenue is Comcast is successful.

So, they buy the NHL, bury it and keep Comcast on the outside looking in. Taking the NHL back is a 'Bury Comcast' maneuver by ESPN.

I"m all for trying something new with a hungry, growth-oriented partner, as opposed to an ossified one with a history of treating the sport badly, no matter how many homes their channel reaches.

Ta,

I totally agree. This is a "lets stop Comcast from competing" move... which bodes VERY well for the NHL: IF they're intelligent, they go back and forth, upping the price in the meantime, until someone bites... my hope is that Comcast gets the deal and builds a Un-ESPN Sports network... yknow, where they actually show SPORTS and not reality TV shows and Poker all day long.

 

[ej_pens]

Look for a sporting event on ESPN now, and here is what you will find

Poker
Pool
Outdoor Game re-runs
"Original Entertainment"
Girls Softball
WNBA
and the Occasional MLB game

ESPN sucks, and if the NHL is serious about starting over fresh, then recycling the old ESPN "do nothing for hockey" mantra would be the WRONG way to go

Quite frankly, I don't think you'll see much different from Comcast. Sure, they might have a couple more hockey themed shows pop up because that's all that they'll have to start out, but they'll need to fill 24 hours a day of programming and there's only so much live sports you can show.

Have any idea why ESPN shows that stuff? It's cheap filler material that gets decent ratings and doesn't cost much to a) buy the rights for and b) produce.

So instead of seeing Steven A Smith and the 14th rerun of the World Strongest Man, Part 5, you'll see Backwoods Bob in the woods 15 times a day looking for something to shoot or some hick dancing on his boat because he caught some 500 lb fish.

 

[Kenadyan]

espn getting the NHL and intentionaly buring it sounds a bit dumb. if you pay $100 mil for two seasons you would think at least you might try to get more viewers than you got last year in the time slot with NCAA basketball. Also wouldn't it be smart for the "marketing genius" that gary bettman is to make sure in a solid agreement that ESPN be held liable to not only show games but premote them.

Lets not forget that right now OLN get 1/10 the viewership in primetime that ESPN gets. Even the rebranding of the channel and turning into a legit sports network will have far fewer eyeballs to see sidney crosby, rick nash or any new star emerge into what we all hope will be an exciting NHL 2.0.

Part of the reason X-games, outdoor games and poker are on so much and premoted is that ESPN has some if not all owenership of those. It would make sence to me to see if Disney was interested in buying into the league somehow, then at least find a few voices beyond Buccigross and Hradek that love hockey get them on the airwaives.

I agree that Gary Bettman needs to hold ESPN accountable, and in the contract there needs to be wording that ESPN (or ESPN2) is required to show at least 2-3 hockey games in prime time each and every week of the season.

In addition, there should be something worded in there about an one-half hour NHL2Night-type show (if ESPN gets the contract they could just put NHL2Night back on the air) at the same time (say 10:00 p.m.) on ESPN2 four or five days a week.

Thirdly, there should also be a one-hour weekly NHL wrap-up show on Saturdays (11:00 p.m.) that covers both conferences and reviews games from the previous week and previews upcoming games for the next week.

I believe by having it on ESPN2, it wouldn't interfer with the college football schedule on ESPN in the fall and there wouldn't have to be a Sunday show so it wouldn't interfer with the NFL Sunday night game (change this wording of this paragraph to Monday night starting in 2006 when ESPN will start showing MNF).

There should also be wording in the contract that if ESPN breaches any part of the deal, it will instantly be open for bidding by any competing network for the current season (Comcast, come on down).

Bettman needs to grow a pair and hold ESPN's feet to the fire if he plans to promote the NHL they way it should be.

 

[MojoJojo]

Joe Chip hit the nail on the head. Its about ESPN trying to keep a valuable commodity out of the hands of a possible competitor.

NHL should give ESPN the rights to broadcast 2 NHL games per week, just like Comcast, only on two different nights.

 

[hckyguyco]

Does Dish network offer Centre Ice this year? I was looking at the website and at the sports packages and they made no mention of Centre Ice. Right now I have comcast digital cable and I can order CI with it, but looking around it seems like the overall price for the dish is cheaper than comcast. Also, any comments on whats a better dish, directv or dish network?

I think its about personal preference. I had both Dish and Directv and I like the latter more. Better format, customer service, pricing, etc.. I am sure both companies will offer the Center Ice package.

 

[Kenadyan]

I think its about personal preference. I had both Dish and Directv and I like the latter more. Better format, customer service, pricing, etc.. I am sure both companies will offer the Center Ice package.

I've had DirecTV for seven years and I would NEVER go back to cable. As stated above DirecTV offers a little more than Dish Network.

Also DirecTV and Dish Network broadcast ALL channels in crisp, digital clarity (something that gets overlooked in the cable vs. satellite argument). Even digital cable doesn't broadcast ALL of their channels in digital clarity (some channels have interference or broadband issues when too many people are trying to watch the same channel at the same time -- like during the Super Bowl).

 

[kdb209]

I've had DirecTV for seven years and I would NEVER go back to cable. As stated above DirecTV offers a little more than Dish Network.

Also DirecTV and Dish Network broadcast ALL channels in crisp, digital clarity (something that gets overlooked in the cable vs. satellite argument). Even digital cable doesn't broadcast ALL of their channels in digital clarity (some channels have interference or broadband issues when too many people are trying to watch the same channel at the same time -- like during the Super Bowl).

Well, I think that someone has been reading way too much DirecTV (D*) marketing fluff - crisp, digital clarity. Digital is not synonymous with good picture quality - the artifacts are just different (overcompression). D* can give very good picture quality if they decide to dedicate enough bandwidth (HBO, PPVs, etc). Other stations can and do look like over compressed crap. I've done side by side A/B comparisons of D* and Comcast digital cable. The best channels on D* look as good, maybe a bit better, than on cable, the average channel a bit worse, and the bottom of the barrel, significantly worse. And I won't go into the current HD situation - a good cable system has significantly higher bandwidth allocated and noticibly better picture quality than D*, and of course local channels available in HD. This may change in the next year or so as the new D* MPEG4/HD satellites come into service.

And actually with a clean signal, SD channels on analog cable actually look better than any digital cable or satellite channel can or will.

And as a disclaimer, I actually am a mostly satisfied D* customer.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Well said, SirKraut.

I'd like to give Comcast a chance to market the NHL. ESPN probably just wants to jump on the Crosby bandwagon now that they realize they screwed up.

If they start with a game of the week and keep it on the same day --- that would be a huge start. I could never find the games on ESPN and then I got tired of seeing the same four teams over and over and over and over and over again.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

Anyway, regardless of what's 'best', ESPN still holds all the cards with their right to match. If they match and guarantee 2 HD games a week in predictable/decent time slots, it may not end up being a complete disaster.

Which raises the question about what it means to "match" the offer. Must ESPN only match financially, or must they match all of the logistical promises as well... number of games per week, time slots, regular highlights/analysis show, etc.? These latter conditions are every bit as important, if not more important.

 

[LazRNN]

I'm selfish... I hope ESPN matches so I don't have to upgrade my Dish Network subscription package. But beyond that, it will be better for the NHL to be on ESPN2 than OLN just in terms of visibility. I hadn't even heard of OLN before there was talk about them picking up the NHL. Yeah, sure, ESPN hasn't done the NHL much good, but unfortunately the NHL is in no position pretend they've got any leverage here. The NHL needs ESPN more than ESPN needs the NHL.

 

[ej_pens]

If they start with a game of the week and keep it on the same day --- that would be a huge start. I could never find the games on ESPN and then I got tired of seeing the same four teams over and over and over and over and over again.

Again, what about Comcast is going to be different? They are going to televise teams that get ratings and if that means that they show a bunch of games with the same teams, they will.

Make no mistake, Comcast is doing this to make money. Ratings will control the schedule.

 

[rabi]

I could never find the games on ESPN and then I got tired of seeing the same four teams over and over and over and over and over again.

sounds like you needed to consult a tv schedule which are always readily available online ANYWHERE

 

[Lou is God]

I totally agree. This is a "lets stop Comcast from competing" move... which bodes VERY well for the NHL: IF they're intelligent, they go back and forth, upping the price in the meantime, until someone bites... my hope is that Comcast gets the deal and builds a Un-ESPN Sports network... yknow, where they actually show SPORTS and not reality TV shows and Poker all day long.

ESPN has had a great run and probably will still be the powerhouse in the sports media for years to come, but I think they are due for them and their overhyped product to be brought back down to earth a little.

They have become all style and no substance sports coverage, and I also can't stand their website anymore, all these graphics and stupid videos popping up and you can tell they have started to take sports fans for granted with their greediness on having to pay to get every scoop or "IN" as they call it, give me a break.

 

[mmarlo]

My concern about the Comcast deal has to do with the availability of HD broadcasts, which is supposed to be an important aspect of the NHL "re-launch". OLN currently does not broadcast in HD, though OLN HD is scheduled to be launched in October, just as the NHL season is getting started. I fully expect all or most HDTV *cable* customers to have access to OLN HD, but I am very concerned that Comcast will try to gouge DirecTV for the rights to broadcast OLN HD, resulting in DirecTV not carrying it (a la TNT HD). If ESPN matches the contract (which they are now rumored not to be doing), at least DirecTV HD subscribers will be able to catch games on ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD (which will be launched Sept. 8).

 

[RangerBoy]

A little birdie says ESPN, within days, will retain its NHL TV broadcasting rights by matching Comcast's recent two-year, $100 million bid.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/12362925.htm

 

[RangerBoy]

Despite some public display of non-affection, ESPN officially wants to keep the NHL, sources say, although the network balked in April at renewing its annual contract with the league for $60 million a year when it appeared there would be no agreement reached to start the 2005-06 season.

ESPN's decision might be made only to help quash rumors that Comcast, the cable company that owns OLN, wants to establish its own alternative sports channel to compete against ESPN. If the NHL landed on OLN, which in 64 million homes, it would answer questions about how the network would retain viewership following its award-winning coverage of Lance Armstrong's run in the past two Tours de France.

http://www2.dailynews.com/sports/ci_2934424