• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

CenterIce

Sounds like more Versus/NBC for the next few years

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

From Toronto Star :

...

To Canadian hockey fans, this doesn’t necessarily mean a whole lot, although the fact you can get $140 million for national hockey rights in the Great White North and only about 50 per cent more from a market more than 10 times the size tells you something about the imbalance in hockey interest between the two countries.

You can be in Canada and never have to watch a game on Versus or NBC. So the impact of this deal is evaluated more on a broader basis in terms of what it may mean to the health of American teams and the stability of the league as a whole. The six Canadian teams get a share of the NBC/Versus deal as well, and that adds up to about an extra $4 million per team, about the cost of a good defenceman.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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: :crybaby: :crybaby:

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.

All of the Sunday games on NBC were also streamed on NBC.com (although it was hard to find sometimes). Hopefully NBC can find a way to add to the online aspect of the NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Howard He Do It?!

You're not the only one, but you're certainly in the minority.

And your point? Being in the minority doesn't make me wrong and you right. There was another thread on this issue where I would have been in the majority but does it really matter? I'm posting in this thread to express my opinion, not hop on the bandwagon as you are advertising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HOW STUPID!!!

If you just wait a little while longer to negotiate...

You could have raped ESPN when the NBA and NFL are locked out. Fire Bettman!

Do you realize the GM's can essentially veto any decision the league makes if they wish? Obviously, they believe this is a good deal.

Even with the possible lockout, ESPN was only willing to offer one game a week on ESPN 2 for less money. I fail to see how that would have been good for the league. If ESPN wanted to up the number of games after the contract, the NHL would likely agree but then ESPN would be severely underpaying.

Also, an NFL lockout will consume so much of the air time on ESPN that it might actually hurt their hockey coverage. ESPN has been focusing a lot more on the drama of sports lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you realize the GM's can essentially veto any decision the league makes if they wish? Obviously, they believe this is a good deal.

Even with the possible lockout, ESPN was only willing to offer one game a week on ESPN 2 for less money. I fail to see how that would have been good for the league. If ESPN wanted to up the number of games after the contract, the NHL would likely agree but then ESPN would be severely underpaying.

Also, an NFL lockout will consume so much of the air time on ESPN that it might actually hurt their hockey coverage. ESPN has been focusing a lot more on the drama of sports lately.

You could get the same money from ESPN, and when the rest of the country is sports starved they would have turned to the NHL. Good luck doing that when you are on channel 300 or whatever.

It doesn't make sense to not use leverage you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline

Do you realize the GM's can essentially veto any decision the league makes if they wish? Obviously, they believe this is a good deal.

Even with the possible lockout, ESPN was only willing to offer one game a week on ESPN 2 for less money. I fail to see how that would have been good for the league. If ESPN wanted to up the number of games after the contract, the NHL would likely agree but then ESPN would be severely underpaying.

Also, an NFL lockout will consume so much of the air time on ESPN that it might actually hurt their hockey coverage. ESPN has been focusing a lot more on the drama of sports poker/bowling/golf lately.

Fixed that for ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no right or wrong answer to this debate, just hearsay from people's opinions.

Going into the deal (thinking on a pre-announcement of terms) this is what we had to go on.

Versus/NBC

Pros:
Dedication to hockey as their primary sport, expanding viewership, increasing hockey programing (kind of a push at the moment)

Cons:
Still not widely carried, not quite a respectable sports network, broadcast personnel, limited team exposure, not much original hockey programing, NBC

ESPN/ABC

Pros:
Exposure (hockey becomes
more
relevant on SportsCenter again), carried nearly everywhere, broadcast personnel (assumed), hockey related programing (e.g. The Season)

Cons:
Not the networks priority sport, games more likely to be on ESPN2, reduction in games aired (probably to start out), ABC

These are the main things brought up between the 2 groups. I put these in order from my perceived conception of greatest value/concern to least value/concern. Both groups are dealing with a different style of NHL (prior to the lockout), newer generation of fans/viewers and advancements in technology; all of which shouldn't be a factor. There is good and bad between the 2, hard to say which would be better in the long run.

Of course after the deal terms were announced it appeared VS/NBC had the better overall deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CaliWingsNut

There is no right or wrong answer to this debate, just hearsay from people's opinions.

Going into the deal (thinking on a pre-announcement of terms) this is what we had to go on.

Versus/NBC

Pros:
Dedication to hockey as their primary sport, expanding viewership, increasing hockey programing (kind of a push at the moment)

Cons:
Still not widely carried, not quite a respectable sports network, broadcast personnel, limited team exposure, not much original hockey programing, NBC

ESPN/ABC

Pros:
Exposure (hockey becomes
more
relevant on SportsCenter again), carried nearly everywhere, broadcast personnel (assumed), hockey related programing (e.g. The Season)

Cons:
Not the networks priority sport, games more likely to be on ESPN2, reduction in games aired (probably to start out), ABC

These are the main things brought up between the 2 groups. I put these in order from my perceived conception of greatest value/concern to least value/concern. Both groups are dealing with a different style of NHL (prior to the lockout), newer generation of fans/viewers and advancements in technology; all of which shouldn't be a factor. There is good and bad between the 2, hard to say which would be better in the long run.

Of course after the deal terms were announced it appeared VS/NBC had the better overall deal.

You left out some details...

NBC/Versus will have rights to stream content online (hello fancast & premium hulu hockey games).

NBC will be rebranding VS as NBC's sports channel intended to compete w/ espn. Don't think they will be a limited viewing channel for long.

random but sorta in the mix.. Comedy central (MTV/Viacom) is adding a sports show to their "news" lineup. The reason I add this is it means more exposure separate to ESPN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could get the same money from ESPN, and when the rest of the country is sports starved they would have turned to the NHL. Good luck doing that when you are on channel 300 or whatever.

It doesn't make sense to not use leverage you have.

No. You think ESPN didn't think of this when they were talking about getting the NHL deal?

ESPN just has more stuff they can carry (college football/basketball would take over).

Besides, the odds of the NFL and the NBA both going to a lockout is highly unlikely. Too much money would be lost to lose an entire season.

Hockey is a niche sport in the US just like soccer, lacrosse, etc. Most people on the street couldn't care less about it.

The NBC/Versus deal makes sense and it's a great deal for the NHL because of the reach Comcast has between internet services and viewership.

For the record, out here ESPN is channel 623, ESPN2 is 624, the Golf channel is 625, and Versus is 626 (the NHL channel is 631). If you're not an idiot, it's pretty easy to find the programming you're looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You left out some details...

NBC/Versus will have rights to stream content online (hello fancast & premium hulu hockey games).

NBC will be rebranding VS as NBC's sports channel intended to compete w/ espn. Don't think they will be a limited viewing channel for long.

Going into the deal (thinking on a pre-announcement of terms) this is what we had to go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could get the same money from ESPN, and when the rest of the country is sports starved they would have turned to the NHL. Good luck doing that when you are on channel 300 or whatever.

It doesn't make sense to not use leverage you have.

With a NFL and NBA lockout, NCAA football and basketball will get more coverage. No one will be starved for either football or basketball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

True, money doesn't buy happiness, but it sure makes life a lot easier.

BTW, I would take the pay cut to do something I loved rather than work somewhere making more and being miserable. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could get the same money from ESPN, and when the rest of the country is sports starved they would have turned to the NHL. Good luck doing that when you are on channel 300 or whatever.

It doesn't make sense to not use leverage you have.

ESPN reportedly offered less money. I don't see how you can assume the NHL could have gotten more. ESPN is more informed about the possible effects of lockouts than any of us, and they still made an inferior offer.

As other posters have said, football and basketball fans will likely focus more on NCAA sports. When the NHL lockout occurred, did you become an NBA or MLB fan because of it? I surely didn't.

There is no right or wrong answer to this debate, just hearsay from people's opinions.

Going into the deal (thinking on a pre-announcement of terms) this is what we had to go on.

Versus/NBC

Pros:
Dedication to hockey as their primary sport, expanding viewership, increasing hockey programing (kind of a push at the moment)

Cons:
Still not widely carried, not quite a respectable sports network, broadcast personnel, limited team exposure, not much original hockey programing, NBC

ESPN/ABC

Pros:
Exposure (hockey becomes
more
relevant on SportsCenter again), carried nearly everywhere, broadcast personnel (assumed), hockey related programing (e.g. The Season)

Cons:
Not the networks priority sport, games more likely to be on ESPN2, reduction in games aired (probably to start out), ABC

These are the main things brought up between the 2 groups. I put these in order from my perceived conception of greatest value/concern to least value/concern. Both groups are dealing with a different style of NHL (prior to the lockout), newer generation of fans/viewers and advancements in technology; all of which shouldn't be a factor. There is good and bad between the 2, hard to say which would be better in the long run.

Of course after the deal terms were announced it appeared VS/NBC had the better overall deal.

Good post. Unfortunately, this argument has no real solution. If NBC/Versus can become a legitimate sports network, the NHL wins here. If ESPN continues to dominate, the NHL retains its current status (relatively). However, the NHL was able to get a lot of money (for the NHL) from NBC/Versus. Therefore, the gamble is at least hedged by certain revenue for the league.

I am not certain but I don't think ESPN could show more games, or games on a different channel (ESPN v. ESPN2), than what it listed in the offer. I believe the offer was to show one game a week on ESPN2. While it would be better for the league for them to show games on ESPN and show more games, I am not sure if it would be legal depending on how the contract would be worded. This is due to the increased profits for ESPN from these moves that would not be shared with the NHL. (i.e ESPN pays to receive revenue from one game on ESPN2 but gains more revenue through showing more games on ESPN, while the NHL doesn't see any of this money).

The first thing NBC/Versus will likely look to do is have Versus added to most basic cable lineups (like ESPN is now). Hopefully this will remedy the fear of availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, the ESPN/VS whining is getting old. My question about this new agreement is...will NBC be broadcasting anymore games/better times than they are now (the occasional lame 11am sunday morning on the west coast gametimes), or will things remain the same? I see that VS is going from 50 games to 90...quite an improvement. NBC needs to beef things up on their end, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CaliWingsNut

Ok, the ESPN/VS whining is getting old. My question about this new agreement is...will NBC be broadcasting anymore games/better times than they are now (the occasional lame 11am sunday morning on the west coast gametimes), or will things remain the same? I see that VS is going from 50 games to 90...quite an improvement. NBC needs to beef things up on their end, though.

News Article

As for the winners, NBC will continue to broadcast a national "Game of the Week," along with its coverage of the NHL Winter Classic and "Hockey Day in America." For its part, Versus also will telecast an exclusive national "Game of the Week," as well as NHL Premiere Games, NHL Faceoff, the NHL All-Star Game and any future NHL Heritage Classic outdoor games in Canada. The linemates remain the exclusive home of the Stanley Cup Final, with Versus airing Games 3 and 4, and NBC the rest. The NBC Sports Group will also build a new studio for NHL Network at its existing facility Stamford, Conn.

NBC and Versus also have digital streaming rights to the games they televise. During the current contract, Versus has elected not to stream its contests.

I've read elsewhere, that there will be a National NBC game on "Thanksgiving Friday".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, money doesn't buy happiness, but it sure makes life a lot easier.

BTW, I would take the pay cut to do something I loved rather than work somewhere making more and being miserable. :)

That's not the point, and it's a straw man argument that you're making. You're saying that being a baseball PBP guy compared to a hockey PBP guy for less money is a dumb career move?

Get real. Most people would of course rather do something they like to do over a s***ty job that pays a lot more, but that's not what the discussion was about.

Here's the options in your suppositional world: 20% less money to do PBP for NBC/Versus, or doing PBP for the Tigers (or whatever baseball team you follow). Keep in mind working for NBC/Versus you wouldn't get to choose which teams you would cover, and your schedule would be much more hectic (commercial flights more likely as opposed to private flights working with the Tigers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good read

Though, I completely disagree with this statement...

Gary Thorne is nowhere in the league of Hall of Fame announcer Mike Emrick.

but he is redeemed by..

Now if only NBC/Versus could get rid of Pierre McGuire and put Darren Pang in his place and the staff would be much better off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now