wonderbread Posted July 23, 2009 Report Posted July 23, 2009 Don't they play on friday? Or is it both? In any case all I really watch on thursday is The Office. What do you do if there is a Sabres game?
inkman Posted July 23, 2009 Report Posted July 23, 2009 What do you do if there is a Sabres game? Get drunk and swear a lot?
Sabre Dance Posted July 23, 2009 Report Posted July 23, 2009 I think we can all admit we will always prefer an RJ game call to a national broadcast. However, I think we can all agree that Vs. broadcasts have gotten better since they started. Great? Not in my opinion, but definitely better. Also, Vs. has a contract to broadcast the UFL games on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Granted it is the UFL not the NFL but it is professional football and so many people need a football fix that I am sure it will get viewers since it does not conflict with the NFL's schedule. Does this make Vs. a viable sports network now? I had also read somewhere (I thought it was posted here but I'll be damned if I can find it now) that ESPN was considering a new contract for NHL games. Should the NHL consider leaving Vs. for ESPN if you do believe Vs. is (or is becoming) a legitimate contender as a sports network? Would a switch to ESPN really increase NHL popularity/ratings? I am really not sure how I answer any of these questions myself. I think the UFL contract will help Vs. and make the network a little more legitimate. I really don't think a switch to ESPN will help the NHL much, if at all, and Vs. gave them national broadcasts when ESPN laughed in the NHL's collective faces. I just am not sure. Opinions? Well, having more sports on Versus makes them a sports network - viable? They still have fishin' on there....you decide. A good argument could be made for ESPN over Versus simply due to the number of households each network reaches. I do not have numbers, but ESPN is a giant in that regard versus Versus (sorry). More households = higher visibility = potential for better ratings. The Versus/NBC announcers are all pretty lousy, IMHO. No American-born announcer has ever been any good at NHL play-by-play. My advice to Versus last year was to simply pick up the Hockey Night in Canada feed and rebroadcast it to America. Those guys know how to broadcast a hockey game. (And whether you love Don Cherry or hate him, he IS entertaining to watch.) I think Versus does have Chris Cuthbert, formerly of Hockey Night in Canada on their announcing team. He usually gets assigned to Western Conference games, though so he's rarely seen here.
wonderbread Posted July 23, 2009 Report Posted July 23, 2009 Get drunk and swear a lot? some how I feel thats what most of should do.
darksabre Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 Somehow I forgot that the Sabres home games were in HD, but like you said, the away games are like watching through a dirty fish bowl. Now only if the Sabres would stop playing like dead fish. Give me that fish.
billsrcursed Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 Give me that fish. This will NEVER get old - :thumbsup:
Ted's Hot Dogs Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 it would be the stupidist thing if the NHL sign with versus and not espn... no matter how good VS is.. Nothing not even MSG and that picture that youget can compare to gary throne and the popularity we would get from espn
jwcolour Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 Get drunk and swear a lot? Often times yeah. I watch a lot of the games at a bar here in chicago so there really isn't much else to do while watching it.
inkman Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 the popularity we would get from espn That's the NHL's problem. Too much catering to non-hockey fans. Concentrate on your core, keep those fans.
jwcolour Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 I just typed the longest response loaded with wisdom and then the #%^$#!ing internet shat out when i hit the post button and now its gone forever. You guys with Time Warner really have no idea how good you have it until you are fisted by COMCAST. Its the worst. My cable has been out over 24 hours. They say they'll be here "soon" when asked about soon it meant between 10 and 1. So i'm going to bank that they'll be here at 3, if they come at all. Last time they blatently didn't come and said I missed the appointment. I guess this is a whole different [OT] That's the NHL's problem. Too much catering to non-hockey fans. Concentrate on your core, keep those fans.
Ted's Hot Dogs Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 That's the NHL's problem. Too much catering to non-hockey fans. Concentrate on your core, keep those fans. I disagree with you.. those hardcore fans will stay.. you got to reach out to the non-hockey fans if you want to see hockey up top again
North Buffalo Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 That's the NHL's problem. Too much catering to non-hockey fans. Concentrate on your core, keep those fans. Agreed, that is why I like NHL Center Ice on Cable or the Internet.
Foligno's Nose Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 That's the NHL's problem. Too much catering to non-hockey fans. Concentrate on your core, keep those fans. Indeed. I do somewhat miss the ESPN coverage. Back in the day (sorry) I made NHL2night a staple every night. John Buccigross and Melrose were entertaining and provided the only comprehensive daily recap of league games. Now we have NHL Network for that. Buccigross is one of the true hockey/ NHL ambassadors, and the NHL can greatly benefit from having him be one of the faces at the front of any future American broadcast attempts. Ron McLean, Pierre McGuire, Chris Cuthbert, Darren Dreger, ... there are some ways to present this game with good inteeligent faces at the forefront. Instead, you have the NHL Awards in Vegas, the piss-poor SD (barely) broadcasts, etc... Bad moves. If they care about attracting more American fans or new fans - put every game in HD. The broadcasts sell themselves. HNIC and TSN provide excellent pre and post game info/ shows along with their games. VS./ NBC do OK with their studio shows, but the games lack something, sometimes focus on the game itself. Too many promos for NBC's programming and the same for VS. Having Doc Emrick as the play-by-play man on broadcasts is questionable in my eyes (and ears). There are alternatives. He just bothers me - Give me the somewhat simple Gord Miller play-by-play and McGuire doing color in between the benches. Pierre can be a little annoying, but he is dedicated and thorough with his work. Cuthbert is steady and shows up on the TSN feeds to VS. HNIC's Hughson works for me as well. We have been spoiled here for a long time with Ted Darling and RJ. The John Gurtler experiment reinforced that point and aided in the birth of the RJ simulcast. Neale can take a walk, but I always liked Gare, Playfair and the maven - Lorentz.
jwcolour Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 I disagree with you.. those hardcore fans will stay.. you got to reach out to the non-hockey fans if you want to see hockey up top again This was kind of what my huge response was about. As a fan I may not want a bunch of new know-it-all bandwagon fans running wild but it would be good for the league. ESPN is a large brand name that could further validify (is this a word?) the sport to non fans. Where as Vs. is the network that brought us Slamball.
inkman Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 I disagree with you.. those hardcore fans will stay.. you got to reach out to the non-hockey fans if you want to see hockey up top again It was never on top and it will never be. Hockey fans are hockey fans, sports fans that I know either like it or not. No fence sitters waiting for the league to do something to catch their eye. Hockey is the best spectator sport their is. Baseball is a snorefest in person, I've never attended an NBA game but having been to NCAA games, they are a decent watch but the only things you notice are dunks, three's and blocked shots. Football, the greatest TV sport there is, is almost unwatchable in person as the only plays that are distinguishable from the rest are 50 yard bombs.
SabresFan526 Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 Well, having more sports on Versus makes them a sports network - viable? They still have fishin' on there....you decide. Yes, but so did ESPN back in the 80s before it became the behemoth that it is now. I remember watching the rodeo and bullriding on ESPN. Versus seriously reminds of ESPN back in the 80s. I still remember back in the 80s, in the mornings they used to have these stupid exercise and fitness shows. Now they have the SportsCenter marathon. ESPN used to have some really terrible filler programming before they had coverage of major sporting events. Vs suffered similarly, but I think they are growing and getting better programming. It takes growth and momentum. Maybe in about 5-10 years Versus will be a legitimate competitor to ESPN with good programming that can compete. Frankly, I don't watch ESPN at all anymore, ever since hockey left. A good argument could be made for ESPN over Versus simply due to the number of households each network reaches. I do not have numbers, but ESPN is a giant in that regard versus Versus (sorry). More households = higher visibility = potential for better ratings. This is no doubt something Vs. needs to address. But, I think as they get better programming, they will begin infiltrating other cable systems. Part of the problem is that the network is owned by Comcast, and competitors may not show a Comcast owned network on their cable system, however DirecTV has no problems here. The Versus/NBC announcers are all pretty lousy, IMHO. No American-born announcer has ever been any good at NHL play-by-play. Gary Thorne was absolutely fantastic at hockey. I still miss Thorne and Clement. What an excellent duo. That's the NHL's problem. Too much catering to non-hockey fans. Concentrate on your core, keep those fans. I'll disagree here. You don't need to cater to the core. You already have them, they're not going anywhere. Core fans are not going to stop watching hockey. At the end of the day, sports is a business. And the NHL needs to grow their business. So for them, they need to increase the amount of dollars they are receiving from their existing customer base as well as get new customers. I think they've done a great job with the NHL Network (which I watch almost all the time), Center Ice and Center Ice Online and the tremendous amount of use of the Internet as a medium to reach their fans. Clearly, third uniforms will also help. The Winter Classic has been a boon for the NHL, and will only continue to make the game more popular to the mainstream. But, like it's been mentioned on this thread before, if the NHL goes exclusively to HD broadcasts, they will attract so many more new fans and their current fans will love them. I mean talk about selling the game. Hockey was made to be watched in HD. The NHL has actually done a good job coming out of the lockout, but they need to also enforce the rules from 2005-2007. You get scoring up, keep the game fast, and you've got an exciting game that will only gain in popularity. The Stanley Cup Finals is proving it, too. While I'm the last person to be a Gary Bettman apologist, I think the NHL has done some really good things. I'd like to see the NHL on ESPN as well just because it gives a wider audience, but I can't blame them for sticking with Versus since ESPN didn't want the NHL in the first place. And, Versus hasn't really done all that bad of a job in terms of coverage. Could it be better? Sure, but watching games on Versus is certainly better than not watching games at all, which was the case when I lived in Texas from 1988-1992 when SportsChannel America exclusively showed regional broadcasts and Dallas did not have an NHL team at that time. Hands down, that has to be the stupidest decision the NHL ever made and is alone enough reason to fire Ziegler. I actually hope Versus becomes a legitimate network.
Foligno's Nose Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 It was never on top and it will never be. Hockey fans are hockey fans, sports fans that I know either like it or not. No fence sitters waiting for the league to do something to catch their eye. Hockey is the best spectator sport their is. Baseball is a snorefest in person, I've never attended an NBA game but having been to NCAA games, they are a decent watch but the only things you notice are dunks, three's and blocked shots. Football, the greatest TV sport there is, is almost unwatchable in person as the only plays that are distinguishable from the rest are 50 yard bombs. Again, I agree. The little tyrant made a valiant attempt to sell the game in the south and west - but now... The Experiment is Over. You take care of the real hockey fans. That is why I am behind the Hamilton NHL team idea. Feed the masses. Winnipeg, Quebec, et al... HD broadcasts for all games. Abolish the all-star game (epecially this year). I like baseball, I am a Blue Jays fan and watch their games almost exclusively. I havebeen a fan since I was a kid. Never got into the NBA or NCAA baskeball - I am interested in the stories recently arisen about the Braves. If they were to have stayed around longer in town, I may have had a different take on the pro and college sport. Also a Bills season ticket holder. Love the whole experience, but TV has ruined the game live. The best game was last year vs. the Chargers - they lost power and had to play W/O the scoreboard, etc...It was great. The game moved along smooothly. There was no loss in either teams's momentum from elongated TV timeouts - It ruled! Hockey is by far the best live and on the boob tube.
Ted's Hot Dogs Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 It was never on top and it will never be. Hockey fans are hockey fans, sports fans that I know either like it or not. No fence sitters waiting for the league to do something to catch their eye. Hockey is the best spectator sport their is. Baseball is a snorefest in person, I've never attended an NBA game but having been to NCAA games, they are a decent watch but the only things you notice are dunks, three's and blocked shots. Football, the greatest TV sport there is, is almost unwatchable in person as the only plays that are distinguishable from the rest are 50 yard bombs. you call being the 4th or 3rd major sport in america back in the day not on top? I do
inkman Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 you call being the 4th or 3rd major sport in america back in the day not on top? I do I thought you meant it was #1. FWIW, spndnchz calls being on top, "riding inky's disco stick"
SabresFan526 Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 Again, I agree.The little tyrant made a valiant attempt to sell the game in the south and west - but now... The Experiment is Over. You take care of the real hockey fans. That is why I am behind the Hamilton NHL team idea. Feed the masses. Winnipeg, Quebec, et al... HD broadcasts for all games. Abolish the all-star game (epecially this year). Having spent much of my childhood growing up in Texas, I am going to have to disagree strongly here. People don't seem to realize how successful the NHL has been in Texas. In the state of Texas, there are 125 hockey rinks for for about 24 million people. That is excellent. And, in the last few years, players coming out of Texas have been part of the U.S. National Development Program and are actually getting drafted. High school hockey has become incredibly successful in Texas, especially in the Dallas Fort Worth area in large part thanks to the Dallas Stars and their constant community outreach. The Dallas Fort Worth area has more hockey rinks than the city of Buffalo. And on a per capita basis, if were to even it out, Dallas would still have more rinks per capita than Buffalo and many other cities in the North and in Canada. Texas has been extremely successful with hockey and the Stars are sold out just about every game. The next immediate example I can think of is California. Richard Park is a great example of an NHL player who grew up in California. Not just because of the fact he grew up in California, but the fact that he's a Korean guy and made the NHL is even more impressive. The NHL, by expanding to these cities has not only grown the popularity of the sport, they've even improved the racial diversity associated with the sport, which is only a good thing. St. Louis, is also not a typical NHL city. St. Louis only got a team in the late 60s, but it really doesn't have much of history with hockey or players growing up from that city making it to the NHL. But since the Blues came, many players have come out of Missouri to make it to the NHL, including the Sabres' own Chris Butler. These Southern cities can be very successful in developing a youth hockey market, and these franchises can definitely be successful. But it takes hard work and dedication. Poor management and bad leases with the cities are not excuses for the failure of hockey in these markets. Success on the ice, success financially, and a constant outreach and development of the sport in the youth community is what will make this sport successful in these markets. Blaming poor GMs and bad city leases are just lazy excuses for the failure of hockey in these markets. Mike Modano has been one of the most influential players in proving the success of hockey in Dallas, not just because of his play on the ice, but because of how much he promoted the game in the early years in Dallas in the youth community. There are certainly successful stories, but it starts with field a good team and promoting the game within the community. Hell, even cities like Chicago had no one going to their games when the team was bad. You need good on ice product, and that's what will spur the interest in the game across the U.S.
Ted's Hot Dogs Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 Having spent much of my childhood growing up in Texas, I am going to have to disagree strongly here. People don't seem to realize how successful the NHL has been in Texas. In the state of Texas, there are 125 hockey rinks for for about 24 million people. That is excellent. And, in the last few years, players coming out of Texas have been part of the U.S. National Development Program and are actually getting drafted. High school hockey has become incredibly successful in Texas, especially in the Dallas Fort Worth area in large part thanks to the Dallas Stars and their constant community outreach. The Dallas Fort Worth area has more hockey rinks than the city of Buffalo. And on a per capita basis, if were to even it out, Dallas would still have more rinks per capita than Buffalo and many other cities in the North and in Canada. Texas has been extremely successful with hockey and the Stars are sold out just about every game. The next immediate example I can think of is California. Richard Park is a great example of an NHL player who grew up in California. Not just because of the fact he grew up in California, but the fact that he's a Korean guy and made the NHL is even more impressive. The NHL, by expanding to these cities has not only grown the popularity of the sport, they've even improved the racial diversity associated with the sport, which is only a good thing. St. Louis, is also not a typical NHL city. St. Louis only got a team in the late 60s, but it really doesn't have much of history with hockey or players growing up from that city making it to the NHL. But since the Blues came, many players have come out of Missouri to make it to the NHL, including the Sabres' own Chris Butler. These Southern cities can be very successful in developing a youth hockey market, and these franchises can definitely be successful. But it takes hard work and dedication. Poor management and bad leases with the cities are not excuses for the failure of hockey in these markets. Success on the ice, success financially, and a constant outreach and development of the sport in the youth community is what will make this sport successful in these markets. Blaming poor GMs and bad city leases are just lazy excuses for the failure of hockey in these markets. Mike Modano has been one of the most influential players in proving the success of hockey in Dallas, not just because of his play on the ice, but because of how much he promoted the game in the early years in Dallas in the youth community. There are certainly successful stories, but it starts with field a good team and promoting the game within the community. Hell, even cities like Chicago had no one going to their games when the team was bad. You need good on ice product, and that's what will spur the interest in the game across the U.S. I very muc agree.. being I live in Jacksonville hockey is not popular here.. But in Atlanta and Tampa they have alot of rinks and it is very popular.. but I think st.louis loves its hockey and its popular there
North Buffalo Posted July 24, 2009 Report Posted July 24, 2009 I agree hockey is marketed is certain areas down south really well. I was impressed that there were 8 rinks in the San Diego area with only a minor league team... Granted they have a lot of European ex pats there, but still. In defense of Buffalo, we didn't need rinks growing up, just a shovel, skates and a pond, usually at a golf course, or a hose out the window into the backyard.... Who needs to pay to go to a rink in that situation.
billsrcursed Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 I agree hockey is marketed is certain areas down south really well. I was impressed that there were 8 rinks in the San Diego area with only a minor league team... Granted they have a lot of European ex pats there, but still. In defense of Buffalo, we didn't need rinks growing up, just a shovel, skates and a pond, usually at a golf course, or a hose out the window into the backyard.... Who needs to pay to go to a rink in that situation. We didn't even need that when I was growing up.... just some nets in the street (or recycling bins) and some guys with sticks. We would play where ever we could, and that would include all seasons of the year. It's very rare to drive down a street anywhere else in America and have to wait for the kids to clear the way of their Hockey stuff so you can get by. Ahhhh, the old days....
Foligno's Nose Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 ...we didn't need rinks growing up, just a shovel, skates and a pond, usually at a golf course, or a hose out the window into the backyard.... We didn't even need that when I was growing up.... just some nets in the street (or recycling bins) and some guys with sticks. We would play where ever we could, and that would include all seasons of the year. We didn't even need any of that when I was growing up. We just used our sneakers as goal post markers and played barefoot in the middle of whatever weather. This was after walking to and from school - up hill - both ways. We didn't even have a puck or ball. We had to use a frozen dead frog. In the Summer the frog thawed and stunk-up the youngest kid (from slap-shots) who was forced to play goal. Mom would not let us keep the frog frozen in the icebox. It would fall apart and our puck (frog) handling skills suffered. Life was tough.
... Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 It was never on top and it will never be. Hockey fans are hockey fans, sports fans that I know either like it or not. No fence sitters waiting for the league to do something to catch their eye. Hockey is the best spectator sport their is. Baseball is a snorefest in person, I've never attended an NBA game but having been to NCAA games, they are a decent watch but the only things you notice are dunks, three's and blocked shots. Football, the greatest TV sport there is, is almost unwatchable in person as the only plays that are distinguishable from the rest are 50 yard bombs. Wrong "there". Just thought I'd take a moment to point that out to you.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.