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.

NHL 2021: I Pledge Allegiance to Gritty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drew S. said:
ESPN+ irritates me where I’m already paying a lot through my cable bill and the content used to be free. I signed up for NHL center ice this season and probably will next year as well.
Click to expand...

Me, too. As does Discovery+. At least Netflix and Amazon Prime don't already have a TV channel that we have been watching for decades. And that's why I asked how popular streaming sports really is.
 
Jimjamesak said:
Popular enough that ESPN and the NHL are willing to partner on it.

This is actually a pretty good deal. ESPN+ is already worth its cost and this just increases the value plus the likely weekly games on TV. The NHL gets a second network involved and more coverage plus access to games is now easier for fans.
Click to expand...

Until they fix the streaming situation for "in market" games, they all suck. On a given April night, if the stars align, here in Iowa the entire AL central, NL central, Wild, Blues, Blackhawks, Timberwolves, Bucks and Bulls will all be blacked out across the entire state. Never mind that, at most, in a given city probably only 2 of the baseball games, 1 hockey game, and 1 basketball game will actually be available on regular cable.

I would shell out mega bucks to just be able to stream the Wild and Cubs legally. As is, MLB gets $20 from me for the radio package and the NHL gets zilch.
 
Last edited:
unofan said:
Until they fix the streaming situation for "in market" games, they all suck. On a given April night, if the stars align, here in Iowa the entire AL central, NL central, Wild, Blues, Blackhawks, Timberwolves, Bucks and Bulls will all be blacked out across the entire state. Never mind that, at most, in a given city probably only 2 of the baseball games, 1 hockey game, and 1 basketball game will actually be available on regular cable.

I would shell out mega bucks to just be able to stream the Wild and Cubs legally. As is, MLB gets $20 from me for the radio package and the NHL gets zilch.
Click to expand...

There is an easy fix to this. End the blackouts and only make the local broadcast available for streaming if doing it through the league's streaming package. There's no way they can't figure out how many people are streaming it and add it to the ratings.

In Indianapolis I had NHL.TV and I couldn't watch the Wild when they played the Blackhawks, because it was blacked out and I didn't get the channel it was on.
 
Sports TV rights are way behind the curve in adapting to streaming. And the reason is that everyone is trying to wring every last dollar out of the existing contracts. And as you've seen with the LA Dodgers and now the Cubs, teams don't really feel the need to be on TV within the local market. So why the blackouts?
 
MichVandal said:
I kind of disagree- the NBA coverage for their talking heads is all because Disney invested a mint into their NBA coverage- which has had a lot of predictable effects on the salaries of the players, which is kind of funny. That raise everyone got is very much based on ESPN/ABC's TV coverage to be worth it enough to do it again- and if it's not, then a massive pool of money goes away.

That being said, the SC coverage of the NBA is all about getting ratings for their live coverage of games. So that their own investment pays off.

So, assuming that ESPN paid the NHL to show games, instead of the other way around, it's in their best interest to cover it on SC so that they get some people watching games. Will that make the talking heads watchable? No, of course not. But it will at least take some of the NBA coverage off their shows, and insert some NHL coverage- which has been lacking since the NBA TV deal.
Click to expand...

I haven't watched the shows like PTI in a long time. The last time I tuned in Wilbon was ripping people who watch hockey, and LeBatard was constantly not interested in the NHL playoffs at the time. This new contract likely does take the negative and push it to more neutral. I still won't watch them though. The point is, ESPN will never drive up a narrative to get more people interested in the NHL. I thought this before I knew the details of the deal. (Yes, I realize this will look disingenuous, apologies.)
 
unofan said:
Until they fix the streaming situation for "in market" games, they all suck. On a given April night, if the stars align, here in Iowa the entire AL central, NL central, Wild, Blues, Blackhawks, Timberwolves, Bucks and Bulls will all be blacked out across the entire state. Never mind that, at most, in a given city probably only 2 of the baseball games, 1 hockey game, and 1 basketball game will actually be available on regular cable.

I would shell out mega bucks to just be able to stream the Wild and Cubs legally. As is, MLB gets $20 from me for the radio package and the NHL gets zilch.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The blackout territories are asinine and they seem to have grown larger (at least in the NHL) a few years ago.



MLB did make an agreement to make in-market games available to add on to the MLBtv package, but never released the details of that plan thanks to Covid.
 
Bronco said:
I haven't watched the shows like PTI in a long time. The last time I tuned in Wilbon was ripping people who watch hockey, and LeBatard was constantly not interested in the NHL playoffs at the time. This new contract likely does take the negative and push it to more neutral. I still won't watch them though. The point is, ESPN will never drive up a narrative to get more people interested in the NHL. I thought this before I knew the details of the deal. (Yes, I realize this will look disingenuous, apologies.)
Click to expand...

Seeing how they presented hockey over the last decade, I VERY much understand where you are coming from. And I don't think it's disingenuous, BTW- more cautious based on previous history. F1 has been on ESPN for 2 years now, after not being there for 20 years, and they don't cover it at all. And F1 was part of ESPN's starting history, too- that's where I first saw it in the early 80s.

But when it's in your best interest to try to get as many eyes as you can on your channel, you hype the cap out of it- see NBA, SEC, college FB, NFL, etc. They are paying to put this on their channel, so they need to promote it as much as possible.

In theory, at least.

The talking heads shows are odd- not sure who they are supposed to appeal to- as they just drone on and on for the same thing. At least that's what I've seen when I click through them.
 
MichVandal said:
Seeing how they presented hockey over the last decade, I VERY much understand where you are coming from. And I don't think it's disingenuous, BTW- more cautious based on previous history. F1 has been on ESPN for 2 years now, after not being there for 20 years, and they don't cover it at all. And F1 was part of ESPN's starting history, too- that's where I first saw it in the early 80s.

But when it's in your best interest to try to get as many eyes as you can on your channel, you hype the cap out of it- see NBA, SEC, college FB, NFL, etc. They are paying to put this on their channel, so they need to promote it as much as possible.

In theory, at least.

The talking heads shows are odd- not sure who they are supposed to appeal to- as they just drone on and on for the same thing. At least that's what I've seen when I click through them.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we all wish that ESPN 2 would go back to the way it was with NHL2Night and great coverage. It will never do that again. To ESPN the NHL is basically the MAC. There to fill a time slot once college football season is finished, and that's all.

The talking head shows are the equivalent to a carnival barker. Narratives drive sport growth on TV/Media and they get more people to care. Manufactured or real drama keeps people tuned in. ESPN and social media mixed into the perfect storm and made the NBA players vital to viewers. The teams do not matter as much, only the players. Most of the younger sports fans I know care much more about the players than they do the teams they play on. You can simply follow/watch them on Twitter/FB/TikTok/Twitch. Players or EPSN create drama. Players respond on social media, then ESPN feeds off that content. And all of this the NHL does not have. The only time the NHL had coverage that I could remember in the last 10-15 years was Crosby vs Ovie. Once that went away so did the NHL off of ESPN's radar.
 
Jimjamesak said:
I think you all are missing the point, which is that Pierre McGuire will be on TV less.
Click to expand...

Wasn't he formerly on TSN broadcasts, and isn't he still employed by TSN Radio? And isn't TSN partially owned by ESPN?

Pretty sure we're still gonna see him on ESPN. :madface:
 
aparch said:
Wasn't he formerly on TSN broadcasts, and isn't he still employed by TSN Radio? And isn't TSN partially owned by ESPN?

Pretty sure we're still gonna see him on ESPN. :madface:
Click to expand...
I sure hope not. If they’re getting anyone from TSN it should be Gord Miller and Ray Ferraro.
 
For the first time in forever the Wild are not only not the most boring team to watch, but finally have offensive talent and are fun to watch. Kirill the Thrill, Greenway, Eriksson Ek, Fiala, Dumba, Kahkonen... However their power play has been more of a power outage all season.
 
Slap Shot said:
For the first time in forever the Wild are not only not the most boring team to watch, but finally have offensive talent and are fun to watch. Kirill the Thrill, Greenway, Eriksson Ek, Fiala, Dumba, Kahkonen... However their power play has been more of a power outage all season.
Click to expand...

Also can't win a face off to save their lives it seems. But agreed very fun to watch recently.
 
Last edited:
The Isles keep piling up points! They now have taken 21 of the 22 possible points in their last 11 games, and lead the East Division. Now, if there were only a way we could have it work out that we play Buffalo each round of the Playoffs, and I like our chances to win the Cup! : - P
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
The Isles keep piling up points! They now have taken 21 of the 22 possible points in their last 11 games, and lead the East Division. Now, if there were only a way we could have it work out that we play Buffalo each round of the Playoffs, and I like our chances to win the Cup! : - P
Click to expand...

You may be the only Sioux / Isles fan. How did that happen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top