NBC/VS get the new NHL TV Deal: 10 yr/$2B Exclusive Rights
-
rock_knutne
I understand that in the big picture those are the "eyes" you want but is it something the NHL can obtain? That's why IMO they should take the sure bet and cater to the diehards. Also, the NHL has goals of going, "per say", global, not so much with franchises or a foreign affiliate league but TV rights, so to say they want to keep the league within American borders is not entirely true, especially when they are playing exhibitions and early season games in Europe.gorocks99;747076 wrote:Just a thought, but I think the NHL worries, rightly or wrongly, about being seen as a "foreign" sport in this country if they expand too much into Canada. If they moved teams to say, Quebec, Winnipeg and Hamilton, you'd have 1/3 of the league playing north of the border and they might worry that American fans would start to tune out if the playoffs is Hamliton versus Ottawa, Vancouver versus Calgary, Quebec versus Montreal. Die hards wouldn't, but I bet they worry the "casual" fan would.
Plus, the money maker is audience size (because size = ad and sponsorship dollars) and the eyeballs are going to come from the country with 300 million people, 20% of whom watch hockey, before they come from the country with 35 million people where 70% watch hockey.
However, I absolutely believe the NHL needs to be smarter about where their teams are located. Phoenix is a failed experiment. Fort Lauderdale? Turrible. Nashville is lucky to have a team that competes or it would be deadsville. Columbus, despite my fandom, was a poor choice for expansion.
I'm lucky that we have the Pens here in Pittsburgh, every game is televised locally and the media coverage is wall to wall. -
gorocks99
Fair point on the European exhibitions, although I think some of that is a show to ingrain the KHL as second-rate to the NHL in the minds of young Europeans players. -
ts1227
rock_knutne;747007 wrote:Totally agree with that move. I also could never figure out why Hamilton Ontario can't get an NHL franchise.
Pretty sure Hartford is still trying to get a team back as well. -
gorocks99
Hartford would be awesome, but only if they bring this back:
[video=youtube;6bwZbWZhAaM][/video] -
End of Line
I forgot about the Brass Bonanza haha. -
rock_knutneWith the new rules and salary cap, all these former small market NHL cities would have a fair chance to succeed.
-
ts1227
rock_knutne;747127 wrote:With the new rules and salary cap, all these former small market NHL cities would have a fair chance to succeed.
All they need is Bettman to swallow his pride (or whatever he has) and admit that his shifting of teams into the South and West was a massive failure. But, they keep on fighting it with everything they have because they still think what they have now is right. -
End of Line
ts1227;747187 wrote:All they need is Bettman to swallow his pride (or whatever he has) and admit that his shifting of teams into the South and West was a massive failure. But, they keep on fighting it with everything they have because they still think what they have now is right.
Anaheim, San Jose, Los Angeles, Dallas, Colorado, Nashville, Carolina, and Tampa Bay have done very well.
The teams than need to move Phoenix (pretty much a given), Atlanta, and Florida. -
jordo212000
Would you prefer empty stadiums in apathetic markets? The NHL would be wise to get some teams back in Canada. Putting hockey teams in Atlanta and Phoenix was absolutely laughable. People living in these cities have undoubtedly probably never had the chance to play ice hockey. And now you want these people to automatically become fans?Just a thought, but I think the NHL worries, rightly or wrongly, about being seen as a "foreign" sport in this country if they expand too much into Canada. If they moved teams to say, Quebec, Winnipeg and Hamilton, you'd have 1/3 of the league playing north of the border and they might worry that American fans would start to tune out if the playoffs is Hamliton versus Ottawa, Vancouver versus Calgary, Quebec versus Montreal. Die hards wouldn't, but I bet they worry the "casual" fan would.
Plus, the money maker is audience size (because size = ad and sponsorship dollars) and the eyeballs are going to come from the country with 300 million people, 20% of whom watch hockey, before they come from the country with 35 million people where 70% watch hockey. -
gorocks99
The_Crosby_Show;747211 wrote:Anaheim, San Jose, Los Angeles, Dallas, Colorado, Nashville, Carolina, and Tampa Bay have done very well.
The teams than need to move Phoenix (pretty much a given), Atlanta, and Florida.
The attendance numbers for any of those teams you listed above haven't been great - although I will note that Nashville did do better this year. Florida, Atlanta and Phoenix are definitely consistent bottom-dwellers. Sadly, the Blue Jackets are next in line after them.
**Indicates the team was a playoff team
Teams in bold have been bottom 10 each of the past three years.
2010/2011 Home Attendance (% of capacity)
20 Lightning 87.8%**
21 Hurricanes 87.5%
22 Ducks 85.8%**
23 Devils 83.8%
24 Avalanche 81.9%
25 Stars 81.3%
26 Panthers 81.3%
27 Blue Jackets 73.6%
28 Thrashers 72.3%
29 Coyotes 71.3%**
30 NY Islanders 68.1%
2009/2010 Home Attendance (% of capacity)
20 Ducks 88.3%
21 Devils 88.1%**
22 Predators 87.5%**
23 Blue Jackets 85.0%
24 Hurricanes 81.4%
25 Panthers 78.7%
26 Lightning 78.4%
27 NY Islanders 78.1%
28 Avalanche 77.5%
29 Thrashers 73.4%
30 Coyotes 68.5%**
2008/2009 Home Attendance (% of capacity)
20 Kings 89.1%
21 Hurricanes 88.5%**
22 Blues 88.4%
23 Predators 87.7%
24 Blue Jackets 85.7%**
25 Avalanche 85.7%
26 Lightning 85.6%
27 Coyotes 85.0%
28 NY Islanders 84.5%
29 Panthers 81.2%
30 Thrashers 78.9% -
gorocks99
jordo212000;747217 wrote:Would you prefer empty stadiums in apathetic markets? The NHL would be wise to get some teams back in Canada. Putting hockey teams in Atlanta and Phoenix was absolutely laughable. People living in these cities have undoubtedly probably never had the chance to play ice hockey. And now you want these people to automatically become fans?
Was this directed toward me or rock? -
End of Line
In defense of the lightning, their attendance should be higher due to them making the playoffs and re-signing Stamkos in the off-season.
Carolina is a great market when they're in the playoffs.
Colorado is going through a rebuild right now. Not many people want to witness that, just look at Columbus's numbers for that. Also, Colorado has some of the highest priced tickets as well. -
gorocks99
The_Crosby_Show;747222 wrote:In defense of the lightning, their attendance should be higher due to them making the playoffs and re-signing Stamkos in the off-season.
Carolina is a great market when they're in the playoffs.
Colorado is going through a rebuild right now. Not many people want to witness that, just look at Columbus's numbers for that. Also, Colorado has some of the highest priced tickets as well.
Honestly, the issue with Tampa is that they play in a cavern of an arena. St Pete Times Forum is a freakin massive place. The Bolts still averaged 17k+ this year, but their arena holds 21k+. Columbus isn't really in rebuild mode, they're still in "build" mode. To rebuild you would've had to have something there to begin with. They're the market, outside of PHX/FLA/ATL, that is most worrisome, not just because their fans aren't showing up anymore but because the team isn't relevant and it's gonna take winning - consistently - to get them back. Unless the front office decides to get off their duffs and do something about it this offseason, I don't expect any change in the near future. -
Classyposter58
California is an excellent hockey market though. They've really taken to it out there. With that being said how about a team in Wisconsin and maybe like Manchester. I mean there are some great untapped hockey markets. Milwaukee would be a solid choice or Green Bay even -
jordo212000
I was posting on my phone, I guess it was technically directed at you. It was in response to your point that moving more teams into Canada might be a mistake because even though they are more passionate... there are far fewer Canadians.gorocks99;747221 wrote:Was this directed toward me or rock?
My point was that the NHL would probably care more about getting into markets that "care" about hockey and their teams at this point rather than market potential. The ratings stuff is now NBC and Vs.'s problem. The NHL just got paid from the new media contract.
The league will be a far better place when the Coyotes become rechristened the Winnipeg Jets and other mistakes move Northwards. -
End of Line
If there was going to be a team in Wisky, it'd be in Milwaukee.
-
jordo212000
Midstate01;746817 wrote:I'm sorta glad espn didn't get it. I'd rather watch mid
major bball games or more NBA games. Hockey has just fallen off for me so much in the last few years. I can't watch a game till the playoffs, then I gotta find the vs network somewhere on the tv.
I'll never be accused of being a hockey fan, but I would actually prefer that ESPN get a small slice of the pie. At least they would promote it a little more. ESPN pimping women's college basketball was just laughable. They arent exactly subtle when they are trying to push something. I remember when they were on the Arena League kick a few years ago. smh. That's why ESPN is losing some legitimacy, they try to create news rather than cover it.
I just feel bad for NHL fans mainly though. I'd hate to see ESPN do to my sport (baseball) what they are trying to do to the NHL. They bury the NHL and act as if nobody cares about it, but when you look around it is still very popular. I just hope that NBC can help VS. become a real threat to ESPN, because at the end of the day it will make ESPN better -
End of Line
VS is being re-branded at the end of the playoffs I believe.
-
ts1227
The_Crosby_Show;747306 wrote:VS is being re-branded at the end of the playoffs I believe.
I saw that in one of the articles, but unfortunately it doesn't change the fact that it isn't distributed worth a shit. -
jordo212000
ts1227;747308 wrote:I saw that in one of the articles, but unfortunately it doesn't change the fact that it isn't distributed worth a shit.
I have a feeling that this new deal and their alliance with NBC will probably help them get better placement and wider distribution. -
Laley23
jordo212000;747310 wrote:I have a feeling that this new deal and their alliance with NBC will probably help them get better placement and wider distribution.
They gotta lower their asking price from the cable companies first. They are for a pretty penny when all the cover is Hockey. I hope it happens, cause Versus in more homes is good for everything sports, but at the current time...not many cable companies will add it to their cheap packages, cause it costs them too much to carry for the amount of people who want it -
ts1227
Laley23;747444 wrote:They gotta lower their asking price from the cable companies first. They are for a pretty penny when all the cover is Hockey. I hope it happens, cause Versus in more homes is good for everything sports, but at the current time...not many cable companies will add it to their cheap packages, cause it costs them too much to carry for the amount of people who want it
This. You cover the NHL and Tour de France. Charge a price that is commensurate with that offering.
Also, sorry for the "edit" laley, I hit edit instead of quote originally when I went to post this. -
End of Line
An Inside Look at the NHL TV Deal
http://puckthemedia.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/an-inside-look-at-the-nhl-tv-deal/Though the two are friends, Bettman had a tough message to deliver: Days earlier, ESPN told the league that it would make an aggressive bid on the NHL’s media package. Bettman told Roberts that ESPN’s planned bid of $160 million to $170 million per year would test NBC’s and Versus’ right-to-match clause, which several media executives described as the tightest such clause they had ever seen. The clause gave NBC the right to match any deal the NHL signed with another network.
But it would be hard for NBC to match ESPN’s planned offer. ESPN told the NHL that it would televise every Stanley Cup playoff game nationally. ESPN said that it would stream the games to authenticated broadband and mobile users. And ESPN guaranteed an international component as part of its planned offer. ESPN’s deal would include a regular-season Game of the Week, but it was not making the broadcast network ABC available. The details were new for Roberts, who did not want to lose the NHL. In early discussions with the league, the NBC Sports Group had resisted the idea of televising every Stanley Cup playoff game nationally. And Comcast could not match ESPN’s streaming plans or international offerings.
It was clear to Roberts that ESPN’s plan was expansive enough that NBC would have trouble matching. He assured Bettman that his company would come up with a plan.