Jump to content
Jambands.ca

Go Sens Go - Fan Forum


rubberdinghy

Recommended Posts

Ok, so Kev, you would rather not see the NHL on one of the big four's networks. What do you propose?

I'd rather not see it on one of the big four networks if it means that hockey gets forced into being an afternoon sport because it ranks low in viewership in the US. If NBC was paying millions of dollars, and more than any other network carrying the games, then fine, they should get say in broadcasting scheds. However, they pay squat, so fuck 'em. The poor fans of the teams involved in OT, and fans of the game, get screwed because the network isn't dedicated to the game as top priority. No "happy ending" for the fan!

I refer you to the infamous Heidi Game:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A shame for the game

Posted: May 21, 2007

Commissioner Gary Bettman owes NHL fans a huge apology for the television package he negotiated, one that he continues to say benefits the game despite all evidence to the contrary.

NBC did not carry the overtime of Game 5 between the Sabres and Senators anywhere outside of Buffalo last Saturday. Instead, the network went to its prerace coverage for the Preakness Stakes. Immediately after a postregulation interview, viewers were alerted that the rest of the game would be seen on Versus (assuming fans' cable systems carried Versus). But nowhere during the Preakness coverage was there a graphic directing frustrated hockey fans who may have missed the original announcement. When studio host Bill Clement came on during a break, he simply said that overtime had begun and he would be back with an update when the game-ending goal was scored. He did not mention Versus.

When e-mailed for a comment on the situation, the league forwarded the request to NBC Sports director of communications Brian Walker.

"NBC was obligated to provide its traditional coverage of the Preakness," Walker wrote. "We protected the game in Buffalo and alerted viewers both verbally and graphically that overtime would be shown on Versus. We also directed viewers to NHL.com to find the specific channel in their area."

Walker ignored a follow-up question asking what specifically it meant to be "obligated" to provide the prerace fanfare in its entirety and why the network didn't have an obligation to the NHL and its viewers to show the playoff game in its entirety. (It would have been understandable to break in for the race if the game had gone into multiple overtimes, but it was a slap in the face to fans to have to find the game for that first overtime, and the switch shows exactly what NBC thinks of hockey.) Walker did, however, write that the verbal and graphic alerts were aired only once during the postregulation interview.

Now I love a feel-good story about a horse and his millionaire owners as much as the next person, but this was ridiculous. It was almost unimaginable. And the NHL should be embarrassed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Obligated" means advertising dollars and a MUCH larger audience (400% more) and there was ample warning that the game was switching over to Versus.

Bettman and the NHL never hid the fact that this could happen. I find it amusing that the loudest voices in all of this seem to be coming from Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a regional property, hockey has delivered more than adequate TV audiences over the years. As a national entity, however, it hardly creates a blip of interest outside Canada. And though I admire commissioner Gary Bettman's regime for its tireless attempts to create a nationwide hockey profile in the U.S. -- after all, what pro sport is NOT dependent on TV for its financial viability? -- the American appetite for watching NHL games on the tube is far from where it needs to be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely Booche,

the voices mostly come from Canada because we see it as catering to the US networks who DON'T CARE and don't have a meaningful audience for the game. There's no reason that the game should have been in the afternoon.

However, if it had been Sydney Crosby and the Pens playing, i'm sure they would have gone Prime Time, or at least tried to cover more of the overtime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any publicity is good publicity.

As far as the Sens are concerned though, I could care less who got to watch the game unless it concerns the fans of the team, the city, and the quest for the cup... and CBC didn't cut away. And 95 of 100 Sens fans live in and around Ottawa and the Valley (Atleast before the playoffs began!). It seemed that the 2:30 wrap up time did wonders for the patio's of Ottawa. I wouldn't be complaining to be part of a scene like that, and then have the rest of my night to party with dinner and shennanigans. I hope to participate later on with you's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no reason that the game should have been in the afternoon.

::watches Kev miss the point::

Sorry, i missed your post quoting Howard Berger. His line regarding what league does NOT rely on TV contracts for its financial viability, doesn't really apply. How can the NBC TV deal with the NHL (where they don't have to pay) has with the League making money?

Plain and simple, Bettman should have said NO to NBC when they whined to have the game in the afternoon.

Inside info: the new Exec Dir of Sports at CBC had dinner with Bettman last week in order to establish a better relationship with the NHL. Let's hope that it was a step in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did so much more damage to the game then if it had not been on the air at all.

I certainly wont disagree with that point but what are the NHL to do? I asked Kev earlier regarding network television and I still havent seen a response from anyone. If ya'll do come up with something, please email Bettman et al immediately.

How can the NBC TV deal with the NHL (where they don't have to pay) has with the League making money?

We are talking about trying to gain new fans because the money coming in now is already showing signs of trouble. Its a long-term look and that bubble is going to burst. The NHL knows they need to find ways to get more revenue because they wont be able to cut it at this rate. More revenue = greater salary cap and without a means to generate the kind of cash we are looking at, its possible that teams are going to be worse off than they were prior to the strike.

the new Exec Dir of Sports at CBC had dinner with Bettman last week in order to establish a better relationship with the NHL

Nice inside info. I would have loooooooved to have been a fly on the wall for that dinner!

Anyways, I am not trying to rile anyone here. Its just that I see a potential disaster. How many of you realize that major publications (like the LA Times) in the US pulled their reporters from going on the road with their NHL teams? What kind of reporting can they do? How much interest are those articles going to garner and where are the new fans going to come from?

Hopefully all that changed as the season wore on but I certainly didnt hear any feel-good stories. The league as we know it will not be able to sustain itself on ticket sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Market Reality is going to set in. It may be rough, and there may be a few teams lost in the crash, but in the end it'll be worth it.

Under Bettman the league expanded too quickly, teams are demanding too much money from their fans, and they are feeling the pinch. Bad business. The owners keep on letting Bettman stick around and do this shit though. I have no sympathy for the owners in the NHL. They are the ones doing the most damage to the league, IMHO.

The ways in which Bettman has tried to gain those few fans in the US has repeatedly failed. Why must this go on? In any other business, or league, Bettman would have been fired ages ago.

Booche, you gotta be here for the NHL Awards and be a seat filler. Maybe i'll run up on stage and show Bettman what a hit from behind feels like. Do you think the players would care much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more pissed at CBC for providing us with only two post-game interviews. I would have loved to have seen some locker room action. Were CBC obligated to cut to the (abbreviated) Toronto FC game so soon after the hockey?

I heard that they were very reserved. Didn't have a party in the room or afterwards and all went out to a fancy diner together to celebrate. That wouldn't really make for exciting TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more pissed at CBC for providing us with only two post-game interviews. I would have loved to have seen some locker room action. Were CBC obligated to cut to the (abbreviated) Toronto FC game so soon after the hockey?

Yup, pretty much. There are advertisers who pay to be in the TOronto FC game. It's lost revenue for each one that doesn't air, and they have to be given "credit" for those lost spots. If the game had been aired prime time, then the scheduling of post game shows would have been ones that were all "expendable" (which is how every other game is scheduled).

In earlier rounds, when afternoon games went into overtime, CBC would delay the broadcast of other afternoon sporting events that were taped anyway (horse jumping, etc.) If CBC ever has a game go into OT when there's a late game starting right after, they usually go to a split screen for a while, or only go to the late game in it's home market until the OT is over and the other affiliates join in then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...