NHL could split media rights in next deal

[DaBadGuy7]

ESPN for me is a huge negative as a passionate hockey and futball fan. I've seen what they've done to Serie A and I expect hockey to suffer from the same tactics; prime matches like Bruins/Habs on ESPN+ with Blue Jackets/Predators on ESPN2 (forcing you to buy their subscription). Plus, ESPN themselves - via Disney - cut a lot of hockey content in terms of writers and if they get the rights they're just going to expand it again out of nowhere? Then they have Stephen A. Smith - absolutely entitled to his opinion - who's been quite outspoken on how he despises hockey (on the "worldwide leader of sports" as their slogan). I actually will consider it hilarious that Disney might force him to talk about the NHL since they only talk about sports they have the rights to. Finally, ESPN is going into the political culture and we're going to hear more stories of how hockey is a "white" sport regardless of skin colour having to be a major fact in climates; black people live in hot climates, white people in cold climates and hockey is a cold climate sport. The only positive is that hockey could get a lot more exposure for casual fans on ESPN than NBC.

Fox is a big step in the positive, especially if they're offering like 500+ million then that shows they absolutely care. NBC did produce a good product, but they should be fortunate that they got the NHL at an advantage considering the ratings. I think Fox will produce the same amount of content that NBC did, so nothing is going to change here for me except the channels. However, Fox employs Skip Bayless, who is one of the biggest pieces of shit in North American sports (picture Steve Simmons level). He's a hottake troll and has written multiple pieces about how he considers hockey a Neanderthal sport. I expect him to talk as little about hockey as humanly possible and if he has to...it will only be in a negative attitude like ESPN did with the racial injustice segments about the "whiteness" of it. Whatever the case is, he's just one bloke and will be much easier to silence on Fox compared to Disney's culture which reeks of a lot of "hockey is a secondary niche sport" brigade IMHO.

Honestly, I think ESPN won’t be as bad you and most people think. This isn’t the same ESPN management that dumped the NHL back in 2005. Pitaro I believe is a hockey fan and I believe NHL will at least give the NHL a fair go. Steve Levy said on Richard Deitsch’s podcast that there are a lot ESPN employees that are hockey fans and that miss having the games. Shows like PTI, ATH, HQ have always been fair to NHL so that won’t change. I’m sure they hire another NHL analyst for shows like Get Up and whatever ESPN + show. SAS isn’t a hockey fan, but he isn’t a hockey hate. Max Kellerman is the hockey hater you are referring to on First Take, he admitted on a show that even ESPN colleagues ripped him for. Overall, I think ESPN presence will give the NHL higher ratings than NBCSN for regular season games.

I’ve said said many times my thoughts that FOX will do a solid job marketing and promoting NHL if they got it. They should embrace the 90s coverage imo, it was memorable and impactful despite whatever any critic says. So overall, I think it could work, besides if they paying a combined 1 billion dollars a year for NHL, both networks will put a decent shot. As long it’s better than what NBC has done recently. It’s clear to me NHL and NBC’s relationship isn’t as strong as people think.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

ESPN for me is a huge negative as a passionate hockey and futball fan. I've seen what they've done to Serie A and I expect hockey to suffer from the same tactics; prime matches like Bruins/Habs on ESPN+ with Blue Jackets/Predators on ESPN2 (forcing you to buy their subscription).

2 things:

1) I'd actually consider ESPN+ to be a boon for Serie A. For a niche league, having every game available for $5/mo is pretty great. They've come a long way from having 1-2 games a week when it didn't interfere with the Prem on FSC.

2) They won't be able to do that to the NHL. Digital rights will be sold in a separate package.

 

[saffronleaf]

Honestly, I think ESPN won’t be as bad you and most people think. This isn’t the same ESPN management that dumped the NHL back in 2005. Pitaro I believe is a hockey fan and I believe NHL will at least give the NHL a fair go. Steve Levy said on Richard Deitsch’s podcast that there are a lot ESPN employees that are hockey fans and that miss having the games. Shows like PTI, ATH, HQ have always been fair to NHL so that won’t change. I’m sure they hire another NHL analyst for shows like Get Up and whatever ESPN + show. SAS isn’t a hockey fan, but he isn’t a hockey hate. Max Kellerman is the hockey hater you are referring to on First Take, he admitted on a show that even ESPN colleagues ripped him for. Overall, I think ESPN presence will give the NHL higher ratings than NBCSN for regular season games.

I’ve said said many times my thoughts that FOX will do a solid job marketing and promoting NHL if they got it. They should embrace the 90s coverage imo, it was memorable and impactful despite whatever any critic says. So overall, I think it could work, besides if they paying a combined 1 billion dollars a year for NHL, both networks will put a decent shot. As long it’s better than what NBC has done recently. It’s clear to me NHL and NBC’s relationship isn’t as strong as people think.

Interesting things to consider. Maybe I'm just biased against ESPN for some of their treatment of hockey in the past and they've changed.

 

[LeHab]

What a about streaming rights? Many young people has not TV anymore?

Expected to be part of upcoming media rights. Hence "media rights" and not "TV rights".

 

[jkrdevil]

My worry about ESPN and Fox (and Fox to a much larger degree) is I don’t think either network, for as much sports programming they have, actually cover sports that well. Especially as for as capturing the atmosphere and speciality of a big event. Their actually game / event coverage in my opinion pale in comparison to what CBS, NBC, and Turner do.

ESPN is better than Fox, but to watch a game on that network is basically watching a 3 hour commercial for what ever next big event their airing. Fox (while I admit did a good job marketing the league when they had the rights in the 90’s, but those people aren’t their anymore either), probably has the worst production quality of all the networks.

For their NFL coverage I would rate Fox and ESPN the worst of the rights holder. Both of their baseball coverage is awful. Fox’s college sports coverage is bad. I think NBC’s auto racing coverage blows Fox out of the water. ESPN’s primetime college football is good, but the rest of their college football programming is a long commercial for the playoff.

I’m not saying NBC is perfect (I wanted to strangle Pierre today for not shutting up). But I’m afraid if it is a Fox/ESPN split you are going to get announcers/studio/puck drop formula for big games without capturing the atmosphere (in fairness NBC struggled with this their first few years until ironically for the Premier League rights and learned from that).

 

[DaBadGuy7]

Interesting things to consider. Maybe I'm just biased against ESPN for some of their treatment of hockey in the past and they've changed.

NHL is never going to have equal footing to NFL and NBA. NHL isn’t a sport driven by drama and squash/highlights plays like those sports are, so it will always take a backseat. But as long as ESPN markets, promotes, and discusses it a fair amount I don’t see the issues. I think the league itself it’s far better than it was in 2004 with stars that ESPN can highlight. I can’t speak for @jkrdevil critiques on the production end, but he is correct. ESPN’s coverage of NBA I can say beyond the announcers isn’t great. But, I think NHL is looking at the bigger picture of having Disney as a partner for many things beyond TV and steaming.

 

[The Lukeman]

ESPN for me is a huge negative as a passionate hockey and futball fan. I've seen what they've done to Serie A and I expect hockey to suffer from the same tactics; prime matches like Bruins/Habs on ESPN+ with Blue Jackets/Predators on ESPN2 (forcing you to buy their subscription). Plus, ESPN themselves - via Disney - cut a lot of hockey content in terms of writers and if they get the rights they're just going to expand it again out of nowhere? Then they have Stephen A. Smith - absolutely entitled to his opinion - who's been quite outspoken on how he despises hockey (on the "worldwide leader of sports" as their slogan). I actually will consider it hilarious that Disney might force him to talk about the NHL since they only talk about sports they have the rights to. Finally, ESPN is going into the political culture and we're going to hear more stories of how hockey is a "white" sport regardless of skin colour having to be a major fact in climates; black people live in hot climates, white people in cold climates and hockey is a cold climate sport. The only positive is that hockey could get a lot more exposure for casual fans on ESPN than NBC.

Fox is a big step in the positive, especially if they're offering like 500+ million then that shows they absolutely care. NBC did produce a good product, but they should be fortunate that they got the NHL at an advantage considering the ratings. I think Fox will produce the same amount of content that NBC did, so nothing is going to change here for me except the channels. However, Fox employs Skip Bayless, who is one of the biggest pieces of shit in North American sports (picture Steve Simmons level). He's a hottake troll and has written multiple pieces about how he considers hockey a Neanderthal sport. I expect him to talk as little about hockey as humanly possible and if he has to...it will only be in a negative attitude like ESPN did with the racial injustice segments about the "whiteness" of it. Whatever the case is, he's just one bloke and will be much easier to silence on Fox compared to Disney's culture which reeks of a lot of "hockey is a secondary niche sport" brigade IMHO.

For what is worth, my former professor (Sports business) back when I was in college is an exec for an nhl team. He was very adamant on the NHL getting back with ESPN. While I agree there, we do not like the treatment as die hard fans, ESPN having hockey is the first step to making hockey relevant again (according to him). Hockey has stagnated, while Basketball has exploded in growth. Having hockey on ESPN is the first step on bringing hockey to the very casual sports fan, which ultimately makes the game more popular.

 

[Jokerit 16]

Really looking for this big announcement!! Cant waite anymore. Bettmann do your job and best TV-contract what NHL ever had in USA markets.

 

[Fenway]

One thing I have found curious is Bob McKenzie's role with NBC this season.

He has been in the studio in Connecticut every Wednesday since the season began which would indicate he is living in the US given Canada restrictions on border crossings. He could easily do his segments from a Toronto studio but he is in Stamford.

NBCSN being shut down muddles the landscape - NBC has said they plan to move sports inventory to USA ( which is one NBCU property that does not use the peacock in branding ) and Peacock streaming which is a concern to viewers with a satellite package.

FOX has FS1/FS2 to clear inventory and might be open to giving the NHL more primetime slots on Saturday night after college football.

The NHL also is more appealing to sponsors looking to attract more affluent viewers and that has been the case for 50 years.



The OTA broadcast component is the key to the deal which NBC exploited with Chicago with local ads on WMAQ-TV. Comcast also did well with local ad insertions in markets where they control cable to the home ( Chicago, Philly, Boston, Detroit, Washington etc )

Rogers in Canada went all-in with the assumption Toronto would see success in the playoffs

Personally, I think the NHL in the US is worth between 600/800 M a year.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

One thing I have found curious is Bob McKenzie's role with NBC this season.

He has been in the studio in Connecticut every Wednesday since the season began which would indicate he is living in the US given Canada restrictions on border crossings. He could easily do his segments from a Toronto studio but he is in Stamford.

He's living in Florida. That's what semi-retired people do.

 

[Spydey629]

My worry about ESPN and Fox (and Fox to a much larger degree) is I don’t think either network, for as much sports programming they have, actually cover sports that well. Especially as for as capturing the atmosphere and speciality of a big event. Their actually game / event coverage in my opinion pale in comparison to what CBS, NBC, and Turner do.

ESPN is better than Fox, but to watch a game on that network is basically watching a 3 hour commercial for what ever next big event their airing. Fox (while I admit did a good job marketing the league when they had the rights in the 90’s, but those people aren’t their anymore either), probably has the worst production quality of all the networks.

For their NFL coverage I would rate Fox and ESPN the worst of the rights holder. Both of their baseball coverage is awful. Fox’s college sports coverage is bad. I think NBC’s auto racing coverage blows Fox out of the water. ESPN’s primetime college football is good, but the rest of their college football programming is a long commercial for the playoff.

I’m not saying NBC is perfect (I wanted to strangle Pierre today for not shutting up). But I’m afraid if it is a Fox/ESPN split you are going to get announcers/studio/puck drop formula for big games without capturing the atmosphere (in fairness NBC struggled with this their first few years until ironically for the Premier League rights and learned from that).

Keep in mind though, when the rights holders changes, the announcers tend to just change the network blazer they wear. Even if NBC loses the rights entirely; Pierre, Edzo, Forslund, Boucher, Patrick Sharp, et al will just move to whatever network(s) get the contract.

This happens anytime the rights hop from network to network - Madden and Summerall jumped from CBS to Fox, Tim McCarver went where ever baseball was, Mike Breen went from NBC to ABC, and of course, Doc called hockey on every network in the States.

 

[jkrdevil]

Keep in mind though, when the rights holders changes, the announcers tend to just change the network blazer they wear. Even if NBC loses the rights entirely; Pierre, Edzo, Forslund, Boucher, Patrick Sharp, et al will just move to whatever network(s) get the contract.

This happens anytime the rights hop from network to network - Madden and Summerall jumped from CBS to Fox, Tim McCarver went where ever baseball was, Mike Breen went from NBC to ABC, and of course, Doc called hockey on every network in the States.

It’s less about the commentators themselves (which you are right they switch around) and more about the style of presentation. That probably has more to do with the higher ups at each network, that don’t switch around.

CBS (especially) and NBC seem to bring a more big event feel to their telecast. Fox is more of a it’s about us broadcast. ESPN falls in the middle. They do some things great and some things awful.

 

[Spydey629]

It’s less about the commentators themselves (which you are right they switch around) and more about the style of presentation. That probably has more to do with the higher ups at each network, that don’t switch around.

CBS (especially) and NBC seem to bring a more big event feel to their telecast. Fox is more of a it’s about us broadcast. ESPN falls in the middle. They do some things great and some things awful.

I never thought Fox was on the low end for broadcasts. For all the innovations they've added to TV sports, it always seemed they push everything over the top (the self-deprecating humor about it on an episode of Married with Children after Fox got the NFC package was hilarious).

My main point was that if NBC is completely out of the NHL game when this all settles out (I still doubt it...), don't expect Pierre to go away, too. No matter how many fans gears he grinds - which is a lot - he'll still be between the benches for someone.

 

[Jetsfan79]

Whenever I occasionally catch a game on NBC (I'm in Canada), sometimes they show their NHL schedule on the screen showing all the games they cover across multiple channels they own and at what times. (NBC, NBSSN, CNBC etc). . Obviously if the media rights are split, this cross promotional synergy will likely be lost. I'm sure the pros outweigh the cons for splitting the rights (i.e more lucrative $ for the NHL to split)

The idea of rival media companies promoting the other is normally a no no. In this case though, if FOX and ABC for example promoted each other's NHL content wouldn't that only help both brands?. Am I naïve to think that could be a good thing for all parties? And can this be something the NHL could negotiate into the agreement between the media companies? (I'm not a sports businesses expert)

 

[Spydey629]

Whenever I occasionally catch a game on NBC (I'm in Canada), sometimes they show their NHL schedule on the screen showing all the games they cover across multiple channels they own and at what times. (NBC, NBSSN, CNBC etc). . Obviously if the media rights are split, this cross promotional synergy will likely be lost. I'm sure the pros outweigh the cons for splitting the rights (i.e more lucrative $ for the NHL to split)

The idea of rival media companies promoting the other is normally a no no. In this case though, if FOX and ABC for example promoted each other's NHL content wouldn't that only help both brands?. Am I naïve to think that could be a good thing for all parties? And can this be something the NHL could negotiate into the agreement between the media companies? (I'm not a sports businesses expert)

Actually, just the opposite happens. I don't know for sure, but I am guessing it is contractually obligated that the networks cross promote where to find the next televised game. The NFL is especially huge on this.

 

[Jetsfan79]

Actually, just the opposite happens. I don't know for sure, but I am guessing it is contractually obligated that the networks cross promote where to find the next televised game. The NFL is especially huge on this.

Good to hear if that's the case. Cross promotion could only help drive viewership across the board.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

ESPN/Turner cross promote NBA games on the others all the time.

 

[jkrdevil]

I think all the leagues have put cross
Promoting during games into their contracts. You don’t see situations like the 1995 World Series anymore when NBC/ABC split the games in series and refused to promote the games on the other network....leading the Al Michaels making a joke about it when he did a promo for a game 2 games later in the series rather than the next one.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Would games be on main ESPN channel?

Or would they all be on ESPN2/3?

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Would games be on main ESPN channel?

Or would they all be on ESPN2/3?

ESPN 3 DOESN'T EXIST unless it's changed since the addition of the ACC/SEC/Longhorn Network and THE INTRODUCTION of ESPN+

 

[DaBadGuy7]

Would games be on main ESPN channel?

Or would they all be on ESPN2/3?

Probably both ESPN and ESPN 2 depending on ESPN’s schedule of events during the weeks and months (especially in the fall). I’m sure they will be some Saturday afternoon ABC games as well.

 

[Spydey629]

ESPN 3 DOESN'T EXIST unless it's changed since the addition of the ACC/SEC/Longhorn Network and THE INTRODUCTION of ESPN+

ESPN3 still exists. It is basically ESPNs free streaming option. A lot of smaller conference college games (including my alma mater) are shown on there.

ESPN just announced today that they are now the home of the Women's Frozen Four. The late semifinal and the final will be on ESPNU. The early semifinal will be on ESPN3.

 

[Jokerit 16]

Are NHL goint to announcement new tv deal on line or just press release?

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

ESPN3 still exists. It is basically ESPNs free streaming option. A lot of smaller conference college games (including my alma mater) are shown on there.

ESPN just announced today that they are now the home of the Women's Frozen Four. The late semifinal and the final will be on ESPNU. The early semifinal will be on ESPN3.

the ACC/Longhorn (which is Texas, basically,) and the SEC Network all follow the ESPN Branding, Spydey, 2 of the those 3 are on most cable providers now (in fact SEC Network was given 2 channel slots by Charter Spectrum, 1 is the main, the other the alternate.

as for ESPN 3..... WHAT u posted is produced by the NCAA.... in terms of hockey, that's why you see no ads or generic ads in terms of the Regionals or Frozen Fours. Manchester's SNHU Arena has had that generic branding for the NCAA East Regional. that's why the changes from a pro arena that normally is solely hockey to one that's not.... the Bradley Center had to modify its surface from where the Admirals play to turn it into the Frozen Four, when that building hosted it.

some RSN's already do games that would be on ESPN 3, Depends on that conference agreement. in New England it's called NESN University. only Hockey East has a separate contract as a stand alone conference contract.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

ESPN3 games are produced by ESPN.

There are 2 college basketball games today that fall under that umbrella of being free to stream to ESPN subscribers (not ESPN+ subscribers).