No wonder NHL is getting less popular, no one can watch it!
...Gary Bettman sure is a genius.
Seriously, the wings are now 2-3 in the playoffs when I don't catch the full game on TV (usually because of work, we don't get VS in the Union Billiards Room). The two wins? They were both in overtime. The Wings can't seem to win a postseason game in regulation when I can't view, and that's not good for anybody. I guess it's good for opponents, but FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU....
For the love of hockey and all that is good, they need to get the NHL back on networks everyone can view, ESPECIALLY within the demographics that want to watch!
The NHL really has the potential to market themselves as a premier league, but they always seem to be getting in their own way.
They have plenty of stars and talented teams that play exciting hockey that people would probably sit down and watch given the time and the viewing capability. But the people running the league have no clue.
When Yani has priority over a sporting event, you know your league is scraping the bottom.
Although everyone has their own opinions on how to fix the NHL, the consensus problem seems to be what channels and where the games are broadcast on TV. I wonder if they'll ever strike another deal with ESPN...
Gary Bettman is a tassel-loafer-wearing poof with no freaking clue how to intelligently market what the NHL has to offer, but unfortunately most of the owners also wear tassel-loafers so they're dumb and happy.
and love hockey! Especially the players with the cute, tight asses.
I went to a Buffalo Wild Wings in Ohio on Sunday to watch a hockey game on NBC! and they couldn't get the game. I'm sure that is an Ohio thing but I was still pissed. My grandma can get the game on rabbit ears and a BWW can't get the game when they have the NHL package. Fucking Ohio!
Local Cleveland NBC affiliate carried the Indians - Rays baseball game on Sunday. The hockey game was finally picked up in progress just after the Wings took a 3-2 lead. Not getting a national broadcast of an important playoff game in order to watch a sucky baseball team's meaningless early season game is just another downside of living in Ohio.
I'm not super happy with the NHL TV deal either (though I do have versus), but what are you going to do?
ESPN offered the NHL a pittance in the post-lockout season to show games, and Versus, then OLN, offered much more. Does the NHL set a precedent that they would rather take crap money to be on the WWL? Or do they set a precedent that they will take the money they think they deserve, work to boost ratings, and then prove they're worth the cash.
It's not a nice thing to deal with as a fan, but I understand why it was done in business terms. ESPN can't be ignorant to the climb in ratings the NHL has undergone in the last few years. Game 1 between Detroit and Chicago had the highest NBC rating outside of the Winter Classic or the finals in ages. It won't be long before we see the NHL's media coverage on the rise.
Does Bettman suck? Undoubtedly. There are issues with suspensions, refereeing, changes in overtime format, and other areas. But in this tough situation, he may have taken a bad situation and done the best he could in the long run.
I'm not saying I defend it, but I do understand why it was done.
It's a bad business decision from every angle. A league that has declining interest and is trying to build popularity needs two things: 1. Credibility. 2. Viewers.
Neither of those interest is served by going to Versus. ESPN provides legitimacy to the casual fan and enhances the NHL's profile as a major sport. And it is in far more households than Versus, which most people (even sports fans) have never heard of.
Money should not have been an issue, since unlike the other major sports, they get almost no revenue from TV. They should have realized that they needed ESPN more than ESPN needs them--that's just reality. If I'm Bettman, I would rather have my playoff games on prime time on ESPN1 for nothing, than have them on Versus, where only the die hards will find them (and not even all of those) for 100 million.
I get Versus =) Great game last night! I'm a happy camper. I get Versus, as well as Fox Sports Detroit, and CBC, so all my hockey bases are covered.
As said, ESPN pretty much chose to drop the NHL after the lockout, so it was either Versus or nothing. The NHL did what they had to do and Versus offered them guaranteed money. The contract was extended for three more years (I believe through 2010-11), so don't expect it on ESPN anytime soon.
I can't blame the NHL for staying loyal to Versus. The network has been good to them whereas ESPN treated them like they were the XFL. The Wings could win the Stanley Cup and they'd be the last thing mentioned on SportsCenter, and a brief mention at that, so they could go back to blowing Kobe's balls for 20 minutes.
That I live in Atlanta and I'm getting to watch all the Red Wings games and loyal fans in Michigan can't even catch some games without having to drop for a premier sports package.
It sucks that Versus isn't as widespread as ESPN, but the actual game coverage is a thousand times better. They are way, way, way, way, way, way better. There is simply no comparison. There is no idiot Barry Melrose on Versus. There is no annoying giggly eunuch like Darren Pang. They get the best announcers from local TV markets, like Mike Emrick, Joe Beninati, and Dave Strader. These are guys who do only hockey and no other sport. If they can''t get announcers for the game, then they get the Canadian feed. They also self-promote an order of magnitude less than ESPN does. Versus understands that people tune in to see a game. ESPN thinks that people tune in to see ESPN.
Everyone I know out here gets Versus in their normal cable package. Blame your provider, not the NHL.
Sadly, I read that ratings on Versus has skyrocketed this spring for hockey. So, people who have it are tuning in in higher numbers.
Thats a good sign.....but when your core audience cant watch its favorite team or the comish cant step in so all the Game 7's can be seen in their entirety, then something is totally amiss.
People are not losing interest in hockey. Ratings are up. The sport needs a better comish and a better TV package.
Of course, I am not breaking any news with those insights, am i?
I love the game and it will always have its hardcore followers, but hockey just isn't set up for the American viewer with a short attention span.
Two twenty minute breaks and the viewing public turns the channel. If the TV station is lucky they get the viewer back, but my bet for the causal fan is they don't come back. I know purist would hate this, but they either need to shorten the intermission periods or go to halves. I'm sure I'll hear it for such blasphamy, but to market the game to more people that is what needs to be done IMO.
respect your opinion, but disagree. The time between periods is perfect for draining bladder, rummaging through cupboards and fridge, and hammering down a beer or 9.
It's the game. Once it sucks you in, you respect the game. No "halftimes" man, it's the game.
Actually, no one can watch it because it's not very popular. Look, there's a reason why they were offered peanuts for their television deal compared to every other sport, why they're talking contraction, and why virtually every team was losing money - not enough people watch it.