NHL likely returning to ESPN

[Carl J. Ironsides]

Although this is from Eklund's site, the writer, Andy Strickland, is an ESPN Radio employee. Thus, this is hardly baseless speculation; all in all, it'll be great to have hockey back on ESPN next season. I'm tired of seeing the sport treated like a second-class citizen. The sport of hockey and the NHL both deserve better than what they've gotten since the lockout.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=11578

Expect the NHL to announce that Versus will remain the cable carrier for NHL games heading into next season. A mutual option must be agreed upon by the January 1st 2008 deadline. No official agreement has been made but sources tell me not to expect the NHL and Comcast to part ways.

You can also expect to hear an announcement from the NHL that either ESPN or ESPN 2 will replace NBC and begin televising games next season. Sources tell me that the news is looking very positive for ESPN.

The biggest thing for ESPN is that they once again are televising the Stanley Cup playoffs and more importantly the finals.

An announcement will likely come sometime during this season’s Stanley Cup playoffs.

A change back to ESPN will give the NHL far more coverage than they are getting today. The bottom line is if ESPN is not your partner in today’s world in professional sports, then you have an automatic marketing problem.

This move will obviously give the NHL more coverage on Sportscenter, you’ll see commercials promoting the NHL on ESPN, and scores will appear on the crawl at the bottom of the screen.

All you have to do is look at what ESPN has done for Arena football. The NHL wants credibility, and going back to ESPN will be a great starting point. It’s not a bad deal for Versus either when they get ESPN cross promoting for them.

[Orange Nation]

too bad it couldn't replace versus. good news anyways.

[Shamrock1989]

Can't go wrong IMO, more hockey is great.

[Snarf]

Actually I would rather it say on Versus. I mean, does ESPN really care about hockey? Besides Linda Cone and her endless Rangers references, you may never hear about the NHL on Sportscenter. If they do show highlights, its near the end of the program after they have shown NFL, college football, NBA, college baseketball, Nascar, golf, and tennis highligts. And when are they putting it on? They have the NBA on a couple times of the week and college basketball on other nights?

[CoachC.]

Actually I would rather it say on Versus. I mean, does ESPN really care about hockey? Besides Linda Cone and her endless Rangers references, you may never hear about the NHL on Sportscenter. If they do show highlights, its near the end of the program after they have shown NFL, college football, NBA, college baseketball, Nascar, golf, and tennis highligts. And when are they putting it on? They have the NBA on a couple times of the week and college basketball on other nights?


They don't "care" because they have no interest in promoting a sport another networks carries and they don't. The minute they get it back they'll start caring again.

The NHL MUST get back on ESPN sooner rather than later in order to be more relavant and continue its survival, which is what we all want.

[Patrick!]

1st he ruins the Varsity Club, Now SCI. . . He's coming for all of the forums.

Besides that, it is awesome that ESPN will finally be coming back to hockey, and it means MORE BARRY MELROSE MULLET!

[TommyV26]

To be honest, in the past, I like the ESPN announcers of hockey games better than the guys on Vs. right now. Plus, maybe they'll throw a few more Sabres games on there since Time Warner is being a dick and won't let me have Center Ice this year because I dropped the other extra sports channels package to save some cash. They are just screwin over the college kids, but that belongs in a different thread. Anyway, give it a go back to ESPN. Its the best thing for the sport to do.

[treydawg]

Thank god. I've been saying this since the lockout. The NHL badly needs ESPN.

[anEinherjer]

The NHL made 2 BILLION dollars last year, and they play to > 90% capacity in the stands.

Tell me again how they simply "must" get on the 4-letter POS network...

[mike35]

Listen...the NHL doesn't need ESPN. The league revenues are at an all-time high without them. Attendance is at an all-time high. To be honest, they'll probably get a sh*t contract from them.

[jlpubarch]

Although this is from Eklund's site, the writer, Andy Strickland, is an ESPN Radio employee. Thus, this is hardly baseless speculation; all in all, it'll be great to have hockey back on ESPN next season. I'm tired of seeing the sport treated like a second-class citizen. The sport of hockey and the NHL both deserve better than what they've gotten since the lockout.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=11578

The sport of hockey and the NHL both deserve EXACTLY WHAT THEY GOT.

The strike was driven by players' greed and the league's inability to negotiate a resolution to the inflating salaries.

Gary Bettman then proceeded to turn down ESPN's offer to carry NHL games, which they were reluctant to pay for considering Bettman was overseeing his 2nd labor strike in his commish tenure.

Bettman decided that going with a peripheral network named OLN would be the right move to make.

How exactly did the NHL and the sport of hockey get a bad deal?

[Papaduke]

You guys have short memories.... ESPN largely ignored hockey before the strike. I do not think much changes if ESPN gets hockey back except for an extra game or 2 on cable a week. Perhaps a NHL 2Night type show returns to its once a week time slot.

[aWinAgainov]

NHL2night would be great to see back. even though it pales in comparison to NHL On the Fly, and its on at obscure hours, its nice to have something to watch during obscure hours. Versus has promoted their NHL coverage a lot more than ESPN ever did so I'm glad they are keeping coverage too. As far as ESPN's coverage, it will be the same as NBC's little schedule, except they probably won't switch over to Preakness pre race coverage in favor of an overtime stanley cup hockey game

[charbs]

Anyone who thinks the NHL on ESPN would not be beneficial to the league and to the game, is a moron. What the hell is wrong with you guys? Yea lets shut down a good thing just for the sake of arguing....Please, lets be serious.....

If you're really that upset about hockey getting more coverage on TV, by all means don't watch.

[Papaduke]

I am not mad that ESPN will broadcast games I just think you guys are overestimating the effect that ESPN will have on hockey. And remember get ready for a steady diet of Detroit Colorado New York and Philly. I will give Versus credit in that they have greatly varied their content.

[dwoz9093]

I think getting back to ESPN would be a great move..Being on a network which has bull riding and Ted Nugent's outdoor reality show is a joke ..

[CoachC.]

Tell me again how they simply "must" get on the 4-letter POS network...

It's only a POS network because you don't like what they say or do, or how biased they are, not because they are considered a non-factor. Just the opposite.

Whether we like what they say or not, there is no doubt ESPN is the unquestioned leader in television sports programming.

The NBA is on it.
The NFL is on it.
MLB is on it.
Major college football and basketball are on it.

And with all of those sports come pre-game shows, post-game shows, and general daily or weekly studio shows.

The NHL has 2 minutes (if that) of highlights a night. It is no longer considered the "4th major sport" by most general sports fans.

We watch Vs. because we are Sabres and hockey fans. But the truth is, most people have no clue that it even exists, much less where to find it.

It's not about selling out arenas. Unfortunately, it's about television contracts in today's sports media world. And a contract ONLY with Vs. and a weekend NBC game in the spring doesn't do much to continue the growth of the sport.

[stevesy]

The NHL made 2 BILLION dollars last year, and they play to > 90% capacity in the stands.

Tell me again how they simply "must" get on the 4-letter POS network...

Because 2 billion in revenue isn't shit compared to NFL, MLB, or even the NBA. The NHL is now appealing only to a niche market outside of the cities that the teams occupy. I have good friends who are legitimate sports fans that hadn't even heard of the Buffalo Sabres.

They need ESPN because this has been a problem for way too long. No one cares man. No matter how much we'd love if the Sabres won the Stanley Cup and how much it would mean to us and the city, (brace yourself) barely anyone outside of Buffalo and it's transplant fans would give two shits. That's just how it is. Hockey has always been a regional sport while still maintaining status as a major sport, but that major sport status is dying fast and people are losing interest.

Something is drastically wrong with your organization if you just can't keep up. And if you think the NHL doesn't need more ESPN coverage to keep up, you're stupid. No matter how much people hate the network, they have sports fans gripped by the balls. I would go almost as far as to say that with my generation, English Premiere League Soccer is more popular in America. How ****ing sad is that?

[JLB]

You guys have short memories.... ESPN largely ignored hockey before the strike. I do not think much changes if ESPN gets hockey back except for an extra game or 2 on cable a week. Perhaps a NHL 2Night type show returns to its once a week time slot.

Exactly!! :rockon:

[anEinherjer]

It's only a POS network because you don't like what they say or do, or how biased they are, not because they are considered a non-factor. Just the opposite.

Whether we like what they say or not, there is no doubt ESPN is the unquestioned leader in television sports programming.

The NBA is on it.
The NFL is on it.
MLB is on it.
Major college football and basketball are on it.

And with all of those sports come pre-game shows, post-game shows, and general daily or weekly studio shows.

The NHL has 2 minutes (if that) of highlights a night. It is no longer considered the "4th major sport" by most general sports fans.

We watch Vs. because we are Sabres and hockey fans. But the truth is, most people have no clue that it even exists, much less where to find it.

It's not about selling out arenas. Unfortunately, it's about television contracts in today's sports media world. And a contract ONLY with Vs. and a weekend NBC game in the spring doesn't do much to continue the growth of the sport.

Sorry Sal, I don't buy it. Particularly when you suggest the sport must continue to "grow". If the NHL made $2 Billion per year from now to perpetuity (plus inflation, one would expect), what would be so wrong about that? Do you have a problem seeing the games you want to see now?

Extreme fighting and the various incarnations of professional wrestling make plenty of money too, with zero exposure on what you guys seem to think is "vital".

I don't really care if the NHL is on the 4-letter or not. If they are, fine, but to suggest that NHL MUST BE THERE to "keep up" (what the hell does that even mean in this context) is just plain silly. $2 BILLION in revenue is a fine sum, if you ask me, and pretty ****ing big, if you aren't a head-in-the-clouds fool who thinks somehow ESPN will increase revenue by an order of magnitude.

I think it was coastal (or billsCAfan? I forget, my apologies) who suggested the NHL work out a deal with USA, et al networks. MUCH better solution in my opinion. If you want to make money with ESPN make ESPN come begging for hockey.

You guys who think ESPN is the end-all of the sporting world are just sheep, sorry to say.

I've been fighting this lazy line of thinking for years, I've had a lot of practice. But feel free to keep offering up the same stuff.

[Carl J. Ironsides]

How exactly did the NHL and the sport of hockey get a bad deal?

The sport and league don't deserve to be chuckled at on a nightly basis by ESPN's snarky anchors.

[CoachC.]

Do you have a problem seeing the games you want to see now?

No, I don't personally, because I have NHL Center Ice on DTV, as well as Vs.

If you are only concerned with "you" being able to watch games, then I can understand the negative reaction towards having it on a network you don't care for, no matter how big.

But, personally, I want the game (and the league) to be watched and shared by more than just fans who have a rooting interest. Because with all the choices people have these days, if its not, it becomes more and more endangered.

Extreme fighting and the various incarnations of professional wrestling make plenty of money too, with zero exposure on what you guys seem to think is "vital".

Right. But they also charge tons of money for pay-per-view events which help sustain their revenue stream. Can you imagine the NHL trying to charge for a PPV game?

I think it was coastal (or billsCAfan? I forget, my apologies) who suggested the NHL work out a deal with USA, et al networks. MUCH better solution in my opinion. If you want to make money with ESPN make ESPN come begging for hockey.

I like that idea. I think it would work, ala the NBA on TBS and TNT before it was on ESPN.

The problem is that the NHL is not anywhere close in popularity as the NBA....so as much as a step-up it would be from Vs. to those networks because they are more accessible to the general audience, they also aren't carrying and cross-promoting sports 24/7 like ESPN is. People would still have to intentional turn those channels on to see a game, instead of having them right there in front of them when surfing their favorite channels. Ever see a sports bar randomly have USA on?


Look, an. I have contact with teenage kids every day (no jokes please). Boys who play sports and watch sports in a state that has 2 NHL teams, 2 MLB teams, 2 NBA teams, and 3 NFL teams. I am not far from Tampa, who recently won a Cup and has one of the best players in the league.

These kids will talk NFL, NBA, a little baseball (not much), wrestling, extreme fighting, and NASCAR. When I bring up the NHL they look at me like I'm an old dude who asked them to come to my house to share some candy.

Those kids will soon be choosing how to spend their money when they start earning a living. Until the NHL becomes more visible, they're going to keep losing potential buyers of their product to sports fans going to other sports and buying Nintendo systems.

[Carl J. Ironsides]

I think it was coastal (or billsCAfan? I forget, my apologies) who suggested the NHL work out a deal with USA, et al networks.

It was ckg.

[ckg68]

Thanks to The C for having my back.

This rumor is partly why I never want to see the NHL darken the skies over Bristol AGAIN. Were I the NHL commish,I would basically say to ESPN,"You screwed us over,now it's our turn. Our league will NEVER air on YOUR network as long as I'm commish."

If the NHL HAS to get a TV deal,why not USA Network? There's at least a few good reasons(I've said 'em before,but...here we go again):

1. USA,like NBC,is part of NBC Universal. If NBCU is smart,they'll cross-promote the games on all of its networks(not just the mother ship-NBC-but all of its cable channels)

2. USA has a sports background at least in part. It wouldn't be out of place to see the NHL on USA. And you can use NBC's announcers(plus,see if Joe Beninati will come on over to USA).

3. Instead of doing what Versus does with its hockey games(Monday & Tuesday),why not Friday and Saturday night games(the latter being a DH)with the ability to do flex scheduling during the chase to the playoffs,much like NBC does with Sunday Night Football? And,to make it more fun,talk to the CBC and see if they'll simulcast HNIC's Coach's Corner-or do a U.S. version of same.

Coach: It should be noted that the NBA STILL airs on TNT. Just because ESPN picked up the rights for it doesn't mean TNT's totally stopped showing games.

[atomheart]

Screw ESPN... I like Center Ice, and I'm tired of ESPN having the whole "greatest team/game/sport ever" BS. They need to get over themselves...

[Dr. Who]

Nice avatar, ckg. USA Network is a good idea.

[stevenj966]

I am not mad that ESPN will broadcast games I just think you guys are overestimating the effect that ESPN will have on hockey. And remember get ready for a steady diet of Detroit Colorado New York and Philly. I will give Versus credit in that they have greatly varied their content.

My thoughts exactly. And don't forget about Sidney Crosby and the almighty Pens. They will be on every other night.

[M76]

espn scroll already gives the nhl scores this guy is a hack

[anEinherjer]

No, I don't personally, because I have NHL Center Ice on DTV, as well as Vs.

If you are only concerned with "you" being able to watch games, then I can understand the negative reaction towards having it on a network you don't care for, no matter how big.

But, personally, I want the game (and the league) to be watched and shared by more than just fans who have a rooting interest. Because with all the choices people have these days, if its not, it becomes more and more endangered.

And they can be. If you're interested in hockey you can find it. If you're in a northern state you can find it more easily. Most metro areas all over the US have local sports channels (often FSN affiliates) that show the hometown team.

I understand the desire to get more exposure for hockey, but I don't buy that ESPN is "it". Proof is in the pudding: Extreme fighting is huge right now on PPV, but it wasn't originally. It was REAL little. They figured out how to market it WITHOUT the big bad 4-letter and now, it's huge.

Do you really honestly believe ESPN will have any significant impact on hockey's viewership? No! They'll just get miniscule ratings there, too.

Remember a few years ago when MLB was on the way out? Now it's big again. And it was on ESPN the whole time - its popularity has nothing to do with ESPN, it has to do with compelling sport (Sox v. Yanks if you ask me is the only interesting thing going on in MLB these days).

Seems to me there's a group of people who think the media make the sport, and there are those of us who think the sport has to be watchable to make the media.

Right. But they also charge tons of money for pay-per-view events which help sustain their revenue stream. Can you imagine the NHL trying to charge for a PPV game?

Could you have imagined extreme fighting getting money for PPV 15 years ago?

I could imagine the NHL putting the finals on PPV, if they had the stones to do it. Same thing with the Super Bowl, or the World Series, or the NBA finals. I'd pay for individual games if I was able to and the price was cheap ($4 like a PPV movie...).

The problem is that the NHL is not anywhere close in popularity as the NBA....so as much as a step-up it would be from Vs. to those networks because they are more accessible to the general audience, they also aren't carrying and cross-promoting sports 24/7 like ESPN is. People would still have to intentional turn those channels on to see a game, instead of having them right there in front of them when surfing their favorite channels. Ever see a sports bar randomly have USA on?

If there's a sport on a channel, restaurants will have it on. I was recently in a Smokey Bones here in northern VA drinking a beer after my own hockey game and sure enough they were showing Boston vs. New Hampshire college (!) hockey, on CSTV, I think.

Look, an. I have contact with teenage kids every day (no jokes please).

Ahhhh come on! That's priceless! :D

Boys who play sports and watch sports in a state that has 2 NHL teams, 2 MLB teams, 2 NBA teams, and 3 NFL teams. I am not far from Tampa, who recently won a Cup and has one of the best players in the league.

These kids will talk NFL, NBA, a little baseball (not much), wrestling, extreme fighting, and NASCAR. When I bring up the NHL they look at me like I'm an old dude who asked them to come to my house to share some candy.

Why would kids from florida care about a cold weather sport? It's the old argument against putting teams there.

Those kids will soon be choosing how to spend their money when they start earning a living. Until the NHL becomes more visible, they're going to keep losing potential buyers of their product to sports fans going to other sports and buying Nintendo systems.

This is kind of a silly argument too. If this were true, new "events" like extreme fighting could never have gotten off the ground. Even poker was big before it was on ESPN. Cart / horse / etc.

We'll see, I guess: My belief is hockey will be back on the 4-letter. My hope is that they don't go grovelling back with hat in hand. That would be pathetic and yet another marketing failure.

[Carl J. Ironsides]

I have contact with teenage kids every day.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/fire_fly21/lilsispool2006yo0copy.jpg

[Fallsnative]

I have to think that ESPN is better than NBC right now for a couple games a weekend. NBC doesnt promote their games at all. They just started this week mentioning the Ice Bowl.

There really are two seperate and debateable topics at hand here:
1. What is the best way for the NHL to promote thier product in order to gain new fans?
2. Does taking the NHL back to ESPN/2 over NBC give them better exposure to sports fans?

The NHL has to correctly address the first question here in order to answer the second. We all know that gate sales are great. The NHL loves that, however TV ratings = money, and THATS what they want. The casual fan who might not go to a game, to watch it on TV. They have to find a way to draw those people in. Educating them on the game would be a great start. Put together a 15 or 30 minute promo prior to games instructing watchers on what to look for, etc.
Once the NHL has found a way to bring those fans in, and lets face it, those the are fans the NHL is desiring, then they can get the TV ratings they want, no matter what network its on.

[CoachC.]

Why would kids from florida care about a cold weather sport? It's the old argument against putting teams there.

And here is my point, and the crux of our difference.

You think the NHL can still be a major professional league by being regional.

I don't. Not these days. Regional = minor leagues.

In order to be "major league," those are the very people who need to start caring....or at the very least, noticing.

[billsfan69]

No, I don't personally, because I have NHL Center Ice on DTV, as well as Vs.

If you are only concerned with "you" being able to watch games, then I can understand the negative reaction towards having it on a network you don't care for, no matter how big.

But, personally, I want the game (and the league) to be watched and shared by more than just fans who have a rooting interest. Because with all the choices people have these days, if its not, it becomes more and more endangered.



Right. But they also charge tons of money for pay-per-view events which help sustain their revenue stream. Can you imagine the NHL trying to charge for a PPV game?



I like that idea. I think it would work, ala the NBA on TBS and TNT before it was on ESPN.

The problem is that the NHL is not anywhere close in popularity as the NBA....so as much as a step-up it would be from Vs. to those networks because they are more accessible to the general audience, they also aren't carrying and cross-promoting sports 24/7 like ESPN is. People would still have to intentional turn those channels on to see a game, instead of having them right there in front of them when surfing their favorite channels. Ever see a sports bar randomly have USA on?


Look, an. I have contact with teenage kids every day (no jokes please). Boys who play sports and watch sports in a state that has 2 NHL teams, 2 MLB teams, 2 NBA teams, and 3 NFL teams. I am not far from Tampa, who recently won a Cup and has one of the best players in the league.

These kids will talk NFL, NBA, a little baseball (not much), wrestling, extreme fighting, and NASCAR. When I bring up the NHL they look at me like I'm an old dude who asked them to come to my house to share some candy.

Those kids will soon be choosing how to spend their money when they start earning a living. Until the NHL becomes more visible, they're going to keep losing potential buyers of their product to sports fans going to other sports and buying Nintendo systems.


I believe the Flames do some PPV games. I know I have seen a few Flames games this year on CI with the PPV logo.

[21]

I could care less, I have my Center Ice, and my NHL Network, that is all I need to follow hockey. I will tune into games wherever they are, but I don't watch Sportscenter anymore, it is boring. The only time I watch ESPN is when a car race, tennis event, or a good MNF game is on. I watch NFL network for footaball news.

[billsfan69]

I could care less, I have my Center Ice, and my NHL Network, that is all I need to follow hockey. I will tune into games wherever they are, but I don't watch Sportscenter anymore, it is boring. The only time I watch ESPN is when a car race, tennis event, or a good MNF game is on. I watch NFL network for footaball news.


I agree. I ordered Center Ice for the first time this year after I switched to Directv in May. So I get every game, have the NHL network in HD and know that Versus is on channel 603, so I am one person that knows where Versus is. Plus HDNet shows HD games on Thursday and Saturday nights. I don't need hockey on ESPN. Besides the ratings for hockey when it was on ESPN before weren't exactly earth shattering.