Hockey Night in the US? Not Likely.

by Cassie McClellan on Apr 22, 2009 8:59 PM EDT in Media Comment 7 comments

Most people in hockey seem to think that ESPN is going to save the NHL. Or, at the very least, promote the sport better. When in reality, the people writing about such things want hockey on ESPN to make their own lives easier.

As we all know, hockey does not translate well on to TV. This has more to do with poor camera angles than trying to follow a little black puck on white ice, frankly. But HD TV seems to make a difference, even if that's mostly because it has a larger screen.

Seriously, do you want to see Rod Brind'Amour's face in High Definition? Really? I didn't think so.

Versus isn't the best network. We all have some kind of beef with them. Whether it's the poor camera angles, the limited number of games, the weird blackout restrictions, or whatever, it's not good. It's a wonder that the NHL hasn't taken them aside to point out a better way to do things. But I suppose that would imply a certain level of intelligence that the good people at the NHL offices may or may not have.

NBC is better, if only because it's a non-cable national network. But they prefer to show Eastern Conference teams for some reason. I suppose that's because they're based in New York City? Or, perhaps, it's because teams in the Northeastern United States tend to be popular nationwide regardless of the sport - like the New York Yankees, the New England Patriots, or the Boston Celtics. They were capitalizing on the tried and true, you might say.

Putting the NHL back on ESPN would change fix everything, right? Yeah, probably not. ESPN showed plenty of NHL games before the lockout, but the NHL still didn't make big ratings. Which is probably why the NHL couldn't reach an agreement with ESPN.

In all honesty, the NHL would benefit more from having NBC (or ABC, or CBS) broadcast their games regularly all season twice a week, instead of just the last half of the NHL season once a week. Make the broadcast more like College Football Gameday, instead of like CBC's Hockey Night in Canada. Bring the sport to the football fans instead of placing it after football season.

Has the NHL's Winter Classic on New Year's Day taught the NHL nothing? Putting the NHL up head to head against football is a great idea. People regularly flip through channels during the fall on Saturdays and Sundays. Placing a hockey game in the middle of all that channel flipping can only broaden the interest of the sport. Hockey is just as hard hitting as football, and sometimes there's nothing to watch between two great football games. Hockey is a great way for those bored or disappointed football fans to pass the time - and to become hockey fans themselves. The NHL shouldn't shy away from that competition, but embrace it.

Imagine this for a moment. You're sitting there on the sofa watching football, and your team is getting blown out of the water. So you start channel flipping to see what other games are on. There's a good game on in a couple of hours, there's an okay game on now, and another game no one could pay you to watch since you hate both teams.... But wait - hockey is on? Let's see what that's about.

Simple, right? Yeah, don't even get me started. The NHL has no concept of marketing. It's like banging your head against a brick wall.

0 recs | Comment 7 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Network and Cable TV and the NHL

I was tempted to write a new post entirely to continue on the thoughts that you laid out, but I think I’ll just comment instead… though it may turn into a long comment as I flesh things out entire.

To Versus credit, they were trying to innovate much in the same way Fox innovated NFL coverage when they started carrying NFC games in 1994. There are so many little things Fox did that we take for granted that weren’t in place before hand (the graphic bar that has the clock and the score on—always, for example).

But Versus didn’t really innovate. What they’ve tried to do is new ways to display the game and this trial-and-error stuff during telecasts has failed. Miserably. Hockey is meant to be seen in broadness of the ice surface — not super-focused on one area of action. Not with multiple jump-cuts to cover a play as it happens. It’s like soccer in a way. LESS IS MORE is my point, and Versus (when I’ve watched) has suffered in the same way ESPN suffered at the end of their NHL contract: with more of less. Making a big deal out of plays that failed, or trying to do too much non-traditional coverage of routine things. This, alone, has made a mockery of the NHL super skills competition at the All-Star Game. I couldn’t watch it was so bad.

Now, for those who cry that the league should go back to ESPN: that’s an instant FAIL. ESPN did some great coverage of the NHL in the past and carved a niche during the 1990’s, that can’t be denied… But most people who lament the loss of ESPN are either focused on the fact ESPN is easier to find on their cable provider, or they think ESPN of the 1990’s is the same as ESPN under the Mouse™ here in the Thousands. It’s not.

ESPN has TV deals with Major League Ball, the NCAA with regards to football and basketball and other sports, it’s got plenty of television time devoted to the NFL, Golf, NASCAR and Poker among other things. In the NHL’s heyday on the network, it had broadcast time to fill that was not devoted to all of these sports / sports entertainment.

The NHL would not get much coverage or extra exposure on ESPN now, and would be treated like the red-headed step-child: it’s there but it’s useless.

There’s more to talk about regarding Versus, ESPN, NBC-Universal, and the National Hockey League’s TV deal going forward, but I’ll save that for another time.

The Raw Charge -- the Tampa Bay Lightning weblog at SB Nation.

by John Fontana on Apr 23, 2009 10:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ESPN currently broadcasts...

MLB games, NBA Games, college sports… When I typed up leagues by name, they somehow got cut off and “Major League ball” appeared in it’s place.

The Raw Charge -- the Tampa Bay Lightning weblog at SB Nation.

by John Fontana on Apr 23, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmmm

Frankly, I think the way to go is to bring it to the big 3 original broadcast stations on a regular, all season long basis. Everyone gets ABC, CBS, and NBC. If you want TV exposure at its fullest, that’s really the way to go.

Cassie
"And will that be cash, hip check, or Raw Charge today?"

by Cassie McClellan on Apr 23, 2009 10:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Strings attached, though

you’re right that broadcast TV would be preferred but there are issues with it.

ABC is Disney owned and Disney would sooner put the majority of games on cable… That brings us back to the ESPN issue because ABC Sports IS ESPN. That’s how much Disney has changed both properties.

I don’t want to get into this in full because there is much to discuss but NBC-Universal is the same boat. yeah, full season coverage is preferred to what is going on now. CBS? I don’t even know if the Tiffany Network would have interest… But I digress. The point is, Network TV deals all have strings attached.

The Raw Charge -- the Tampa Bay Lightning weblog at SB Nation.

by John Fontana on Apr 23, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love the idea

of embracing competition, albeit a one sided competition, with football. Just the fact that there would be a competition at all would benefit NHL.

I wonder if there is something that could be worked out with WGN. I’ve heard that WGN might be losing a lot of their rights to the Chicago Cubs due to the fact that the Cubs will be sold. Since WGN is broadcast nationally, I wonder if a deal could be worked out where they broadcast some of the bigger games or series, not just for one team, but for the entire NHL. Just a thought?

by Fridge72 on Apr 23, 2009 1:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

requires ambition

You know, I stated by dismissing what you were suggesting with WGN, Fridge, but it occurred to me that TBS and TNT both started out as hyper-regional cable providers with national reach. WGN would have to have the desire to be bigger than they currently are though and not serve as a local-station-gone-national.

WGN has a midwest appeal and connection to viewer… I see that as an asset for the NHL and not something to dismiss.

Head-to-Head competition with football (in general) – not trying to usurp them but be an alternative – is indeed important. Competition brings mutual improvements to a product. When it’s a monopoly, things stagnate.

The Raw Charge -- the Tampa Bay Lightning weblog at SB Nation.

by John Fontana on Apr 23, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not something that I thought was likely

I was just thinking about an interview I was listening to, I think on the score670, about a month ago (I’ll link to it if I can find it). They were talking about how the Cubs and WGN have been together for so long, that they don’t even really have a contract anymore. That there will have to be a whole new office staff brought into the Cubs organization to deal with all the paper work, etc, etc that most teams have for dealing with their broadcasting stations.

The other part of the interview was; that WGN could be losing a major chunk of its viewing revenue when the Cubs move on. I’ve heard rumors of a Cubs network, here is one of a few articles about it.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/sports/baseball/Cubs-Could-Have-Own-Television-Network-Soon.html

WGN will have to do something to keep themselves relevant and make up the advertising revenue. If that something helps the NHL, then all the better.

by Fridge72 on Apr 23, 2009 4:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs