The NHL on TNT?

[Tekneek]

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.

You asked what the difference was, and I answered. The difference is that I don't watch them. I HAVE seen Deion on NFL Today, and I HAVE seen Kruk on Baseball Tonight. I have not seen enough to care that much, though. I think Deion was dropped by CBS for good reasons. He brought almost nothing to the table. From the few times I have seen Kruk on Baseball Tonight, he has more to offer it than Deion was bringing to his show. Roenick added nothing to the World Cup coverage. I'm not opposed to players being involved, but you need to get a smart guy who has some insight instead of someone like JR.

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.

Most hockey fans happen to think that the CBC has the best broadcast, with the rest of the Canadian-based broadcasts running a very close second (from what I have heard and read). ESPN would do better to follow those before taking another step toward a circus atmosphere. They always want to say how people in the US don't understand the game, so why do they spend so little time on the real details? You can learn more about the game on one Hockey Night In Canada broadcast than a season's worth of ESPN games.

 

[Tekneek]

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.

He would be better suited for intermission analysis, where he would be free to give his take about everything that is going on in the game. I would be much more interested in that than hearing him trying to give color commentary during a game.

 

[ceber]

I don't watch much besides hockey, but the few times I have I've noticed that other sports seem to have a lot more "down time" allowing for more replays, more analysis, etc. Would it be worth considering increasing the amount of non-action time in a game? Not much fun when you're actually there, because it's an excuse for the AV team to assault you with loud, obnoxious music and silly graphics, but maybe it would help the appeal of the game on TV. Bad idea?

 

[Tekneek]

They should do that during the intermissions, or during commercial breaks (oh my, actually stay at the game and provide some insight instead of crappy adverts?). ESPN provides little in terms of analysis, really. They seem to spend a lot of their available time pimping everything else but hockey.

 

[Levitate]

Would it be worth considering increasing the amount of non-action time in a game? Not much fun when you're actually there, because it's an excuse for the AV team to assault you with loud, obnoxious music and silly graphics, but maybe it would help the appeal of the game on TV. Bad idea?

Well they'd have to reduce the length of the periods or something or it wouldn't fly. remember how they made such a big deal about the quick faceoffs and all of that and how they could cut the game times by 10+ minutes or whatever? they don't want the games dragging on forever and taking up even more airtime

 

[WC Handy*]

Well they'd have to reduce the length of the periods or something or it wouldn't fly. remember how they made such a big deal about the quick faceoffs and all of that and how they could cut the game times by 10+ minutes or whatever? they don't want the games dragging on forever and taking up even more airtime

The quick faces offs were a bad idea and last season proved it.

They showed much less replays during the games.

At games, people couldn't get to their seats before the puck was dropped, so I missed a bunch of faceoffs because of it.

Nobody's going to go to a game because the games are 10 minutes shorter.

 

[Levitate]

i don't think it had much to do with attendence at games, just the amount of television time it took up.

 

[WC Handy*]

Actually, when it was instituted I specifically remember quotes about kids needing to get home at a reasonable time.

 

[Levitate]

really? haha, i don't remember that. pretty stupid reasoning since it obviously wasn't going to cut *that* much time off

 

[WC Handy*]

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.

Hull is under contract for 05-06, so I'd imagine he'll be in Phoenix making his $2.25M.

 

[dolfanar]

TNT/TBS would be a good compromise after losing ESPN.

I like hte idea of a pre-game show with a little attitude. It could sell in the US. Heck it's basically what Don Cherry brings to HNIC during the first intermission.

What they also need is to steal, beg or borrow some camera men from Canada. I'm sorry but the average US coverage is HORRIBLE at following the play. They could also use some Play-by-play guy's who talk about what's going on on the ice with a little enthusiasm. Watching ESPN hockey was like taking a valium. ugh.

 

[WC Handy*]

Oh god, this again? There is nothing wrong with US camera men.

 

[ceber]

Well they'd have to reduce the length of the periods or something or it wouldn't fly. remember how they made such a big deal about the quick faceoffs and all of that and how they could cut the game times by 10+ minutes or whatever? they don't want the games dragging on forever and taking up even more airtime

Well, if you make the game popular enough, it's better if it runs longer. More ads to sell! There's a limit, of course...

 

[Judge Smails]

Oh god, this again? There is nothing wrong with US camera men.

You know, I was watching a Blue Jays game the other day, and I couldn't help thinking "Gee, if they had a few more Americans running these cameras, I'd sure enjoy watching this game more."

 

[dolfanar]

Oh god, this again? There is nothing wrong with US camera men.

No they just don't know where the play is going, or how to follow the puck... bu tthey DO manage to stay in focus from time to time... I'll give them that!