HNIC facing uncertain future

[FakeKidPoker*]

The post was in response to the comment that CBC wouldn't cut from a game early. This was a pretty famous incident and one that CBC had to live down for a long time.

It was 30 years ago though.

CBC never does it this day and age.. what TSN lately has been known to show events like Golf and others over playoff games.

I remember the storys of CTV getting ready to offer the NHL a billion dollars a few years ago and that didn't pan out.

Hopefully it doesn't again.

 

[Mwd711]

The post was in response to the comment that CBC wouldn't cut from a game early. This was a pretty famous incident and one that CBC had to live down for a long time.

It is a famous incident but the only reason they could go to the Habs game was that the earlier Leafs game had already ended. At the time, HNIC only aired one game per night and fed games to each region. Instead of showing the end of the Habs game as "bonus coverage" in the other regions, the CBC cut to news. That's still common today when NFL and MLB games are regionalized. It was a dumb decision but it's not like they showed the entire game and then cut from it as it went to OT. People in Quebec saw the entire Habs game as intended.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Dont kid yourself. If HNiC goes under on CBC, TSN will be knocking on both Ron and Don's doors the very next day offering them jobs.

No they won't. Don't be silly.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Some good points from both sides brought up so far. Only showing hockey one night a week means CBC can pump all their resources into that night, so HNIC with all its pre-game/post-game and intermission stuff is a great production. This would likely be lost with CTV.

But, there are some big time issues CBC needs to iron out. As mentioned, the HD nonsense. This isn't five years ago, HD is now the norm and is expected. Not being able to broadcast more than two HD games in a day is ridiculous.

Second is the quality of the announcing teams. The Hughson-Simpson-Healy tandem did a marvelous job of making absolute jack-***** of themselves this playoffs, especially in the final. Over the top cheerleading on a national telecast is something that should not be tolerated from your "A" broadcast crew.

Bob Cole is alright (don't understand the incessant criticism of him), but his retirement has been pending for a decade. Dean Brown calls a very good game. Greg Millen is an obnoxious twit, but he's been there 15 years and likely isn't going anywhere. Gary Galley is decent. Overall, they are passable as the Montreal and Ottawa crews, and Brown should be doing the second national game, as I'll explain below.

Mark Lee is terrible. His knowledge of the game is nothing beyond what an average fan in a bar could boast, and his misidentification of players is chronic. Kevin Weekes isn't a strong enough colour man to overcome this. Without exageration, I have heard multiple WHL and CIS radio broadcast teams that are of higher quality. Pretty much any regional NHL broadcast crew that I've heard is much better. This absolutely cannot be your "B" team for the second national game on Saturdays. There are dozens of better options, including the Brown/Galley tandem.

I don't want CTV to get a monopoly on all the hockey in Canada, but if CBC can't put together two quality broadcast tandems and provide HD feeds for all the games...

 

[DoyleG]

That's how the NHL saw it last time when they accepted CBC's bid even though Globemedia (now Bell Media) would have bid more for those rights.

In 2014 CBC will really have to make a large bid to fight of Bell, and have to step up their game production wise (the aforementioned HD crap) to be relevant. I think the NHL would lean towards the history and the "over the air" national broadcaster element, but if CTV does decide to get involved in a bid along with TSN that could pose some problems since that wasn't on the table in 2008.

CTV/TSN/Bell would certainly be a powerful bid process. The problem in the past is usually with concerns about playoff coverage. CTV didn't like it since it would've cut into the sweeps period for shows that they already purchased. TSN and TSN 2 can't really carry the load for the NHL and CTV would have to take some of the slack. Given the way Saturday nights are on TV, that shouldn't be an issue.

The problem is that CBC Sports has been badly run for the last while. They lost the Olympics because the private system could cover the expanded games much greater (as was in Vancouver). CBC won the curling rights only to throw it away in an attempt to sell its digital channel. Ratings were poor for MLB, NBA, and MLS and they couldn't get SportsPlus off the ground. The CBC strike a couple of years ago encouraged the CFL to throw in their lot with TSN.

A good case came during the lockout when CBC let go of Cuthbert under the beleif that, with the lockout, he was of no value to CBC Sports. TSN through otherwise and signed him on to do NHL, CFL, and Olympic coverage. Basically, he got hired to do the same s**t that he did while at the CBC.

In reality, CBC Sports would need to be purged and rebuilt if it were to remain a force.

 

[knorthern knight]

CTV/TSN/Bell would certainly be a powerful bid process. The problem in the past is usually with concerns about playoff coverage. CTV didn't like it since it would've cut into the sweeps period for shows that they already purchased. TSN and TSN 2 can't really carry the load for the NHL and CTV would have to take some of the slack. Given the way Saturday nights are on TV, that shouldn't be an issue.

The former "/A\ Network" is being rebranded as CTV Two. This gives them another OTA channel to work with.

 

[Joey Moss]

TSN has some of the worst coverage around

Let's hope CBC and Sportsnet do a joint venture and land the rights.

You must be joking. TSN is great. Sportsnet is god awful, so many technical difficulties during the year it's getting a little ridiculous.

HNIC can not go, there is no way. Too much of a tradition on Saturday Nights.

 

[discostu]

If CBC loses the rights, which I think is very possible, I think you'd see the NHL break up the rights package so that CTV doesn't get the whole thing. I think the NHL would be wary of giving TSN too much control over the sports broadcasting industry in Canada. If CBC loses HNIC, they'll probably shut down their entire sports division, which removes one competitor from the biddingin the future. If they parcel out some games to Rogers or the Score, it keeps the industry competitive in Canada. Without that, TSN becomes the ESPN of Canada, and in future negotiations, that puts the power in TSNs hands.

 

[Wheatley]

I have been saying for years that I hope CBC loses HNIC.... then the CBC can fold and not cost me millions upon millions a year from my taxes.
Good riddance I say.

It's actually 1.1 billion dollars. Yep. 1.1 billion. Think about that for a second.

 

[Confucius]

It's actually 1.1 billion dollars. Yep. 1.1 billion. Think about that for a second.

$29 per year, per citizen. Big Deal. How much is the NHL network per year?

Edit to add:Hmmm upon further investigation the CBC lost 36 million last year and 22 million the year before.
So the cost to the people of Canada is about $1 per year per person.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/03/cbc-losses-36m-in-2010-crtc

 

[OneSharpMarble]

I don't care, one way or another I wll get to watch hockey. If CBC and ron and don are gone I would be a happy guy. Might miss a few shows like Dragons den and Lang & O'leary but thats about it in the entire ****** lineup.

 

[discostu]

$29 per year, per citizen. Big Deal. How much is the NHL network per year?

Edit to add:Hmmm upon further investigation the CBC lost 36 million last year and 22 million the year before.
So the cost to the people of Canada is about $1 per year per person.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/03/cbc-losses-36m-in-2010-crtc

They lost $36M over and above the $1.1B they receive as a subsidy.

 

[Jesus Christ Horburn]

If CTV/TSN/Sportsnet is already paying for MLB, MLS, CFL, Olympics, etc, can they really afford to go after the NHL as well?

 

[Melrose Munch]

If CTV/TSN/Sportsnet is already paying for MLB, MLS, CFL, Olympics, etc, can they really afford to go after the NHL as well?

If they have to drop CFL and MLS for NHL, they will.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

You must be joking. TSN is great. Sportsnet is god awful, so many technical difficulties during the year it's getting a little ridiculous.

HNIC can not go, there is no way. Too much of a tradition on Saturday Nights.

I'd be lying if I didn't say that I would be indifferent if TSN purchased the whole 'HNIC' copyright and used it like exactly like CBC did.

Except show weekday games as well. After this there would be no point in having CBC after this anymore.

 

[RTN]

$29 per year, per citizen. Big Deal. How much is the NHL network per year?

Edit to add:Hmmm upon further investigation the CBC lost 36 million last year and 22 million the year before.
So the cost to the people of Canada is about $1 per year per person.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/03/cbc-losses-36m-in-2010-crtc

Unless the taxpayers are getting a refund, it's still costing $1.1 billion.

The $36 million loss is after the $1.1 billion + all advertising revenue. I also doubt CBC pays corporate taxes.

 

[Brominator]

Weighing in here...

To me, HNIC is special. I can't quite explain it - although I'll try - but it's something that TSN/CTV will never have.

"The following is a live presentation of CBC Sports...."

Those words, followed by the new theme give me chills every Saturday night.

CBC's production is top-notch. Every double header feels like (and really is) a big event. In contrast, TSN's broadcasts - while their play-by-play guys are better - just can't offer that feeling of culture that CBC brings to the table.

The name of the show is "Hockey Night in Canada." And that's truly what it is. They describe the sport in a broader context - how does hockey fit in to life as a Canadian? To me, it feels like they strive to answer this question in every broadcast. It's so much more than just showing the games and reporting on trades, contracts, and injuries. They bring their cameras and microphones into the streets, livingrooms, bars and backyard rinks. CBC melds the sport with music and art, and give their show a uniquely Canadian feel. And I like Ron's poetry. Culture is something that you work hard towards and earn. CTV thinks culture can be gained by buying a song, and that sports news coverage should be a carbon copy of ESPN's.

What's more, CBC has guys like Ron MacLean and Scott Oake - journalists as much as they are sportscasters. They ask tough questions, and are critical of the NHL when it's warranted. For being Canada's premier sports network, TSN's coverage of the Thrashers move and the Coyotes financial troubles were been nothing short of embarassing. Does anyone actually think that Darren Dreger is a "hockey insider" as much as he is just an NHL mouthpiece?

And I'll take one of Cherry's sometimes nonsensical, always thoroughly entertaining, and always off-the-cuff rants over one of Bob McKenzie's wooden teleprompter-read analyses any day.

Another thing I absolutely love about HNIC is that their appreciation for the history of hockey. I'm not an old-timer - I'm 30, but I love when Ron or Don show a clip from the 60s, 70s, or 80s, and make great comparisons to the game today. That's something that TSN rarely does - probably because they don't own much archived footage - but history is important - and nobody does that better than HNIC.

I can put up with CBC's weak links like Cassie Campbell and the growing number of grey haired dudes. To me, HNIC is a far superior product, and a Canadian institution to boot.


---

An aside about CTV:


If their Olympic coverage is any indication, I won't look forward to CTV's handling of big time hockey. Their coverage, while thorough, was lacking in personality and professionalism. They used people from Canada AM, Ben Mulrooney, and other nauseating CTV personalities for a lot of their coverage. Seamus O'Regan? Enough said.

One morning several years ago, I saw Jeff Hutchison, the weather guy on Canada AM, recount the Oilers game he watched the night before, and during his anecdote he used the expression "Roloson stoned him!" Immediately, the rest of the Canada AM clan - including that tool Seamus, sat dumbfounded at the expression. Then they all snickered in a "if you say so..." way as the weather guy explained that "stoned" means to make a great save, and isn't some sort of drug reference. Cringe. Then a few years later, I have to sit through Seamus covering big time sports as if he knows what the hell he's talking about. Ugh, I hate that guy. Let's all hope we never see him anywhere near an NHL broadcast.

----

As far as the existence of CBC in general, I feel it would be a terrible shame if our country lost it. Being partly government funded keeps the CBC and in particular its news coverage, autonomous and unbiased. I wouldn't trade that for the sideshow that passes itself off as news coverage in the U.S. A broadcaster with a mandate to serve the people of Canada and not shareholders is refreshing and well worth the relatively little tax dollars I spend on it.

 

[Kimota]

Not really surpsied to see people wishing the CBC dead. This is the same Canada which gets high rating for American Idol among other thing and laughs at Canadian TV in general.

American Idol is broadcasted on CTV. CTV wants hockey games yet these pretty much only show US programming. At least there's a strong Canadian patriotic feel on CBC.

 

[Kimota]

The aging of Hockey Night’s top on-screen personalities could also become a potential problem

not very subtle is it.

 

[Brodie]

They lost $36M over and above the $1.1B they receive as a subsidy.

do you think public broadcasters make profits? I bet the Canadian healthcare system posts net losses, too... nobody's complaining there. The cultural benefits of the CBC far, far, far outweigh the cost to taxpayers. Complaining about $29 for a service that's second only to the BBC (which costs about £150, by the way) in it's field is just silly.

HNIC is extremely important culturally and historically, not just in Canada but in those US markets that receive CBC. If the NHL is stupid enough to give up 80+ years of history for a few dollars more, than eff the NHL.

 

[discostu]

do you think public broadcasters make profits? I bet the Canadian healthcare system posts net losses, too... nobody's complaining there. The cultural benefits of the CBC far, far, far outweigh the cost to taxpayers. Complaining about $29 for a service that's second only to the BBC (which costs about £150, by the way) in it's field is just silly.

HNIC is extremely important culturally and historically, not just in Canada but in those US markets that receive CBC. If the NHL is stupid enough to give up 80+ years of history for a few dollars more, than eff the NHL.

I was just correcting a factual error. I try not to get into the whole debate on whats the best use of tax payers funds. Everyone has their different views on that. But, you cannot really down play the cost of CBC. $1.1B is a material amount, especially in a political climate where budget cuts are being made at every level.

One of the questions I always have about CBC and HNIC, is if you are giving over $1B to a public broadcaster, why are they spending their resources on something that the private sector is willing to do.

 

[Roughneck]

An aside about CTV:


If their Olympic coverage is any indication, I won't look forward to CTV's handling of big time hockey. Their coverage, while thorough, was lacking in personality and professionalism. They used people from Canada AM, Ben Mulrooney, and other nauseating CTV personalities for a lot of their coverage. Seamus O'Regan? Enough said.

While I don't like the idea of HNIC going to CTV/TSN, the Olympics were a different beast and hockey coverage wouldn't include all the CTV personalities. They were all part of the Olympic coverage because the CTV Olympic coverage went all day so they needed all their personalities. A Saturday night/SCF broadcast on CTV would just use the TSN crew like they did for the gold medal game.

 

[Killion]

The cultural benefits of the CBC far, far, far outweigh the cost to taxpayers. Complaining about $29 for a service that's second only to the BBC (which costs about £150, by the way) in it's field is just silly.

HNIC is extremely important culturally and historically, not just in Canada but in those US markets that receive CBC. If the NHL is stupid enough to give up 80+ years of history for a few dollars more, than eff the NHL.

I dont mind that a small portion of our tax dollars goes towards subsidizing the CBC in the least and if ever given the opportunity would vote to have its budget increased. Unfortunately, thats not likely to happen anytime soon, as the current regime in Ottawa trends towards parsimony when it comes to funding the arts, culture & sports, and in fact has a rather jaundiced & cynical opinion of the CBC as being decidedly slanted to the left of right, particularly as it relates to its' news coverage.

The argument against tax payer subsidies going to what is essentially a private broadcaster in CBC TV (its radio stations are all commercial free) is basically two fold; 1) If CBC TV charges for advertising & receives tax-payer subsidies, does this not give them an unfair advantage over the private broadcasters?; 2) Should public moneys' be used to pay for broadcasting rights for sports properties & content when obviously there are a number of private broadcasters willing to step up to the plate?. HNIC is CBC TV's flagship property, the revenues it generates mitigating what would be far greater losses than the roughly $40M per annum on the over $1.1B churning through its doors annually.

If left bereft of its NHL coverage which generates its best ratings & thus advertising revenues, the picture becomes rather bleak for the CBC in a 300 Channel Universe as its ratings beyond HNIC & The National drop off precipitously to say the least. Many argue that "so be it, CBC TV should focus on news, current affairs, the arts & culture, Canadian produced programming, and dispense with advertising altogether, re-inventing themselves after PBS in the states, some of the provincial public broadcasters in Canada like TVO or the Knowledge Network". Frankly, it will not surprise me that come time for renewals, the CBC loses out to CTV/TSN, upping the ante' to the point of breaking the CBC's lock on the property.

Like Front Page Challenge, The Forest Rangers, Razzle Dazzle, Mr.Dressup & the Friendly Giant, the Beach Combers & Hinterland's "Whose Who", HNIC just a warm n' fuzzy distant memory as we all fall asleep to the warblings of Dreger & McKenzie.... All of the shows Ive mentioned are 30 + years old, which not only dates me of course, but speaks to the irrelevancy that most of the CBC's programming ever since holds for most Canadians post cable. I would therefore argue in favor of keeping HNIC at almost whatever cost within reason in order to insure CBC TV's relevancy moving forward, allowing them to continue producing shows like Republic of Doyle etc that are uniquely Canadian, that the private broadcasters simply wont create & produce. Retaining the property really is key to its future survival as we know it today.

 

[TheSchwab]

As an American that grew up on HNIC, please for the love of god save it if it comes into danger.

 

[White Noise]

do you think public broadcasters make profits? I bet the Canadian healthcare system posts net losses, too... nobody's complaining there. The cultural benefits of the CBC far, far, far outweigh the cost to taxpayers. Complaining about $29 for a service that's second only to the BBC (which costs about £150, by the way) in it's field is just silly.

HNIC is extremely important culturally and historically, not just in Canada but in those US markets that receive CBC. If the NHL is stupid enough to give up 80+ years of history for a few dollars more, than eff the NHL.

The CBC isn't going anywhere for a long time to come. We just finished a Federal election and the elected government has said they have no plans of scrapping or privatizing the CBC.

HNIC has been televised on CBC since the 1952/53 season and on radio going back to the early 30s. Hockey unites Canada in a way the no politician has been able to do. In the 50's and 60's fans all across Canada were watching HNIC on Saturday night. It was the Habs vs Leafs. The other 4 Original 6 teams were there as well but the rivalry between the Habs and Leafs was bigger. Then the summit series with the Russians in 72 happend, united Leaf fans and Habs fans for one word....Canada. HNIC continued but it wasn't the same. Expansion brought in the Canucks in 70 and later Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa and Winnipeg. HNIC continued and is still here today but other influences have taken people away from those Saturday nights in the regular season. Playoffs are a different story.

Unfortunatley, times are changing. It is almost impossible to talk about CBC and HNIC without bringing in politics. The political landscape within CBC has changed which is the subject of debate that is most likely not suitable for this forum. The cost of obtaining the broadcast rights to NHL hockey games has become very high and very competitive. The question is: Is CBC prepared to make a decision that would put a bid in for the broadcast rights that is high enough to ensure getting the contract.

-37-