After about a quarter of the season, hockey will make its debut on ESPN (the mothership of the "worldwide leader in sports") tonight. In LA, we're getting Detroit in Phoenix. I still haven't decided if I'll watch it or go to Staples to see the Kings (Jason Allison should be back from his knee injury) against Nashville. I'll probably go live, but we shall see as the day progresses.

~Adam

Ummmmmm.....

I could have sworn that I watched at least a couple of games on ESPN this year while I was working out at the gym.

I'm not 100 percent sure but after opening night, I think all of the games they televised were on ESPN2, not ESPN.

By the way, the other game (regional coverage) is Rangers at Flyers.

Gee, isn't that so special of ESPN to have only the second televised hockey game on tonight. As mad at them as I am, I am like so desperate for hockey, of course I will be watching, but still mad at ESPN.

While I certainly understand your desire to see your favorite sport, the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. ESPN is first and foremost a business and needs to air the most lucrative programming during primetime. NBA and college hoops clearly outrate hockey. Didn't NASCAR beat the Stanley Cup finals in the ratings last year? If it wasn't NASCAR, it was some other lower tier sport.

Its not ESPN's job to promote the sport of hockey as much as it is the responsiblity of the NHL. Since Wayne Gretzsky, the NHL hasn't had a star that transcends the game, like Michael Jordan or Shaquille O'Neal (or Bird and Magic before). The NBA seems to do a much better job of developing and promoting its stars.

I dare say hockey fans are as fiercely loyal as the fans of baseball, football and basketball. There just aren't nearly as many of them to make it in ESPN's finacial best interest to air too many games.

Please don't take this a hockey bashing. Personally, I like the game. Few things rival playoff hockey for tension and excitment. Just looking at things from the business side.

George: all the points you bring up are valid and no one could argue with them. That doesn't make ESPN's hockey presentations--and its lack of coverage--any the less disappointing. Hockey IS a niche sport compared to the three big ones and now that ESPN has NBA basketball to go along with its football and baseball programming, there is less room for hockey. But it still does maintain the exclusive rights--in the US--to air games nationally and they have done a poor job of it. The game has done a poor job of marketing itself and growing the game (however much it can be grown), but the TV network, by holding the exclusive rights rather than selling them to FoxSports, TBS, or someone else, has done the game--and its fans--a disservice.

~Adam

Couldn't have said it any better than you Adam. Good job!!

[quote]Originally posted by Adam:
But it still does maintain the exclusive rights--in the US--to air games nationally and they have done a poor job of it. The game has done a poor job of marketing itself and growing the game (however much it can be grown), but the TV network, by holding the exclusive rights rather than selling them to FoxSports, TBS, or someone else, has done the game--and its fans--a disservice.
~Adam[/QB]

---

Well said, Adam....if ESPN is going to maintain "exclusive rights" (which they are not paying NEARLY as much for as they did to televise baseball or basketall) then IMHO they have an obligation to promote the game more aggressively and provide the millions of fervent hockey fans in North America with the first-rate service that ESPN is known for (well, for the most part anyway, excluding a few egotistical television anchors who think THEY are the story themselves, like Stuart Scott and Dan Patrick).

Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand, if ESPN is going to treat the NHL as a "stepsister" compared with their other sports programming, then they should at least SPLIT the television contract with Fox, Turner, USA, etc....while a portion of the blame clearly falls on the league execs (namely Gary Bettman) who negotiated this contract without important "guarantees" (including relegating 98% of the games to ESPN2, among others) I place FAR more responsibility upon the network than I do the league for these decisions that as Adam accurately stated has done the game and its sizeable fan base a huge disservice.

I don't even care for the "regional" telecasts myself....I know, this is a "business decision" but I think their belief that all east coast hockey fans only care about the Flyers, Rangers, and Devils is severely mistaken.....personally, I would love to see the Kings, Oilers, Mighty Ducks, and even the Flames more often but I doubt that will change....I suppose it's unrealistic to expect that a single "national game" will develop like Monday Night Football -- at least not yet anyway.

It's not my intention to totally rag on ESPN hockey telecasts, though, cause their announcers for the most part are first-rate....although they lost the great play by play announcer Mike Emrick a few years ago to local Devils telecasts(and I'm definitely NOT a huge fan of Gary Thorne -- he screams WAY too much at unnecessary times) their announcers are generally superb -- Bill Clement, Darren Pang, Steve Levy, among others....it doesn't hurt that a few of em like Levy are cute too.

My point basically is that ESPN has an obligation to show MORE games (not ALL but at least more than one every two months) on the "mother station" if they are going to have "exclusive rights" and essentially block all other national telecasts of the sport....while I happen to have all four ESPN stations (thanks to DirecTV) along with about 20 FoxSportsNet regional stations, I realize that not every hockey fan has these benefits and I, too, am at the mercy of ESPN when they have their "National Hockey Night" game on ESPN2 and contractually prohibit all but local games from being televised anywhere else in the country....I concur with Adam that the game and their millions of fans deserve MUCH better than the "worldwide leader" is now providing....with all the excessive promotion they give to their "in-house" movies (The Junction Boys, Season on the Brink), X-games, etc. the least they can do is market hockey to one-tenth the degree they do some of these lesser caliber productions.....in the meantime, I guess we'll just have to live with their decisions unless enough people voice their displeasure and the all-mighty ratings influence their programming decisions.

Here is something I was thinking about regarding Hockey on ESPN.
Since Hockey is a niche sport it's TV popularity is probably centered around a handful of US cities. Cities like Detroit, Denver, New York, Boston, Philadelphia probably show most if not all of their own hockey games on their own networks (ie. Comcast, MSG). So I suppose that would limit ESPNs audience even more for hockey since many fans tend to watch their own teams on their own stations. As an example if the Flyers were playing on Comcast tonight and ESPN were showing Nashville vs Pittsburgh how many Philadelphians would watch ESPN? I think most fans in major media markets are more likely to watch their own teams play unless there is a compelling must watch game on ESPN.

Just my 2 cents

Some of you bring up that ESPN should split the games with, or sell the broadcast rights to, another network. Is there any evidence any other network even WANTS to do this? If so, then I agree its the way to go.

But then someone mentioned the fact that ESPN isn't paying nearly as much for hockey as they do for football, basketball or baseball, implying that the NHL could or should have gotten more money. Well if the NHL didn't get as much money as they could have, they have only themselves to blame.

Its not ESPN's responsiblity to promote the game itself; rather it is their responsibility to promote their broadcasts of the games. Its not like ABC/ESPN hasn't given hockey a chance to do well. In recent years, the Cup finals have been on in primetime on ABC. Before this year and the NBA broadcasts, hockey got alot of exposure. I understand your frustrations, but TV is a ratings game. And hockey just doesn't bring in the numbers like the other sports.

from George_vikingfan:

...Is there any evidence any other network even WANTS to do this?

When the NHL & ESPN came to their most recent agreement, TBS wanted to carry some of the games--using the ESPN commentators--but ESPN would not go for it. It's too bad they couldn't reach some sort of accord.

from gamecock:

it doesn't hurt that a few of em like Levy are cute too

A number of years back, I told my beau ideal that I'd leave him only if Levy calls. So far, no call.

~Adam

You know what frustrates me is the fact that hockey is a contact sport. Fighting and skirmeshes are invariably a part of the game. I know alot of people love hockey for the sole excpetion of the fighting element. You would think ratings would be up when they show two teams that hate each other, but it seems all I hear is that ratings are down. Then on the other hand you get people complaining about "all they do in hockey is fight", its too rough, or its all about fighting and nothing else. Me, I love the game for the game, not just the fighting.

Football is a contact sport, too, but you don't see fights there. Fighting is invariably part of hockey, because the NHL and lower leagues have accepted it as part of the game. I find the pro-fighting attitude of many hockey fans and commentators a tremendous turnoff. God, I hated Don Cherry.

I don't mind an occasional fight, but it seems that even with the recent changes it can still get out of hand too much. It's like whenever there's a hard bodycheck the other team is compelled to respond, but they respond by trying to start a fight.

And fighting is still popular with a lot of hockey fans. The crowd goes wild when there's a fight.