Is ESPN Killing the NHL? - Great article

[mmorland 16]

Today's sports blogging must-read comes from Jason Chung, a fellow at The Project on Law and Mind Sciences at Harvard University Law School. Blogging at The Situationist, Chung, a native of Quebec, Canada who has written extensively about the intersection of sport and law, takes a hard look at the deleterious effects of the NHL ending its television relationship with ESPN, and how the end of that business relationship has led the "worldwide leader" to purposely reinforce the notion that the league is failing:

The reduced exposure on ESPN can only be harmful to the NHL. By minimizing coverage and highlights, the network is effectively reducing the imprint of the game on Americans’ collective sports consciousness. Worse still, several ESPN writers and commentators have gone out of their way to emphasize the demise of hockey. Le Ann Schreiber recently noted that during the NHL’s regular season, hockey was only mentioned on-air if there happened to be “some egregious brawl” or if it was being “dissed” for its invisibility and irrelevance.

In sharp contrast to the treatment of the NHL, ESPN favorites such as NASCAR face little scrutiny and massive hype. Once a niche sport with limited appeal, NASCAR is ESPN’s new hot property and has found itself to be the chief beneficiary of the network’s downgrading of hockey. Northwest News Group columnist Kevin Kaduk notes that since ESPN’s purchase of NASCAR broadcast rights, the network has been force-feeding the sport to its readers via its various news outlets. Indeed in January 2007, ESPN senior vice president Jed Drake explicitly promised as much. Unlike its coverage of the NHL, ESPN has shown remarkable patience with NASCAR as evidenced by its burying or putting a positive spin on negative NASCAR news such as that of falling TV ratings for the sport.

Later, Chung notes that ESPN's actions are having a deeper and far more corrosive effect on the sport:

Surely, ESPN’s attitude towards hockey influences its audience. Herbert C. Kelman of Harvard University notes that there are three source characteristics necessary to persuade others and change their attitudes: the source’s (1) expertise, (2) trustworthiness, and (3) power. Of course, ESPN scores a hat trick by (1) regularly hosting a series of experts on various sporting subjects, (2) hosting several hard-news sports programs, and (3) attracting sports’ heavy hitters to its airwaves. Thus, ESPN can exert informational and normative social influence on sports fans who, like the rest of us, seek consensus and conformity far more than we realize.

No kidding. Over the past number of months, we've seen this conformity play out in the press over and over again, as news of the NHL's low television ratings get repeated weeks after the end of the Stanley Cup Finals, in the repetitive columns of Norman Chad or the on-air rantings of ESPN's Tony Kornheiser.

So what's the solution? For one, as others have noted before, it's always a good time to note the downside of ESPN's absolute dominance over televised sports. At the end of the day, what we're talking about above are simply the techniques that ESPN is using to attack the NHL and run it down in the eyes of the American sports fan. Why do that? Because every fan that can be convinced that Versus is too hard to find, or that hockey is the sport of the past -- despite the fact that more Americans are playing the sport today than ever before -- means more sports fans who can be force fed whatever ESPN might be fronting at the time -- be it MLS, Poker, or even the WNBA.

Here's an idea -- why not treat ESPN personalities like Mike Greenburg who run down the sport the same way we ought to treat anybody who has too much power?

Fight the power. Question authority. Think for yourself. Watch hockey.

Thanks to old sports blogging hand Michael McCann for the pointer.

People forget the chain of events with the NHL and ESPN but ESPN first relegated the NHL to ESPN2 in the final year of the NHL's contract with ABC and ESPN until the Conference Finals. ESPN then went ahead and canceled NHL2nite in the middle of the season.

After the season was over ESPN flat out refused to put any games on ABC (this was when ESPN was taking over the ABC Sports department) and signed a two year deal with the NHL with an out clasue after one season.

The lockout hit and after the NHL announced their return, ESPN exercised their out clause and tried to seriously lowball the NHL.

Personally, I don't blame the NHL for saying enough is enough and going to a channel "as hard to find as Versus is."

Secondly, like all great empires, ESPN is crumbling from underneath their own weight. More and more sports fans are becoming fed up with their New York Centric coverage and hype. 10 years ago wasn't a good time to challenge ESPN but right now ESPN is ripe for the picking.

Could Versus be that challenger and can the NHL provide the vehicle? It remains to be seen but why should the NHL settle for being treated like a red-headed step-child just because they're ESPN? Look at the coverage the MLS gets from ESPN. They too are relegated to ESPN2 and all throughout last week's D.C. United-Colorado Rapids game we were treated to in game updates on the NBA Draft (which was on ESPN) and the commentators started talking about the NBA and NBA players during an MLS game. Why should any league put up with that?

http://www.ericmcerlain.com/offwingopinion...7668.php#007668

Edited February 12, 2008 by mmorland

[Superman54 91]

Thank god I live in Canada!!!

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Bettman and espn can both marry each other and go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with hockey being a niche sport for us hardcore fans. Anyone else is too stupid or too racist to enjoy hockey just because it wasn't invented in the U.S.

[mmorland 16]

I agree that it's really frustrating.

[jim3033 1]

It doesn't take a Harvard education to know which way the wind blows.

[juice71285 2]

I am not surprised that ESPN is starting to suffer. I started to notice it especially when they started showing poker, even though it was the hot thing at the time, instead of other sports. What about the fact that Monday Night Football is the least watched football game, with exception to the games on NFL Network for obvious reasons. NBC has become a strong sports contender now, which is probably a good thing for the NHL even though its only half a season. CBS has probably become the true new powerhouse of the sports world. Fox is strong because they are starting to show a majority of the important sporting events (Super Bowl, MLB playoffs, Daytona 500, etc.). Versus, while not available to many at this point, is growing rather quickly amongst service providers and even though I'm not a fan of MMA or bull riding many other people are. This could be advantageous to the NHL in that these shows usually come on after a hockey game. So if the game is close late or goes to overtime or shootout, people that generally watch those other shows might catch these games and become interested since it was exciting to watch.

Going back to ESPN however they seem to be like the tabloids of the sports world. Whatever the hottest ticket is at the time is what they are going to show. I guess I could say unfortunately for them, but I am not, is that many leagues are not interested in just being showcased at ESPN's next top model. There are only so many sports in the world you can show and even fewer that the Americans are going to watch.

As for the east coast bias, its not surprising since a majority of Americans live in the east, especially New England. While as a whole the country could give a hoot, most New Englanders are glad that ESPN is around.

Edited February 12, 2008 by juice71285

[Echolalia 2,961]

Bettman and espn can both marry each other and go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with hockey being a niche sport for us hardcore fans. Anyone else is too stupid or too racist to enjoy hockey just because it wasn't invented in the U.S.

If the facts in this article are true, then this could be Bettman's greatest move; sticking up for the nhl and not putting up with a totalitarian networking scheme.

[Sting 11 0]

I agree with the article for the most part, except where it discusses NASCAR...I think although ESPN got a chunk of the NASCAR deal, it still treats it as second class, especially on shows like Around the Horn and PTI, where it receives the same contempt that hockey receives.

On to the point of the article, I too am completely sick of the arrogance of ESPN and eagerly await the network's downfall. If it's not football, baseball, basketball, or (strangely enough) golf, it gets second class treatment on the network, at best. I'm so much more a fan of Fox Sports Final Score show than SportsCenter...it's fast-paced and highlight driven without the fluff pieces, it covers hockey on an equal level, plus it's sidebar rundown was completely ripped off by SportsCenter.

[esteef 2,679]

I hope ESPN does start to suffer, cause I don't give a s*** about poker, or NASCAR, or anything from New York or New England! And I damned sure don't give a s*** about the WNBA!

BTW, Chris Berman's an egotistical prick!

I feel better,

esteef

Edited February 12, 2008 by esteef

[Mudvayneowns91 0]

I watch ESPN a lot and i'll notice when they're covering the NHL, it's like they don't even give a damn about it. Like today, I was watching ESPN's top ten plays of the week. One of the best plays was Ryan Shannon's goal against Khabibulin. The ESPN analyst who was commentating on the play called Shannon "Moore" twice even though his jersey clearly said Shannon. It's not that big of a deal, but for taking the time to have it on the top ten, they should get the names right. Also, I watch PTI and Around the Horn a lot and they often will take little jabs at the NHL.

Edited February 12, 2008 by Mudvayneowns91

[auxlepli 17]

Remember that Barenaked Ladies song, It's All Been Done. That's a great song.

Anyway I can't really add much that hasn't already been done before.

Versus does a great job with the NHL. I just wish they'd show more games. To solve that I wouldn't mind seeing some games on ESPN. The four-letter entity does treat the NHL poorly though. It's been proven time and time again.

[sinbin 3]

Who needs ESPN when we have the internet?

I was born a jock & sports has always been my bloodline. I died & went to heaven when ESPN came. It was great in it's infancy stages. Since then, it is no different from any other channel...it's all about the ratings.....enough said.......see ya ESPN!.....good luck....you'll need it!

[Zion 93]

I am still a big fan of MMA, even though I watch it much less now that it is more mainstream, and ESPN still chooses to snub it. I don't mind that hockey is more of a niche sport, either. ESPN is certainly not the be-all and end-all of sports. People are just easily convinced of such things.

[Lidsyukerberg 0]

As far as I'm concerned I like the idea that hockey is a niche sport, whenever a sport gets too many fans and gets too big, it gets watered down and the athletes start turning into showboating jerks. Plus who wants to go watch a hockey game in an arena the size of a football stadium? The nosebleed seats would be pointless. I don't know how they managed during that outdoor game. As it is right now there is no bad seat in Joe Louis, sure it's nice to sit close, but the nosebleeds are good too (almost better from a vantage point aspect).

Besides that...

NASCAR is ESPN’s new hot property

I couldn't care less if the hillbillies don't like hockey. The last thing we need is a hillbilly team called "The Good Ol' Boys" with the rebel flag on their jersey and cinder blocks holding up the benches. Plus, I think an intermission tractor pull would spoil the game for me. And the organ is a tradition, I just don't think a banjo, a guitar and a jug are going to feel quite the same.

[eva unit zero 271]

I love it. People rip on Bettman all the time for not accepting a lowball offer from ESPN...and then turn around and say ESPN was bad for hockey even when they showed it.

So, what's being said is "Bettman sucks, because he stuck up for hockey rather than keeping hockey on ESPN where it would be truly marginalized."

[JayUp88 1]

I like watching ESPN because I enjoy most every sport but NBA, but this guy is right. ESPN is close to falling in on itself. VS could could come up with a head to head battle if it go on enough TV out there.

[auxlepli 17]

I love it. People rip on Bettman all the time for not accepting a lowball offer from ESPN...and then turn around and say ESPN was bad for hockey even when they showed it.

So, what's being said is "Bettman sucks, because he stuck up for hockey rather than keeping hockey on ESPN where it would be truly marginalized."

You mean people like Chelios?

[sinbin 3]

As far as I'm concerned I like the idea that hockey is a niche sport, whenever a sport gets too many fans and gets too big, it gets watered down and the athletes start turning into showboating jerks. Plus who wants to go watch a hockey game in an arena the size of a football stadium? The nosebleed seats would be pointless. I don't know how they managed during that outdoor game. As it is right now there is no bad seat in Joe Louis, sure it's nice to sit close, but the nosebleeds are good too (almost better from a vantage point aspect).

Besides that...

I couldn't care less if the hillbillies don't like hockey. The last thing we need is a hillbilly team called "The Good Ol' Boys" with the rebel flag on their jersey and cinder blocks holding up the benches. Plus, I think an intermission tractor pull would spoil the game for me. And the organ is a tradition, I just don't think a banjo, a guitar and a jug are going to feel quite the same.

I can hear "Deliverance" in the background! :hockeysmile: :violin:

[Dabura 12,232]

The NHL is killing the NHL.

[mmorland 16]

I'm glad to see this article is getting some buzz on here. I was just looking at an old SI from 1993 and ESPN deemed the NHL the "next hot thing" and the NBA was on the downfall.

cracks me up :rotflmao:

[dirac 0]

I am very glad that I am not the only person out there who feels that ESPN and hockey no longer mix. ESPN is to sports as MTV is to music. The network has become more important than the sport. The fact that they own an interest in one of the sports they broadcast (arena football) shows a complete lack of objectivity of the network. It has officially ceased to be a sports network. Don't get me started on ESPN's "original programming."

Long live Vs. They need more games on it. On the bright side, Sidney was on the cover of a national magazine this month. Either Men's Health or Guy's Health, it was Syd on the cover. Seriously, when was the last time an NHL athlete was featured outside of the hockey realm for something other than trying to kill his opponent (Bertuzzi ref for those following at home). Hate him or love the kid, he is MARKETABLE! Much like Fedorov of the early 90's the league really needs to get these kids noticed. When was the last time (rehtorical) the league had such an amazing crop of youth? Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Stalls, Toews...could be a future yet.

LONG LIVE HOCKEY, LONG LIVE THE WINGS

[babygorilla 1]

Glad I get CBC here in metro Detroit. Vs. is slowly getting watchable, but nothing beats CBC. Those old bastards do the game the right way.

[Vista Master 0]

This was a great article. I am glad that people are starting to voice their disdain for ESPN. The glaring truth of this is that they have forgotten the name of their own sports network. It's not MBSPN (Money Buys Sports Programming Network). Its Entertainment and Sports Programming Network! I don't see anywhere in that name that says some sports or only the ones that pay big money.

I for one like Versus - they have significantly improved their production of NHL games. And NBC with the Game of the Week is doing a very good job of advertising the game and then producing the game. Who knows, maybe NBC decides to get a bigger stake in the NHL in the future...

The other network, NHL Network, is finally here in the states, although not as widely available as Versus, but its getting there.

And lets not forget the Fox Sports networks. Their coverage is getting better and better.

So, maybe the ESPN divorce will end up being a good thing for the NHL. Hopefully, it'll be ESPN that ends up on the short end of the stick.

[Drimo 0]

Let's be real here, there is no alternative to ESPN's ability to direct attention. To say the NHL doesn't need ESPN is bulls***. Versus, while it is claimed to be a nationally available channel, has nowhere near the capability ESPN has. Many fans don't even get Versus because their cable provider has not picked up the channel! (That's my situation.)

Here is an example: yesterday several of my friends who do not care one bit about hockey all talked to me about Zednik. I am sure they saw it on Sportscenter. I completely avoid ESPN since they are so anti-hockey, but for several individuals to know about Zednik's accident I was pretty happy hockey got some coverage. Most people forget hockey even exists, so when it is on a channel like ESPN where it has the ability to draw in a large interest nationwide, it is clear that hockey needs ESPN to give better coverage.

[auxlepli 17]

Many fans don't even get Versus because their cable provider has not picked up the channel! (That's my situation.)

That's hardly Versus' and the NHL's fault?

Blame the cable provider and ESPN. They're probably working in concert anyway.