Is ESPN Killing the National Hockey League by Influencing Public Attitude?-Article
- Thread starter nyranger61494
- Start date
frivolousz21
2019 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS ST LOUIS BLUES
watch FSN final score if you want highlights..they will show highlights of every nhl game every night
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
What most fail to realize is that VS gives the same if not more coverage than ESPN did. just happens to be that not every carrier has VS.
The only bad thing ESPN did with it's coverage was canceling NHL2Nite. But they did have 2-3 games a week like VS and during the 1st round would have nights with 3 games on ESPN/ESPN2.
I agree that ESPN takes it's jabs at the NHL sometimes, but it's not their job to promote the NHL. The NHL needs to start promoting itself. It shocked me this year when watching NFL Sunday night games on NBC that there were never any ads done by the NHL to promote the game. A big draw of their ideal audience (18-34 males) on the network they have games on and they should have ads promoting guys like Crosby, Brodeur, Ovechkin, etc. The reason the NHL is a niche sport is because they fail to promote the game. I'm not saying the NHL will become a major sport in the US by doing that, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to promote itself more and maybe get a few more people interested in the game which would limit some of the shots being taken by people in the media. They built up a lot of hype after the lockout with the "New" NHL, but other than that they haven't done much of anything.
MayDay
Registered User
Bzzzt.
ESPN DID drop the NHL. The network had an option to retain NHL broadcast rights for an additional season for $60 million, and declined it. That's ESPN willfully dropping their rights to hockey, by any definition.
Now the NHL could've tried to work out a new deal with ESPN. In fact, ESPN wanted those rights for free. They wanted an advertising revenue-sharing agreement like NBC had.
Meanwhile OLN/VS comes along and offers more than $200 million for three years. $200 Million versus Zero counts as "slightly more money" in your book?
So the NHL had the option to stay with a network whose anchors treated it like dirt and a laughingstock, and had already cancelled NHL2Night, in exchange for no money. Or go to a new network, available in slightly fewer households, that promised to treat the NHL as its programming crown jewel, and with plans to obtain additional sports programming and grow to compete with ESPN, and the NHL gets a boatload of cash in return.
Easy decision if you ask me.
I totally agree its the NHL's job to promote the game. Its something they've really never done. In all reality the NHL will be a major sport but a niche one. Its the hardest sport to watch on television bar none. People that arent big fans will watch games with me and they just cant follow the game. Get them in an arena and its a different story though. Greatest sport to watch live but the worst to watch on television. And thats its biggest problem.
ESPN always sucked. They talk NFL football during Baseball season! All they care about is Football which is the most holy sport for them and, college baskettball.
The Nemesis
Semper Tyrannus
ESPN can't necessarily make the NHL popular, but it certainly can help make it unpopular. The problem is that the general public are, by and large, a bunch of sheep who will latch onto whatever is the hot commodity at the time. Tell them NASCAR is the wave of the future and they flock to it. Poker gains a following, suddenly everyone wants to watch the endlessly oversaturated number of televised poker tournaments. ESPN's part in this isn't generating the buzz, rather catering to it. However needling at hockey creates the aura that it's something not worth people's attention. Rather than ignoring hockey because they don't hear about it, people will ignore hockey because they think "everyone hates it, so why should I watch?"
HerrAlex
Registered User
Espn is horrible with every foreign sport. Even champions league, which draws many worldwide viewers, is on espn 2. It seems that they would rather show worlds strongest man than any other foreign sport.
Badger Bob
Registered User
Soccer had always been a hard sell up until very recently. The World Cup, even when hosted in the US, was a blip on the screen. Further back, leagues were formed with a lot of fanfare: NASL (Pele played in NY!) and MISL. The only reasons that soccer's gained momentum is because it was force fed to youth (think there were soccer fields dotting the landscape 10, 15, 20 years ago? think again) and those ESPN Deportes updates are preaching to the choir, as soccer had already been largely embraced by Latinos.
In areas such as New York, New England, Michigan and Minnesota, hockey is as much a part of the culture as many parts of Canada. Soccer is still alien presence, and is part of emphasis on going "global."
Exactly. Everything is better in high def, but it only enhances the experience. Still, the NHL lost something by not being able to maintain the relationship with ESPN as a "marketing partner."
For those who believe that most of the coverage of the NHL, by the national US media, is usually negative...right on. What have been the biggest stories of the last few years? McSorley's whack job on Brashear (racial connotations were more than intimated), the lockout, Gretzky's wife's gambling, etc.
Mr.Krinkle
Hello there children
The NHL made the money grab and that's shortsighted and a horrible idea, another reason why Bettman needs to be run out of this league. When Comcast (or is it Cablevison who owned OLN at the time?) threw a dumptruck of money at the NHL to get help get their fledgling network off the ground, he foolishly accepted rather than trying to hash out a reasonable deal to ESPN that closely matched what he gave NBC.
I don't see how you can say with a straight face that Vs. is a network that goes out to "slightly fewer" households when every basic cable package in the country carries ESPN but you need to get the extra sports package or the special digital package to get Versus. If you do happen to get it, it's in the 400's, way at the end of the dial,resulting in most people not even being aware they actually get it. To top it all off the coverage on Versus is horrible, there's no HD, the sound/video constantly cuts out, etc.
But hey, at least they didn't cut off a playoff OT game to watch a horse lighten it's load before a race, so they got that going for them.
MayDay
Registered User
Yes, you're totally right. How could they be so "shortsighted"?
The NHL definitely should've stuck with the network that treats it like the punchline of a joke, and done it for free. The one that cancelled all auxilliary hockey programming (NHL2Nite) and shoved hockey games over to obscurity on "the Deuce" every time there was a dog show or rerun of a pool tournament that needed higher priority on the main channel.
After all, why should the NHL go to a network that actually wants the rights to broadcast NHL games, as demonstrated by a willingness to (gasp) pay for those rights? A network that produces hours of pre-game and post-game coverage as well as other hockey programming? One that actually advertises its hockey coverage and promotes the game and its players?
Definitely shortsighted. It's not in anybody's long-term interest to develop and grow a viable competitor to ESPN in national cable sports. Competition is bad. Best if ESPN keeps their monopoly. That way they can tell us what we should like.
Mizral
Registered User
Crease
Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
- Jul 12, 2004
- 24,057
- 25,393
But what are they going to advertise? Hockey?
ESPN always has and always will market their own interests. From a business standpoint, its the smartest way to go. If ESPN was paying us to air our hockey games, they'd have a vested interest to create compelling stories and draw in more ratings for their broadcasts. In the mean time, there is no need.
MayDay
Registered User
How do you figure? They certainly didn't do a whole heck of a lot to promote the sport even when the did have the rights to broadcast NHL games.
angry_treefrog
void
- Jan 19, 2006
- 7,347
- 1
Once again, ESPN cannot make the NHL more popular. Hockey is (until technology changes) not a sport that is amenable to TV. TV is designed to frame in the action, whereas in hockey if you are focused on the puck you are missing half the game.
All of this talk about Bettman hurting hockey by not groveling to ESPN is ridiculous. The same people like hockey now as would like hockey if ESPN had the rights. The only difference is that those people would be complaining about how poor ESPN's coverage was instead of the fact that ESPN doesn't have the rights.
All of this talk about Bettman hurting hockey by not groveling to ESPN is ridiculous. The same people like hockey now as would like hockey if ESPN had the rights. The only difference is that those people would be complaining about how poor ESPN's coverage was instead of the fact that ESPN doesn't have the rights.
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
Yeah, some guy in an office in New York that most people don't even know exists is turning people off of the game. Yep... that's logical.
When I hear somebody actually say they don't like hockey because of the NHL's commissioner I'll apologize. But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon. (Stupid traditionalist hockey fans that just like to whine and choose Bettman as their scapegoat not included)
King_Stannis
Registered User
Look, you won't hear me defend the four-letter very much, but if ESPN2 is "obscure", what does that make Versus? ESPN2 routinely gets better ratings than VS, no matter what they are showing.
I don't think all the punchline stuff was going on when ESPN was carrying the sport, only since it's gone have they allowed their people (mostly online) to blatently and openly savage the NHL.
And you know what, here's a painful reality. ESPN shuffled off alot of the games to ESPN2 because they weren't getting the ratings. Sports generally get the coverage they earn, and hockey right now in the US doesn't warrant ESPN or even NBC giving up a prime slot just to earn a 2.0 overnight - and that's for a playoff game.
Conversely, though, you could argue that the NBA get's more coverage by ESPN than it deserves, given the poor ratings they get - generally only 3 times that of hockey in the U.S., and just about equal to hockey when you throw in the Canadian viewers of both sports.
Agreed. The only thing he did right in his tenure as commissioner was to get the NHL off of Sportschannel in the early 1990s. HE got hockey back on ESPN. That was great. You could see games a few times a week, Sportscenter covered it, and every cable company carried the stations. Even people who have VS don't know it. I've had to tell friends what channel it is. ESPN gets viewers for other things NFL,MLB,NBA,Etc. VS carries fishing and bull riding. Who watches that?
Badger Bob
Registered User
From its inception, SportsCenter aired highlights, irrespective of whether or not the network carried it...and when it started, it didn't have much to offer for a 24-hour service. Obviously, now they're going to pay extra attention to sports/particular games or matches that are carried on their affiliated networks (think college football) but that doesn't mean that major events aren't going to receive attention. The Indy 500 is always shown on parent, ABC, so there's no conflict. The final rounds of The Masters are usually on CBC and the Kentucky Derby was NBC.
It's not as if they're going to deliberately ignore the NHL, just because there's no longer an NHL package. It just means that there will be no more dedicated programs, like NHL2Tonight.
