Just curious if anybody knows anything about the switch from ESPN to OLN (comcast) for NHL games? I don't really know much about television contracts. Does this mean the end of Barry Melrose and all the hockey on ESPN?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2137098
The end of Barry Melrose would be great.
Yeah, ESPN is totally devoid of hockey, other than what they put on SportsCenter (which wasn't much even when they owned the rights to hockey).
Comcast (OLN) is putting games on Monday and Tuesday. They also have the rights to the playoffs up through the first 2 games of the Stanley Cup Finals, while NBC will play games on 6 Saturdays and games 3-7 of the Stanley Cup Finals.
Comcast is also reportedly bringing the NHL network to US cable.
At first you may be concerned about the drop in network status, but think of what Lance Armstrong/OLN did for the Tour de France. Could Sidney Crosby/OLN take the NHL back to the top?
[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:
At first you may be concerned about the drop in network status, but think of what Lance Armstrong/OLN did for the Tour de France. Could Sidney Crosby/OLN take the NHL back to the top?
[/q]
Crosby, yes. OLN, no. It's very generous to say OLN "did" something for the Tour de France.
If it was Alexandre Vinokourov winning 7 in a row, nobody would care, and nobody would watch the Tour on OLN.
People watched the tour on TV?
[Q]Jordan 04 Wrote:
[Q2]Tub(a) Wrote:
At first you may be concerned about the drop in network status, but think of what Lance Armstrong/OLN did for the Tour de France. Could Sidney Crosby/OLN take the NHL back to the top?
[/Q]
Crosby, yes. OLN, no. It's very generous to say OLN "did" something for the Tour de France.
If it was Alexandre Vinokourov winning 7 in a row, nobody would care, and nobody would watch the Tour on OLN.[/q]
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=8234
OLN decided to program something that ESPN didn't see the value in (even with the previous 6 victories by Armstrong) and got very good ratings. It's not too much of a stretch to compare that to the NHL. A little change of attitude from "it's break-even filler" to "cornerstone of our programming and we love it" couldn't hurt.
I predict next year's TdF rating will equal John Blutarsky's GPA.
[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:
OLN decided to program something that ESPN didn't see the value in (even with the previous 6 victories by Armstrong) and got very good ratings. It's not too much of a stretch to compare that to the NHL. A little change of attitude from "it's break-even filler" to "cornerstone of our programming and we love it" couldn't hurt.[/q]
Was this year's TDF even up for bid? I've been watching it on OLN (yes, Keith, some of us watch it on TV) for at least 4-5 years now - I suspect that OLN had a long-term contract for the rights, so ESPN wouldn't have even had a chance to bid on it this year - they may very well have recognized the value of Armstrong's last year.
Certainly, OLN's historical ratings expectations have been quite low compared to ESPN, but I heard an NPR piece yesterday (with one of their VPs), and he said they are planning to make a run at becoming a major national sports network - hockey is just their first step. They're even talking about trying to bid on NFL rights when they come up again (I think 2007, but perhaps 2008). They even changed the official name of the network from "Outdoor Life" to "OLN" to distance themselves from the "bark eaters," which was the actual term used in the interview. :)
I'd be willing to bet that NESN will be showing Bruins games... for those who get NESN, that is.
[Q]dss28 Wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that NESN will be showing Bruins games... for those who get NESN, that is.[/q]
I'm sure the local/regional broadcasting rights will remain intact, or go through whatever normal changes that market might experience. The national rights going to OLN though, remains pathetic. Let's hope, if anything, the OLN is successful in it's transformation and/or that the NHL gets off of there quickly.
Personally, I think a change in broadcasting, even if it proves to be for the better, won't be enough. What gets the masses excited about hockey? Hard hits, an occasional fight, and the rare goal. Sure for us die-hards, we also appreciate the passing game, the re-directs, and successfully fending off 2 minutes of 5 on 3.
But there aren't enough die-hards out there now to fill up the seats and boost ratings.... yet. However, there are plenty of would-be fans out there that hockey can convert.
This is the video game / ADD generation. Rewards to stimulate the senses in the form of suspense and thrill must be frequent and often, because that's the type of entertainment drug we're used to.
Soccer and hockey, in our culture, both fail to deliver on that as much as they potentially could, and that's where some slight rule or design changes can draw the crowds.
Basketball, football, baseball, nascar ... they've all evolved over the years to make the game more exciting for the fans while maintaining a standard of safety and integrity.
I feel hockey needs to do the same. Fans don't follow the networks, they follow the game and the players. And the game itself needs to step up and take the lead by opening things up.
Scores are too low. Clustering around the net is too high. Most fans at home need to wait for the replay cameras to zoom in on what they missed.
But in football and basketball, the live play is fast and easier to see.
The amazing one-armed 30yrd catch immediately followed by a no-huddle rush to the line of scrimmage with seconds ticking away and no time outs.
Or in basketball, the no look give and go pass back to an alley oop for a slam dunk. Replay forthcoming of course, but at least the fans at home saw the whole thing clearly live and in real time, and no one at home is scratching their head wondering if the goal was actually scored and who gets credit.
Sure it's a fast game. Sure the puck isn't the easiest thing to see. But opening things up around the net (restricting the presence of players or number of players within an area similar to basketball's 3 second violation in the key), or even making the net larger may help raise scoring and make things easier to see.
Perhaps some changes can attract new fans while still making it exciting for us FANatics.
My 2 cents,
WOWBLWTCSTI94
(Wept Openly When Brian Leech Won The Con Smythe Trophy In 94)
[Q]WOWBLWTCSTI94 Wrote:
WOWBLWTCSTI94
(Wept Openly When Brian Leech Won The Con Smythe Trophy In 94)[/q]L-E-E-T-C-H.
[Q]jmh30 Wrote:
[Q2]WOWBLWTCSTI94 Wrote:
WOWBLWTCSTI94
(Wept Openly When Brian Leech Won The Con Smythe Trophy In 94)[/Q]
L-E-E-T-C-H.[/q]
I wept openly at this.
NHL TV Schedule is now on the OLN website. Florida has a few games early in the season. The Penguins, Flyers, Bruins, Red Wings, and Rangers are shown at least six times each--to be expected.
From the October issue of The Atlantic:
"ESPN, long its TV home, has declined to broadcast the [NHL] season since discovering that some of last year's replacement programming--college basketball and a poker drama--earned higher ratings than hockey."
What comments have official ESPN spokespersons made? I heard Bettman on the radio when th eOLN deal was announced and he refused to criticize ESPN other than saying, "I don't know what their thinking was."
I find it really funny that poker tournaments get higher viewing than any sport, let alone hockey. But apparently they do, for now anyway. I suspect that the poker craze will run its course and Tv ratings will plummet in time. Not that ESPN will necessarily regret their hockey decision - random college squeakball games will probably continue to draw better than NHL.
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
I find it really funny that poker tournaments get higher viewing than any sport, let alone hockey. But apparently they do, for now anyway. I suspect that the poker craze will run its course and Tv ratings will plummet in time. Not that ESPN will necessarily regret their hockey decision - random college squeakball games will probably continue to draw better than NHL.[/q]
They are probably cheaper to produce too.
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:"ESPN, long its TV home, has declined to broadcast the [NHL] season since discovering that some of last year's replacement programming--college basketball and a poker drama--earned higher ratings than hockey."[/q]
[Q]KeithK Wrote:I find it really funny that poker tournaments get higher viewing than any sport, let alone hockey...[/q]
I could deal with poker tournaments getting a higher rating than hockey. I'm a poker player and a poker-on-TV addict. But what they were talking about appears to be "Tilt," which was completely unwatchable.
If Tilt is scoring higher ratings than hockey we may not see the NHL on OLN for very long.
reactions? thoughts? comments?
http://www.nhl.com/news/2005/09/234088.html
I think Joel and the 'bots could generate a GREAT episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 using this video.
The NHL annouced a ten year $100,000,000 contract with XM Satellite radio today.
The need to turn the gain way up on their audio. I had to turn all my stuff all the way up just to hear it.
The music sounded like the stuff that NFL Films rejected.
A lot of the stuff that they're billing as "new rules" seems like it's just a stricter interpretation of interference and holding, not really anything new at all. The question, as usual, remains, will they actually call any of this stuff more strictly beyond the first two weeks of the season?