Future of NHL on NBC

[Smirnov2Chistov]

The NHL is better off using NBC and/or FOX to broadcast the games instead of ESPN. At least NBC (and to a lesser extent) FOX actually cared about the product they put on.

I may be alone here, but because I use an OTA antenna, it's more benefical to me watch the games on NBC/FOX rather than pay for a cable subscription to get ESPN

Even before the political landscape like today, I tuned out of ESPN because of their pompous attitude towards the sport. The last thing I need is one day hearing Max Kellerman crap all over the game just because something doesn't fit what he wants. ESPN is stuck in the same old boring cycle. NBA, NFL, College Football, Lebron, Social Justice/Politcal issues, rinse & repeat.

 

[BattleBorn]

The NHL was on ESPN for years and years and years. There was absolutely no benefit to the NHL at all. The rare time ESPN talked hockey, they made fun of it and insulted the league.

Anyone who claimes the NHL needs ESPN simply wasn’t watching in the early 2000’s.

The best thing the NHL did was leave ESPN. The worst thing the NHL ever did was leave FOX for ABC/ESPN.

The world is a little different now than it was then. I think there's a decent shot that ESPN ignores the NHL even if they get a contract to broadcast games. In that case, assuming the money is the same, it's the same situation as NBC, just a different channel.

I wouldn't advocate the league taking less money to get games on ESPN, but if almost everything else is the same why not go with ESPN with a shot they'll talk hockey more everyday? NBCSN programming isn't taking much advantage of having hockey for their other inventory, plus, it's a less known network that (I assume) is available on less people's packages.

 

[eddygee]

The world is a little different now than it was then. I think there's a decent shot that ESPN ignores the NHL even if they get a contract to broadcast games. In that case, assuming the money is the same, it's the same situation as NBC, just a different channel.

I wouldn't advocate the league taking less money to get games on ESPN, but if almost everything else is the same why not go with ESPN with a shot they'll talk hockey more everyday? NBCSN programming isn't taking much advantage of having hockey for their other inventory, plus, it's a less known network that (I assume) is available on less people's packages.

Nielsen coverage estimates for September see gains at ESPN networks, drops at MLBN and NFLN
ESPN is in about 2.5 million more homes than NBCSN. However, NBCSN posted slightly bigger growth numbers in September adding 110,000 subscribers vs ESPN's 93,000. Of note both networks posted gains for the first time in over a year.

 

[Boulder Avalanche]

The world is a little different now than it was then. I think there's a decent shot that ESPN ignores the NHL even if they get a contract to broadcast games. In that case, assuming the money is the same, it's the same situation as NBC, just a different channel.

I wouldn't advocate the league taking less money to get games on ESPN, but if almost everything else is the same why not go with ESPN with a shot they'll talk hockey more everyday? NBCSN programming isn't taking much advantage of having hockey for their other inventory, plus, it's a less known network that (I assume) is available on less people's packages.

ESPN will not focus on hockey even with a deal. They are a NFL and NBA centric coverage channel. The on air talent is getting more and more political driving away viewership. Add this to the decline in cable subscriptions and costly TV deals, and you can see that ESPN more than any other sports channel is facing issues. The best option for the NHL is a multi network deal with NBCSN being the home for most nationally televised games, and having someone like CBS or Fox carry a Game of the Week with the Stanley Cup Final swapping networks year to year.

 

[Melrose Munch]

ESPN will not focus on hockey even with a deal. They are a NFL and NBA centric coverage channel. The on air talent is getting more and more political driving away viewership. Add this to the decline in cable subscriptions and costly TV deals, and you can see that ESPN more than any other sports channel is facing issues. The best option for the NHL is a multi network deal with NBCSN being the home for most nationally televised games, and having someone like CBS or Fox carry a Game of the Week with the Stanley Cup Final swapping networks year to year.

Because hockey doesn't promote its stars.

 

[snovalleyhockeyfan]

ESPN will not focus on hockey even with a deal. They are a NFL and NBA centric coverage channel. The on air talent is getting more and more political driving away viewership. Add this to the decline in cable subscriptions and costly TV deals, and you can see that ESPN more than any other sports channel is facing issues. The best option for the NHL is a multi network deal with NBCSN being the home for most nationally televised games, and having someone like CBS or Fox carry a Game of the Week with the Stanley Cup Final swapping networks year to year.

The league can use an over-the-air partner that can do a Saturday night game of the week similar to HNIC here in the States. Fenway, IIRC hasn't NBC's ratings been better for their primetime games as opposed to their Sunday afternoon ones? If so, that should be a clue to the league that perhaps there might be an appetite for such a game of the week. Sure, it'd involve the same eight or nine teams every week but you could theoretically regionalize the games and the games a certain area doesn't get would be available on Center Ice and NHL.tv.

 

[Grudy0]

Because hockey doesn't promote its stars.

"Hockey" promoted its stars during the early 1990's when it was on ESPN, again during the late 1990's when it was on Fox and again during the 2000's when it was back on ESPN. That didn't increase ratings much. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

 

[Melrose Munch]

"Hockey" promoted its stars during the early 1990's when it was on ESPN, again during the late 1990's when it was on Fox and again during the 2000's when it was back on ESPN. That didn't increase ratings much. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

So why does the NHL have to be special. Or more accurately, how does hockey get more popular? We can put teams everywhere but if they are not on TV, it changes nothing.

 

[Grudy0]

So why does the NHL have to be special. Or more accurately, how does hockey get more popular? We can put teams everywhere but if they are not on TV, it changes nothing.

Who said the NHL had to be special? I'm not making a correlation between marketing stars and watching TV ratings improve - so I'd like to get your thoughts on how you marketing the league's star players improved ratings for other sports, as both the NBA and NFL have been doing that but their ratings have generally declined slightly over the past ten years.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Who said the NHL had to be special? I'm not making a correlation between marketing stars and watching TV ratings improve - so I'd like to get your thoughts on how you marketing the league's star players improved ratings for other sports, as both the NBA and NFL have been doing that but their ratings have generally declined slightly over the past ten years.

Their ratings have declined because of cable cutting and other issues, which has really been the last 5 years. But even today the NHL doesn't come close. So I'm tossing the ball back to you and my new question is how do we get more people watching the NHL.

 

[MNNumbers]

I think that marketing the NHL is very difficult, because not very many people have experience on skates, and the skill level of the players is so high that it's difficult for the average person to actually 'connect' with what the players do...

For example, if we use NBA....Most people can connect with a guy driving the lane and either putting in a layup or an emphatic dunk. This has the advantage in 'catching people's attention' because of how it can be described - as a personal battle... "In your face" or something. "He dunks on him". In the same way, a blocked shot can easily be described as a 'rejection' and it looks kind of "aggressive"/"violent" so it catches people's attention. Or, Curry's long threes. They are impressive to the common man because of how difficult the shot is, and most people know that, because they have tried it themselves. In like manner, all of these things can be attempted by teens on their local court. 30' shots. Drive the lane. The tall guy blocking shots.

But, unfortunately for NHL, that kind of thing doesn't easily transfer to the multitudes. Hockey has so much skill that few can even imagine every thing that goes into a goal, or a great save.

Continuing the thought....If one player in the NBA 'rejects' a few shots in a game in a spectacular manner, it's a reasonable guess that the same player will do the same in the next game, so fans can expect it. But, in hockey, a great save is just slightly more than a random occurrence.

So, the league is just up against a hard situation. I'm not sure how to do it.

But I would be glad to hear from others with differing thoughts.

 

[BattleBorn]

Hockey is just different.

In baseball everything is situational and takes forever. In football and basketball, you have time to appreciate the situation. The point guard is slowly crossing the half court line and you can see what's developing. Or the official places the ball, the teams line up, and it's time to go.

Baseball, it's a 3-2 count, here's the pitch.
Football, it's 3rd and 2, can likely expect a run here.
Basketball, they're down 3 and there's a full court press on, expect some quick passes.
Even soccer gives you time to see what's happening.
Hockey is just too quick for a newbie and it feels intimidating.

If it was my call, and I know most hockey fans would hate it, I'd superimpose the blue and red lines on the screen in situations. For example, when a team is approaching their offensive zone, until the puck crosses, the line is brighter (or the entire zone is shaded.) Once there's an on-side entry, the lines return to normal and it's just like today.

You could do the same thing with icing. If a pass crosses the center red line, superimpose the goal red line and shade that area indicating icing.

It would serve two purposes: Illustrating the rules visually for one, and giving people something to watch develop for the other. I'd personally hate it unless they really did it right, but I bet it would get people tricked into watching by slowing the game down a little and letting situations develop, even if they're somewhat stupid situations.

Putting the numbers (or names, if there's space) of the players on the ice at any given time would be nice for newbies too since you never really get to see line changes on TV and new players just kind of appear. The league/arena/team/network tracks that stuff anyway, share the info with the viewer if you can find a way to do it without it dominating the screen.

 

[rojac]

Hockey is just different.

In baseball everything is situational and takes forever. In football and basketball, you have time to appreciate the situation. The point guard is slowly crossing the half court line and you can see what's developing. Or the official places the ball, the teams line up, and it's time to go.

Baseball, it's a 3-2 count, here's the pitch.
Football, it's 3rd and 2, can likely expect a run here.
Basketball, they're down 3 and there's a full court press on, expect some quick passes.
Even soccer gives you time to see what's happening.
Hockey is just too quick for a newbie and it feels intimidating.

If it was my call, and I know most hockey fans would hate it, I'd superimpose the blue and red lines on the screen in situations. For example, when a team is approaching their offensive zone, until the puck crosses, the line is brighter (or the entire zone is shaded.) Once there's an on-side entry, the lines return to normal and it's just like today.

You could do the same thing with icing. If a pass crosses the center red line, superimpose the goal red line and shade that area indicating icing.

It would serve two purposes: Illustrating the rules visually for one, and giving people something to watch develop for the other. I'd personally hate it unless they really did it right, but I bet it would get people tricked into watching by slowing the game down a little and letting situations develop, even if they're somewhat stupid situations.

Putting the numbers (or names, if there's space) of the players on the ice at any given time would be nice for newbies too since you never really get to see line changes on TV and new players just kind of appear. The league/arena/team/network tracks that stuff anyway, share the info with the viewer if you can find a way to do it without it dominating the screen.

I’m reminded of The West Wing where VP John Haynes talks about hockey:

I love sports, I just can't get next to hockey. See, I think Americans like
to savour situations. One down, bottom of the ninth, one run game, first and third, left
handed batter, right hand reliever, infield at double play depth, here's the pitch. But
scoring in hockey seems to come out of nowhere. The play-by-play guy is always shocked.
LePeiter passes to Huckenchuck who skates past the blue line. Huckenchuck, of course,
was traded from Winnipeg for a case of Labatts after sitting out last season with...
"Oh my God, he scores!"

 

[BattleBorn]

I’m reminded of The West Wing where VP John Haynes talks about hockey:

Do you ever have one of those times where you think you're having a unique thought and then you realize you're just regurgitating something you heard?

I'm pretty sure that just happened to me in that last post. I'm a huge fan of The West Wing. Hoynes was right on.

 

[Headshot77]

Just hope that whoever the next deal is with, it gives the NHL exclusive digital rights to games, so that GameCenter Live can be open to home markets without blackout restrictions.

 

[powerstuck]

snip

For example, if we use NBA....Most people can connect with a guy driving the lane and either putting in a layup or an emphatic dunk. This has the advantage in 'catching people's attention' because of how it can be described - as a personal battle... "In your face" or something. "He dunks on him". In the same way, a blocked shot can easily be described as a 'rejection' and it looks kind of "aggressive"/"violent" so it catches people's attention. Or, Curry's long threes. They are impressive to the common man because of how difficult the shot is, and most people know that, because they have tried it themselves. In like manner, all of these things can be attempted by teens on their local court. 30' shots. Drive the lane. The tall guy blocking shots.
snip

This is true. For ages hockey has been the most expensive of sports even at youth level. I mean you have to spend 200-300$ on basic stuff and you still haven't put your foot on the ice.

But then again, soccer is very easy, takes a pair of shoes and a ball...heck for beginners even your daily shoes will do. Its seems tho North America took time to gain interest in the sport. And there are plays, happening almost every game with beautiful goals.

You can also put it to the extreme, in hockey we have the Bobby Orr's flying superman statue after scoring a goal and kids of today have the Crosby's golden goal or Oveckin on his back...in soccer there is the all time controversial Maradona hand-of-god goal, you have the Higuita scorpion save or a multitude of scissor goals kids can go on any field and try to repeat.

Hockey is just too quick for a newbie and it feels intimidating.

In the end, I think this is the main reason. The game is fast, way to fast for the casual person to comprehend what is happening and why.

In football they will give you 10 replays of a play, while they prepare for the next one. In baseball too. Basketball is quick too, but given the court is smaller, feels closer, the ball bigger it becomes easier.

 

[Grudy0]

Their ratings have declined because of cable cutting and other issues, which has really been the last 5 years. But even today the NHL doesn't come close. So I'm tossing the ball back to you and my new question is how do we get more people watching the NHL.

I'm loathe to do this...

Let's take a page from the one sport that basically leapfrogged the NHL in the 1980's - the NBA. Many assume it was the marketing of Bird and Magic that let to the resurgence of the league, and the addition of the greatest basketball talent in Jordan couldn't hurt either.

However, there was a major shift due to one rule change - the addition of the three-point line a few years after the absorption of the former ABA franchises, where that league employed the use of the line during their entire existence. No longer was the idea to continually feed the center the ball for an easy layup; now the game opened up when defenses had to guard against folks shooting from three-point land and that opened the game up.

I had been advocating the NHL abandon the two-line pass for close to two decades prior to the rule's dismissal in 2004. And although there are still many versions of the neutral-zone trap being employed now, they are less effective since the two-line pass was eliminated.

I'd propose opening up the game even more - the removal of offside on offensive zone entry. The blue line would only be used to to allow a defense to clear the zone. This should accomplish a few items:
1) defense would no longer "stand-up at the blue line" - they'd have to defend against the players already in the zone
2) the ridiculous challenges for offside would be relatively moot - how many offside challenges have there been against a defenseman trying to keep the puck in the zone
3) as it would open up the game, the speedier and more-talented players should be able to dominate games

Personally, I feel that one of the largest issues with getting people into hockey is the way penalties are called. I watch enough other sports to know that bad calls happen, but feel that there has been way too many tic-tac calls while some egregious violations are ignored. Removing the offside calls for zone entries would open up the game enough that the game should be refereed better.

Then again, I'm a fan of a team that just won the Cup. Judging on the turnout of folks outside the arena for the SCF Game 4 at home, and again when the streets were filled by about 50k fans when SCF Game 5 was played at Vegas, I'd even state the larger problem is that there are team fans and then there are hockey fans, where a hockey fan is one that would watch any game. The NHL needs more fans of any given team to watch more games not involving their team.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Just hope that whoever the next deal is with, it gives the NHL exclusive digital rights to games, so that GameCenter Live can be open to home markets without blackout restrictions.

The NHL wouldn't do that, as that's REALLY BAD for the teams.

 

[Headshot77]

The NHL wouldn't do that, as that's REALLY BAD for the teams.

Why is that?

 

[Crescent Street]

Why is that?

TV Networks are the reason most NHL teams can stay afloat. Without ad revenue, they are meaningless. Local blackouts forces viewers to tune into their local cable channel so that the network can gain viewership and eyes on the commercials.

 

[Rich Nixon]

TV Networks are the reason most NHL teams can stay afloat. Without ad revenue, they are meaningless. Local blackouts forces viewers to tune into their local cable channel so that the network can gain viewership and eyes on the commercials.

Yup. You can thank Ed Snider for envisioning that business model, which is now vital to the NBA, MLB, and NHL. And it works, for the most part.

I do wish they'd clean up their blackout regions a bit better though. I live in a part of New Jersey that you simply can't get NBC Sports Philadelphia in (distinctly in New York's broadcast radius). But because NBCSP broadcasts in much of South Jersey, Gamecenter/NHL.TV blacks out Flyers games in the entire state. So my only option for following my team is the more expensive and less convenient Center Ice package. I'm sure fans in other areas run into similar issues-hell, I bet there are Devils and Rangers fans in parts of South Jersey that don't get MSG and have the same problem. It's inane.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

TV Networks are the reason most NHL teams can stay afloat. Without ad revenue, they are meaningless. Local blackouts forces viewers to tune into their local cable channel so that the network can gain viewership and eyes on the commercials.

It's far less about ad revenue and far more about subscription fees.

Teams sell local rights to RSNs > RSNs sell the right to carry them to the TV providers > Consumers buy the TV packages

1 day, the middle man may be gone, but it's much further than people think. There's far more guaranteed money for the teams in selling the local rights to a network, then if they sold them direct to the consumer.

 

[Crescent Street]

It's far less about ad revenue and far more about subscription fees.

Teams sell local rights to RSNs > RSNs sell the right to carry them to the TV providers > Consumers buy the TV packages

1 day, the middle man may be gone, but it's much further than people think. There's far more guaranteed money for the teams in selling the local rights to a network, then if they sold them direct to the consumer.

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Because hockey doesn't promote its stars.

The NHL could try to market it's stars as much as they want. It won't be as successful in that regard as the NBA. It is just the nature of the sport. In the NBA, the star player plays almost the entire game and is involved in pretty much every offensive play down the court. That will never happen in hockey. If you buy a ticket to see LeBron James, you are going to see him play for 48 minutes and be part of every offensive play. If you buy a ticket to see Crosby, you will see him play for 20 minutes and he is not necessarily going to be involved in every shift.

 

[MNNumbers]

It's far less about ad revenue and far more about subscription fees.

Teams sell local rights to RSNs > RSNs sell the right to carry them to the TV providers > Consumers buy the TV packages

1 day, the middle man may be gone, but it's much further than people think. There's far more guaranteed money for the teams in selling the local rights to a network, then if they sold them direct to the consumer.

And, as with all sports, this is very interesting to me, because if you try to follow the money.......

Consumers buy the packages. If the consumers were only buying the NHL package, the amount spent would be less than it is (otherwise you could imply cut out the middle man right away). That means that the price for consumer is MORE than the NHL rights are actually worth. This can be true for a few reasons. One, the TV providers have the consumer over a barrel because of infrastructure and lack of competition. Or, two...some other piece of the TV package is actually being UNDER VALUED in the package, and would be worth MORE if it were sold separately.

TV providers buy from the RSN. Here again, the RSN has the TV provider a little over-the-barrel. The TV provider may well pay MORE than the rights are actually worth, because either....One, there are enough sports fans in the area that will rebel if the hockey rights aren't included, or Two, the TV provider needs content to get eyeballs watching. So, again, as we go up the ladder, both of the first 2 steps allow the product to be overvalued.

This leads naturally to the conclusion that....
The RSN is actually paying MORE for the rights to distribute the product than the product is actually worth.

And, to me, this arrangement is one that cannot last. Eventually, the market will have to even this out somehow.

Also, it is very true.....since OTA has diminished, eyeballs watching for ad purposes has become less and less important.

However, interestingly, NFL still gets most of its TV from OTA broadcasting ( I think). So, they are dependent on people watching, and the networks selling ads because people are watching. Since the direct consumer is NOT paying here, except in its response to advertising, this makes that business model even more intriguing to analyze.