SCSabresFan! Posted June 8, 2006 Report Posted June 8, 2006 A good and quick read... Lockout Blessings? The NHL is doing just fine. Despite all the doom and gloom predictions of what a full-season lockout would do to the tenuous passion of Americans for ice hockey, the league is actually thriving. The fans have come back in full force, setting an attendance record this year. The revenues for the league are going to be $300 million above projections. The scoring numbers in all categories are up across the board. Add to that, the shootout format, which has been widely popular. And the playoffs, which contain the chance for any seed ? no matter how low ? to shock the world, and go all the way. The only thing the NHL can count as a disappointment, is its TV ratings. Last year on ESPN, the league drew 0.7. This year on OLN it?s getting a 0.4. And you know what? Who cares? Either way, it?s demographic crumbs. Last year they have two crumbs. This year, it?s one. Nobody is calling it a meal to begin with. I do think the league should have tried harder to stay on ESPN. For sheer exposure only, and the way ESPN leverages its own products across their entire platform (TV, radio, .com, cell phones, magazine, etc..) it would have done the league much better than the marginally greater money from OLN. I noticed this playoff season, ESPN would seemingly go out of it?s way to BURY their NHL coverage. After game 6 of the ?Canes and Sabres (and exciting one at that) I stayed up until 40 minutes into the 11 p.m. SportsCenter, waiting for the highlights. Finally, about 42:00 past the hour, they gave us a paltry 4 or 5 plays, no post-game quotes, and a brief appearance by the silver-ducktailed wonder, Barry Melrose. All in all, however, the boys on skate are all right. :D
zow2 Posted June 8, 2006 Report Posted June 8, 2006 Well, i agree with him about the ESPN exposure. Like it or not ESPN decides whether or not a sport is "big time". Right now they've decided that NHL hockey is way down their list behind tennis and just in front of arena football. Now we get to hear constant babble on all ESPN formats about the NBA which I can't stand. On top of actual games....we used to get the "NHL Tonight" show and much more banter from the talking heads. Moving to OLN was a mistake if the NHL wanted to cultivate new fans and keep their sport relevant in America.
X. Benedict Posted June 8, 2006 Report Posted June 8, 2006 Well, i agree with him about the ESPN exposure. Like it or not ESPN decides whether or not a sport is "big time". Right now they've decided that NHL hockey is way down their list behind tennis and just in front of arena football. Now we get to hear constant babble on all ESPN formats about the NBA which I can't stand. On top of actual games....we used to get the "NHL Tonight" show and much more banter from the talking heads. Moving to OLN was a mistake if the NHL wanted to cultivate new fans and keep their sport relevant in America. ESPN has all but dropped coverage of hockey. They have moved it from the front page to a paragraph in the curiosity column in the Lifestyle's section.
Taro T Posted June 8, 2006 Report Posted June 8, 2006 Well, i agree with him about the ESPN exposure. Like it or not ESPN decides whether or not a sport is "big time". Right now they've decided that NHL hockey is way down their list behind tennis and just in front of arena football. Now we get to hear constant babble on all ESPN formats about the NBA which I can't stand. On top of actual games....we used to get the "NHL Tonight" show and much more banter from the talking heads. Moving to OLN was a mistake if the NHL wanted to cultivate new fans and keep their sport relevant in America. The NHL was buried at the 42 minute mark on ESPN when ESPN broadcast the games. ESPN did NO cross promotion of the NHL in any of its other broadcasts. Does anyone remember seeing hockey commercials during a hoops game or an NFL game? Me neither. I do remember seeing a whole lot of commercials for those sports during NHL games though. Yes, the Deuce used to carry NHL 2-night, but that was darn near the only crumb ESPN threw to the NHL. ESPN has never given the NHL a fair shake since the death of Tom Mees. Yes, Buccigross loves the NHL and Bill Pito (sp?) did a good job on NHL 2N, but that was it for guys there that give a rat's butt about the sport. Yes, it hurts the NHL in the short term going to a network that nobody knows about. (At least this isn't as bad as the SportsChannel debacle in the late '80's.) But OLN actually tried to do hockey right. Since the playoffs began they have truly been "hockey central". Yes, the broadcasts themselves leave a bit to be desired, but they only had about 2 months to get their act together when they won the contract. I am looking forward to next season's broadcasts as they should be much better now that OLN has had the opportunity to step back and review what they did well and what needs improvement. ESPN had several anchors and guys on the sports reporter shows that actively disliked hockey. It wasn't an accident that the NHL coverage on ESPN stunk. I don't blame the NHL for trying something new. OLN gave the league more $'s and are treating it like the jewel of its coverage (which, it obviously is). Comcast is increasing the number of homes that get OLN (although I don't necessarily agree with their tactics). Is it in enough homes and do enough people know that it's there? Probably not, but I honestly believe it's better than what ESPN was doing. At least by ignoring the NHL, ESPN finally isn't dumping on it. Long term, the switch to OLN can't hurt the league but getting away from ESPN might help it.
johnnychemo Posted June 9, 2006 Report Posted June 9, 2006 Let's face it: hockey is a niche sport. However, if anything can help to turn it around, what seems to be the end result of the lockout is it. It may take a few years to lure more fans to the sport and give a more mainstream appeal, but the basics are there now due to the changes the league has made. It won't happen overnight though.
Knightrider Posted June 9, 2006 Report Posted June 9, 2006 If you aren't happy with ESPN's coverage of the NHL, don't watch ESPN. I rather gouge my eyes out than watch the trash on ESPN. Call your cable operator and ask for it to be replaced by OLN, assuming you don't have OLN. Even better, ask for TSN! As for the web, TSN, CBS, Fox, and even Yahoo do a better job than ESPN. Why even bother going there for hockey?
Orange Seats Posted June 9, 2006 Report Posted June 9, 2006 On a related note, I am so tired of the NBA. Maybe it's because Bball doesn't really have a "scene" in Buffalo sports beyond high schools and (only recently) UB. Sure theres the Niagara, Canisius, Bona rivalry, but even then you really have to be part of those school communities to get into it. Anyway, I tried to force myself to watch Game 1 of the NBA finals last night (hey at least I could cheer against a Dallas team). Long story short, I fell asleep after the first period and woke up with 3 minutes left in the game. Did I feel like I missed anything, or upset that I didn't know how the score developed to that point? Not at all.
SCSabresFan! Posted June 10, 2006 Author Report Posted June 10, 2006 On a related note, I am so tired of the NBA. I moved to Charlotte when the Hornets started. They played hard and were alot of fun to watch. They won 20 games that first year, including beating Jordan and the Bulls. Getting a ticket was a big deal. Flash forward 15 years and their is an expansion team in "uptown" Charlotte. The city spend a ton of tax money to build a new arena (the 15 year old one sits vacant). No one cares or really goes to the games. The product is subpar and the players don't play hard. The opposite of Hockey, IMHO. The NBA blows Brind'Amour!
X. Benedict Posted June 10, 2006 Report Posted June 10, 2006 I moved to Charlotte when the Hornets started. They played hard and were alot of fun to watch. They won 20 games that first year, including beating Jordan and the Bulls. Getting a ticket was a big deal. Flash forward 15 years and their is an expansion team in "uptown" Charlotte. The city spend a ton of tax money to build a new arena (the 15 year old one sits vacant). No one cares or really goes to the games. The product is subpar and the players don't play hard. The opposite of Hockey, IMHO. The NBA blows Brind'Amour! Even though I don't follow the NBA - I could probably name at least one player from most franchises. But I couldn't name a single Bobcat.
Taro T Posted June 10, 2006 Report Posted June 10, 2006 Even though I don't follow the NBA - I could probably name at least one player from most franchises. But I couldn't name a single Bobcat. You've most likely got me beat. I don't think I could name all of the franchises, much less one player per. (I did know them all back in '78. ;))
SCSabresFan! Posted June 10, 2006 Author Report Posted June 10, 2006 Even though I don't follow the NBA - I could probably name at least one player from most franchises. But I couldn't name a single Bobcat. They have Carolina grads Sean May and Raymond Felton from the '05 championship team and still have a hard time selling tickets!
sabregoats Posted June 10, 2006 Report Posted June 10, 2006 I didnt even know that there was a team in Charlotte. NBA SUCKS.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.