ESPN should take back the NHL

LarryTalbot · Oct 29, 2005

I was watching three games today (Isles, Devils, and Canes) and all of them were unique in their own way. The Isles was a cat and mouse game to the very end, NJ won in a shootout ,and Carolina stormed back in the third with 4 goals. As for the scoring, all I can say is that some of these goalies are really not sharp. DiPietro gave up some weak goals while Biron didn't play since the 04 season. The game is at a much faster pace but it's ridiculous to see a goalie get burnt from a slapper 55 feet away. With that being said, ESPN needs to look into picking up the NHL again because this is by far more interesting than watching a zebra throw a yellow flag every down. As for the NBA, they can promote it all they want, but the league is also played out with a one-on-one style game.

Bring back Panger, Melrose "Mullet", and John Buccigross and I guarantee you people will start to like the NHL more.

PokerKingJim · Oct 29, 2005

I agree. Much improved product

Wrigley · Oct 29, 2005

But it sucked in the ratings at ESPN , WSOP reruns would get a better rating on ESPN2 going head to head with hockey on ESPN.

ESPN really don't wants back in unless they get a really good price ESPN biggest thing they will be going for is the 2007 NASCAR rights.

Wrigley · Oct 29, 2005

Also during last years strike NHL replacement programing did better numbers then the NHL had done for them so you can see ESPN point of view.

They look at it like the NHL needs ESPN not that ESPN needs the NHL

GreenDoberman · Oct 29, 2005

There are many exciting games, but there are some stinkers like Ott 8 Tor 0.

LarryTalbot · Oct 29, 2005

I understand that the lockout naturally hurt their chances of cable programming, but the league as a whole improved dramatically and you watch games on tv with the stadiums packed every night. Although the ratings sucked for the old nhl, it isn't fair to compare it to this one because it wasn't really given a chance yet.

P.S. The Leafs really sucked tonight,but every other game including this blues/kings game is exciting.

Wrigley · Oct 29, 2005

We will see what kind of ratings they get on NBC when coverage starts there if they improve alot then the NHL will get some bargaining leverage back when dealing with ESPN.

So whats Barry Melrose do for a living now ??

GreenDoberman · Oct 29, 2005

Hockey will never get great ratings, even good ratings. It is just not a very TV-conducive game.

Wrigley · Oct 29, 2005

GreenDoberman said:
Hockey will never get great ratings, even good ratings. It is just not a very TV-conducive game.

I agree I think the way of the future of die hard NHL fans is to buy the NHL center ice package I just dont see them ever being a big time tv sport in terms of ratings numbers

LarryTalbot · Oct 29, 2005

you guys are right. Geez, if the Nba finals+playoffs didn't do well ratings-wise, I can't imagine how the nhl would do. But of course we all know which sport has the best playoff system right?:drink:

Salain · Oct 29, 2005

GreenDoberman said:
Hockey will never get great ratings, even good ratings. It is just not a very TV-conducive game.

I hated the old hockey. Couldn't even watch the playoffs, was just BORING.

....but I don't want to change from the Stars/PHX game right now....

It's going to take people a long time to stop thinking "boring" whenever they see ice and hockey sticks, but this is MUCH better.

Wrigley · Oct 29, 2005

wildemu said:
you guys are right. Geez, if the Nba finals+playoffs didn't do well ratings-wise, I can't imagine how the nhl would do. But of course we all know which sport has the best playoff system right?:drink:

The NHL has a lot of work to do how many casual sports fans can name 10 NHL players besides the one on their local team.

I think the casual sport fan could name more MLB, NBA and NFL players then NHL players.

And on the business side of things how many NHL players do national commercials endorsing products I see Gretzky now and then but he doesn't play anymore.

I like hockey but just looking at it from a business stand point of view they have a lot of work to do before they catch up to the other 3 major sports.

Just look at the TV contract money each sport gets from networks for broadcast rights hockey is far behind

LLXC13 · Oct 30, 2005

Am I the only one who liked the old, boring, defensive hockey? :monsters-

WildBill · Oct 30, 2005

The NHL's best move would be to make the Center Ice package REALLY affordable, say $50 for the season. Make it so its a no brainer for anyone who would watch hockey. Then they can follow the teams they are passionate about, or hate just as much, and fans will be happy. The problem with ESPN's coverage is it tried to be national and hence kept showing the same 4 or 5 teams. Yes the Rangers and Red Wings are popular, but hockey doesn't have such national teams. The best thing would have been to have a national hockey night and show two games on both networks so there would be four games to choose from, and switch it up a bit. Would the ratings have been great? Of course not, but ESPN isn't really about the ratings believe it or not.

Lots of insiders have told me the commitment of a network like ESPN to hockey and basketball is important because it gets people to watch more Sportscenter and other shows that ESPN makes a ton of money off of because they are in-house productions and charge high ad fees for. The network loses money on some sports, including college football, just to make it back in keeping an audience around all day. In other words the 3 hours they have a football game on costs more to ESPN than they recover in ad fees. However the viewer stays around for the one hour Gameday show after that and that show is nearly pure profit. Same thing for the NHL and NBA, viewers tend to stick around after the games. Poker viewers do not.

quantumleap · Oct 30, 2005

GreenDoberman said:
Hockey will never get great ratings, even good ratings. It is just not a very TV-conducive game.

If the cameras would just pan back a bit the fans could see the plays develop. I always thought this about football as well. When you see a game live you can see all the jockeying for position and the receivers going into a pattern. All TV shows you is the box around the ball. Boring.

Wrigley · Oct 30, 2005

quantumleap said:
If the cameras would just pan back a bit the fans could see the plays develop. I always thought this about football as well. When you see a game live you can see all the jockeying for position and the receivers going into a pattern. All TV shows you is the box around the ball. Boring.

I'll admit Hockey is my favorite sport to attend in person TV does not give it justice

wilheim · Oct 30, 2005

I love hockey but today's game lacks one very important thing that it had back in the 60's 70's and 80's that is player visibility. The culprit is helmets, to be honest I can't tell one player from the next anymore, sure I know Mario Lemieux when I see him but not many more. Maybe it is just me...

EG -- who are these guys??

wil..

LarryTalbot · Oct 30, 2005

so you prefer them not wearing helmet so their heads can get exposed to a fast, heavy puck? Sometimes we should sacrifice one aspect lost in the game for the safety of the players.

Wrigley · Oct 30, 2005

wilheim said:
I love hockey but today's game lacks one very important thing that it had back in the 60's 70's and 80's that is player visibility. The culprit is helmets, to be honest I can't tell one player from the next anymore, sure I know Mario Lemieux when I see him but not many more. Maybe it is just me...

EG -- who are these guys??

wil..

I actually think the one in the middle is Todd Bertuzzi but the only reason people know him is that he ended a colorado players career.

But that is a good point Wil

wilheim · Oct 30, 2005

Wildemeu, not saying that at all, just saying the game has changed in that way for me. I know helmets are here to stay and most likely that is a good thing. The game has lost it's personality imho.

wil.