NHL signs US TV deal with NBC

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=84443

Surprised I beat King to this one. What are everyone's thoughts on this?

Obviously NBC was starving for content, and I'm surprised the NHL couldn't get ANY type of up front fee out of them. Should be interesting to see how NBC chooses to present the NHL after a 29 year hiatus.

Should be interesting to see how NBC choses to present the NHL after a 29 year hiatus.

30 years if you count that there won't be any hockey next season :D :joker:

for the locked-out year. Great! 'seven regular season games and six Stanley Cup playoff games in regular Saturday afternoon timeslot' Don't want to go overboard with that. Doesn't NBC have the Olympics too? Perhaps this will help them with Olympic coverage (Winter Olympics in 2006).

Does ESPN remain unchanged? I don't care at this point since they're mostly idiots on that channel and I'd just as well watch Center Ice.

Does ESPN remain unchanged? I don't care at this point since they're mostly idiots on that channel and I'd just as well watch Center Ice.

That is a great question as they have yet to re-up their deal. Centre Ice is the way to go for sure, unfortunately only us die-hards are willing to pay for it.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=84443

Surprised I beat King to this one. What are everyone's thoughts on this?

Obviously NBC was starving for content, and I'm surprised the NHL couldn't get ANY type of up front fee out of them. Should be interesting to see how NBC chooses to present the NHL after a 29 year hiatus.


What was the "hiatus"?

Hiatus = span of time in which they did not cover the NHL at all

Wow, six whole regular season games. Should put another notch on the owners' side in the labour talks: American TV money is not there! Fan interest is next to nothing!

I wonder how this deal compares to NBC's arena football deal?

Does ESPN remain unchanged?

Says the league is still trying to negotiate a deal.

ESPN has a lot more to lose by committing ~70 nights of prime-time programming to a league that might not play than ABC does committing 12 crappy Saturday slots in the Spring of 2005. For that level of risk, I'm betting ESPN wants broadcast rights for much less than Bettman thinks they're worth.

Says the league is still trying to negotiate a deal.

ESPN has a lot more to lose by committing ~70 nights of prime-time programming to a league that might not play than ABC does committing 12 crappy Saturday slots in the Spring of 2005. For that level of risk, I'm betting ESPN wants broadcast rights for much less than Bettman thinks they're worth.

In the Wall Street Journal this morning they reported that ESPN is cutting its broadcast from more than 100 games a year down to a little more than half.

In the Wall Street Journal this morning they reported that ESPN is cutting its broadcast from more than 100 games a year down to a little more than half.

Islander fan here in Ranger territory but this effects all of us....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/sports/19CND-NHL.html

In a nutshell the NHL signed a deal with ESPN for half of the money we've been getting from them. All regular season games that they show will be on ESPN2 and those will be exclusive to ESPN so no local feed. Also, NHL Tonight is gone so we are stuck with the minimal Sportscenter highlights.

I wish we had tried to get on another network (TBS,c USA, Etc.) Anyone else think that Bettman has done a deplorable job in his stint as commisssioner? The NHL has taken a huge step backwards during his tenure. With the TV revenue cuts, I think we can count on a lockout now for sure. :shakehead

gearing up for a lockout, too. Don't want to keep NHL2nite guy's on staff if there's nothing to report.

Islander fan here in Ranger territory but this effects all of us....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/sports/19CND-NHL.html

In a nutshell the NHL signed a deal with ESPN for half of the money we've been getting from them. All regular season games that they show will be on ESPN2 and those will be exclusive to ESPN so no local feed. Also, NHL Tonight is gone so we are stuck with the minimal Sportscenter highlights.

I wish we had tried to get on another network (TBS,c USA, Etc.) Anyone else think that Bettman has done a deplorable job in his stint as commisssioner? The NHL has taken a huge step backwards during his tenure. With the TV revenue cuts, I think we can count on a lockout now for sure. :shakehead

When Bettman was first hired i thought this guy might be good for the league. The ratings were decent, the game was expanding in the US like never before - it all just seemed like it was the NHL's time. Then he was handed a great gift, the 1994 playoffs and the Ranger's run at the cup. After that series i had not seen so many hockey jersey on the street, kids playing roller hockey, etc. People my age(at the time i was 20) had finally jumped on board something i had known for years. Yeah, alot of bandwagoner's but who cared? Thats how you build a fan base.

But the guys in charge, Bettman especially, dropped the ball on what could've been a slam dunk. The marketing was mediocre, bland, and didn't sit well with the already established fans. Anyone remember the Garden in the 70's & 80's? :D

Bettman's had his fair turn, overstayed his welcome in my opinion. The league needs to get a new look, a new captain at the reigns, and a more innovative approach to mass marketing.

Of course this is all easier said than done. Personally, i've always liked the idea that hockey was not the 'other' sports. It'll always be in the shadows of baseball, football, basketball, but it's hard to believe that there isn't a bigger audience out there, and that it can't be supported on a station like ESPN or ESPN 2.

When Bettman was first hired i thought this guy might be good for the league. The ratings were decent, the game was expanding in the US like never before - it all just seemed like it was the NHL's time. Then he was handed a great gift, the 1994 playoffs and the Ranger's run at the cup. After that series i had not seen so many hockey jersey on the street, kids playing roller hockey, etc. People my age(at the time i was 20) had finally jumped on board something i had known for years. Yeah, alot of bandwagoner's but who cared? Thats how you build a fan base.

But the guys in charge, Bettman especially, dropped the ball on what could've been a slam dunk. The marketing was mediocre, bland, and didn't sit well with the already established fans. Anyone remember the Garden in the 70's & 80's? :D

Bettman's had his fair turn, overstayed his welcome in my opinion. The league needs to get a new look, a new captain at the reigns, and a more innovative approach to mass marketing.

Of course this is all easier said than done. Personally, i've always liked the idea that hockey was not the 'other' sports. It'll always be in the shadows of baseball, football, basketball, but it's hard to believe that there isn't a bigger audience out there, and that it can't be supported on a station like ESPN or ESPN 2.

Good post for a Ranger fan (sorry, I can't help myself sometimes :) )

Seriously, no matter how much I hate to admit it, it hurts the NHL that the Rangers haven't made the playoffs in so long. You add to that the fact that Chicago has probably been the worst franchise in pro sports and it equals bad news for the ratings.

I agree Bettman has had his shot and failed miserably. I think he expanded too quickly, hasn't had the vision or knowledge to change the rules so that there is more offense in the game and hasn't had the presence to come off as a powerful commissioner. I would love to see someone like Gretzky or Howe (probably too old) take over. Bettman was a late comer to hockey but he just doesn't have the passion or influence needed to promote the game and bring it to the next level IMO.

gearing up for a lockout, too. Don't want to keep NHL2nite guy's on staff if there's nothing to report.

I wish that was the reason. The real reasoning is that they don't have time since hockey isn't a priority. It used to be on every night until ESPN signed a deal with the devil (David Stern and the NBA)

Good post for a Ranger fan (sorry, I can't help myself sometimes :) )

Seriously, no matter how much I hate to admit it, it hurts the NHL that the Rangers haven't made the playoffs in so long. You add to that the fact that Chicago has probably been the worst franchise in pro sports and it equals bad news for the ratings.

I agree Bettman has had his shot and failed miserably. I think he expanded too quickly, hasn't had the vision or knowledge to change the rules so that there is more offense in the game and hasn't had the presence to come off as a powerful commissioner. I would love to see someone like Gretzky or Howe (probably too old) take over. Bettman was a late comer to hockey but he just doesn't have the passion or influence needed to promote the game and bring it to the next level IMO.

Rollie the goalie, not bad for an Ice-lander fan yourself ;)

Yeah, i forgot to mention overexpansion. The league had its facts wrong and thought the game was moving along faster than they actually knew it to be. Some people feel the league overdid it by 4 or 6 teams. I wouldn't be that drastic, i'd take away two teams from the current field.

Rollie the goalie, not bad for an Ice-lander fan yourself ;)

Yeah, i forgot to mention overexpansion. The league had its facts wrong and thought the game was moving along faster than they actually knew it to be. Some people feel the league overdid it by 4 or 6 teams. I wouldn't be that drastic, i'd take away two teams from the current field.

I think they definitely afford to lose 2 teams. There are 2 here in Florida and the Panthers only draw well when they play the Rangers. I wouldn't mind seeing them go along with maybe Nashville or Columbus. I would keep Canada's teams.

Bye the way, nice catch on Rollie Melanson. He was a Ranger for about 14 hours at one point. I think it was a trade with Minnesota and then the Rangers turned around the next day and sent him to Los Angeles if memory serves me.

I think they definitely afford to lose 2 teams. There are 2 here in Florida and the Panthers only draw well when they play the Rangers. I wouldn't mind seeing them go along with maybe Nashville or Columbus. I would keep Canada's teams.

Bye the way, nice catch on Rollie Melanson. He was a Ranger for about 14 hours at one point. I think it was a trade with Minnesota and then the Rangers turned around the next day and sent him to Los Angeles if memory serves me.

Yeah I remember that deal, not sure who was involved, but always thought Rollie was a good backup, in his early days ;)

I'd take out Florida & Carolina.

Yeah I remember that deal, not sure who was involved, but always thought Rollie was a good backup, in his early days ;)

I'd take out Florida & Carolina.

Since Rollie played briefly for the Devils he is one of the few players to be the property of all three area teams.

I wouldn't mind seeing the NHL actually losing up to 4 teams.

What would happen to the players on those teams that would be dismantled?

What would happen to the players on those teams that would be dismantled?
It is called a "dispersal draft".

And one more thing.

I HATE SATURDAY AFTERNOON GAMES

It was only a suggestion.
The NHL needs as much help as it can get.

Aw man I like NHL 2Night! It really pisses me off how little coverage hockey gets here, it's not fair. MLS gets more coverage! No wait, college softball gets more coverage.

Some people feel the league overdid it by 4 or 6 teams. I wouldn't be that drastic, i'd take away two teams from the current field.

I wish that would happen. Just curious, why Florida and Carolina? What are the other teams you think should be taken away?

Right now I'm watching PTI and they're talking about how Philly needs to make the finals for people to be interested, and that no one would watch a Tampa/Calgary final. I don't understand why people are saying this. If that's the case then they need to get rid of a lot of teams because there are plenty of them out there that no one would care to watch. I just think it's ridiculous that they say no one would watch a Tampa/Calgary final. I think that would be pretty damn exciting.

Aw man I like NHL 2Night! It really pisses me off how little coverage hockey gets here, it's not fair. MLS gets more coverage! No wait, college softball gets more coverage.



I wish that would happen. Just curious, why Florida and Carolina? What are the other teams you think should be taken away?

Right now I'm watching PTI and they're talking about how Philly needs to make the finals for people to be interested, and that no one would watch a Tampa/Calgary final. I don't understand why people are saying this. If that's the case then they need to get rid of a lot of teams because there are plenty of them out there that no one would care to watch. I just think it's ridiculous that they say no one would watch a Tampa/Calgary final. I think that would be pretty damn exciting.

Real hockey fans, who have invested time into being a fan, know that a Calgary/Tamp final would be amazing. But the 'casual' hockey fan would probably only watch if big city teams were involved. Guys at ESPN/ABC look at teams 'potential' fanbase and go from there. They're obviously going to see more potential in say a NY/Chicago matchup, then a Calgary/Tampa game.

As for why i'd take Florida & Carolina out? Florida already has the Bolts, they should've been there for awhile before another team was moved into the same state, IMO. Carolina still doesn't have the numbers, population/economy wise.

I agree with Florida being out, but I thought Carolina did ok as far as people going to games and stuff? I mean, it wouldn't break my heart if they were gone. I couldn't care less lol. I wouldn't care if Columbus was gone also, I don't like that team.

The future for us on (U.S.) national television couldn't be more bright. We couldn't be more thrilled.

How pathetically sad a liar is Gary Bettman?

Real hockey fans, who have invested time into being a fan, know that a Calgary/Tamp final would be amazing. But the 'casual' hockey fan would probably only watch if big city teams were involved. Guys at ESPN/ABC look at teams 'potential' fanbase and go from there. They're obviously going to see more potential in say a NY/Chicago matchup, then a Calgary/Tampa game.

Why? Philadelphia is an excellent hockey market (much better than NY) and the ratings are not good during an outstanding series. The NHL seems willing to scrap sending either New York team to even play the Western Conference and will lose the few fans remaining in other markets.

Casual sports fans in other markets (who may like hockey) will want to watch New York baseball, basketball and football before they watch hockey.