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

[Ted Hoffman]

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.

Then you read the write-up kdb209 did on the article. If you disagree with that, by all means - explain what you disagree with.

Here - re-read it all for yourself so you can get refreshed on it. Hot Not

That said, the "not hot NBA" still pulled U.S. ratings for its Game 7 in 1994 that were at least 2.5x as good as the "now hot NHL" pulled for its Game 7 in 1994. Basketball's "image problem" + NHL's "new excitement" still = "the NBA is 2.5x the size of the NHL and that gap isn't shrinking appreciably" even back in 1994. When Jordan walked back into the league, guess which not-so-hot league got hot again - and it would have done so even if the NHL continued to be the hot, sexy league it was (briefly) alluded to be.

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

Some of that can be attributed to the move to Fox - which also brought about the glow puck that billions of self-proclaimed hockey purists screamed about and still scream about in horror, ignoring that it was a valuable tool in getting casual fans to be able to follow the action.

You do realize that there was a long lockout shortly after that cover?

Incredibly snarky comment omitted, because what I really want to say in response almost surely violates a few forum rules.

 

[Lt Dan]

Then you read the write-up kdb209 did on the article. If you disagree with that, by all means - explain what you disagree with.

Here - re-read it all for yourself so you can get refreshed on it. Hot Not

That said, the "not hot NBA" still pulled U.S. ratings for its Game 7 in 1994 that were at least 2.5x as good as the "now hot NHL" pulled for its Game 7 in 1994. Basketball's "image problem" + NHL's "new excitement" still = "the NBA is 2.5x the size of the NHL and that gap isn't shrinking appreciably" even back in 1994. When Jordan walked back into the league, guess which not-so-hot league got hot again - and it would have done so even if the NHL continued to be the hot, sexy league it was (briefly) alluded to be.

You clearly have not read the article.
It was NOT that the NHL was overtaking the NBA, it was the that NHL had traction and the NBA was losing it. Which was incredibly true at that time.

And my original comment was about publicity and promotion

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.

And my statement is still correct. The cover DID get the NHL attention and did get the NHL more exposure than anything the league did to promote itself

You instead chose to read it as "OMG the NHL is more popular than the NBA" and that is your loss

Incredibly snarky comment omitted, because what I really want to say in response almost surely violates a few forum rules.

You are SO brave

 

[Ted Hoffman]

You clearly have not read the article.
It was NOT that the NHL was overtaking the NBA, it was the that NHL had traction and the NBA was losing it. Which was incredibly true at that time.

And my original comment was about publicity and promotion

So, we agree that the NHL's "traction" was overstated and you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Got it.

And my statement is still correct. The cover DID get the NHL attention and did get the NHL more exposure than anything the league did to promote itself.

You instead chose to read it as "OMG the NHL is more popular than the NBA" and that is your loss

I'm quite certain I know how that read, because I was around when that thread - and others that preceded it - were posted, and commented at the time that the NHL was never close to overtaking the NBA even with that cover. The notion that the SI cover is "more exposure than anything the league did to promote itself" is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion - which is even countered in the write-up in the thread I linked to previously.

I'm also positive you have no idea what I think. Don't ever pretend that you do.

You are SO brave

Seriously, I've been around this place for years. You really don't think I don't know there was a lockout in 1994 that extended into the early part of 1995? Or that there was a players strike in 1992 that preceded the '94 lockout which set the stage for that battle between the two sides and drove out then-NHL President John Zeigler (and ushered in the Gil Stein Reign of Error)? Or that the fallout from the '92 strike and '94 lockout set the stage for the '04 lockout, complete with the list of grievances the owners had which they were going to rectify even if it meant shutting down the league for as long as 3 years?

Please ... please enlighten me and everyone else here with all this history that you apparently think no one knows anything about.

 

[Lt Dan]

So, we agree that the NHL's "traction" was overstated and you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Got it.

You were the person who quoted me in the first place and are attempting to create something that never existed.
So you are doing what you accused me of

I'm quite certain I know how that read, because I was around when that thread - and others that preceded it - were posted, and commented at the time that the NHL was never close to overtaking the NBA even with that cover. The notion that the SI cover is "more exposure than anything the league did to promote itself" is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion - which is even countered in the write-up in the thread I linked to previously.

Please quote me where I made this specific claim and I challenge you to only reply with this and not on these odd side arguments you keep inventing

Once again, this is what you replied to

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'm also positive you have no idea what I think. Don't ever pretend that you do.

Actually I do and you have zero right to tell me how to think

Seriously, I've been around this place for years. You really don't think I don't know there was a lockout in 1994 that extended into the early part of 1995? Or that there was a players strike in 1992 that preceded the '94 lockout which set the stage for that battle between the two sides and drove out then-NHL President John Zeigler (and ushered in the Gil Stein Reign of Error)? Or that the fallout from the '92 strike and '94 lockout set the stage for the '04 lockout, complete with the list of grievances the owners had which they were going to rectify even if it meant shutting down the league for as long as 3 years?

Please ... please enlighten me and everyone else here with all this history that you apparently think no one knows anything about.

How is any of this pertinent to my claim of a Sports Illustrated cover being one of the best forms of marketing the NHL has had in the last few decades

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Actually I do and you have zero right to tell me how to think

Oh, trust me. You don't have the first clue what I think, and we both know it. Your badly misguided belief that you think you do only underscores further attempts to engage in a discussion will be pointless.

 

[Lt Dan]

Oh, trust me. You don't have the first clue what I think, and we both know it. Your badly misguided belief that you think you do only underscores further attempts to engage in a discussion will be pointless.

Third request for this

Please quote me where I made this specific claim and I challenge you to only reply with this and not on these odd side arguments you keep inventing

once again, this was the original post you replied to

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.

 

[Yog S'loth]

No, because hockey will never be as popular.

It costs too much money to play, and too many parts of the country don't get inherently cold enough. Any kid with a ball can go shoot some hoops. Every town in America has public baseball fields, free for anyone to use. Even football just requires a ball and an empty yard to get started.

Hockey will never, ever get there.

And that's ok.

 

[Jokerit 16]

No, because hockey will never be as popular.

It costs too much money to play, and too many parts of the country don't get inherently cold enough. Any kid with a ball can go shoot some hoops. Every town in America has public baseball fields, free for anyone to use. Even football just requires a ball and an empty yard to get started.

Hockey will never, ever get there.

And that's ok.

This is really sad to hear, that people dont believe a big TV contract!?

Still even NHL is in USA a niche sport. It value is more than 5 billion.

As I been mention they will get a big contract value 600-1 Billion $ a year.

 

[Lee Sharpe]

Also disagree. They will get a big contract far more than current 200 million per a year.

600-1 $ year is very reasonable what they will get

 

[eddygee]

Also disagree. They will get a big contract far more than current 200 million per a year.

600-1 $ year is very reasonable what they will get

$500m yr for the next US TV is reasonable if there is a split, heck $600m yr is a little more of a strecth but doable. $1bil yr for the NHL for a US TV deal is laughable fiction. I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you believe that. Lots of people are setting themselves up to be disappointed if these are their true expectations of NHL getting a US TV deal of $700m-$1Bil yr deal.

 

[KevFu]

This is really sad to hear, that people dont believe a big TV contract!?

It's a matter of perception.

In the late 80s/early 90s, it was "Will the NHL ever get a BIG TV DEAL compared to NBA/MLB" because the NHL was getting like $7 million and the NBA/MLB were getting $150 million."

Now it's like, "Will the NHL ever get a BIG TV DEAL compared to NBA/MLB" because the NHL is getting like $200 million and the NBA/MLB are getting $1.5 billion"

The NHL TV deals have gone from 1/22nd of the other leagues to like 1/8th of the other leagues (thanks to expanding into many more US markets than when they had a 21-team league). But it's not equal or greater to those other leagues, so the perception is that the NHL is some tiny niche sport as the goal post keeps moving.

Also, the NBA and MLB have 29 American teams, and the NHL has 24. So right there, popularity being equal the NHL's US deal would be only 82% of those leagues. And we always ignore the Canadian component of the NHL TV rights situation, when you can't even find the dollar amount on the Canadian NBA or MLB TV contracts because they're simply handed to the networks that basically own the Raptors and Jays.

 

[Lee Sharpe]

Houston will get a franchise in near future maybe 2-5 years. Then NHL has a 26 based USA teams.

will possible Houston expansion/relocation helps this point, probaply not. Nothing has confirmed.

Fox and NBC will get that next USA deal

 

[Jokerit 16]

Pessimist will never a disapoinment.

Soon we figured out what happens for next contract.

 

[KevFu]

You know, I said 24 American NHL teams... but it's really 21 American markets because the Ducks, Islanders and Devils are in LA/NY markets.

NBA has 27 US markets and MLB has 26.

 

[Bucky_Hoyt]

Interesting NYT article on ratings declines across sports from last month.

TV Ratings for Many Sports Are Down. Don’t Read Too Much Into It Yet.

 

[Bucky_Hoyt]

Something that has come up a few times here is this lack of accessability to hockey compared to other sports. But we have sports out there that get globally comparable TV ratings to the "Big 3" and are pretty damned inaccessible to Joe and Jane public.

Ones that come front of mind to me are motorsports and horse-racing. Doubt too many of us have the tens-of-thousands to millions of bucks lying around to play those sports. So, why is it an issue with hockey?

 

[Fatass]

Is this future deal restricted to just Betman? This might be his last TV deal, and then he retires before the next one. So I’m saying Betman for sure will not. Willthe NHL ever get a TV deal like the NFL? Sure, that’s possible. Maybe football, because it’s so hard on the human brain, regresses and hockey fills in that aggressive sport fan base?

 

[BOS358]

Ones that come front of mind to me are motorsports and horse-racing. Doubt too many of us have the tens-of-thousands to millions of bucks lying around to play those sports. So, why is it an issue with hockey?

Because hockey fans like to whine a lot. Re-read any thread addressing this "issue" and you'll see that it is the most obvious conclusion.

 

[kgboomer]

Will the NHL ever get a TV deal like the NFL? Sure, that’s possible. Maybe football, because it’s so hard on the human brain, regresses and hockey fills in that aggressive sport fan base?

Never. Since forever, I've heard and read about how popular the NFL is because of betting. It's easy to bet on it, points spread, line, O/U... It's a big industry. When the NFL was studying to get into the legal betting business, I remember reading something that over 30M Americans were betting on NFL games and the NFL could get over 2B in additional revenue.

Just for the last Super Bowl, it was over 6B wager on the game. And 3 networks are rotating to broadcast the game with huge ads revenues. It's no wonder the NFL can get this kind of TV deals with a following like that.

 

[canuckfan75]

John Shannon who a very underrated insider ( he worked under bettman in the NY office as the head of NHL Broadcasting ) claims the league is looking for $750 million per year. He thinks it will look like this

NBC = $400 Million
ESPN -$200 Million
Streaming - $150 Million - ( Facebook - Google - Amazon etc ) they are looking at a 7 year or 8 year deal - he was on TSN 1040 in Vancouver yesterday afternoon

 

[WeaponOfChoice]

John Shannon who a very underrated insider ( he worked under bettman in the NY office as the head of NHL Broadcasting )

Because he's not an insider. He's a mouthpiece for the league. They leak to him what they want us to hear and he repeats it verbatim.

 

[FMichael]

No, because hockey will never be as popular.

It costs too much money to play, and too many parts of the country don't get inherently cold enough. Any kid with a ball can go shoot some hoops. Every town in America has public baseball fields, free for anyone to use. Even football just requires a ball and an empty yard to get started.

Hockey will never, ever get there.

And that's ok.

This.

Wanted to play organized hockey when I was a kid...Parents couldn’t afford both time, and money needed... I played pond hockey growing up, and later played adult beer league.

My 3 boys play club soccer...It’s much more affordable than hockey, and with numerous clubs nearby the games, and weekend tournaments are much more practical than hockey could ever be.

It’s a shame really.

 

[Fatass]

Never. Since forever, I've heard and read about how popular the NFL is because of betting. It's easy to bet on it, points spread, line, O/U... It's a big industry. When the NFL was studying to get into the legal betting business, I remember reading something that over 30M Americans were betting on NFL games and the NFL could get over 2B in additional revenue.

Just for the last Super Bowl, it was over 6B wager on the game. And 3 networks are rotating to broadcast the game with huge ads revenues. It's no wonder the NFL can get this kind of TV deals with a following like that.

Never is a long time. In Betman’s tenure? Definitely not. At some point in the distant future? Perhaps.

 

[BOS358]

Wanted to play organized hockey when I was a kid...Parents couldn’t afford both time, and money needed... I played pond hockey growing up, and later played adult beer league.

But did this prevent you from becoming a hockey fan and watching games either at the arena or on TV? I'm guessing that you're on here talking about hockey, so you somehow became interested in the sport despite not playing it. I can already tell that people like you (fans) are more valuable to the NHL than people like me (working for developmental teams/ leagues and watching mostly NCAA games.) Based on ticket prices, it costs much less to be a fan of an NHL team than an NFL team.

I would absolutely like more kids to play hockey, but the NHL cannot reduce the price of equipment, which it doesn't manufacture, or ice time, at buildings that are neither owned nor operated by the league.

 

[cowboy82nd]

Houston will get a franchise in near future maybe 2-5 years. Then NHL has a 26 based USA teams.

will possible Houston expansion/relocation helps this point, probaply not. Nothing has confirmed.

Fox and NBC will get that next USA deal

And HOW is Houston getting a franchise? If it’s relocation, is it coming from a current U.S. team? And I don’t think the NHL is expanding in 2 to 5 years.