• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
FireCaptain

ESPN/Sportscenter gives the NHL 2.7% of its time

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

If you invest a ton of money, you're going to be there. If you just need to show up, maybe you will decide not to go.

With expensive sports, or with sports where you have to make a reservation, you know the people will be there that you expect to be there and you won't be left looking for another person to fill the spot.

Plus if people spend the money or make the reservations, you know that they're as committed as you are.

Not saying that people who play basketball or baseball aren't committed; just saying you don't get the drop-ins and drop-outs without some warning so you can plan ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, even the sports tehy DO have a contract with get shafted..

Hockey coverage looked like overkill compared to NASCAR (2.1 percent), soccer (1.3 percent) and tennis (0.9 percent). The latter two are particularly interesting because ESPN spent big to acquire the rights to all four Grand Slam events and it broadcasts MLS, so you’d think those would be investments that the WWL would want to support with its little news show.

And if they’re not even smart enough to take care of their own properties, then maybe we … shudder … owe Gary Bettman an apology for ripping him after he picked little ol’ OLN instead of ESPN when he had to come up with a new broadcast deal back in 2005.

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

Seriously I have never written that, 55fan has already given the correct answer. In hockey one has to pay a certain amount for gear, icetime and club-fees plus workout time in the gym plus fees...after makeing such a commitment dropouts are usually fewer, people get to know their teammates better so it is easier to build a chemistry maybe even friendships. Personally speaking it was much easier for me to build friendships with my hockey or even riding teammates than doing so in soccer.

Hockey in my mind is just more of a lowkey let actions instead of words speak type of thing, while soccer and some other bigger sports are more about egos, promoting and starplayers instead of teamwork. It is fine for me if people like that, I certainly do not and after reading some horrible stories about other leagues I am very happy with my choice. So the media and other hocke haters can downplay the sport as much as they want, real fans don't care.

What happens when non hockey people are writting about the sport can be seen on sites like the star...Espn used to be a go to source nowadays they aren't worth it if people aren't into the other major leagues.

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mjtm77   
Guest mjtm77

Regardless of how "unpopular" hockey is. Hockey fans are by far the most passionate. Trust me in a way we are verry lucky that we don't have a bunch of half ass idiot fans like in baseball and in football. I'm cool with staying that way.

Ps. Sucks for thoes living in America cause hockey is on every channel here in Canada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker   
Guest Playmaker

Sounding like another inferiority complex to me. I don't care how much time ESPN covers hockey or not. I don't feel the need to defend liking hockey or not based on it or insulting fans of other sports. I like football and baseball also. I don't think hockey fans are any more or less passionate than any other fans because there are less of them here in the US. Plenty of passionate baseball, football and college football fans. ESPN will cover RGIII's injury because that's what the majority of people want to see. Just like TSN in Canada will cover the fart of anyone on the MapleLeafs. That's what the viewers want to see.

I've had plenty of people not show up for pick up hockey games or a golf tee time. The expense of the sport doesn't matter in the least. When it comes to rec leagues, there are jerks in every sport.

It's one thing for one adult to play in a rec league, but if you've got a couple of kids playing, you're talking hundreds of dollars a month in ice fees. Not to mention all the gas for travel and equipment, the matching warm ups, bags, hats, etc that seem to be "must haves" nowadays. I know since the economy crashed in '08, there has been a significant decrease in the number of people playing hockey. Back in the late 90's, there were waiting lists and never enough ice time. New rinks were popping up right and left. Now, it's back to being the niche sport it always was. A lot of the kids that used to play hockey are now into lacrosse. Same with golf. At the height of Tigermania, everyone and his uncle suddenly had to play golf and new courses were being built. Now they can't fill all the tee times they have.

All the complaining and crying and disparaging of other fans isn't going to make hockey any more popular in the US. It may go through periods of increased attention depending on a star player or team, but it's just not going to over take any of the other three major sports. It's a Canadian/Northern sport generally speaking and it's never going to get the widespread attention from any national sports outlet because it does not have mass appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not disrespecting other sports, I am just sick of always reading how the media is disrepecting the sport I love, because it isn't mainstream. Why not write about the benefits? There are pros and cons with every sport although the pros aren't mentioned enough when it comes to hockey. Personally I know a lot of the cons when it comes to mainstream sport and some of the stories further proved the point.

ESPN can cover whatever they want, but that doesn't mean people have to like their choices.

to be honest i have yet to see a reason why being a non mainstream sport justifies such ridiculous media outcry. The funny thing about soccer is attempting the games is more expensive than playing...

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So having money makes you a better person? Kiss my poor white ass. Most of the biggest asses I've known have had money. Cost absolutely is an issue.If you invest a ton of money, you're going to be there. If you just need to show up, maybe you will decide not to go. With expensive sports, or with sports where you have to make a reservation, you know the people will be there that you expect to be there and you won't be left looking for another person to fill the spot. Plus if people spend the money or make the reservations, you know that they're as committed as you are. Not saying that people who play basketball or baseball aren't committed; just saying you don't get the drop-ins and drop-outs without some warning so you can plan ahead.
You've played in different leagues than I have then. In my experience the amount of no shows and dickheads in any given league or sport have been pretty consistent across the board. Paying more doesn't matter much, and for some people tossing $200 away is like other people losing out on $20, and the gear is already bought and tends to last awhile.
I am not disrespecting other sports, I am just sick of always reading how the media is disrepecting the sport I love, because it isn't mainstream. Why not write about the benefits? There are pros and cons with every sport although the pros aren't mentioned enough when it comes to hockey. Personally I know a lot of the cons when it comes to mainstream sport and some of the stories further proved the point.ESPN can cover whatever they want, but that doesn't mean people have to like their choices. to be honest i have yet to see a reason why being a non mainstream sport justifies such ridiculous media outcry. The funny thing about soccer is attempting the games is more expensive than playing...
Espn tracks their ratings pretty close. More hockey means lower ratings because most people in the US don't care much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i could care less what espn covers, because they are to sports what mtv is to music. they have turned into nothing but talking heads shows and behind the scenes dramas. they will continue to dig their own graves to true sports fans that increasingly go other places for actual sports news.

additionally, for you guys arguing the cost of hockey you are having the entire wrong discussion. of course playing hockey at a high level is costly. but thats not the type of hockey that needs to be promoted. if the nhl wants to be more popular in the states, they need to be encouraging kids to be in their driveway or streets with nothing more than some sticks, a ball and a net. that is not a large investment. and if you get thousands of kids doing that, you will see popularity grow. because while hockey equipment and ice time is indeed expensive, so are football helmets and shoulder pads. the difference is i dont know any kids that own their own shoulder pads. schools and leagues own the equipment and kids just use it. it is absolutely asinine to imply all you need to get kids involved in football is a ball and a field, yet to get kids involved in hockey they instantly need 2 grand in bauer gear? you can't get more apples and oranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker   
Guest Playmaker

I am not disrespecting other sports, I am just sick of always reading how the media is disrepecting the sport I love, because it isn't mainstream. Why not write about the benefits? There are pros and cons with every sport although the pros aren't mentioned enough when it comes to hockey. Personally I know a lot of the cons when it comes to mainstream sport and some of the stories further proved the point. ESPN can cover whatever they want, but that doesn't mean people have to like their choices. to be honest i have yet to see a reason why being a non mainstream sport justifies such ridiculous media outcry. The funny thing about soccer is attempting the games is more expensive than playing...

I must have missed something but how does the "media" disrespect hockey? By not showing it? I've never seen any media outlet do any kind of "negative" hockey story, ie, Hockey is terrible and boring and dangerous!!! Don't play hockey! To my knowledge, that never happened. ESPN, Fox or any media outlet has no obligation to promote any sport or encourage fans to watch it. They're in the business to make money. Every sport has positives and negatives. I don't know what you mean by "media outcry". I'm sure fans of every sport and every team think they're team isn't covered enough or gets enough coverage.

I was in the Netherlands recently and all the sports headlines were about cycling. Why? That's what their sports fans want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker   
Guest Playmaker

i could care less what espn covers, because they are to sports what mtv is to music. they have turned into nothing but talking heads shows and behind the scenes dramas. they will continue to dig their own graves to true sports fans that increasingly go other places for actual sports news.

additionally, for you guys arguing the cost of hockey you are having the entire wrong discussion. of course playing hockey at a high level is costly. but thats not the type of hockey that needs to be promoted. if the nhl wants to be more popular in the states, they need to be encouraging kids to be in their driveway or streets with nothing more than some sticks, a ball and a net. that is not a large investment. and if you get thousands of kids doing that, you will see popularity grow. because while hockey equipment and ice time is indeed expensive, so are football helmets and shoulder pads. the difference is i dont know any kids that own their own shoulder pads. schools and leagues own the equipment and kids just use it. it is absolutely asinine to imply all you need to get kids involved in football is a ball and a field, yet to get kids involved in hockey they instantly need 2 grand in bauer gear? you can't get more apples and oranges.

You may not remember, but 10 or so years ago, the NHL did try to promote street/roller hockey. It didn't help. Why would a kid down in Texas or Georgia want to get hockey sticks, a ball and a net when their dads probably played football, baseball or basketball as kids?

Hockey is a regional sport and isn't likely to ever go beyond that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not remember, but 10 or so years ago, the NHL did try to promote street/roller hockey. It didn't help. Why would a kid down in Texas or Georgia want to get hockey sticks, a ball and a net when their dads probably played football, baseball or basketball as kids?

Hockey is a regional sport and isn't likely to ever go beyond that.

in time it might. However it will take more time than not for that to happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Axe   
Guest The Axe

So if I'm reading this right, 56% of their total hockey coverage is about the Penguins?

And 42% is about the blackhawks.

But Bettman isnt pushing an agenda at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've played in different leagues than I have then. In my experience the amount of no shows and dickheads in any given league or sport have been pretty consistent across the board. Paying more doesn't matter much, and for some people tossing $200 away is like other people losing out on $20, and the gear is already bought and tends to last awhile.

Espn tracks their ratings pretty close. More hockey means lower ratings because most people in the US don't care much.

Just for the record, I didn't say what you quoted me as saying. That was someone else. I just replied to that person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ESPN does or does not do is a moot point in my life.

My sports are hockey, Whitewater slalom kayaking, and off-road motorcycle racing ( motocross and enduro). While ESPN knows who Sidney Crosby is, they don't know who Graham Jarvis or Scott Shipley are

And those two are every bit as athletic, talented, skilled, and dedicated as Sidney Crosby but due to their obscure sports, nobody knows who they are. And I'm totally fine with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker   
Guest Playmaker

And 42% is about the blackhawks.

But Bettman isnt pushing an agenda at all.

Right. Bettman's so tight with ESPN, that's why they're percentage of hockey coverage is so low. Of course it has nothing to do with what team wins the most or what team has the most recognizable player in the league. No, it's Bettman's secret undercover agenda! He HATES the Wings. That's why he fulfilled his promise to move them to the Eastern Conference.

I just skimmed the article, but does the writer happen to mention that there was an NHL lockout during the time that he was doing this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who?

What ESPN does or does not do is a moot point in my life.

My sports are hockey, Whitewater slalom kayaking, and off-road motorcycle racing ( motocross and enduro). While ESPN knows who Sidney Crosby is, they don't know who Graham Jarvis or Scott Shipley are

And those two are every bit as athletic, talented, skilled, and dedicated as Sidney Crosby but due to their obscure sports, nobody knows who they are. And I'm totally fine with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's better for espn to just cover the only thing they know and just leave. Hockey alone. I mean even if I were into the other sports their coverage is simply overkill and espn is going the way of MTV. As hockey fans we can be really thankful for TSN and their superb job of covering hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

TSN is good if you can get it. Hell, I turn on the NHL Network and The NBC Sports Network. They have better hockey coverage than ESPN. The only personality that I like watching on ESPN when it comes to hockey is Barry Melrose.

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