Bmwolf21 Posted January 28, 2007 Report Posted January 28, 2007 Or maybe not be so stupid as to put your mid-season celebration on in the middle of the week, up against American Idol? (But at least Buffalo is doing our part....) NEW YORK -- TV watchers didn't exactly warm up to the NHL's midweek All-Star Game, which experienced a 76 percent drop in household viewership from the previous All-Star Game in 2004. Wednesday night's game in Dallas drew a 0.7 Nielsen rating on Versus, the cable channel formerly known as OLN. The game was viewed in an estimated 474,298 households and by 672,948 viewers, down from the 1,985,000 households that saw the 2004 All-Star Game on a Sunday afternoon on ABC. Wednesday's most-watched show, American Idol on Fox, drew an estimated 37 million viewers in the 9 p.m. hour. The NHL ratings drop-off was even greater when compared to the 2000 game in Toronto, which was watched in approximately 2,681,000 households on a Sunday afternoon -- or more than five times as many homes as were tuned in Wednesday. While Wednesday's game was the most-watched cable show that night in Buffalo and Pittsburgh, it did not place among the top 20 cable shows in NHL markets such as New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Washington and Miami. The 7.1 rating in Buffalo was by far the largest in any U.S. market. (LINK) OK, so to recap, SC playoff and Finals ratings on Vs. - ratings way down. ASG ratings on VS. - way down. Might be time to get off Vs. and maybe get ESPN back, or get NBC more on board than they have been...
inkman Posted January 28, 2007 Report Posted January 28, 2007 Why would ESPN want anything to do with the NHL? They are better off showing poker, bowling or figure skating.
DrDahlinstein Posted January 28, 2007 Report Posted January 28, 2007 you act like the NHL chose VS. over ESPN?? the NHL had no other choice for a network. if they cant show ratings on VS. then theres no way ESPN will take them. they DID make a mistake putting the All Star Game on a Wednesday night. especially this week when 4 days later is the down week before the Super Bowl.
Bmwolf21 Posted January 28, 2007 Author Report Posted January 28, 2007 Who said anything about the NHL choosing Vs. over ESPN? I just think that, at some point, the league might have to realize that their best bet for exposure is a lower-contract deal with a major cable network, not a second-tier fishing & hunting channel... I know the NHL didn't have much choice with Vs., but the ratings numbers we're talking about are getting ridiculous. IMO, the ASG should have been on NBC, just for the occasional viewers to stumble across, and it should have been on Sunday afternoon.
Hawerchuk Posted January 29, 2007 Report Posted January 29, 2007 IMO, the ASG should have been on NBC, just for the occasional viewers to stumble across, and it should have been on Sunday afternoon. BINGO! My thoughts exactly. Bettman you hoser!! :angry: Oh one more thing; it still was NO GOAL!!
SDS Posted January 29, 2007 Report Posted January 29, 2007 ESPN made an offer I believe, but the NHL turned it down as being too low. So they DID choose Vs. ... it's just not working out for them.
Bmwolf21 Posted January 29, 2007 Author Report Posted January 29, 2007 At the very least, they had the right to match any offer: (LINK) OLN has taken its first major step toward becoming a general-interest sports network competing directly with ESPN. Yesterday the former Outdoor Life Network reached a deal with the National Hockey League after former carrier ESPN declined to match OLN?s offer. OLN will pay $135 million to televise hockey games for the next two seasons, $65 million this year and $70 million next. The Comcast-owned network has an option for up to four years after that, the first of which would start at $72.5 million. ESPN ended a 21-year relationship with the struggling league. It initially dropped its option to continue broadcasting the NHL in May after the league canceled last season because of the lockout. But the Disney-owned network still had the right to match any other network?s contract offer, and it looked like it might do so simply to keep the league away from OLN. ESPN officials said the new deal simply wasn?t worth the high price. NBC has a rights deal with the NHL through which it will pay nothing, splitting revenue from the ads, and ESPN reportedly wanted a similar deal.
DWarner Posted January 29, 2007 Report Posted January 29, 2007 Supposedly, the NHL Network is close to starting up in the States. Not sure how this will affect the Vs. situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_Network_(U.S.)
Orange Seats Posted January 29, 2007 Report Posted January 29, 2007 Having it on a wednesday was ridiculous. I was shocked when I found that out. It should have been a Sunday game, carried by either versus or NBC. Hell, even I didn't get to watch the game because of the stupid timing.
blugold43 Posted January 30, 2007 Report Posted January 30, 2007 maybe the problem is that the all-star game is not real hockey! it friggin blows imo, and i didn't watch 15 minutes of it. 12-9? i wouldn't care if they didn't play it. during the whole break i was pissed because there was no REAL hockey to watch. (fortunately there is tons of college hockey on tv out here)
Buffalo Wings Posted January 30, 2007 Report Posted January 30, 2007 Why would ESPN want anything to do with the NHL? They are better off showing poker, bowling or figure skating. And now NASCAR. :unsure: Supposedly, the NHL Network is close to starting up in the States. Not sure how this will affect the Vs. situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_Network_(U.S.) Great....yet another network that will be gobbled up by DirectTV and not available to cable subscribers.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 3, 2007 Author Report Posted February 3, 2007 Looking on the optimistic side, Versus notes the .7 rating for the game was up 250 percent from its regular season average and was higher than the average for the first three rounds of the playoffs last season. Of course, the Sabres were a primary attraction then, too. That's really sad. LINK
Eleven Posted February 3, 2007 Report Posted February 3, 2007 Why would ESPN want anything to do with the NHL? They are better off showing poker, bowling or figure skating. This is the key; ESPN is gradually divesting itself of expensive sports programming (major college football, major men's college basketball, hockey, etc.) and shooting for "sport-tainment" (PTI, Around the Horn) and less expensive sports programming like mid-major college football, mid-major men's basketball, women's basketball, high school sports, poker, and yes, even dominoes and paint ball. The network probably regrets its MLB and NBA contracts. But because it's now a staple of most home cable systems, it needn't worry; it still gets revenue, and it can sell its other services (ESPN2, ESPNU, etc.) with real programming. It's a pretty poor way to treat viewers, but the business model sure works.
inkman Posted February 3, 2007 Report Posted February 3, 2007 ESPN should stand for: Excluding Sports Poker Network I fuggin hate it!
Eleven Posted February 3, 2007 Report Posted February 3, 2007 ESPN should stand for: Excluding Sports Poker Network I fuggin hate it! "Live, from New Orleans...it's the World Series of -Fighting!"
Fronz1103 Posted February 3, 2007 Report Posted February 3, 2007 and I'm sorry, but when i saw 14 year olds on ESPN stacking cups... i threw up inside about 10 times. the last time i checked ESPN stood for the World Wide Leader in Sports. Lately it has become a major joke. i mean gimme a break...... 14 years olds Stacking cups considered a "sport" or alteast carried on a "sports" network...Pa - F*kcing - thetic! Sometimes I wish had a choice of TSN or ESPN. I love TSN's hockey coverage, and ESPN... well other than their football coverage... i could live w/o it
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.