Will Bettman ever get a US TV contact that pays like the NFL, the NBA? MLB?

[Lee Sharpe]

What are the best choice for league for a New partners? Of course who give the league best offer, but I think what NHL need is National coverage!!

what people think?

 

[Jokerit 16]

What are the best choice for league for a New partners? Of course who give the league best offer, but I think what NHL need is National coverage!!

what people think?

I like your speculation, its fun! I agree, NHL needs a National coverage

 

[sawchuk1971]

1) Whatever network agrees to a deal with the NHL will most likely end up getting a bargain deal.

2) Half of this is on the players, half of this is on the owners. The league needs to make the players more available by providing mandatory media availability and diversify the media partners of the league.

The players need to cut the hockey culture and start providing some personality. Stop being robots to the media. Show some personality on ice (goal celebrations etc...). As a kid, I can’t remember the actual goal Pat Kane scored against the Kings in OT but I can remember the celly. Same with Matthews when he signalled goal after he scored... or when Matthews and Kane both went back to back with the “can’t hear you”. This applies to other sports too. I can’t remember the average TD but there are a lot of memorable celebrations. Goals generally aren’t very memorable... but a celly can be.

so you want hockey players to act like hotdogs like players in the nfl? nba?

no thanks...

 

[Soundwave]

so you want hockey players to act like hotdogs like players in the nfl? nba?

no thanks...

They do actually, NHL players show explosive emotion when they score goals, as much as any other sport to be honest.

Watch McDavid or Matthews or Ovechkin react to scoring a huge goal.

 

[stealth1]

First I will say is I doubt the NHL will ever get a big TV contract. My reason is if they were going to be popular and have the big TV ratings they would have had them by now. The NHL has been in the US for a long time now and its still a niche sport. It will always be a niche sport fora a few reasons. They don't market their stars for one and two I will maintain that it's too fast a game for the casual fan. Look at the other 3 major sports, very slow paced. You can turn away and have conversations and not miss much

 

[BOS358]

The thing is though, that those costs are likely insignificant.

Tell that to the network bosses and their underlings.

The reason they don't get the television deals the other sports do is simply because they don't offer the desired product. Hockey simply doesn't draw in the ratings the other Big 4 leagues get.

So in other words, it's because people don't like hockey. What to do about that? Try to shove it down their throats?

And by the way, most hockey players were introduced to the game by watching it, not the other way around. Don't believe me? Ask Auston Matthews.

 

[93LEAFS]

Tell that to the network bosses and their underlings.



So in other words, it's because people don't like hockey. What to do about that? Try to shove it down their throats?

And by the way, most hockey players were introduced to the game by watching it, not the other way around. Don't believe me? Ask Auston Matthews.

You really think the production costs are that much more. As pointed out the salaries alone on NFL broadcasts likely dwarf an NHL broadcast. Do you really think an NHL prime time game costs more to broadcast when CBS is paying Romo close to 1 million a game. Or what TNT pays Shaq and Barkley for TNT?

Matthews is atypical. How about looking at his other highly paid teammates, most who were put in ice as toddlers like Nylander, Marner and Tavares.

I’m not saying people have to live hockey or have it shoved down their throats, just that due to how inaccessible it is that it’s highly unlikely it catches other other 3 major sports in North America when it comes to TV viewers.

You said the biggest issue was production cost to getting a big TV deal. I’m saying the biggest issue is lack of interest relative to the other leagues.

 

[Joe from Maine]

I am not sure ESPN would give the league more exposure than Fox. NBC will keep part of the next NHL deal. Fox did a great job in the 90's promoting the league. Regular season games averaged a 2.1 and 2.0 rating for regular season games the first two seasons of the five year deal. That is very good recognizing sports ratings have come down a lot since then.

The wildcard in looking at who can help the league the most is how many over the air network games will there be. ESPN probably won't have to many games in ABC. Fox can offer a higher percentage of their games on Fox versus FS1. ESPN is in roughly 83 million homes and can certainly get more viewers than NBCSN or FS1. However, the FOX network is in about 120 million homes like NBC. If you average the potential split between network TV and cable the NHL will average more viewers on FOX overall than ESPN.

The NHL averaged 1.53 million viewers for 86 playoff games in 2019. If you break it down it is 1 million a game average for around 60 plus games on NBCSN and a few games on USA Network/CNBC and a 3 million average for 20 plus games on NBC. ESPN can't compete with FOX if there is a higher percentage of network games versus cable in their bid.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

They do actually, NHL players show explosive emotion when they score goals, as much as any other sport to be honest.

Watch McDavid or Matthews or Ovechkin react to scoring a huge goal.

There is a difference between showing emotion in a split second reaction and acting like hot dogs.

NHL players don't regularly leave the playing surface in a celebration, unless you count accidentally breaking the glass. NHL players don't regularly run away from their teammates to celebrate a choreographed stunt by themselves which are typically designed to gain fame and notoriety on social media. NHL players won't run half the length of the playing surface to flex in front of a camera over a non-scoring play. All of these things are common in the NFL.

NHL players show explosive emotion while still trying to act as roll models.

 

[vandymeer13]

I know this is a unpopular opinion among some on here. But no way in hell with the current product. Every time I took a non hockey fan to a hockey game or watch on tv they always ask, Where is the fighting and the brawls? I thought hockey was a tough sport? And this was going back 15 years ago, when fighting was somewhat prevalent. All you got to do is look at a youtube video of good fights or line brawls and the views. The game is more boring then its ever been. I don't care how good a guy can skate or no look pass. I appreciate skill but I want to see a guy get driven in the boards, scrum after whistles from guys trying to poke the puck from the goalie some animosity from the players. Todays players are joking and smiling all game, looks like there playing a all star game. We need characters back in hockey. Good guys and bad guys. Very few players that you despise in todays games. Barnaby, Avery, Messier, Domi, Grimson, JR ext. Just my two sense people are sick of political correctness and everyone being cookie cutter. Just my two sense. Nobody at my place of business which is a blue collar factory of 200 people in a northern state watch hockey regularly. Three other people could tell you the last two Stanley Cup champions.

 

[BOS358]

You really think the production costs are that much more. As pointed out the salaries alone on NFL broadcasts likely dwarf an NHL broadcast. Do you really think an NHL prime time game costs more to broadcast when CBS is paying Romo close to 1 million a game. Or what TNT pays Shaq and Barkley for TNT?

If you can prove otherwise, by all means, put together a presentation and tell it to the good folks in Bristol, CT. It would, at the very least, shut a lot of people up, even if Bristol is experiencing more problems than Fyre Festival right now.

Matthews is atypical. How about looking at his other highly paid teammates, most who were put in ice as toddlers like Nylander, Marner and Tavares.

I'm shocked that a player's journey in Arizona was different from one in Sweden or the GTA. And by the way, judging by the growth in registered players, the NHL team came first, not the youth clubs. USA Hockey had less than 200,000 registered players in 1990-91. It now has 561,700. I'm sure the NHL's growth had a little to do with it.

I’m not saying people have to live hockey or have it shoved down their throats, just that due to how inaccessible it is that it’s highly unlikely it catches other other 3 major sports in North America when it comes to TV viewers.

The average ticket price for an NFL game is $252. The average price of an NHL ticket on the secondary market is $135. It sounds like exposure to hockey for a fan is more accessible than it is for football.

The US population is 331 Million. The total number of registered hockey players is 561,700. Surprisingly, there is a larger payoff for going after the 99% of the population that does not play. Do you think the NHL cares if the fans can skate? Or do you think it's a bigger priority to get them to buy tickets and merch?

You said the biggest issue was production cost to getting a big TV deal. I’m saying the biggest issue is lack of interest relative to the other leagues.

If the cost of doing business were cheaper for the networks, the league would have more options. Professional poker and video games have much lower overhead costs, and therefore higher net income, so they have TV contracts despite much lower interest.

 

[93LEAFS]

If you can prove otherwise, by all means, put together a presentation and tell it to the good folks in Bristol, CT. It would, at the very least, shut a lot of people up, even if Bristol is experiencing more problems than Fyre Festival right now.



I'm shocked that a player's journey in Arizona was different from one in Sweden or the GTA. And by the way, judging by the growth in registered players, the NHL team came first, not the youth clubs. USA Hockey had less than 200,000 registered players in 1990-91. It now has 561,700. I'm sure the NHL's growth had a little to do with it.



The average ticket price for an NFL game is $252. The average price of an NHL ticket on the secondary market is $135. It sounds like exposure to hockey for a fan is more accessible than it is for football.

The US population is 331 Million. The total number of registered hockey players is 561,700. Surprisingly, there is a larger payoff for going after the 99% of the population that does not play. Do you think the NHL cares if the fans can skate? Or do you think it's a bigger priority to get them to buy tickets and merch?



If the cost of doing business were cheaper for the networks, the league would have more options. Professional poker and video games have much lower overhead costs, and therefore higher net income, so they have TV contracts despite much lower interest.

You are the one who made the claim Hockey is more expensive to produce that the other big 4 league, and significantly to the extent that it dramatically effects TV deals where the numbers are in the billions. Maybe put up a case other than someone told you so. You really think an NHL game costs over a million dollars to broadcast? I highly doubt that. That is around the cost just for Tony Romo per game for CBS NFL broadcasts. You are now down to pointing to poker and video games, when originally it was the other big 4 leagues. The NHL would have the same huge TV deals, if it drew in the viewers these other sports draw. You claim its production costs, which simply put is a ridiculous argument when you look at the ratings of MLB, NBA and NFL relative to the NHL.

You said most players get their start watching the game and not having it passed down. You pointed to one example. I pointed to multiple NHLers. Look at where most NHLers come from? So, isn't Matthews atypical?

The issue is hockey seems quite capped due to the barrier of entry to playing it even at a rec level, which impacts the interest it gets compared to Football, Basketball and Baseball (and Baseball is having similar issues do to it losing relevance in urban Amercia).

 

[BOS358]

You are the one who made the claim Hockey is more expensive to produce that the other big 4 league, and significantly to the extent that it dramatically effects TV deals where the numbers are in the billions. Maybe put up a case other than someone told you so.

When someone who works in the industry and has first-hand knowledge of the business, I'd take his word over most others. There are plenty of things I know little to nothing about, so, for example, when my accountant gives me tax advice, I take it, no questions asked.

You really think an NHL game costs over a million dollars to broadcast? I highly doubt that. That is around the cost just for Tony Romo per game for CBS NFL broadcasts.

Change my mind.

You are now down to pointing to poker and video games, when originally it was the other big 4 leagues.

I used them as an example of how net income, not necessarily demand, can drive business decisions.

You claim its production costs, which simply put is a ridiculous argument when you look at the ratings of MLB, NBA and NFL relative to the NHL.

Revenue - expenses = net income. If the second is larger in one case over another, the first one has to make up for it.

You said most players get their start watching the game and not having it passed down. You pointed to one example.

I have more where that came from. No way AAA clubs would pop up in Texas, Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina, etc. without the NHL down there. How else to explain that the number of registered players in the US has nearly tripled since 1990?

You pointed to one example. I pointed to multiple NHLers. Look at where most NHLers come from? So, isn't Matthews atypical?

The term "players" does not only mean "guys in the NHL."

The issue is hockey seems quite capped due to the barrier of entry to playing it even at a rec level, which impacts the interest it gets compared to Football, Basketball and Baseball (and Baseball is having similar issues do to it losing relevance in urban Amercia).

No argument there, but plenty more people watch the sport than play it. The NHL couldn't care less if you buy your kids a pair of skates. They make a grand total of $0 from that. They'd rather you buy tickets and merchandise.

 

[93LEAFS]

When someone who works in the industry and has first-hand knowledge of the business, I'd take his word over most others. There are plenty of things I know little to nothing about, so, for example, when my accountant gives me tax advice, I take it, no questions asked.



Change my mind.



I used them as an example of how net income, not necessarily demand, can drive business decisions.



Revenue - expenses = net income. If the second is larger in one case over another, the first one has to make up for it.



I have more where that came from. No way AAA clubs would pop up in Texas, Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina, etc. without the NHL down there. How else to explain that the number of registered players in the US has nearly tripled since 1990?



The term "players" does not only mean "guys in the NHL."



No argument there, but plenty more people watch the sport than play it. The NHL couldn't care less if you buy your kids a pair of skates. They make a grand total of $0 from that. They'd rather you buy tickets and merchandise.

You just ignore the fact though that the NHL's revenues are significantly lower on their TV deals because they simply don't get the same national ratings as National games from the other 3 leagues. It has very little to do with expenses, they simply don't draw enough viewers, so the main issue is on the revenue side of your equation. The major issue isn't expenses, it's revenue. I have a hard time believing that an NHL game costs more to broadcast than a CBS NFL game due to the overhead of the salaries of people involved. You are simply talking production costs, which likely pale in comparison to the effect on salary. You also said someone told you, but I'd also be surprised if an NHL game actually has more in production costs than an NFL game considering the NFL uses 22 different cameras to capture angles during a game.

The NHL doesn't care if you only watch the NHL. But, getting people to play a sport tends to help create long-term viewers. Not that every viewer needs to have played, but it helps grow the game which creates long-term interest. Hockey is inaccessible which caps it.

 

[Lee Sharpe]

Fox has a best coverage that NHL beeds. I megan they have not had any winter sports nationally.

Fox would be great partner for the NHL nation wide. If they get example 30-50 % next TV-packet NHL could easily charging 300-500 $.

FOX Sports Regional Networks have local media rights partnerships with 12 NHL teams, including the Anaheim Ducks, Arizona Coyotes, Carolina Hurricanes, Columbus Blue Jackets, Dallas Stars, Detroit Red Wings, Florida Panthers, Los Angeles Kings, Minnesota Wild, Nashville Predators, St. Louis Blues, and Tampa Bay Lightning

 

[Jokerit 16]

Fox has a best coverage that NHL beeds. I megan they have not had any winter sports nationally.

Fox would be great partner for the NHL nation wide. If they get example 30-50 % next TV-packet NHL could easily charging 300-500 $.

FOX Sports Regional Networks have local media rights partnerships with 12 NHL teams, including the Anaheim Ducks, Arizona Coyotes, Carolina Hurricanes, Columbus Blue Jackets, Dallas Stars, Detroit Red Wings, Florida Panthers, Los Angeles Kings, Minnesota Wild, Nashville Predators, St. Louis Blues, and Tampa Bay Lightning

I like your style! Best partners for the NHL would be NBC and Fox. Also add some tech company as well. They should be targeting 600-900 milloin per year $

 

[KevFu]

Pretty simple
Better ratings in good demographics
Will bring more money

It's also a circular logic, though...
You get ratings by being popular. You get popular by getting exposure. So being on TV makes you more popular.

The terms of the deal are actually less significant than the way the league is treated by the network. This is why the NHL/ESPN relationship broke down. ESPN promoted the crap out of the NHL in the late 90s, until they got the NBA in 2002. They toss the NHL aside as an after thought. Every promo was for the NBA instead of the NHL games on their schedule.

I think the NHL should try to sell multiple packages, but definitely use NBC as the primary network because NBC treats the NHL extremely well.

 

[Lt Dan]

It's also a circular logic, though...
You get ratings by being popular. You get popular by getting exposure. So being on TV makes you more popular.

The terms of the deal are actually less significant than the way the league is treated by the network. This is why the NHL/ESPN relationship broke down. ESPN promoted the crap out of the NHL in the late 90s, until they got the NBA in 2002. They toss the NHL aside as an after thought. Every promo was for the NBA instead of the NHL games on their schedule.

I think the NHL should try to sell multiple packages, but definitely use NBC as the primary network because NBC treats the NHL extremely well.

Absolutely agree


Ironically, the greatest exposure the NHL has received were NHL93 & 94, the movie Swingers, and this cover

Most of this momentum was lost by the trap and the crack down in fighting in the league.

 

[Lacaar]

I think it was John Shannon who said on Oilers now podcast the other day. "EVERY Canadian team draws more numbers regionally then any American team"
Including the Rangers he mentioned specifically.

It's just the only room for growth for the game is in the U.S since Canada is virtually saturated I guess.

They'd rather play fan lotto in Arizona then the sure money in Quebec. I'm sure some smart people drove through the financial numbers and came up with this plan.

I've mentioned it before.. I don't understand it. But 5k people watching hockey at night in a market of 10 million people is more valued then 500,000 people watching hockey in a market of 1 million.

I don't think the state of the game itself has done them any favors. Hockey today just isn't a sport that draws in new fans. Hell I have a tough time watching some Oiler games because the play just goes on with nothing remotely exciting happening. You know those games where they just dump.. chase.. whack at the puck in the corner.. go the other way.. whack at the puck in the corner. And we have the most exciting player in the world.. but even then there's stretches of games that are just way to blah.

 

[golfortennis]

Absolutely agree


Ironically, the greatest exposure the NHL has received were NHL93 & 94, the movie Swingers, and this cover

Most of this momentum was lost by the trap and the crack down in fighting in the league.

The NHL is still run by guys who believe that a hook on a 4th line guy should be called, but that same hook on a star needs to be a lot worse because the star "should fight through it more." We can debate whether or not it wrecks the game, but the stars are allowed to be stars in other sports. A guy who basically glues himself to McDavid and "shuts him down", usually through interference, holding and hooking, is celebrated. Maybe it's gone too far the other way, but LeBron James doesn't still have to put the dunk down to get the foul call when he gets hammered.

The guy who said something about game management upthread is on to something.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I think it was John Shannon who said on Oilers now podcast the other day. "EVERY Canadian team draws more numbers regionally then any American team"
Including the Rangers he mentioned specifically.

It's just the only room for growth for the game is in the U.S since Canada is virtually saturated I guess.

If you're trying to grow the game and one area is saturated, ... well, you see how much more water you can put into a full sponge.

They'd rather play fan lotto in Arizona then the sure money in Quebec. I'm sure some smart people drove through the financial numbers and came up with this plan.

1. Surely I don't need to mention for the 12,0017th time why the NHL even got involved in the Coyotes saga.
2. Quebec is "sure money" if we're talking about increasing revenues. If we're talking about profits, ... well, if it was really the sure thing, wouldn't some owner "constantly losing money" have pulled up stakes and landed there to reap that massive untapped windfall?
3. Players care about increasing revenues. Owners don't have the same motives.

I've mentioned it before.. I don't understand it. But 5k people watching hockey at night in a market of 10 million people is more valued then 500,000 people watching hockey in a market of 1 million.

1. When you find any market of 1 million with 500,000 people watching hockey on one night, much less watching hockey night in and night out, let us know.
2. Someone find my post remarking about how winning cures the "problem" of "bad" markets and losing creates a "problem" with "good" markets, with very few exceptions, and why Arizona and Florida might benefit from having more than one successful season every 7-10 years.

I don't think the state of the game itself has done them any favors. Hockey today just isn't a sport that draws in new fans. Hell I have a tough time watching some Oiler games because the play just goes on with nothing remotely exciting happening. You know those games where they just dump.. chase.. whack at the puck in the corner.. go the other way.. whack at the puck in the corner. And we have the most exciting player in the world.. but even then there's stretches of games that are just way to blah.

It's such a shame every other sport is chock full of nonstop action that's edge-of-the-seat riveting and every play is meaningful. Wait, what - those other sports also have snoozers of games and/or games that just lumber through stretches that are forgettable too?

The real problem is, has been, and will continue to be, advertising the game and its stars. It doesn't have to be a barrage of high-speed goals, saves and hits, but it needs to be more than the general public knowing about Ovechkin from his partying after winning the Cup and then remembering oh yeah, I guess he also scores a bunch of goals too. They hear names and have zero context on who they are or why they're supposedly good. It's a far cry from when the NBA rocketed to prominence, where you knew Jordan, Pippen, Malone, Stockton, Barkley, Robinson, Olajuwon, ... on and on. You saw them in games, but you saw them out of games. Highlights were packaged in ways to make you want to see a game. They weren't just names on a broadcast; you heard who they were, realized they had personalities, got you to gravitate to seeing more about them.

The NHL, for 40+ years and counting? :crickets: - and there's no discernable plan to change that. And until it does, it's going to rely on word-of-mouth and teams going through the ebb and flow of success and failure to attract fans - and sorry, that's just not going to cut it for where the sport wants to go.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Fox has a best coverage that NHL beeds. I megan they have not had any winter sports nationally.

Fox would be great partner for the NHL nation wide. If they get example 30-50 % next TV-packet NHL could easily charging 300-500 $.

FOX Sports Regional Networks have local media rights partnerships with 12 NHL teams, including the Anaheim Ducks, Arizona Coyotes, Carolina Hurricanes, Columbus Blue Jackets, Dallas Stars, Detroit Red Wings, Florida Panthers, Los Angeles Kings, Minnesota Wild, Nashville Predators, St. Louis Blues, and Tampa Bay Lightning

Answered here: NHL’s Next TV Deal

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Absolutely agree


Ironically, the greatest exposure the NHL has received were NHL93 & 94, the movie Swingers, and this cover

Most of this momentum was lost by the trap and the crack down in fighting in the league.

I knew there was a thread that picked apart that cover.

Mythbusters: Sports Illustrated June 20, 1994 "Why the NHL's Hot and the NBA's Not"

 

[eddygee]

I knew there was a thread that picked apart that cover.

Mythbusters: Sports Illustrated June 20, 1994 "Why the NHL's Hot and the NBA's Not"

Wow you dug deep in the files.

 

[Lt Dan]

I knew there was a thread that picked apart that cover.

Mythbusters: Sports Illustrated June 20, 1994 "Why the NHL's Hot and the NBA's Not"

I had the magazine and actually read it.

It was about how the NHL was on it's way up. Basketball had an image problem at the time . Jordan wasn't playing.

The cover did get a lot of new fans to watch the game and that was a hell of a SCF.

The link you provided mentions how the next covers were about other sports...
You do realize that there was a long lockout shortly after that cover?

And if you read the rest of that thread it mentions that the NHL had everyone's attention and blew it