HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

OT: Battle for TV Hockey in 2011

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-27-2010, 10:23 AM
  #51
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,522
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Versus is terrible. They cut away to commercial when a penalty is called and then don't explain or show it. They have graphics up on the screen at the worst times. They do ridiculous interviews in the middle of the game while the players are playing. No one watches Versus. If it was an an ESPN or ABC more than just once a week, that would at least get some spillover viewers from other shows. Not to mention the fact that many markets straight up don't get Versus. One way to actually get hockey back into people's minds is by putting on real TV networks. I have said this many times to my friends but one of the main reasons people don't watch or like hockey is because it just isn't there. If they showed highlights for more than 30 seconds on SportsCenter or showed a game on ESPN on like a Thursday night or had an NHL2Night type show like they used to, people would watch. But since they throw tiny clips on at the end of the show, have exclusive TV contracts with VS, and no real hockey show aside from Hockey Central which is only played before and after games, people just don't care about it. Whoever is in charge of marketing for the NHL is blowing it big time. Even the NHL Network is pretty bad.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 10:32 AM
  #52
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Versus is terrible. They cut away to commercial when a penalty is called and then don't explain or show it. They have graphics up on the screen at the worst times. They do ridiculous interviews in the middle of the game while the players are playing. No one watches Versus. If it was an an ESPN or ABC more than just once a week, that would at least get some spillover viewers from other shows. Not to mention the fact that many markets straight up don't get Versus. One way to actually get hockey back into people's minds is by putting on real TV networks. I have said this many times to my friends but one of the main reasons people don't watch or like hockey is because it just isn't there. If they showed highlights for more than 30 seconds on SportsCenter or showed a game on ESPN on like a Thursday night or had an NHL2Night type show like they used to, people would watch. But since they throw tiny clips on at the end of the show, have exclusive TV contracts with VS, and no real hockey show aside from Hockey Central which is only played before and after games, people just don't care about it. Whoever is in charge of marketing for the NHL is blowing it big time. Even the NHL Network is pretty bad.
Nothing is worse then Comcasts NHL package not getting the HD feed.

It's 2010. Get your **** together Comcast. Stop hiding in your huge glass tower and changing your name to Xfinity.

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 11:04 AM
  #53
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,522
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishSniper87 View Post
Nothing is worse then Comcasts NHL package not getting the HD feed.

It's 2010. Get your **** together Comcast. Stop hiding in your huge glass tower and changing your name to Xfinity.
Ugh. That's rough. Luckily I'm in a Philly market so I don't have to pay the extra watch the Flyers play.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 11:10 AM
  #54
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishSniper87 View Post
Nothing is worse then Comcasts NHL package not getting the HD feed.

It's 2010. Get your **** together Comcast. Stop hiding in your huge glass tower and changing your name to Xfinity.
That isn't about glass tower, it's a serious technology issue for Comcast. Because Comcast runs over wires, they have bandwidth limits to how much information that can pass across those wires. HD feeds are BIG, so it's a big deal for them to add on HD channels.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 11:11 AM
  #55
RIPRichardsCarter
Registered User
 
RIPRichardsCarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,954
vCash: 500
Going to Versus was one of the worst things the NHL has done and to continue with them is horribly stupid.

Both at school and at home I don't get Versus on basic cable. I can only watch it on my one TV that has a cable box with extra channels. ESPN/ABC are basically on every TV. If the NHL wants to actually gain a larger fan base and compete with leagues like the NFL they need to get the **** off Versus.

On top of that, Versus doesn't even have good coverage. They constantly cut away from action after the whistle (leading to fans missing fights and other stories of the game). Their broadcasting team is average IMO. They aren't very good on updating on injuries or other stories throughout the game and they do stupid ass interviews while the game is on.

Lastly, NO ONE WATCHES VERSUS. No casual viewer is going to be skipping through channels and stop on Versus. Put it on ESPN/ABC, the viewers go up, the fans grow, the NHL grows.

Lets be serious, what stupid **** thought it was a great idea to put hockey on "The Outdoor Living Network".


RIPRichardsCarter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 11:12 AM
  #56
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I think the NBA lockout on the way regardless. That's good news for the NHL.

As for the NFL, I think that'll be far harder to hope for a lockout, but the NFL is NOT too big to fail so to speak. There are some serious problems I could see getting discussed. Though, I don't think the NFL will get to the point where they completely shutdown for a season.
The NFL is going to be quibbles about how they split up the pie... If they can't hammer that out, they're idiots. NBA is going to be over serious structural/contractual issues, and they're going to go hard after a hard salary cap.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 11:39 AM
  #57
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Ugh. That's rough. Luckily I'm in a Philly market so I don't have to pay the extra watch the Flyers play.
I'm local as well. Comcast just guaranteed that I would not order the NHL package though with these BS non-HD feeds. I would love to catch some Blackhawk and LA Kings games, but not in standard def. No thanks. I could stream standard def over the internet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
That isn't about glass tower, it's a serious technology issue for Comcast. Because Comcast runs over wires, they have bandwidth limits to how much information that can pass across those wires. HD feeds are BIG, so it's a big deal for them to add on HD channels.
HD feeds are not THAT big. I have bought LCD's years ago with better resolutions then my TV. My Cellphone is at about half resolution of my HDTV. With how much data Comcast transfers over it's fiber optic network, you would think they would have better feeds.

Comcast has at least 20 HD channels I don't even want. Kill some of them!

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 11:46 AM
  #58
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishSniper87 View Post
HD feeds are not THAT big. I have bought LCD's years ago with better resolutions then my TV. My Cellphone is at about half resolution of my HDTV. With how much data Comcast transfers over it's fiber optic network, you would think they would have better feeds.

Comcast has at least 20 HD channels I don't even want. Kill some of them!
HD feeds are huge... ever see the DVR difference between 60 minutes of HD and 60 minutes of SD? I believe it's roughly 5x larger in size. Your screen resolution isn't the issue...it's actually getting that information to your TV. That's where satellite has a significant advantage technologically, they don't have to worry about bandwidth problems.

The fiber network doesn't go to every door (and in urban environments there are serious issues in extending fiber networks--you have to dig **** up). While I agree that they give you a ton of channels you have no interest in, that's partially due to how cable works as a business right now...and you're also asking them to get rid of a channel that someone presumably watches to clear space for channels that will be in use for 6 hours a day by a small subset of their subscribers.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 11:53 AM
  #59
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
HD feeds are huge... ever see the DVR difference between 60 minutes of HD and 60 minutes of SD? I believe it's roughly 5x larger in size. Your screen resolution isn't the issue...it's actually getting that information to your TV. That's where satellite has a significant advantage technologically, they don't have to worry about bandwidth problems.

The fiber network doesn't go to every door (and in urban environments there are serious issues in extending fiber networks--you have to dig **** up). While I agree that they give you a ton of channels you have no interest in, that's partially due to how cable works as a business right now...and you're also asking them to get rid of a channel that someone presumably watches to clear space for channels that will be in use for 6 hours a day by a small subset of their subscribers.
This is no time for logic. I want things my way and I want them now!

**** Comcast.

Here is an idea. Have the Blackhawks and Kings games play on those stupid channels I dont like, and fill the rest of the program with the BS I don't like. Call them Versus dos and Versus tres.

Or just play other teams games on CSN. That channel has no point other then Flyers/Sixers overflow anyway.

EDIT: Yes, I have noticed the difference on my DVR. However, I rarely watch SD anything anymore. Not on TV. I can watch that online.

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 12:00 PM
  #60
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishSniper87 View Post
This is no time for logic. I want things my way and I want them now!

**** Comcast.

Here is an idea. Have the Blackhawks and Kings games play on those stupid channels I dont like, and fill the rest of the program with the BS I don't like. Call them Versus dos and Versus tres.

Or just play other teams games on CSN. That channel has no point other then Flyers/Sixers overflow anyway.

EDIT: Yes, I have noticed the difference on my DVR. However, I rarely watch SD anything anymore. Not on TV. I can watch that online.
I mean, in a credit to them, over the last year we've started to see more and more Caps, Hawks, and Sharks games in HD on TCN. However, this issue with HD and the sports packages is a big issue for Comcast in their competition with satellite.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 12:07 PM
  #61
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I mean, in a credit to them, over the last year we've started to see more and more Caps, Hawks, and Sharks games in HD on TCN. However, this issue with HD and the sports packages is a big issue for Comcast in their competition with satellite.
I have seen a Shawks and Caps game, so I agree.

However, I would like more hockey coming through, and TCN doesn't play anything else anyway. Maybe run some games here and there. Even encores would be nice. I'm turning into a bit of a Hawks fan. Like the jersey, like the logo, like the direction of the club and I own either Toews or Kane in virtually all of my keeper leagues. I just like watching them play.

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 12:11 PM
  #62
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishSniper87 View Post
I have seen a Shawks and Caps game, so I agree.

However, I would like more hockey coming through, and TCN doesn't play anything else anyway. Maybe run some games here and there. Even encores would be nice. I'm turning into a bit of a Hawks fan. Like the jersey, like the logo, like the direction of the club and I own either Toews or Kane in virtually all of my keeper leagues. I just like watching them play.
Yep, I have no idea what the rules are with regard to them doing that, however. Obviously they are not going to show a game that conflicts with a Flyers broadcast (thus we get more Hawks and Sharks), and then I'm sure there are issues beyond that. They probably don't want to put up competition for the Sixers...

But the Sharks and Hawks were on a fair amount from what I saw (I didn't get to watch much because I can only subject the g/f to so much hockey)...

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 12:25 PM
  #63
sobrien
RAFFLCOPTER
 
sobrien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 7,624
vCash: 880
I'm in Huntington, WV and you don't get VS. with the basic cable running through dorms and houses. If you have an LCD or plasma TV, you get it for free with the DTV package. It's weird....it also sucks. Not everyone can get Versus without paying extra, and most people probably don't know what channel versus is off the top of their heads, its not in their main rotation.

Plus you add in the fact that during the regular season, if you tune into VS on a thursday and you see bull-riding or MMA, it makes you wonder how committed Versus is to the NHL, its still seen as part of the Big-4 sports, but when VS only televises it on MON/TUES during the regular season, its pretty embarrassing.

I agree with the notion that the NHL has to think strategy at this point, and not money. ESPN will get them more money in the long run, while VS will probably offer a juicier contract up front. But the exposure ESPN gives to sports (whether you like it or not) is incredibly important to the popularity and success of each individual sport.

Sorry for writing so much

sobrien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 12:29 PM
  #64
JSTAFF
Registered User
 
JSTAFF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: Italy
Posts: 4,387
vCash: 500
I'm starting up my own cable company. Anyone on board? I have the greatest ideas, coming soon to an area near you.

JSTAFF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 12:46 PM
  #65
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sobrien View Post
I'm in Huntington, WV and you don't get VS. with the basic cable running through dorms and houses. If you have an LCD or plasma TV, you get it for free with the DTV package. It's weird....it also sucks. Not everyone can get Versus without paying extra, and most people probably don't know what channel versus is off the top of their heads, its not in their main rotation.

Plus you add in the fact that during the regular season, if you tune into VS on a thursday and you see bull-riding or MMA, it makes you wonder how committed Versus is to the NHL, its still seen as part of the Big-4 sports, but when VS only televises it on MON/TUES during the regular season, its pretty embarrassing.

I agree with the notion that the NHL has to think strategy at this point, and not money. ESPN will get them more money in the long run, while VS will probably offer a juicier contract up front. But the exposure ESPN gives to sports (whether you like it or not) is incredibly important to the popularity and success of each individual sport.

Sorry for writing so much
I think a few things you have to consider are the facts that coming out of the lockout, ESPN had opted out of their contract with the NHL, leaving the League with no cable deal. ESPN had made it clear at that time that their interests lay elsewhere, and the League was - let's face it - in near-financial ruin. So when Comcast comes in and offers $70M a year over 3 years, the League would have been a fool to not accept. And I commend the League and OLN/Vs. for making the strides they did.

Also, one thing everybody overlooks - and I'm quoting the poster above because it was brought up - there is a misconception that you don't pay for ESPN. While it's rarely (probably never) on a tier, you still pay for ESPN every single month. As Jester pointed out a page or two back, the cost of carrying ESPN was a major catalyst - if not the sole catalyst - in Comcast's failed attempt at purchasing Disney a few years ago, and is likely still a driving force in their acquisition of NBC.

As for Vs. only broadcasting Mondays and Tuesdays in the regular season, well, that's what their contract terms are. That's why you set up short-term contracts when you're feeling out a tv relationship. If all goes well this off-season, the NHL should have prime-time cable broadcasts 3 to 4 days a week.

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2010, 01:56 PM
  #66
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by i am dave View Post
I think a few things you have to consider are the facts that coming out of the lockout, ESPN had opted out of their contract with the NHL, leaving the League with no cable deal. ESPN had made it clear at that time that their interests lay elsewhere, and the League was - let's face it - in near-financial ruin. So when Comcast comes in and offers $70M a year over 3 years, the League would have been a fool to not accept. And I commend the League and OLN/Vs. for making the strides they did.

Also, one thing everybody overlooks - and I'm quoting the poster above because it was brought up - there is a misconception that you don't pay for ESPN. While it's rarely (probably never) on a tier, you still pay for ESPN every single month. As Jester pointed out a page or two back, the cost of carrying ESPN was a major catalyst - if not the sole catalyst - in Comcast's failed attempt at purchasing Disney a few years ago, and is likely still a driving force in their acquisition of NBC.

As for Vs. only broadcasting Mondays and Tuesdays in the regular season, well, that's what their contract terms are. That's why you set up short-term contracts when you're feeling out a tv relationship. If all goes well this off-season, the NHL should have prime-time cable broadcasts 3 to 4 days a week.
I hope -- but am not expecting -- to see the NHL carried on ESPN and Versus/NBC. However, I'm curious if ESPN/ABC would be interested if they didn't get the ABC part of it.

You have to think Comcast/Versus would be interested in having more games on, because that channel is basically a non-entity without hockey on it (and, even then, it isn't like hockey draws that big a rating). I would be curious if they could justify the production cost of airing more games (and thus getting lowering their quotient of marquee franchises per game aired?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2010, 07:14 AM
  #67
sharkeyanti
Registered User
 
sharkeyanti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 185
vCash: 500
As far as ESPN coverage goes -- and most people have noted this -- the NHL has a culture clash with the system that ESPN and SC operate under. We already hear enough about Ovechkin, Crosby and some other young guns, imagine if we had Sportscenter coverage? I would love for there to be ample coverage on HOCKEY on the largest national sports network, but I honestly don't care about what the players do in their personal lives; maybe hearing about a fun or inspiring anecdote is alright, but how they run their lives is their business. As far as TV contracts go, I would enjoy a once-per-week ESPN broadcast, and possibly a reincarnation of Cool Shots! but without using Barnaby or Melrose. At the very least I would enjoy if ESPN/SC gave preference to the NHL over college sports, I mean honestly: who cares about Marquette-Dayton at 8am in the morning?

sharkeyanti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2010, 09:24 AM
  #68
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkeyanti View Post
As far as ESPN coverage goes -- and most people have noted this -- the NHL has a culture clash with the system that ESPN and SC operate under. We already hear enough about Ovechkin, Crosby and some other young guns, imagine if we had Sportscenter coverage? I would love for there to be ample coverage on HOCKEY on the largest national sports network, but I honestly don't care about what the players do in their personal lives; maybe hearing about a fun or inspiring anecdote is alright, but how they run their lives is their business. As far as TV contracts go, I would enjoy a once-per-week ESPN broadcast, and possibly a reincarnation of Cool Shots! but without using Barnaby or Melrose. At the very least I would enjoy if ESPN/SC gave preference to the NHL over college sports, I mean honestly: who cares about Marquette-Dayton at 8am in the morning?
In fairness, I think SportsCenter focus on Ovechkin and Crosby is precisely what the NHL brass wants.

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 02:53 PM
  #69
Rick Nash homework
Registered User
 
Rick Nash homework's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Exactly. You remember right? The reason Obama got elected?



They won't ever hold the cultural relevance of Lebron, Shaq, or Kobe, at least until the end of hip-hop/pop/rap.

Society has a fascination with rich people who have larger than life personalities like rappers, NBA stars, and football legends. A sport like hockey with humble players who, for the most part, care about their fans, doesn't stand a chance.
Obama was like more then urbans. What if I said that only rednecks voted George W Bush and his father into office? That would just me spreading **** about a stereotype.


I'm sure rappers, NBA stars, and football legends aren't just the only people out there who have larger then life personalities. Charlie Sheen for instance

Rick Nash homework is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 09:54 AM
  #70
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
How bored were you yesterday that you went and found a thread that had been dead for almost a year?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 10:18 AM
  #71
JLHockeyKnight
IMA Real American
 
JLHockeyKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Central Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
How bored were you yesterday that you went and found a thread that had been dead for almost a year?
3:53 PM. A little early to be drunk.

JLHockeyKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 10:28 AM
  #72
Intentional Icing
why you little!
 
Intentional Icing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: 215
Posts: 511
vCash: 500
i was a solid page and a half in before i noticed that this thread was ancient :/

Intentional Icing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 10:33 AM
  #73
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
And don't get me started on that OJ Simpson trial...

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 10:44 AM
  #74
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
Edit: nevermind.

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 11:23 AM
  #75
JagerPuck
Registered User
 
JagerPuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: the 215
Country: United States
Posts: 2,591
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to JagerPuck
I am so, so sick of the entire NHL on NBC crew, they are AWFUL. Every Sunday, game of the week is just a D- production with the only good TV coming when Doc and Edzo can shut up for more than 1 minute at time.
Emmerich's schtick is tired and old.

The same exact D- show is what is also plaguing the NHL NETWORK.
Same dry commentators on the same dry set for 12 hours all night.
This goes for NHL Live's chronic "Special Guest" Ej Hradek.
Give me a break, NHL.
Step your ****ing media game up *****es.
Provide HIGH DEFINITION STREAMS TO MOTHER****ING CENTER ICE

JagerPuck is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:18 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.