ESPN and the NHL coming back?

[scottflyers88]

although vs has done a better job year after year i still want the nhl on espn. of course it would help the nhl. direct tv had problems holding on to vs and it hurt the ratings. comcast owns vs and although comcast is growing, it still might end up hurting the nhl if they withhold vs from other providers.

not to mention more people tend to watch espn and if hockey is on then they might watch. and of course hockey on espn is horrible right now. they do not carry any games so they do not care. they carry nascar and do their best now at pretending they know what they are talking about.

 

[awaz]

i think the potential NBA lockout is the season after this one coming up.. this year is the last year in their current CBA

 

[Comeds]

I love the common reason that ESPNs coverage of hockey is really bad so therefore it would be great to get back on there. If they covered the sport well then I'd want some games back on ESPN. Because ESPN is shit is not a reason IMO.

Its a crappy network that I certainly wouldnt want to be the NHL's main partner. I'd much prefer TNT or a similar network to get a package of games, but I would like Versus to continue being the main US carrier.

 

[flyersfan4706]

I think being on ESPN would help the NHL. I am sure more basketball, football, and baseball fans watch ESPN because it has good coverage of their sport and if hockey comes along it might add more fans. Think about some Longhorn fans watch Sports Center because they love college football. Then they see some Stars coverage and they get interested.

I do think the NHL should show loyalty to Versus, however. Show some on Versus, some on ESPN, and most (obviously) on local coverage. VS has gotten better and (Like pointed out) basically dropped it's channel to make a new one for the NHL. Fuck NBC. I am fine with not having them.

And Gary Thorne with Bill Clement oughta be back or this whole transition is useless to fans.

 

[scottflyers88]

why is everyone complaining about espn? the coverage on vs is worse. there is no coverage outside of a half hour before and after the game and intermission. nobody outside of hockey even knows what vs is.

 

[Automattic]

why is everyone complaining about espn? the coverage on vs is worse. there is no coverage outside of a half hour before and after the game and intermission. nobody outside of hockey even knows what vs is.

The TV coverage on VS is awesome if it's the only channel that you have that shows hockey.

 

[Comeds]

I complain about ESPN because I watched the games on ESPN. Basketball highlights during intermissions, same 8 teams shown over and over, cuts away to other events before the team was even on the ice to congratulate the goalie, NHL2Night being moved anywhere from 11:00 to 3:00 at night or not shown at all then canceled because of 'ratings', and even when on ESPN Sportscenter rarely showed hockey before the last 5 minutes of the show.

Oh except unless something bad happened in the NHL (McSorely, Bertuzzi) then the NHL would be all over that and saying how troubled the league is.

Versus was rough early on but their pre and post game coverage has been consistent, including some post season post game press conferences which ESPN would never have had, and Versus showing feeds of games they themselves werent broadcasting are some reasons I much prefer them. As rough as they were I think they covered the NHL better day one, than ESPN had done in the previous 10 years.

Versus gives more hockey, more coverage, and better coverage than ESPN did, and I see no reason to think that ESPN would be any better this time around.

 

[Comeds]

Jack Edwards thoughts on the ESPNs effect on the NHL if it would return:

PTM: Following up, because of that, are you kind of glad that ESPN doesn’t cover hockey anymore?

JE: Well, I think that all you need to know is – for those who wish that hockey was back on ESPN – last Saturday, which was probably the single most amazing night of the NHL season. Just in terms of teams switching places, dramatic things happening, crazy games, that kind of thing.

We went from Toronto to Philadelphia, we were in (Bruins radio play-by-play man) Dave Goucher’s room, having a couple cold ones. Now, the Sweet 16 is going on in college basketball at the same time, the only hockey we saw in the entire sportscast of “SportsCenter” was about 45 seconds of the UNH-North Dakota game, which was the one UNH tied with one-tenth of a second to go, that went into Overtime. That was 56 minutes into the telecast. There was nothing on the NHL in the entire show.

So, for those of you that hope that hockey gets back on ESPN, that’s what you’re gonna’ get. That’s where it belongs in ESPN’s hierarchy, because there are some bozos sitting in the accounting department in a bunker in Burbank, California running Disney, who look at the numbers and completely ignore the passion of hockey fans. They say “Poker gets better ratings because we can attract more compulsive gamblers to the screen than we can passionate hockey fans, so just for the sake of that number, we’re gonna’ run poker instead of hockey. We’re gonna run women’s basketball instead of hockey.”

We saw highlights of the Division II NCAA basketball championship, we didn’t see a single NHL highlight in that entire “SportsCenter”. Case closed.

PTM: Well Jack, you’re gonna’ be a big hero to a lot of hockey fans when this goes up…

JE: I’m not a hero, I’m just telling you the facts. I mean, that’s what it is and you know, this whole idea that hockey will do better if you put it back on ESPN is a delusion. It is completely delusionary. It’s more convenient, certainly. But it’s not going to be better for the sport, because it’s going to be behind golf, it’s going to be behind women’s basketball and, you know, I’m not dissing those sports.

But what I am saying is, if it were my place, if it were my call, I know where the passion is, and I’d rather have 1% of the audience is totally nuts about the sport, than I’m just gonna’ watch it because it’s on. But the people who make the decisions in the accounting department, who see the ratings numbers, are going to go purely on the number. The context of what it means to people has nothing to do with their judgment, and their actions speak much more loudly than their lip service on that.

 

[scottflyers88]

Jack Edwards thoughts on the ESPNs effect on the NHL if it would return:

PTM: Following up, because of that, are you kind of glad that ESPN doesn’t cover hockey anymore?

JE: Well, I think that all you need to know is – for those who wish that hockey was back on ESPN – last Saturday, which was probably the single most amazing night of the NHL season. Just in terms of teams switching places, dramatic things happening, crazy games, that kind of thing.

We went from Toronto to Philadelphia, we were in (Bruins radio play-by-play man) Dave Goucher’s room, having a couple cold ones. Now, the Sweet 16 is going on in college basketball at the same time, the only hockey we saw in the entire sportscast of “SportsCenter” was about 45 seconds of the UNH-North Dakota game, which was the one UNH tied with one-tenth of a second to go, that went into Overtime. That was 56 minutes into the telecast. There was nothing on the NHL in the entire show.

So, for those of you that hope that hockey gets back on ESPN, that’s what you’re gonna’ get. That’s where it belongs in ESPN’s hierarchy, because there are some bozos sitting in the accounting department in a bunker in Burbank, California running Disney, who look at the numbers and completely ignore the passion of hockey fans. They say “Poker gets better ratings because we can attract more compulsive gamblers to the screen than we can passionate hockey fans, so just for the sake of that number, we’re gonna’ run poker instead of hockey. We’re gonna run women’s basketball instead of hockey.”

We saw highlights of the Division II NCAA basketball championship, we didn’t see a single NHL highlight in that entire “SportsCenter”. Case closed.

PTM: Well Jack, you’re gonna’ be a big hero to a lot of hockey fans when this goes up…

JE: I’m not a hero, I’m just telling you the facts. I mean, that’s what it is and you know, this whole idea that hockey will do better if you put it back on ESPN is a delusion. It is completely delusionary. It’s more convenient, certainly. But it’s not going to be better for the sport, because it’s going to be behind golf, it’s going to be behind women’s basketball and, you know, I’m not dissing those sports.

But what I am saying is, if it were my place, if it were my call, I know where the passion is, and I’d rather have 1% of the audience is totally nuts about the sport, than I’m just gonna’ watch it because it’s on. But the people who make the decisions in the accounting department, who see the ratings numbers, are going to go purely on the number. The context of what it means to people has nothing to do with their judgment, and their actions speak much more loudly than their lip service on that.

i did not read past the first sentence after i heard jack edwards name. that guy is a moron. and it is not even about the coverage. it is about ratings. ratings are the thing that helps the league. i do not care if vs covered it all day if it got poor ratings. espn will have better ratings because it is espn. and talk about cutting things off. what about nbc. threatening to cut off a game because of a horse race.

 

[Comeds]

Then if you ignore his perspective both as a broadcaster for the NHL and ESPN because you think he is a moron I think you are ignoring someone who has some insight.

If its all about the ratings, I'll have to disagree because i do think quality of broadcast is a factor in how good or consistent the ratings are.

Who cares about NBCs coverage or really thinks they are good. I think they are slightly better than ABC was but its a toss up.

Prove ESPN would have better ratings because its ESPN.

 

[scottflyers88]

ok you say you think the coverage factors into the ratings and then say you do not care how nbc does.

proof espn would be better would be people that do not watch hockey saying, i flipped through the channels and saw a hockey game. it was on vs hahaha.

 

[Comeds]

ok you say you think the coverage factors into the ratings and then say you do not care how nbc does.

proof espn would be better would be people that do not watch hockey saying, i flipped through the channels and saw a hockey game. it was on vs hahaha.

I am saying the thread is about ESPN getting hockey back or not, not about NBC though if you want to tell me how they are worse than ABC with examples I'd be glad to listen. I'll grant you the Preakness instance.

I cannot understand what the second sentence means or attempts to prove.

 

[scottflyers88]

non hockey fans reactions to vs. it is usually paired with, what is vs.

the fact is espn gets better ratings than vs.

 

[pixburgher66]

my prime idea would be to something similar to NBA. divided up with ESPN and TNT, except with someone like...USA maybe? and i'd rather ABC get coverage back if it meant thorne's return.

 

[Comeds]

non hockey fans reactions to vs. it is usually paired with, what is vs.

the fact is espn gets better ratings than vs.

Who cares if non hockey fans laugh at Versus or don't know what it is. I know some non hockey fans who laugh and the NHLNetwork. It doesnt diminish my opinion of them. Beside I know plenty of sports fans, even non NHL ones, who laugh at the joke that is ESPN.

For ratings it depends on what is on. Versus this season got some of the better playoff cable ratings in years. I see no reason to assume that ESPN hockey playoff ratings would be as good or better than that. Hockey fans know where to find the games.

As for casual fans, the fans you think that would watch just because they are flipping channels and its on ESPN, the networks have complained for years about the lack of casual fans for hockey. If they didnt really make a dent in the ratings a few years ago I see no reason to believe they would now.

 

[scottflyers88]

every little bit helps. i see no reason espn would get less ratings than vs. and people do watch stuff like around the horn and everything so they could have some nhl playoff commercials and it might get some people interested.

 

[Comeds]

every little bit helps. i see no reason espn would get less ratings than vs. and people do watch stuff like around the horn and everything so they could have some nhl playoff commercials and it might get some people interested.

Versus also set new marks earlier in the playoffs. The first two rounds were the highest since Nielsen began tracking playoff viewership in 1994.

ESPN Who? Versus Hits New Heights With NHL Broadcasts -- NHL FanHouse

So 5 years after the NHL was on ESPN, 5 years where rating for most things have gone down over the same time period, Versus gets the best playoff ratings since they have been tracked, and yet you assume that ESPN automatically means more viewers. I dont see any evidence to lead me to believe that.

I am the opposite of you, I see no reason to assume ESPN would get any better ratings than Versus.

But hey, we all have opinions. Thanks for helping me kill the second half of my work day.

 

[scottflyers88]

hah no problem. and trust me, i like vs more than espn and get angry about espn and their coverage. i do think the new rule changes have helped out the nhl though. also the parity in the league helps. i am all for anything that helps the league.

 

[awaz]

comeds (if you're still here)-

you really dont think espn would get better ratings just because its espn?

your main point to that was that hockey fans will find hockey when its on, regardless of what channel.. so if its on espn they are going to watch it there too am i right? what you say is a downgrade in coverage quality wont drive away hockey fans, because lets face it, we'll watch hockey on mute with a fuzzy picture if it means we get to watch our team play..

casual sports fans will find it on espn much more often then they will find it on VS... i'm sure i'm not alone in the fact that when i turn on the TV, i check ESPN, ESPN 2, Comedy Central, USA, and a few other channels.. i dont flip.. if nothing gets my attention with that run through, i normally concede and turn on the xbox.. even as a hockey fan VS isn't in my set of channels that i check.. BUT, that flipping will result in me leaving whatever is on ESPN, on, whenever i'm sitting at the computer talking to you knuckleheads, or eating, what have you..

also VS still isn't broadcast on every package (as far as i know).. everyone has espn, not everyone has VS.. theres a reason in itself..

also espn would cover hockey more now than it did back then.. they already do cover it more now then they did back then (more highlights etc.) IMO, aside from the cancellation of the half hour show.. the game is FAR more popular now then it was the last couple season before the lockout, and espn hasn't had a chance to cover hockey since the population boom that its gone through the last few years

but really my argument for going back to espn all comes down to an NBA lockout.. there is a chance that it happens, and if hockey moves to espn's coverage AND the nba locks out.. the NHL will fill most of the void left by the NBA, and you see how much coverage the NBA gets.. an NBA lock-out would help the NHL tremendously, but if it was covered by espn at the same time.. the benefits would be immeasurable

 

[IPostedWhat]

comeds (if you're still here)-

you really dont think espn would get better ratings just because its espn?

your main point to that was that hockey fans will find hockey when its on, regardless of what channel.. so if its on espn they are going to watch it there too am i right? what you say is a downgrade in coverage quality wont drive away hockey fans, because lets face it, we'll watch hockey on mute with a fuzzy picture if it means we get to watch our team play..

casual sports fans will find it on espn much more often then they will find it on VS... i'm sure i'm not alone in the fact that when i turn on the TV, i check ESPN, ESPN 2, Comedy Central, USA, and a few other channels.. i dont flip.. if nothing gets my attention with that run through, i normally concede and turn on the xbox.. even as a hockey fan VS isn't in my set of channels that i check.. BUT, that flipping will result in me leaving whatever is on ESPN, on, whenever i'm sitting at the computer talking to you knuckleheads, or eating, what have you..

also VS still isn't broadcast on every package (as far as i know).. everyone has espn, not everyone has VS.. theres a reason in itself..

also espn would cover hockey more now than it did back then.. they already do cover it more now then they did back then (more highlights etc.) IMO, aside from the cancellation of the half hour show.. the game is FAR more popular now then it was the last couple season before the lockout, and espn hasn't had a chance to cover hockey since the population boom that its gone through the last few years

but really my argument for going back to espn all comes down to an NBA lockout.. there is a chance that it happens, and if hockey moves to espn's coverage AND the nba locks out.. the NHL will fill most of the void left by the NBA, and you see how much coverage the NBA gets.. an NBA lock-out would help the NHL tremendously, but if it was covered by espn at the same time.. the benefits would be immeasurable