• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
FireCaptain

ESPN/Sportscenter gives the NHL 2.7% of its time

Rate this topic

53 posts in this topic

The sad thing is, I'm actually surprised to see it's even 2.7%. Rarely is the NHL mentioned on a typical sportscenter. And since they don't have a contract with the NHL anymore, sportscenter is basically their only show where you would even have a chance of hearing anything NHL-related. Although true NHL fans definitely shouldn't be heading to ESPN for their hockey fix. At least there's always NHL network and NHL center ice (couldn't live without em).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It surprises me that ESPN doesn't try to take on hockey. If they did they would monopolize almost all the big sports coverage. And they would have more to talk about through out the year than just repeating the same stories over and over.

What scares me, honestly, is soccer. ESPN is increasingly covering soccer and its gaining popularity fast in north america. I just feel like hockey deserves its place in North America before soccer does. I would hate to see that sport on ESPN full time while hockey continues to lurk in the shadows.

When it comes down to it, I just dont undertsand why ppl prefer any sport over hockey. dum dums.


Also I remember reading a study ESPN did where they found that hockey is the hardest sport to play, based on speed, skill, physicality and other stuff. Best sport ever. End of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN also airs NFL, NBA and MLB games, but NBC owns the TV rights for NHL games. Dedicating too much time to the NHL would be akin to giving free advertising to a competitor's network. Something that ESPN (and the entire Disney Empire at large) probably doesn't want to do.

I do miss the days of ESPN/ABC airing NHL games, as well as NHL2Nite on ESPN2. I'd gladly take the combo of Thorne, Clement (Clement, hands of cement) and Pang over Doc, Olcyzkyckechkyczyk and McToolGuire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN also airs NFL, NBA and MLB games, but NBC owns the TV rights for NHL games. Dedicating too much time to the NHL would be akin to giving free advertising to a competitor's network. Something that ESPN (and the entire Disney Empire at large) probably doesn't want to do.

I do miss the days of ESPN/ABC airing NHL games, as well as NHL2Nite on ESPN2. I'd gladly take the combo of Thorne, Clement (Clement, hands of cement) and Pang over Doc, Olcyzkyckechkyczyk and McToolGuire.

Of course it's all business, can't blame anyone for that. Just don't understand why ESPN won't complete their move for total sports domination. Someone enlighten me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's all business, can't blame anyone for that. Just don't understand why ESPN won't complete their move for total sports domination. Someone enlighten me.

ESPN is only going to cover sports that are going to bring in viewers. Football is the most widely watched sport in America. Baseball is immensely popular. Basketball goes up and down with popularity, but it still maintains an edge over hockey.

But to really understand why ESPN doesn't give as much coverage to the NHL, you also should consider why Hockey isn't as popular a sport as Football, Baseball or Basketball. IMO, its because they are all fairly easy (and inexpensive) to play, while Hockey is so much more difficult (and expensive) to play.

Think of kids playing a sport on a playground or in a park. To play Football, all they really need is the ball itself, which start at maybe $10. To play catch (precursor to baseball), a ball and a glove will run you $20 on the very cheap end, $50 or so to start getting into the better quality equipment. Basketball only needs the ball, again $10 or so, and a hoop, which are available at almost any playground in the country. Hockey, however, needs so much more. Stick, puck, skates (unless it's on-foot), goal frame, etc, which all cost significantly more than just the one or two things needed for the other sports. Not to mention EVERYONE playing hockey needs at least a stick and skates, whereas only one kid needs to bring a football or basketball so that everyone can play.

So, in a way, you already answered your question with your post here...

Also I remember reading a study ESPN did where they found that hockey is the hardest sport to play, based on speed, skill, physicality and other stuff. Best sport ever. End of story.

Because it's so hard and so expensive to play, fewer people play the sport. Which means fewer people are interested in it. Which means ESPN isn't going to devote much time to it, because Hockey coverage won't bring in as many pairs of eyes as Football, Baseball or Basketball.

On a side note, I'd be willing to bet that John Buccigross and Linda Cohn account for 90% of the 2.7% coverage. They seem to be the only real NHL fans at the SportsCenter anchor desk.

BottleOfSmoke likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN is only going to cover sports that are going to bring in viewers. Football is the most widely watched sport in America. Baseball is immensely popular. Basketball goes up and down with popularity, but it still maintains an edge over hockey.

But to really understand why ESPN doesn't give as much coverage to the NHL, you also should consider why Hockey isn't as popular a sport as Football, Baseball or Basketball. IMO, its because they are all fairly easy (and inexpensive) to play, while Hockey is so much more difficult (and expensive) to play.

Think of kids playing a sport on a playground or in a park. To play Football, all they really need is the ball itself, which start at maybe $10. To play catch (precursor to baseball), a ball and a glove will run you $20 on the very cheap end, $50 or so to start getting into the better quality equipment. Basketball only needs the ball, again $10 or so, and a hoop, which are available at almost any playground in the country. Hockey, however, needs so much more. Stick, puck, skates (unless it's on-foot), goal frame, etc, which all cost significantly more than just the one or two things needed for the other sports. Not to mention EVERYONE playing hockey needs at least a stick and skates, whereas only one kid needs to bring a football or basketball so that everyone can play.

So, in a way, you already answered your question with your post here...

Because it's so hard and so expensive to play, fewer people play the sport. Which means fewer people are interested in it. Which means ESPN isn't going to devote much time to it, because Hockey coverage won't bring in as many pairs of eyes as Football, Baseball or Basketball.

yeah you're 100% right. I might have been able to think of those points if I wasn't drinking so much and playing hockey this particular evening!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What percent of their time is given to Lebron alone?

I'm guessing at least 50%

Al Jazeera > espn

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not interested in any of the so called major sports, so TSN all the way Espn can stick to the stupid mainstream crap.

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about ratings. Most people that watch are Football or basketball fans. That being said im sure as hell know more than 2.7% of their viewing audience watch hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

On a side note, I'd be willing to bet that John Buccigross and Linda Cohn account for 90% of the 2.7% coverage. They seem to be the only real NHL fans at the SportsCenter anchor desk.

Agreed.

Personally I'd love to see both Cohn, and Buccigross "defect" to NBC, and be the pre-game/intermission/post-game hosts of NHL games (as entertaining as Milbury can be - I can only tolerate so much of him).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pah, you think that's bad, Sky Sports News in the UK devotes 55 minutes of every 60 to football (soccer). Into the other 5 minutes must go every other sport - Cricket, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Tennis, Golf, Formula One...all sports that Sky hold the rights too, but they'd rather devote the airtime to the latest transfer news at Northampton Town, or where Wayne and Coleen Rooney are going on holiday this summer..... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screw ESPN. When they do talk about hockey it's to bash on it. When they used to show games they also had very poor pre and post game coverage. After the Stanley Cup clinching games I remember them cutting out to some other dumb sport the second the cup was lifted by the captain. They simply didn't care about the sport and wanted to get on with the next program. It was a rough road to NBCSN via OLN and "Versus" but I am much happier that we are on our own network with the mainstream NBC name. At least there hockey is the premiere sport and they pay it respect with complete coverage. This is actually one of the things Bettman has done right in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad fact is, bowling and Women's basketball get higher ratings than the NHL. Why that is, I don't know. But you can't blame ESPN for not wanting to pay to air a league that just doesn't bring in viewers/revenue. With the population shift to the South and the changing racial makeup of the country, I don't really see that changing anytime soon. Soccer is going to continue to grow, the "Extreme Sports" are becoming increasingly popular, and it's squeezing out the NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their coverage could be zero as far as I'm concerned. Quit watching anything on ESPN beyond baseball, Monday Night Football, & the odd college football game years ago. Never watch their filler shows like Sportscenter, all their talking head shows, 12 hours of NFL pre-game shows, etc. any more & figure I'm better off for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN is only going to cover sports that are going to bring in viewers. Football is the most widely watched sport in America. Baseball is immensely popular. Basketball goes up and down with popularity, but it still maintains an edge over hockey.

But to really understand why ESPN doesn't give as much coverage to the NHL, you also should consider why Hockey isn't as popular a sport as Football, Baseball or Basketball. IMO, its because they are all fairly easy (and inexpensive) to play, while Hockey is so much more difficult (and expensive) to play.

Think of kids playing a sport on a playground or in a park. To play Football, all they really need is the ball itself, which start at maybe $10. To play catch (precursor to baseball), a ball and a glove will run you $20 on the very cheap end, $50 or so to start getting into the better quality equipment. Basketball only needs the ball, again $10 or so, and a hoop, which are available at almost any playground in the country. Hockey, however, needs so much more. Stick, puck, skates (unless it's on-foot), goal frame, etc, which all cost significantly more than just the one or two things needed for the other sports. Not to mention EVERYONE playing hockey needs at least a stick and skates, whereas only one kid needs to bring a football or basketball so that everyone can play.

So, in a way, you already answered your question with your post here...

Because it's so hard and so expensive to play, fewer people play the sport. Which means fewer people are interested in it. Which means ESPN isn't going to devote much time to it, because Hockey coverage won't bring in as many pairs of eyes as Football, Baseball or Basketball.

Doesn't hockey have the same ratings as basketball? It's just that basketball has a bigger presence in the big TV markets than hockey does. I'd say basketball is as much of a fringe, regional sport as hockey is. I read somewhere that the NBA is in decline outside of big urban areas. People play it of course, but they don't generally care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pah, you think that's bad, Sky Sports News in the UK devotes 55 minutes of every 60 to football (soccer). Into the other 5 minutes must go every other sport - Cricket, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Tennis, Golf, Formula One...all sports that Sky hold the rights too, but they'd rather devote the airtime to the latest transfer news at Northampton Town, or where Wayne and Coleen Rooney are going on holiday this summer..... :(

Gah that sucks. The last time I was in Europe, it was Ireland during the Rugby World Cup. Lots of good craic to be had in the pubs during that trip :lol: Add in some hockey, and I'm convinced that's what heaven is like...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's another way to view these stats.

Hockey fans know espn won't cover it, so they don't watch it.

Very good point I think people who lovehockey aren‘t watching espn . Personally I couldn't care less about their ratings.

As long as tsn is covering Hockey the sport is in good hands.

F.Michael likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've played all sports (badminton too) and hockey requires the most effort, individual skill, determination, team work and money. Almost shows why the world is going into the toilet with the sport parents choose to enroll their children in. Football? Let's be full on violent EVERY play. Soccer? Let's dive to get an edge (second only to hockey in terms of team play). Basketball? Gotta have the most swag (second only to individual skill). But I still love playing all of em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've played all sports (badminton too) and hockey requires the most effort, individual skill, determination, team work and money. Almost shows why the world is going into the toilet with the sport parents choose to enroll their children in. Football? Let's be full on violent EVERY play. Soccer? Let's dive to get an edge (second only to hockey in terms of team play). Basketball? Gotta have the most swag (second only to individual skill). But I still love playing all of em.

I have played a lot of sports too and I must say that Golf is far more expensive than hockey. Also I don't like the fact how the price is always seen as negative, there are also benefits: such as knowing who will be there and more importantly who won't. In sports like soccer and so on you can never be sure and personally I would rather pay more and participate in a good enviroment than having to deal with the questionmarks in terms of teammates. Sadly, these benefits are never mentioned by the hockey haters :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have played a lot of sports too and I must say that Golf is far more expensive than hockey. Also I don't like the fact how the price is always seen as negative, there are also benefits: such as knowing who will be there and more importantly who won't. In sports like soccer and so on you can never be sure and personally I would rather pay more and participate in a good enviroment than having to deal with the questionmarks in terms of teammates. Sadly, these benefits are never mentioned by the hockey haters :-(

Growing up in California, hockey is like cricket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there's a live sporting event I want to watch, that's the only reason I ever bother turning on ESPN.

Really hope this whole Fox Sports 1 thing works out and they dedicate some actual time to covering hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other day, allegedly, RGIII took a snap without a knee brace on. An hour of intense discussion and debate ensued.

FireCaptain likes this

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0