Sounds like more Versus/NBC for the next few years

[paul19010 14]

ESPN wouldn't shove the NHL down the throats of anyone.

You have to follow the money with the way ESPN treated the NHL when it was on. They simply do not give hockey enough attention to warrant such a substantial difference in a contract offer.

Hire Gary Thorne to NBC, and I guarantee you half of the criticisms of this deal would go away.

Yeah, they need to get Thorne and Clement, hockey is not the same without them.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

Simple economics? The simplification is on your part about the NHL, how the game has changed, and what ESPN's incentives are.

MLS is on ESPN. How much coverage does the MLS get on ESPN outside of the games? By your argument, ESPN has the 'economic' incentive to cover the MLS more because it shows the games. However, MLS is not a prominent subject on ESPN. When the NHL was on ESPN, there was less coverage than the other three major sports. Why do you assume this will immediately change?

Your argument about ESPN's incentives isn't clear, nor correct. If the NHL can earn ESPN significantly more revenue than they currently have, than they would have made a larger offer. The 'economics' of the subject is that the NFL and NCCA make the most money for ESPN. Therefore, they commit to most time to them. What do you think the viewership of ESPN wants- to hear about Favre sending nude pictures, or about the Wings/Phoenix series? While everyone on this forum would prefer the Wings, ESPN knows that Favre's penis will get them more viewers and thus more money.

ESPN doesn't specifically cover the MLS but they do cover soccer more than they cover the NHL and you damn well know that is because they carry soccer on their family of stations. ESPN has the economic incentive to cover soccer, not necessarily the MLS specifically.

It's really not that big of a stretch to assume that ESPN would cover the NHL more if they had it on their network. The NHL wouldn't earn ESPN the kind of money that the NFL and college football does, and it never would, but what it does is expand the NHL to an audience that Versus simply cannot. Exposure is the most important factor to the NHL. Exposrue is the most important factor to any niche sport. If you increase the exposure of your sport you can attract new money. New money means larger, more lucrative TV deals. I recognize that more lucrative TV deals have resulted from the relationship with Versus/NBC but my argument is that exposure on ESPN would lead to even more lucrative TV deals.

It's really not a simplification nor difficult to understand. Well, if you are looking at it as a fan, which you clearly are, then it is extremely difficult if not impossible to understand.

The NHL will never surpass the NFL in the US. Expecting ESPN to devote equal time to the NHL as they do to the NFL is a pipe dream. This doesn't discount the vast amount of exposure that ESPN can provide to the NHL.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Howard He Do It?!

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

ESPN did slight the NHL. You can google quotes by ESPN executives that stated they made a huge mistake with their last contract they had with the NHL.

Let's so you worked for a talent agency as a talent and after your time together ended they said hiring you was a huge mistake, especially with the deal they had with you.

Now they want you back as you have become very lucrative but a smaller firm is offering you substantially more money and willing to put you at the forfront of their enterprise and they are in the process of major expansion.

I know who I'd sign with.

Mark Shapiro did make many disparaging remarks concerning the NHL but he is no longer employed by ESPN. The NHL has changed and ESPN's stance on the NHL has changed. ESPN was involved in negotiations with the NHL right until the very end and it wasn't just for fun.

Many executives inside the NHL favored ESPN, believing a deal with the network would guarantee more coverage on popular shows like "SportsCenter."

Link

Seems that those remarks haven't had a lasting impact on many.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

ESPN doesn't specifically cover the MLS but they do cover soccer more than they cover the NHL and you damn well know that is because they carry soccer on their family of stations. ESPN has the economic incentive to cover soccer, not necessarily the MLS specifically.

It's really not that big of a stretch to assume that ESPN would cover the NHL more if they had it on their network. The NHL wouldn't earn ESPN the kind of money that the NFL and college football does, and it never would, but what it does is expand the NHL to an audience that Versus simply cannot. Exposure is the most important factor to the NHL. Exposrue is the most important factor to any niche sport. If you increase the exposure of your sport you can attract new money. New money means larger, more lucrative TV deals. I recognize that more lucrative TV deals have resulted from the relationship with Versus/NBC but my argument is that exposure on ESPN would lead to even more lucrative TV deals.

It's really not a simplification nor difficult to understand. Well, if you are looking at it as a fan, which you clearly are, then it is extremely difficult if not impossible to understand.

The NHL will never surpass the NFL in the US. Expecting ESPN to devote equal time to the NHL as they do to the NFL is a pipe dream. This doesn't discount the vast amount of exposure that ESPN can provide to the NHL.

I would argue that ESPN does not cover soccer more than they cover the NHL. I haven't watched much ESPN in the last year, so I cannot verify this myself.

Would ESPN cover the NHL more if it was on ESPN? Of course, but would this amount- combined with one game a night on ESPN2- be more exposure than the NHL will get on NBC/Versus playing three times as many games?

I am not looking at it as a fan. I am thinking long-term whereas you are thinking short-term. Would the NHL see an immediate spike from being on ESPN- yes. However, the NHL will likely never earn ESPN close to as much as the NFL or NCAA. Therefore, there isn't much time for the NHL to gain on ESPN. NHL would always be the third, fourth, or fifth priority to ESPN. NBC/Versus is a growing team- they were just formed. Versus will be getting NCAA, Olympics, NHL, etc. There is no reason to think that NBC/Versus won't grow in sports over the next few years.

Despite being on OLN/Versus, the NHL has managed to grow. The NBC takeover/merger with Versus (the parent company) will only grow the network. This growing network has NHL as a top priority- offering to play at least three times the amount of games as ESPN. As I said, ESPN plays almost as many MLS games as they would NHL games. This isn't enough for the NHL to gain the exposure you're expecting.

You're severely overestimating the ESPN effect. One game a week on ESPN 2, which is about what the MLS gets, is not going to make hockey main-stream.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

I would argue that ESPN does not cover soccer more than they cover the NHL. I haven't watched much ESPN in the last year, so I cannot verify this myself.

I can confirm that they definitely cover hockey way more than soccer on all their big shows. Although maybe now that NBC has won the rights to broadcast hockey ESPN will dial down their coverage.

[Konnan511 1,736]

Mark Shapiro did make many disparaging remarks concerning the NHL but he is no longer employed by ESPN. The NHL has changed and ESPN's stance on the NHL has changed. ESPN was involved in negotiations with the NHL right until the very end and it wasn't just for fun.

Seems that those remarks haven't had a lasting impact on many.

Many executives could be 15 out 60. Many people at my college are black. 1,500 that is. That's 8%. It's all what we deem many to be.

We know if it was the majority, they would have signed with ESPN, but we know it wasn't the majority.

If everyone is saying you're wrong, you're probably wrong. I admire you for being stubborn and sticking to your guns, but come on brah.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

This discussion is pointless until you stop acting like the NHL product hasn't changed since it was on ESPN and that ESPN somehow slighted the NHL.

ESPN lowballed the NHL and kept them to the dark corner in the room when it came to broadcasting. Even if the game was bad (In the early 00s it really wasn't bad at all) then, ESPN lost a growing product and now NBC and Versus are doing a bang up job of bringing money and fans into the NHL. All I can see from you now is twirling round and round with the assumption that signing with ESPN will somehow be a better option for the long run simply due to the "target audience" it has, despite your repeated statements that no matter what it will be considered a "niche" sport.

The NHL will do fine. They have been and will continue to do so.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

ESPN lowballed the NHL and kept them to the dark corner in the room when it came to broadcasting. Even if the game was bad (In the early 00s it really wasn't bad at all) then, ESPN lost a growing product and now NBC and Versus are doing a bang up job of bringing money and fans into the NHL. All I can see from you now is twirling round and round with the assumption that signing with ESPN will somehow be a better option for the long run simply due to the "target audience" it has, despite your repeated statements that no matter what it will be considered a "niche" sport.

The NHL will do fine. They have been and will continue to do so.

Agreed, I think one of things overlooked here is the network wanting to promote the sport. With ESPN's bid, it seems like they were simply trying to gain the NHL fans (and, possibly more important, take ratings away from an up and coming ESPN competitor), whereas Versus wants to grow the game. NBC/Versus can put NHL commercials on USA,NBC,CNBC,MSNBC, etc to gain attention. It is obvious that Versus is vested in growing the NHL, while ESPN would not have the same marketing.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

I would argue that ESPN does not cover soccer more than they cover the NHL. I haven't watched much ESPN in the last year, so I cannot verify this myself.

Would ESPN cover the NHL more if it was on ESPN? Of course, but would this amount- combined with one game a night on ESPN2- be more exposure than the NHL will get on NBC/Versus playing three times as many games?

I am not looking at it as a fan. I am thinking long-term whereas you are thinking short-term. Would the NHL see an immediate spike from being on ESPN- yes. However, the NHL will likely never earn ESPN close to as much as the NFL or NCAA. Therefore, there isn't much time for the NHL to gain on ESPN. NHL would always be the third, fourth, or fifth priority to ESPN. NBC/Versus is a growing team- they were just formed. Versus will be getting NCAA, Olympics, NHL, etc. There is no reason to think that NBC/Versus won't grow in sports over the next few years.

Despite being on OLN/Versus, the NHL has managed to grow. The NBC takeover/merger with Versus (the parent company) will only grow the network. This growing network has NHL as a top priority- offering to play at least three times the amount of games as ESPN. As I said, ESPN plays almost as many MLS games as they would NHL games. This isn't enough for the NHL to gain the exposure you're expecting.

You're severely overestimating the ESPN effect. One game a week on ESPN 2, which is about what the MLS gets, is not going to make hockey main-stream.

I watch ESPN on a pretty regular basis and their soccer coverage definitely outpaces their hockey coverage. ESPN is covering a bit more hockey now since it is the playoffs, but this is the exception, not the rule.

Versus is still a premium cable channel for those who do not subscribe to Comcast cable while ESPN is included in many basic cable packages. That alone leads to more exposure.

Your long term plans assume that this growth created by Comcast's purchase of NBC is sustainable and profitable. We saw how Comcast dealt with DirecTV concerning Versus. Any kind of these tactics in the future would be detrimental to the re-branded Versus. The re-branded Versus will be in direct competition with ESPN, who essentially has had a monopoly on sports coverage in the US. It's going to be tough to break into ESPN's market, especially when your front runner is considered a niche sport in the US. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is going to be very difficult.

You are also assuming that the re-branded Versus secures right to college football games. Currently they are bidding on Pac-10 games. There is no guarantee that they will get them. Also, those mid major games that they currently show are a joke. The Olympics are nice, but anything worthwhile will be reserved for NBC for the primetime broadcasts. Plus, only occurring every 2 years, the Olympics don't offer enough of an impact to be a major selling point. Also consider that NBC's ratings have been slipping during Olympic coverage.

I worry that the re-branding of Versus and the move to secure college football will eventually lead to the NHL being placed on the back burner. You said yourself that college and pro football sell better for ESPN than the NHL does. Why would it be any different on the re-branded Versus? If the NHL ends up being pushed back in favor of football, it would make since for the NHL to hop on with ESPN since they reach more viewers.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

ESPN lowballed the NHL and kept them to the dark corner in the room when it came to broadcasting. Even if the game was bad (In the early 00s it really wasn't bad at all) then, ESPN lost a growing product and now NBC and Versus are doing a bang up job of bringing money and fans into the NHL. All I can see from you now is twirling round and round with the assumption that signing with ESPN will somehow be a better option for the long run simply due to the "target audience" it has, despite your repeated statements that no matter what it will be considered a "niche" sport.

The NHL will do fine. They have been and will continue to do so.

ESPN low balled the NHL coming out of the lockout because it was a toxic asset. There is a reason that the NHL ended up on OLN and it wasn't because OLN had a giant audience. It is widely known that the NHL probably would have given ESPN TV rights back for around $57 million if it wasn't for the remarks of Mark Shapiro. Even today, there are plenty of NHL execs that want the NHL back on ESPN. I think that is a very telling fact considering they are more involved with the NHL more than you and I ever can and will be. At the time ESPN lost a product that was at its all time low and coming back after the cancellation of an ENTIRE season.

I've stated that ESPN has a large market than Versus, not target audience. ESPN can get hockey into more homes than Versus. This could lead to increased exposure for the league while the league still maintaining a niche status. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to understand.

All I can see from you now is your continued ignorance of several key facts. Remember, your perspective is skewed being a hockey fan. Your loyalty and viewership is not in question and not what the NHL is going after. The NHL is trying to expand to new markets, to new fans, and to new advertisers.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

I watch ESPN on a pretty regular basis and their soccer coverage definitely outpaces their hockey coverage. ESPN is covering a bit more hockey now since it is the playoffs, but this is the exception, not the rule.

Versus is still a premium cable channel for those who do not subscribe to Comcast cable while ESPN is included in many basic cable packages. That alone leads to more exposure.

Your long term plans assume that this growth created by Comcast's purchase of NBC is sustainable and profitable. We saw how Comcast dealt with DirecTV concerning Versus. Any kind of these tactics in the future would be detrimental to the re-branded Versus. The re-branded Versus will be in direct competition with ESPN, who essentially has had a monopoly on sports coverage in the US. It's going to be tough to break into ESPN's market, especially when your front runner is considered a niche sport in the US. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is going to be very difficult.

You are also assuming that the re-branded Versus secures right to college football games. Currently they are bidding on Pac-10 games. There is no guarantee that they will get them. Also, those mid major games that they currently show are a joke. The Olympics are nice, but anything worthwhile will be reserved for NBC for the primetime broadcasts. Plus, only occurring every 2 years, the Olympics don't offer enough of an impact to be a major selling point. Also consider that NBC's ratings have been slipping during Olympic coverage.

I worry that the re-branding of Versus and the move to secure college football will eventually lead to the NHL being placed on the back burner. You said yourself that college and pro football sell better for ESPN than the NHL does. Why would it be any different on the re-branded Versus? If the NHL ends up being pushed back in favor of football, it would make since for the NHL to hop on with ESPN since they reach more viewers.

Another poster here has disagreed with you about the soccer thing, but -like I said- I have no first-hand evidence. I would be very surprised if it were true that ESPN had more soccer coverage than NHL.

IMO the growth ESPN still has is small. Hopefully Versus can capitalize on this like they did with securing the UFC.

NBC already has a lot of NCAA sports. I don't see why the addition of Versus will lessen this. If anything, I would think the NCAA would be more likely to give more games to NBC/Versus because they will have a higher priority.

The addition of Versus will mean that Versus will cover a lot of the Olympics. Instead of putting the sports on MSNBC, CNBC, USA, etc NBC will have a dedicated sports network to show the events not covered on NBC. There will still be spillover, but Versus will likely get the biggest events NBC doesn't directly cover.

I don't think the addition of NCAA sports, the Olympics, or other sports will reduce Versus' coverage of the NHL. I believe Versus is committed to showing 3 games a week for the entirety of the contract. This will keep NHL at the forefront of Versus, because of the economic incentives you spoke of earlier.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

Many executives could be 15 out 60. Many people at my college are black. 1,500 that is. That's 8%. It's all what we deem many to be.

We know if it was the majority, they would have signed with ESPN, but we know it wasn't the majority.

If everyone is saying you're wrong, you're probably wrong. I admire you for being stubborn and sticking to your guns, but come on brah.

Because you, OT, and Doc, who always disagrees with me, say I am wrong I must be? Great logic there. Everyone thought that the world was flat at one point but as we know today it isn't. With your logic you must think that the world is flat because to say otherwise would have been considered wrong. Laughable.

The fact is that there are enough execs who think the NHL should be on ESPN to let it be known to the press. I'd say that it's a pretty significant number. Not everyone is on board the Versus/NBC love train.

Another poster here has disagreed with you about the soccer thing, but -like I said- I have no first-hand evidence. I would be very surprised if it were true that ESPN had more soccer coverage than NHL.

IMO the growth ESPN still has is small. Hopefully Versus can capitalize on this like they did with securing the UFC.

NBC already has a lot of NCAA sports. I don't see why the addition of Versus will lessen this. If anything, I would think the NCAA would be more likely to give more games to NBC/Versus because they will have a higher priority.

The addition of Versus will mean that Versus will cover a lot of the Olympics. Instead of putting the sports on MSNBC, CNBC, USA, etc NBC will have a dedicated sports network to show the events not covered on NBC. There will still be spillover, but Versus will likely get the biggest events NBC doesn't directly cover.

I don't think the addition of NCAA sports, the Olympics, or other sports will reduce Versus' coverage of the NHL. I believe Versus is committed to showing 3 games a week for the entirety of the contract. This will keep NHL at the forefront of Versus, because of the economic incentives you spoke of earlier.

The only NCAA sport that matters is football. Let's not act like the beach volleyball and college curling that NBC Universal shows right now is going to do anything in terms of viewers. The only major contract NBC has in regards to NCAA football is with Notre Dame, which hasn't done very well. Again, Olympic ratings are already down. Further diluting the product across more stations is not going to do much.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Howard He Do It?!

[WorkingOvertime 536]

Because you, OT, and Doc, who always disagrees with me, say I am wrong I must be? Great logic there. Everyone thought that the world was flat at one point but as we know today it isn't. With your logic you must think that the world is flat because to say otherwise would have been considered wrong. Laughable.

The fact is that there are enough execs who think the NHL should be on ESPN to let it be known to the press. I'd say that it's a pretty significant number. Not everyone is on board the Versus/NBC love train.

The only NCAA sport that matters is football. Let's not act like the beach volleyball and college curling that NBC Universal shows right now is going to do anything in terms of viewers. The only major contract NBC has in regards to NCAA football is with Notre Dame, which hasn't done very well. Again, Olympic ratings are already down. Further diluting the product across more stations is not going to do much.

I think you are underestimating the power GM's have. If most of them didn't want a NBC/Versus deal, I don't think it would have happened.

NCAA basketball is very popular in most of the US.

This subject is difficult to debate because there is no measure of 'the ESPN effect'. However, with one game a week on ESPN 2, I don't think the network was/is very serious about the NHL. To me, it was more a play to gain the NHL viewers and (to a greater extent) hurt an opposing network.

EDIT- A difficult debate, but a good one.

Edited April 20, 2011 by WorkingOvertime

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

I think you are underestimating the power GM's have. If most of them didn't want a NBC/Versus deal, I don't think it would have happened.

NCAA basketball is very popular in most of the US.

This subject is difficult to debate because there is no measure of 'the ESPN effect'. However, with one game a week on ESPN 2, I don't think the network was/is very serious about the NHL. To me, it was more a play to gain the NHL viewers and (to a greater extent) hurt an opposing network.

NCAA basketball is popular but CBS has the tournament, which is really all that matters when talking about college basketball, wrapped up for 14 years so I really didn't even consider it.

The story cites it as execs and not GM's, so it's tough to say who is saying it but it is being said.

ESPN may have wanted to grab the NHL to hurt the new NBC Sports group, but it's no different than the new sports group re-branding Versus to try and cut into ESPN's market. It's all business.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

ESPN low balled the NHL coming out of the lockout because it was a toxic asset. There is a reason that the NHL ended up on OLN and it wasn't because OLN had a giant audience. It is widely known that the NHL probably would have given ESPN TV rights back for around $57 million if it wasn't for the remarks of Mark Shapiro. Even today, there are plenty of NHL execs that want the NHL back on ESPN. I think that is a very telling fact considering they are more involved with the NHL more than you and I ever can and will be. At the time ESPN lost a product that was at its all time low and coming back after the cancellation of an ENTIRE season.

That's what happens when you give up on hundred year old sports. Someone else picks up the slack and runs with it. And with a sport as old and well known as hockey it was bound to stick around.

I've stated that ESPN has a large market than Versus, not target audience. ESPN can get hockey into more homes than Versus. This could lead to increased exposure for the league while the league still maintaining a niche status. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to understand.

The thing is, could is the issue. One bird in hand is better than two in the bush, and considering what ESPN did when the game was "toxic" compared to a network that did its damnedest to improve its coverage and how to bring the sport to viewers, that says a lot. So does their offer.

I'll take the program willing to invest a great deal of money into the business over the "large" one that is barely willing to invest and is hardly guaranteed to do much to bring viewers in.

All I can see from you now is your continued ignorance of several key facts. Remember, your perspective is skewed being a hockey fan. Your loyalty and viewership is not in question and not what the NHL is going after. The NHL is trying to expand to new markets, to new fans, and to new advertisers.

And in the end didn't choose ESPN. They chose the network that gave them more opportunities to spend money and gain new fans, which they have been doing SINCE THEY GOT THE SPORT ON THE PROGRAM.

I'll talk to you in 10 years when this conversation comes up.

[Theophany 110]

Heh, obviously to you money means everything. I would take a 20% pay cut to do something I love to do in a heartbeat. Why take that kind of money if you hate doing it? My grandfather told me something when I was 10 that I will never forget.

"Find a job that you love and you will never work a day in your life."

I agree with that.

No, money doesn't mean everything to me. But it means that I can provide a better education for my kids, have a nicer house in a nicer area, go on better vacations, drive a nicer car, etc.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

That's what happens when you give up on hundred year old sports. Someone else picks up the slack and runs with it. And with a sport as old and well known as hockey it was bound to stick around.

The thing is, could is the issue. One bird in hand is better than two in the bush, and considering what ESPN did when the game was "toxic" compared to a network that did its damnedest to improve its coverage and how to bring the sport to viewers, that says a lot. So does their offer.

I'll take the program willing to invest a great deal of money into the business over the "large" one that is barely willing to invest and is hardly guaranteed to do much to bring viewers in.

And in the end didn't choose ESPN. They chose the network that gave them more opportunities to spend money and gain new fans, which they have been doing SINCE THEY GOT THE SPORT ON THE PROGRAM.

I'll talk to you in 10 years when this conversation comes up.

The history of the sport is only important to fans and really has nothing to do with business. Polo has a long and storied history dating back to the 5th century BC but you don't see networks clamoring to put it on television. Leave the fan arguments out of this.

Sometimes you have to take a risk and the NHL judged that it was more prudent to stick with Versus/NBC rather than chase a potentially larger market with ESPN/ABC. Does it make it the right move, despite what you argue? No, but at the same time it doesn't make it the wrong move.

The NHL is the only major sports commodity that Versus/NBC has so they are naturally going to invest a great deal of money into it. So far it has worked, time will tell if those numbers continue to increase or grow stagnant.

"I'll talk to you in 10 years when this conversation comes up."

Good ol' Doc. Always hating dissenting opinions.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Howard He Do It?!

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

"I'll talk to you in 10 years when this conversation comes up."

Good ol' Doc. Always hating dissenting opinions.

I'm sorry, are you upset that I chose to finish the discussion of ESPN vs. NBC with the simple fact the deal has been made and there isn't much left to do but see how it plays out?

Seriously, grow up.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

I'm sorry, are you upset that I chose to finish the discussion of ESPN vs. NBC with the simple fact the deal has been made and there isn't much left to do but see how it plays out?

Seriously, grow up.

Look who's talking Doc. Just because it is signed doesn't mean that it cannot be debated in the manner that it is being debated in this thread. You know exactly what you meant by that statement and it wasn't the generic comment that you are trying to make it out to be.

:crybaby: :crybaby:

The NBC Sports Group will obtain digital rights across all platforms for the games it televises. In the regular season, NBC will continue to show a national game of the week and the outdoor Winter Classic.

I'm extremely interested in this aspect of the new deal. As it stands right now, NBC games are blacked out on game center live. I have easy access to NBC so it isn't a big deal that NBC games are blacked out but it would be great if NBC allowed for GCL to stream the game for a more complete experience.

I know that NBC streamed all of the Hockey Day In America games but does anyone else know if they currently stream all of their exclusive games? I don't believe they do.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Howard He Do It?!

[auxlepli 17]

The NHL is sellable. The ratings increase in the last few years speaks to this. The problem, as always, is the Disney networks. ABC and ESPN didn't know how to sell the NHL. Or what I really think, didn't care to.

[Vladifan 680]

Hire Bill Clement!

Hire BOTH Thorne and Clement. And, just every now and then, how about using HOME announcers for HOME games?

What a concept, huh? Eh? IDIOTS!

Meanwhile we get Eddie O. doing the vast majority of Chicago's games; we now have Drew Remenda (sp?) and Whoever doing all the Sharks/Kings playoff games so far; We have Darren Pang doing "color" for the Coyotes' playoff games. We all know of more examples of this totally biased bulls***. So what do we get from Versus? We get THEIR announcers drooling all over their bibs, extolling THEIR players; showing THEIR fans in our stands; showing THEIR players on the ice and bench.

I have tried emailing Versus three times about this. Each time my email is undeliverable. Way to broadcast in the public interest, you collective pieces of s***.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

Look who's talking Doc. Just because it is signed doesn't mean that it cannot be debated in the manner that it is being debated in this thread. You know exactly what you meant by that statement and it wasn't the generic comment that you are trying to make it out to be.

You mean my statement meant confidence that the contract will be played out in its entirety and I'll talk to you about it then?

Still has nothing to do with hate of dissenting opinion. You can debate all you want about whether it was the good deal or not. I made my peace on the issue and my lack of discussion on the topic has nothing to do with my hatred (or lack thereof) of dissenting opinions.

[Konnan511 1,736]

Because you, OT, and Doc, who always disagrees with me, say I am wrong I must be? Great logic there. Everyone thought that the world was flat at one point but as we know today it isn't. With your logic you must think that the world is flat because to say otherwise would have been considered wrong. Laughable.

The fact is that there are enough execs who think the NHL should be on ESPN to let it be known to the press. I'd say that it's a pretty significant number. Not everyone is on board the Versus/NBC love train.

They thought it was flat because a lack of technology. Just because someone always disagrees with you doesnt mean they are always wrong. Terrible logic there. Who cares if Doc disagrees with you, he isnt the only one disagreeing with you. People still think we didnt land on the moon even though there is evidence we did. People still think 9/11 was faked by the gpverent. Everyone thinks what Vick did to those dogs was terrible, but there are many who didn't. Laughable.

It only takes one person to voice their opinion To the media, it doesn't have to be many. And as I previously mentioned, the majority wanted VS, so your argument there is moot.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

They thought it was flat because a lack of technology. Just because someone always disagrees with you doesnt mean they are always wrong. Terrible logic there. Who cares if Doc disagrees with you, he isnt the only one disagreeing with you. People still think we didnt land on the moon even though there is evidence we did. People still think 9/11 was faked by the gpverent. Everyone thinks what Vick did to those dogs was terrible, but there are many who didn't. Laughable.

It only takes one person to voice their opinion To the media, it doesn't have to be many. And as I previously mentioned, the majority wanted VS, so your argument there is moot.

And I'm not the only one who thinks ESPN is the better option. Just because you side with those that believe this is the better deal doesn't make you some how more right than me and it doesn't mean I should give up because I don't fall in line with what you believe. Funny that you speak of logic when you have a distinct lack of it. Your "run with the majority simply because" is stupid. Give me another hat law argument why don't you.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Howard He Do It?!

[Guest Shoreline]

Sadly as much as Versus sucks ass, ESPN snubs hockey every chance it gets. They did this back when they were the ones broadcasting hockey along with ABC.

When I was in the US I wished I could get TSN or CBC. Now that I have those, I don't need to worry about either crappy ABC/ESPN or NBC/Versus, never mind the old epic FOX trax.

Anyhow, at least Versus gives hockey some coverage and not just when an incident involves the police or a slashed throat with a skate.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Shoreline