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.