The NHL on TNT?

[Trizent]

I believe TBS dropped all sports except for Braves baseball (and they cut back on that, too). I don't think they want to get into the sports business. Pre-empt Sex in the City and Seinfeld which they have already put up money for NHL Hockey? Not a good business plan. I hope it happens though.

 

[Hasbro]

I'm not up on this and am lazy right now, but is TNT a time warner property still? I'm sure they have some extra channels for NHL. Which can be good or bad.

 

[Trizent]

Yep TW property.

 

[Epsilon]

This wouldn't be that bad of a move. TNT has national broadcast range and is a respected network. It isn't NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, or ESPN but

How on earth does ESPN deserve to get mentioned with those other four? For one thing, ESPN is a cable network, not a broadcast network, and so it always costs more to obtain, as there are no local affiliates. Second, ESPN's fabled "market penetration" is only a couple of million households more than TNT, SpikeTV, etc. ESPN can call themselves the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" all they want, it doesn't make them as important as they want to pretend they are.

 

[Hasbro]

How on earth does ESPN deserve to get mentioned with those other four? For one thing, ESPN is a cable network, not a broadcast network, and so it always costs more to obtain, as there are no local affiliates. Second, ESPN's fabled "market penetration" is only a couple of million households more than TNT, SpikeTV, etc. ESPN can call themselves the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" all they want, it doesn't make them as important as they want to pretend they are.

The only big advantage ESPn has over TNT is there is more related programming to promote to. IF the NHL moves to TNT that's all I would worry about. I can do without ESPN's ever declining quality and indeference towards the sport.

 

[Epsilon]

The only big advantage ESPn has over TNT is there is more related programming to promote to. IF the NHL moves to TNT that's all I would worry about. I can do without ESPN's ever declining quality and indeference towards the sport.

TNT has plenty of programming that is suited towards the adult male audience that watches hockey, like Law & Order and X-Files, among others.

 

[Le Golie]

TNT is actually a perfect fit for the NHL at this stage of the game. The NHL just can't pick up operations again and expect things to be the way they were before the lock out.

They need to step back, downgrade their expectations, upgrade their product and re-establish themselves on a level which they can sustain for the first year and then gain momentum and build from. It's smart business.

 

[Tekneek]

TNT's NBA coverage consistently beats out ESPN's NBA coverage in the ratings. TNT understands how to put on a broadcast. ESPN still does not get it. ESPN does a poor job with everything. The only way they get solid ratings is when they have a monopoly on a broadcast offering, or it is some mediocre boring program that appeals to the mindless masses (poker and strongman type shows). Sportscenter is a joke these days that jumped the shark a dozen years ago. If ESPN does not wake up, they risk becoming redundant...despite their market recognition and perceived dominance.

 

[Westlander]

Whatever the merits (or lack there of) of NHL on ESPN, I am very disappointed that they have not extended their contract. Since I live in the Netherlands (not exactly a hockey-mad country) I haven't seen an NHL game in 3 years. However, in another month or so I will be getting a new digital cable package including ESPN. Just my luck.

 

[NJD Jester]

2.) Try their hardest to steal Brian Burke and Jacques Demers for intermission, both know the game and would be good for debate.

Disagree here.

Whichever American cable provider gets the NHL's rights, the first thing they should do is get as many American former players or hockey writers/broadcasters under contract. One of the things, IMO, that's held back the game on ESPN is the fact that the announcers don't sound like the audience. Look at NASCAR -- the guys in the booth could be anyone in the crowd. Do you get the same feeling listening to Darren Pang?

I'm not saying you should Dennis Miller this thing...but what if you went in a different direction from the play-by-play/former player model?

 

[chara]

TNT reaches 90M households in an average month. It's a proven cable network and the NHL is a proven professional sports league.

TNT leads all cable networks in viewers 18–49 and 25–54 during prime time. These are the age demographics that can buy into a fast paced and exciting game like NHL hockey.

TNT would make for an excellent partner to broadcast hockey, attracting more than the die-hard sports fans that ESPN has to offer. If it happens, its all good even better than ESPN. If it doesn't happen, it will give the folks at ESPN something to think about before they start talking about kissing off the NHL.

 

[chiavsfan]

Disagree here.

Whichever American cable provider gets the NHL's rights, the first thing they should do is get as many American former players or hockey writers/broadcasters under contract. One of the things, IMO, that's held back the game on ESPN is the fact that the announcers don't sound like the audience. Look at NASCAR -- the guys in the booth could be anyone in the crowd. Do you get the same feeling listening to Darren Pang?

I'm not saying you should Dennis Miller this thing...but what if you went in a different direction from the play-by-play/former player model?

True, I thought Roenick was pretty entertaining during the 2004 World Cup...I understand that he probably wants to play another season or so, but I know what ure saying

 

[Trizent]

TNT is actually a perfect fit for the NHL at this stage of the game. The NHL just can't pick up operations again and expect things to be the way they were before the lock out.

They need to step back, downgrade their expectations, upgrade their product and re-establish themselves on a level which they can sustain for the first year and then gain momentum and build from. It's smart business.

If perfect fit means that they can show maybe 1 to 3 NHL playoff games a week rather than the 6-10 ESPN/2 did and would have.

TNT is great regular season fit. Not so good playoff fit.

 

[Judge Smails]

ESPN can call themselves the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" all they want, it doesn't make them as important as they want to pretend they are.

[Announcer voice] The Worldwide Leader in Poker Re-Runs [/Announcer Voice]

 

[Levitate]

i'd definatly be fine with the NHL on TNT. like so many have said, they do a pretty nice job with basketball, it's a well known cable channel, works for me...better than having nothing at all and it's not exactly an embarassment or anything

but...

Have Gary Thorne and Bill Clement do the main play by play and color.

please god no, gary thorne is the worst PBP guy you could get...terrible. plus, don't they work for ESPN?

 

[Tekneek]

True, I thought Roenick was pretty entertaining during the 2004 World Cup...I understand that he probably wants to play another season or so, but I know what ure saying

Entertaining, and awful at the same time. Like watching a train wreck.

 

[Tawnos]

Entertaining, and awful at the same time. Like watching a train wreck.

How is that different from John Kruk or Deion Sanders?

 

[Tekneek]

How is that different from John Kruk or Deion Sanders?

Biggest difference may be that I actually watch hockey games, and do not watch NFL and MLB pregame/recap shows...so I don't care who is on there for those other sports. I do care about how a hockey game is presented.

 

[futurcorerock]

Shameful that we'd be on TNT, but not that we cancelled an entire season of professional games?

 

[ceber]

OH!

THANK YOU!!

As soon as i posted that i had a flash back but i couldnt put it all together

Personally I enjoyed it

I did think it was worth keeping. I just don't like the way ESPN does things sometimes. I thought a lot of the plays they tried to show with that camera weren't very interesting to see from that angle. 'Course, that would improve with time. Also, ESPN tends to miss game action while they're dinking around with some new toy or doing a "touchy-feely" interview in the stands. Nothing quite like watching a play develop and turn into an exciting goal while the play-by-play man is silent and we're listening to an interview with an ex-plugger about his new pizza franchise.

 

[StevenintheATL]

[Announcer voice] The Worldwide Leader in Poker Re-Runs [/Announcer Voice]

Sad but true there. Why the hell rerun something that the folks most interested in watching already know the outcome because the damn thing happened nearly a year earlier.


A TNT/TBS NHL package would be smart, but a thought I have is perhaps TimeWarner gets into bed with Comcast and starts up a competitor to ESPN and use the NHL as their flagship sports programming and also use the local/regional programming Comcast broadcasts as well. Since TimeWarner Cable and Comcast are among the biggest cable companies in the US, it wouldn't be hard for a new sports network to penetrate the market since the two companies combined have such a large share of the cable market.

 

[Tawnos]

Biggest difference may be that I actually watch hockey games, and do not watch NFL and MLB pregame/recap shows...so I don't care who is on there for those other sports. I do care about how a hockey game is presented.

Which means exactly what? If you don't know what I'm talking about, then why comment on how you "don't care"? Politely say "I've never seen those guys" and move on.

And the point is that the NHL could learn a couple of things from other sports. All the other sports have learned that having a controversial, entertaining figure on your broadcast is a good thing, despite how ridiculous it may seem. It makes people pay attention, then you hit them with some real and useful knowledge. Sorry to say it, but no game grows itself. All sports have to be packaged and packaged right. Having a figure such as Jeremy Roenick on your broadcast is akin to putting lights on the sign for your store that's out on the road.

 

[ShippinItDaily]

The next step would be for them to hire Jeremy Roenick [or another player that is recognizable to the US audience, can make comments on the edge, and has an engaging style, and is likable] to assume the Charles Barkley role.

How about Brett Hull. He said he may not be back when the NHL is. I can think of no better guy to assume that role than the Golden Brett.

 

[RangerBoy]

Pierre McGuire will part of NBC's coverage of the NHL.McGuire went to high school in New Jersey

 

[RangerBoy]

Sad but true there. Why the hell rerun something that the folks most interested in watching already know the outcome because the damn thing happened nearly a year earlier.


A TNT/TBS NHL package would be smart, but a thought I have is perhaps TimeWarner gets into bed with Comcast and starts up a competitor to ESPN and use the NHL as their flagship sports programming and also use the local/regional programming Comcast broadcasts as well. Since TimeWarner Cable and Comcast are among the biggest cable companies in the US, it wouldn't be hard for a new sports network to penetrate the market since the two companies combined have such a large share of the cable market.

Actually Time Warner and Comcast are partners in a regional sports network which will debut in March 2006 called Metwork which will be the Mets version of YES.Time Warner and Comcast were successful in their bid to acquire the Adelphia Cable systems

Cablevision,Comcast and Time Warner are three of the biggest cable systems in the states.All three companies have ties to the NHL.Why the NHL Network is not available on those digital cable systems is beyond belief?