What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

NCAA Frozen Four

Re: NCAA Frozen Four

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Don't be surprised if this is actually the exact reason that ESPN would want to hold on to, and bury, the hockey coverage as much as they can.
Click to expand...

It's kind of ironic that our sport's showcase event is being produced and televised by an entity in direct competition with the broadcasters who carry the sport 6 months out of the year. They have a very decided interest in making the game as unattractive and viewer-unfriendly as possible.

Spartanforlife4 said:
I think your second part argues against your first. Why take away fans you already don't have? It'd be like the auto-repair store buying all the steak to keep it away from the butcher.
Click to expand...

It's more like the butcher destroying all the vegetables so people have to eat meat or go hungry.
 
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Frozen Four

Priceless said:
It's more like the butcher destroying all the vegetables so people have to eat meat or go hungry.
Click to expand...

That's a better analogy. Just seems odd to throw away a sport, not show coverage but then take away it's extremely less popular version so the few people that like it can't see it.

It's like the butcher destroying all the vegetables, so a farmer's market opens to sell vegetables, then the butcher goes and destroys all the artichoke hearts.
 
Last edited:
Spartanforlife4 said:
I think your second part argues against your first. Why take away fans you already don't have?
Click to expand...

Because de-valuing college hockey makes the sport less valuable to other networks. ESPN flaunts it and it's annoying, but they do have a huge impact on the perspective of the common idiot sports fan.

We all know that ESPN only carries it at all because the NCAA makes them.
 
Re: NCAA Frozen Four

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Because de-valuing college hockey makes the sport less valuable to other networks. ESPN flaunts it and it's annoying, but they do have a huge impact on the perspective of the common idiot sports fan.
Click to expand...
I don't think the CISF was ever going to get into college hockey. For one thing, it's hockey, so there goes 90% of your audience. For another, only a few jock factory schools play it, so there goes another 8%.
 
Re: NCAA Frozen Four

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Because de-valuing college hockey makes the sport less valuable to other networks. ESPN flaunts it and it's annoying, but they do have a huge impact on the perspective of the common idiot sports fan.

We all know that ESPN only carries it at all because the NCAA makes them.
Click to expand...

The idea that ESPN is deliberately trying to submarine college hockey is absurd. The idea that they feel threatened by college hockey's coverage on other networks, also absurd. That big-name school in South Bend was broadcast live on national television on NBC Sports Network and drew... 70,000 viewers. ESPN gets a half-million viewers with its eyes closed.

It is understandable to be disappointed that the coverage is getting bumped back a tier, but don't be foolish enough to think that there is some spiteful conspiracy involved. It comes down to basic numbers. Will college hockey get better ratings than the Masters? Not even close. Will college hockey get better ratings than the NBA? Not even a contest. Will it get better ratings than Sportscenter on a weekend with Baseball starting up and the Masters being played? No way.

We are not a big sport. We are not a national sport. Expecting to get premiere coverage on a big sports weekend is asking to have one's expectations dashed.

ESPN has made the NCAA tournament far more accessible in the past few years by showing games on ESPN U and ESPN3. The quality of coverage has increased in a tremendous way, and ESPN's best hockey people (including Gary Thorne, long the best hockey voice in America) cover both the attendance-free regionals and the Frozen Four. But ESPN is a business and they do big numbers and college hockey is just not a good deal for them. They'd be deliriously happy if it drew larger ratings, but that has not happened in the history of the event.
 
Re: NCAA Frozen Four

Caustic Undertow said:
The idea that ESPN is deliberately trying to submarine college hockey is absurd. The idea that they feel threatened by college hockey's coverage on other networks, also absurd. That big-name school in South Bend was broadcast live on national television on NBC Sports Network and drew... 70,000 viewers. ESPN gets a half-million viewers with its eyes closed.

It is understandable to be disappointed that the coverage is getting bumped back a tier, but don't be foolish enough to think that there is some spiteful conspiracy involved. It comes down to basic numbers. Will college hockey get better ratings than the Masters? Not even close. Will college hockey get better ratings than the NBA? Not even a contest. Will it get better ratings than Sportscenter on a weekend with Baseball starting up and the Masters being played? No way.

We are not a big sport. We are not a national sport. Expecting to get premiere coverage on a big sports weekend is asking to have one's expectations dashed.

ESPN has made the NCAA tournament far more accessible in the past few years by showing games on ESPN U and ESPN3. The quality of coverage has increased in a tremendous way, and ESPN's best hockey people (including Gary Thorne, long the best hockey voice in America) cover both the attendance-free regionals and the Frozen Four. But ESPN is a business and they do big numbers and college hockey is just not a good deal for them. They'd be deliriously happy if it drew larger ratings, but that has not happened in the history of the event.
Click to expand...

The quality of coverage has improved? Really?

If they don't want to broadcast the games, then they can sell the broadcast rights to NBC and let them carry the Frozen Four and the regionals.

It's not a matter of being threatened that college hockey will catch on in popularity, it's that on a Friday night in January a few people might decide to watch college hockey instead of Fairfield at Iona on one of the ESPN networks. And if they tune in to watch college hockey, they might notice that NBC has other sports shows (including college basketball and football) and has some pretty good NFL shows with Peter King, Mike Florio and persona non grata, Dan Patrick. That's how you start losing viewers and your ratings start to get eroded. Sure, it's not a threat now, why take a chance that it might happen?
 
Re: NCAA Frozen Four

Red Cows said:
I've been reading this thread trying to figure out what the heck the issue is.

My provider threw this in when ESPN unveiled it. Clear back in '05, if I remember correctly. Never had to proactively do anything.

Guess I should be glad I have COX.
Click to expand...

People are mad because their cable provider doesn't carry ESPNU. Or they are saying that at least. I have Charter (not by choice but my location dictates it) and I haste it, but I pay for the sports tier and get basically everything.

I think that you may need to do more digging. Sure, maybe 5 years ago your cable provider didn't carry all of the sports networks but unless they are ACME cablevision I think they do now.

For instance, Charter didn't have the BTN when it first came out, therefore I had to go to Hooters to watch the Appy State debacle in 2007. Let me tell you, Hooters didn't make me happy tht day. I was in mourning for a full-month after that game, but the point is Charter added that network the next fall.

On a side note, I sure hope that the BTN works on their Hockey coverage before the BTHC comes to fruition. Not sure how many people have witnessed a game on the BTN but wow, is it awful. Horrible camera work, ****-poor production, and the commentators don't even talk about anything relevant. It's like they aren't even at the game and most of the time, they're not. They're back in Chicago watching it on TV...

Horrible!
 
Re: NCAA Frozen Four

So, that post from that WCHA blogger on this site answered my question: ESPNU is in 27 million homes. Considering the network's been around for nearly seven years, that's a pretty ugly number. More so if that 27 million figure takes into account the number of potential homes the network can be seen in. (AKA, the number of homes that can technically watch the network but "...don't want to pay the extra $5.")

Looking into my crystal ball, I see ESPN's future Frozen Four coverage:

2012: All games carried on ESPNU and ESPN 2.
2014: All games carried on ESPNU and ESPN3.com.
2015: All games carried on ESPN3.com.
2016: All games carries on ESPN8.gov.
2021-2024: All games carried on ESPN's soon-to-be-announced post-apocalyptic all-telegraph network... pre-emped to 3:00 a.m. on each night to accommodate prime-time marathons of The World Series of Jacks and Dan Lebatard's Rabies-Infested Genetic Mutant Clone is Somewhat Questionable and Drools More Than He Really Should.
2025: ESPN renews NCAA contract through 3732, forgets to broadcast hockey altogether for 2025.
2026: Ragnarök.
 
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Frozen Four

UMICH said:
On a side note, I sure hope that the BTN works on their Hockey coverage before the BTHC comes to fruition. Not sure how many people have witnessed a game on the BTN but wow, is it awful. Horrible camera work, ****-poor production, and the commentators don't even talk about anything relevant. It's like they aren't even at the game and most of the time, they're not. They're back in Chicago watching it on TV...

Horrible!
Click to expand...
Granted, you noted that you were a little late to the BTN party, but hockey production was pooptastic at best during the first two years of the network's existence. Compared to back then, they're actually trying.

Granted, it's still not good coverage, but at least they're treating college hockey with a little more gravitas now than, say, men's gymnastics at this time in 2008, for example. No offense intended to the men's gymnastics fans out there, but, well, c'mon... it's men's gymnastics.

I think Dan Kelly's a solid lead play-by-play talent who has a pretty long history with college hockey dating back to his days broadcasting for DU with FSN-Rocky Mountain. BTN's trying to put together cohesive intermission and post-game reports - they don't really have any clue how to do that effectively, but they're trying, which outright couldn't be said in 2008. Hell, BTN's even put together a specific graphics package and production elements for hockey, which, again, couldn't be said in 2008.

BTN realizes it has decent Friday night filler programming now with hockey, which is something it hasn't had, well... ever. (Case in point, that wretched Friday Night Tailgate show before it was completely retooled.) Though they aren't pouring much money into hockey broadcasts, they are pouring more money into them.

I remain cautiously optimistic that coverage will be passable once tBTHC rolls around. It's probably "live dress rehearsal" mode until then, though.
 
Re: NCAA Frozen Four

Wouldn't a College Hockey Network be fantastic? I'd easily pay, I dunno, 500 bucks a season for it. I cant get enough of the sport, I'd watch every game covered.

Truth is, its a niche sport, and I doubt that ever changes.

This is a rough year, Florida? I'm curious to see what the draw will be, now to hear its on ESPNU, that cant be good for marketing the sport, I wonder why the NCAA allows that, or would sign off on it. Im sure when the contract was signed there had to be some agreements on the coverage?
 
Re: NCAA Frozen Four

aallenpollreisz said:
Granted, you noted that you were a little late to the BTN party, but hockey production was pooptastic at best during the first two years of the network's existence. Compared to back then, they're actually trying.

Granted, it's still not good coverage, but at least they're treating college hockey with a little more gravitas now than, say, men's gymnastics at this time in 2008, for example. No offense intended to the men's gymnastics fans out there, but, well, c'mon... it's men's gymnastics.

I think Dan Kelly's a solid lead play-by-play talent who has a pretty long history with college hockey dating back to his days broadcasting for DU with FSN-Rocky Mountain. BTN's trying to put together cohesive intermission and post-game reports - they don't really have any clue how to do that effectively, but they're trying, which outright couldn't be said in 2008. Hell, BTN's even put together a specific graphics package and production elements for hockey, which, again, couldn't be said in 2008.

BTN realizes it has decent Friday night filler programming now with hockey, which is something it hasn't had, well... ever. (Case in point, that wretched Friday Night Tailgate show before it was completely retooled.) Though they aren't pouring much money into hockey broadcasts, they are pouring more money into them.

I remain cautiously optimistic that coverage will be passable once tBTHC rolls around. It's probably "live dress rehearsal" mode until then, though.
Click to expand...

The commentators aren't even at the rink! Even when the BTN came to your school to cover the Michigan-Michigan State game at Munn the announcers were in Chicago! I remember the first game that I ever saw on the BTN. It was Michigan at ohio state. The camera was from way above the ice because the press box was way up there at an arena. I almost thought the camera was coming from a blimp it was so far away. For crying out loud, they used the ohio state radio guys to do the play by play.

Seriously, it hasn't got much better. They really need to at least figure out how to use the zoom function.

A funny story, the BTN was covering a Hockey game at Yost (Michigan's rink) one night. There was a baseball game going on at the same time (well, the late innings anyway). It seemed as if the entire crew was watching the baseball game and not working on getting ready for the Hockey coverage. Of course all of the production people were contract workers, meaning that they don't actually work for the BTN. They are just covering this game for the BTN and are only getting paid for covering that game. That may have changed but that was back in the spring of '08 I think.
 
Re: NCAA Frozen Four

Caustic Undertow said:
The idea that ESPN is deliberately trying to submarine college hockey is absurd. The idea that they feel threatened by college hockey's coverage on other networks, also absurd. That big-name school in South Bend was broadcast live on national television on NBC Sports Network and drew... 70,000 viewers. ESPN gets a half-million viewers with its eyes closed.

It is understandable to be disappointed that the coverage is getting bumped back a tier, but don't be foolish enough to think that there is some spiteful conspiracy involved. It comes down to basic numbers. Will college hockey get better ratings than the Masters? Not even close. Will college hockey get better ratings than the NBA? Not even a contest. Will it get better ratings than Sportscenter on a weekend with Baseball starting up and the Masters being played? No way.

We are not a big sport. We are not a national sport. Expecting to get premiere coverage on a big sports weekend is asking to have one's expectations dashed.

ESPN has made the NCAA tournament far more accessible in the past few years by showing games on ESPN U and ESPN3. The quality of coverage has increased in a tremendous way, and ESPN's best hockey people (including Gary Thorne, long the best hockey voice in America) cover both the attendance-free regionals and the Frozen Four. But ESPN is a business and they do big numbers and college hockey is just not a good deal for them. They'd be deliriously happy if it drew larger ratings, but that has not happened in the history of the event.
Click to expand...
+1

It might hurt our feelings a little bit but the national t.v. viewing audience looks at college hockey like we look at lacrosse or track and field. Even college baseball gets twice the viewership that college hockey gets. Hockey just doesn't generate the national passion we all feel for it. The only way to avoid the Frozen Four t.v. dilema, go to the games. I haven't watched a Frozen Four game on t.v. since 2004. All 21 games since then I've seen in person. I'm actually surprised the games stayed on the top 2 ESPN channels as long as they did. Why do you think they dropped the NHL a few years ago? They didn't get ratings for that either. It sucks for us but its reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top