Versus vs ESPN

[MantaRay]

Are you kidding me with the Dallas-Buffalo comment? Dallas was an extremely boring team under Hitchcock. They were a great defensive team and Buffalo had Hasek and that's it. Dixon Ward, Brian Holzinger, and Michael Grosek are really going to get people excited. With that logic, Columbus - Buffalo or Columbus - Minnesota (if possible) would be a good matchup. Come on. That was an extremely boring series.

What I find interesting is the NHL still needs ESPN for the game to grow. Last year when the Pens-Wings series heated up, ESPN started to talk about the series putting it on the front page of its website...talking about it on Around the Horn and PTI. I'm sure that had something to do with the icnreased ratings. When the Stanley Cup Finals takes place this year, and Versus is showing game 3 and 4 (the games where the series usually takes off after the teams are done feeling each other out), ESPN is going to be the one having to tell the average sports fan that the series is entertaining and what a great matchup this has been. Because most people wouldn't be watching this on Versus. If Detroit-Boston is a great series, ESPN will be putting it on the front page of their site. If Ovechkin is dominating, chances are are it's going to be talked about as a lead story on PTI.

Eye of the beholder my friend. I don' t find the "new" NHL as exciting and loved the tough Dallas teams, especially against Detroit or Colorado. That was old time hockey.

Talking about the NHL for :10 and actually airing games are two different things.

Are you kidding me? Around the Horn??? PTI??? Old, nerdy "sports" "journalist" don't talk hockey EVER unless its related to VIOLENCE, something illegal or a slow day with everything else.

Again, the game has increased in popularity SINCE leaving ESPN (ratings, attendance, revenue, merchandising).

[Triumph]

Are you kidding me with the Dallas-Buffalo comment? Dallas was an extremely boring team under Hitchcock. They were a great defensive team and Buffalo had Hasek and that's it. Dixon Ward, Brian Holzinger, and Michael Grosek are really going to get people excited. With that logic, Columbus - Buffalo or Columbus - Minnesota (if possible) would be a good matchup. Come on. That was an extremely boring series.

my point is that ratings are built on regional ratings, and that's about it. yes, you will get some national ratings from time to time, but the nhl cannot count on this. to that end, buffalo-dallas should have been a very well rated series.

What I find interesting is the NHL still needs ESPN for the game to grow. Last year when the Pens-Wings series heated up, ESPN started to talk about the series putting it on the front page of its website...talking about it on Around the Horn and PTI. I'm sure that had something to do with the icnreased ratings. When the Stanley Cup Finals takes place this year, and Versus is showing game 3 and 4 (the games where the series usually takes off after the teams are done feeling each other out), ESPN is going to be the one having to tell the average sports fan that the series is entertaining and what a great matchup this has been. Because most people wouldn't be watching this on Versus. If Detroit-Boston is a great series, ESPN will be putting it on the front page of their site. If Ovechkin is dominating, chances are are it's going to be talked about as a lead story on PTI.

you have it backwards. espn isn't 'generating' anything - if people weren't talking about it, espn wouldn't be. what incentive does espn have to talk about the nhl besides the fact that people are interested in it? none at all.

[SatansDevils]

Just do not like Versus and never will.

ESPN and ESPN2 is the way to go for the NHL. I like the announcers better on ESPN/ESPN2 when they use to do hockey.

[MantaRay]

Just do not like Versus and never will.

ESPN and ESPN2 is the way to go for the NHL. I like the announcers better on ESPN/ESPN2 when they use to do hockey.

ESPN doesn't have hockey announcers aside from Thorne & Clement. They would be using the same people as the Versus telecast.

[devilsrule33]

my point is that ratings are built on regional ratings, and that's about it. yes, you will get some national ratings from time to time, but the nhl cannot count on this. to that end, buffalo-dallas should have been a very well rated series.

you have it backwards. espn isn't 'generating' anything - if people weren't talking about it, espn wouldn't be. what incentive does espn have to talk about the nhl besides the fact that people are interested in it? none at all.

If that was the case...why was the Devils-Ducks the best rated series on ESPN (I believe) or well up there? And Dallas has become a good market for the NHL, but it is a small group of hockey fans. Overall there isn't much interest like the Cowboys or Mavs. I'd say it is similar to the fact that the Wild attendance doesn't mean there is that gigantic of a hockey following in Minnesota compared to the other franchises.

I don't think I have it totally backwards. In the end...ESPN has the power to give the NHL a major push if they wanted to. Some people might be talking about it. ESPN then jumps all over it and puts through its gigantic marketing machine and in return gets a lot more people talking about it. I think we are seeing that with Alexander Ovechkin. The E:60 piece probably got a lot of people, who had no idea who this random Russian hockey player was, interested in a pretty cool and excitable guy.

And I want to make it clear...I don't think ESPN is perfect or close to it. I just think Versus is holding the game back currently. Many casual fans can't see the games. It is a problem. And I understand ESPN wouldn't be able to air both, but is it possible for ESPN and Versus to both cover hockey?

[devilsrule33]

Eye of the beholder my friend. I don' t find the "new" NHL as exciting and loved the tough Dallas teams, especially against Detroit or Colorado. That was old time hockey.

Talking about the NHL for :10 and actually airing games are two different things.

Are you kidding me? Around the Horn??? PTI??? Old, nerdy "sports" "journalist" don't talk hockey EVER unless its related to VIOLENCE, something illegal or a slow day with everything else.

Again, the game has increased in popularity SINCE leaving ESPN (ratings, attendance, revenue, merchandising).

Like I thought...Ovechkin-Crosby was the second main story on PTI today after the possible Favre return.. Joel Quenneville was a guest on the Mike Tirico show. Pronger was on Jim Rome is Burning yesterday (although he has been a huge supporter of hockey for a long time).

Edited April 28, 2010 by devilsrule33

[RowdyFan42]

the thing about the 'flipping through the channels' comment that i've been seeing a lot - the average hockey game begins around 7:10 and ends at 9:30. that's 2 hours and 20 minutes. but out of that time, 45 minutes is devoted either to commercials or to the intermission. the intermissions are just a television killer in hockey. there's 34 minutes of absolute downtime in hockey, way more than in baseball, basketball, or football.

And that's always going to be a thorn in the NHL's side from a TV standpoint... unless the league does something drastic like going to four 15-minute quarters with 5-minute dry cuts after the first and third and a full resurface at halftime. I just threw up in my mouth thinking about it.

ESPN doesn't have hockey announcers aside from Thorne & Clement.

The way I see it, the only way the NHL will ever go back to ESPN is if ESPN Classic turns into ESPN3. Unfortunately, they'll probably bury the league there rather than using it to move conflicts with the league off of ESPN2.

[thelastonealive]

The way I see it, the only way the NHL will ever go back to ESPN is if ESPN Classic turns into ESPN3. Unfortunately, they'll probably bury the league there rather than using it to move conflicts with the league off of ESPN2.

And when ESPN Classic becomes ESPN3, we're only five ESPNsteps from The Ocho!

[Devils Pride 26]

The answer is so clear it isn't even funny, and I can't understand why not one person said it yet.

Step 1: Put NHL Network on basic cable.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit.

[thelastonealive]

The answer is so clear it isn't even funny, and I can't understand why not one person said it yet.

Step 1: Put NHL Network on basic cable.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit.

NHL Network won't be on basic cable. If you can't get the flagship stations for MLB, NBA, or NFL on basic cable, why would Cablevision/Comcast/whoever jump on the NHL first?

Besides, if ESPN sensed the NHL Network as even having the remotest possibility of being an actual contender, they'd smother the NHL on their own programming even worse than they do now.

As far as the actual argument goes - Versus has done a fine job of covering the sport, but if the NHL could wind up on ESPN, then it needs to get there. It's not even the actual televised games, it's the coverage on ESPNews, in ESPN the Magazine, etc. Because ESPN would actually have a financial stake in it, hockey would be in the same class as the NBA, a step below MLB and NFL. Right now on ESPN, obviously, hockey's a step below the NBA, with Nascar, golf, tennis, boxing, MMA, and all the other "big" niche sports.

Like it or not, ESPN has the power to put the NHL where it wants in the sports pecking order. (And don't feed me that Arena Football stuff, the general public still knows hockey as one of the four major sports, it just doesn't care about it much right now.)

Seriously, some of us have seen the hype given on ESPNews to this Penguins/Caps series - imagine the hype it would be getting if ESPN actually had a financial stake in the game.

[MadDog2020]

And when ESPN Classic becomes ESPN3, we're only five ESPNsteps from The Ocho!

[PeteyNice]

A couple of points:

1) the idea that having the NHL on ESPN will all of the sudden "grow the game". That is what the Arena Football League thought. How did that work out for them?

2) "ESPN can show two games at once", they *can* but they won't. They have too much other programming going on that would suprecede a second hockey game.

3) "Intermissions are too long" this I agree with. When I started following the NHL, intermissions were 14 minutes and there was only one Zamboni cleaning the ice. Now, with two Zambonis you have to think that they can do it in 60% of the time . There is no reason, other than selling more ad time, that you cannot have an intermission that only lasts 10 minutes. Two 10 minute intermissions are much more palatable than two 17 minute intermissions.

What Versus needs are simple, easy things:

- A nightly NHL highlights show that is on at consistent times every night (unless there is a game). Run it at 11PM Eastern. Yes, you miss the west coast games but there are only 3.5 west coast teams so that is not a huge loss.

- ADVERTISE! If Cash4Gold can get a 30 second spot on primetime network TV then so can the NHL! You have to want to watch the games now. Unless the Thrashers or Devils are playing on Versus I have no idea. And even when they are playing sometimes the only way I know is by trying every other channel first.

Being the 5th or 6th most important thing on ESPN is not desirable.

One thing above all else...

THE FINALS MUST BE ON NETWORK TV!

I cannot stress that enough!

[brickwall30]

Versus b/c I don't care how prestegious the station is that the hockey is being broadcast on as long as it is being broadcast. Do you honestly think they would have these double headers of hockey every single day of the semifinal round so all 8 teams are seen if they were on versus.

Screw the rest of the random people that might stumble onto an incredible hockey game on espn but dont because they expect fishing or bullriding to be on versus (prolly would be). All hockey fans know that from 7pm-1030pm EST you have decent shot at finding a hockey game on versus and during the regular season it always on those times on mondays and tuesdays unless there just insnt any games.

I choose versus because i would rather not have hockey playoffs OT cut off because of the F#%$ing precnous (however you spell that horse race) pregame show!!!!! and yes, i am still VERY bitter about missing that OT game because of that horsesh!t ... that was on NBC by the way, but both of them look at hockey the same way. there is an open slot and this is a well know sport I guess we can fit you in.

As for Versus having bullriding and fishing et al. Yes they do have it, but have you EVER seen them interupt a hockey game for it. more often than not they will even keep going with bonus coverage of other hockey games until there are non left still on TV before they go back to regularly schedualed programing because on versus HOCKEY IS KING! and thats all the matters to me.

[Satans Hockey]

I wish there was a who gives a sh!t vote. As long as the game is on tv for me to watch I don't give a sh!t what channel its on.

[MantaRay]

A couple of points:

1) the idea that having the NHL on ESPN will all of the sudden "grow the game". That is what the Arena Football League thought. How did that work out for them?

2) "ESPN can show two games at once", they *can* but they won't. They have too much other programming going on that would suprecede a second hockey game.

3) "Intermissions are too long" this I agree with. When I started following the NHL, intermissions were 14 minutes and there was only one Zamboni cleaning the ice. Now, with two Zambonis you have to think that they can do it in 60% of the time . There is no reason, other than selling more ad time, that you cannot have an intermission that only lasts 10 minutes. Two 10 minute intermissions are much more palatable than two 17 minute intermissions.

What Versus needs are simple, easy things:

- A nightly NHL highlights show that is on at consistent times every night (unless there is a game). Run it at 11PM Eastern. Yes, you miss the west coast games but there are only 3.5 west coast teams so that is not a huge loss.

- ADVERTISE! If Cash4Gold can get a 30 second spot on primetime network TV then so can the NHL! You have to want to watch the games now. Unless the Thrashers or Devils are playing on Versus I have no idea. And even when they are playing sometimes the only way I know is by trying every other channel first.

Being the 5th or 6th most important thing on ESPN is not desirable.

One thing above all else...

THE FINALS MUST BE ON NETWORK TV!

I cannot stress that enough!

As usual Petey I think your dead on.

The only thing different: Intermissions can sometimes be the best part of the telecast.

I DVR HNIC every week, just for "Coach's Corner" and "the Hot Stove." If Versus would put on real hockey people and not treat NHL fans like the mythical "casual fan", the ratings and interest would grow from a relevant group of viewers.

Versus can succeed along with the NHL provided they stop dumbing the telecast down for the "casual fan".

[DevsChamps3x]

tampa bay-calgary was at the very end of espn's run. the point is they got handed the contract when detroit and colorado and philadelphia were the best teams in the league.

i don't think, with espn's current commitment to basketball, that they could guarantee the nhl 2 game 7s anyway, unless shoving one of them to ESPNews counts. if you live in a different market than your team, get center ice or find a good bar or there's no guarantee you can watch the game, it's as simple as that.

there's a lot of advantages to espn, but the truth is that hockey will never be a huge sport on tv (too much downtime), and espn didn't really promote the game very well, sticking it on tv on obscure nights when there were holes in the programming lineup. there's absolutely no reason why they wouldn't just do that again.

agreed

[USAkid90]

I'm sorry but ESPN is the obvious and clear winner.

Versus is utter crap

I mean the ESPN nhl theme song is among the best:

[southerndevsfan]

just to put my two cents in here (however that maybe now)

i wish that ESPN would broadcast the NHL again because then hockey would finally get its due instead of being treated as a second rate sport.

But I also firmly believe that ESPN has made sports into more about what their analysts think than anything else. They have gone from being a sports channel into marketing the players of the sports. They have ruined most of what they show by telling everyone who to cheer for, e.g. they pretty much told Detroit to draft Matt Stafford.

Versus, on the other hand, while technically being a second rate sports network with only one channel has brought the focus back to bringing the sports to the fans. I firmly believe if they had more money that most of the complaints would stop. They could get more than one channel and go after more lucrative opportunities, etc.

ESPN and Bettman have been telling people that the best person in the game is Sidney Crosby. No other professional sports league does this, they let the fans decide who to like. If the public at large wants to believe that Crosby is a pussbag, then let them. Don't make us think that he is the best, when there better players on his own team.

So the real discussion for me, i guess is what has to happen so Bettman will realize that he has to reverse his recto-cranial inversion and lose his hardon for the pens, and realize that you can't forcefeed one team/guy on the sports fans of america?

[RowdyFan42]

i wish that ESPN would broadcast the NHL again because then hockey would finally get its due instead of being treated as a second rate sport.

With all due respect, hockey was treated as a second-rate sport when it was on ESPN... *by* ESPN. The only way I'll ever be convinced that this has changed is if ESPN gets the NHL back and does right by the league.

[MantaRay]

i wish that ESPN would broadcast the NHL again because then hockey would finally get its due instead of being treated as a second rate sport.

Psst: Espn made hockey a second rate sport when they had the NHL. Nothing is going to change if they get it back. ESPN is pretty insignificant.

[RowdyFan42]

Methinks MantaRay has me on ignore...

[MantaRay]

Methinks MantaRay has me on ignore...

Never Rowdy. Just wanted to reinforce to those who seem to forget that ESPN HAD the NHL contract what a crappy and incompetent job they did for Hockey.

[adavid]

Never Rowdy. Just wanted to reinforce to those who seem to forget that ESPN HAD the NHL contract what a crappy and incompetent job they did for Hockey.

Yea. Remember "Thursday Night Hockey"?

[MantaRay]

Yea. Remember "Thursday Night Hockey"?

Yes, they basically threw the NHL to the wolves up on Thursday night against NBC's must see TV and TNT NBA games (brilliant) which dominated the 18-34 ratings during the night.

They then ran the NHL when ever they had a hole in the schedule. On Versus, they have a set schedule which is why the rating are much better than on ESPN.

[Devils1985]

ESPN, because "eh... what the hell, right?"

My vote actually goes to anyone who broadcasts in Ewing, NJ.. MSG+ doesn't and Versus is blacked out when MSG+ also has the games (like during the playoffs) so I get fvcked.. But hey it's cool that I can get Flyers games on 2 different channels NOT!

Sorry, I just felt like venting...

ESPN would be blacked out too though. Rangers on Vs have been blacked out when on MSG; but like you said the Flyers were available on both Vs and the Comcast channel. Which is really weird since you'd think they'd want to push people to comcast sportsnet (Sportsnet has also shown other teams with Comcast connections like the Caps and Hawks, which is awfully nice of them).

I vote Vs because I think they do a good job with one glaring issue that I must bring up....

It seems like every time there's a scrum after a whistle, they cut away to some one picking their nose or something. I understand if they need to go to commerical; that's not my problem. My problem is when they stay with the broadcast, but cut away from the scrum - then go back just as it's ending. I've literally screamed at the TV sometimes when they do this.