The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
ESPN's John Skipper: "We are doing hockey highlights."
Slightly ot-can anyone tell me how ESPN is treating the whole Danica Patrick-Daytona Pole story: are they being decent or milking it for all it's worth?
Why aren't there complaints that they don't cover cricket? You think it may have something to do with the amount of people who watch ESPN who aren't interested in it?
If you don't get your hockey fix from ESPN, change the channel. Those who don't care about the lack of hockey coverage on ESPN will continue to watch. Judging by the number of people who watch ESPN, the lack of hockey coverage is a non-issue.
Why aren't there complaints that they don't cover cricket? You think it may have something to do with the amount of people who watch ESPN who aren't interested in it?
If you don't get your hockey fix from ESPN, change the channel. Those who don't care about the lack of hockey coverage on ESPN will continue to watch. Judging by the number of people who watch ESPN, the lack of hockey coverage is a non-issue.
No use crying about it.
If you watch their highlight shows and talk shows regularly, it's fairly obvious that viewer demand is not the only driver of content. The other major factor is marketing.
For example, ever since ESPN took over broadcasting rights to Monday Night Football, they pretty much dedicate highlight and talk shows to drum up interest for the game in the 24-48 hours leading up to it.
During college bowl season, ESPN is even more obvious about their intentions. During the Fiesta Bowl, ESPN kept reminding viewers to tune into the BBVA Compass Bowl, while completely ignoring the existence of the much bigger Cotton Bowl, which was going to be aired on Fox. Surely you don't have to guess which game the average sports fan cared more about.
I'm having a good laugh at all the anti-ESPN comments.
ESPN is covering what the viewers want them to cover, otherwise no one would be watching ESPN. Simple supply and demand.
ESPN uses all of its media outlets (TV stations, radio stations, website, etc.) to cover the same stories driving the impression that they are covering what the viewers want them to cover. There is no reason every single media outlet they own needed to cover Danica Patrick winning the pole for Daytona at the length they did.
If you listen to ESPN radio in the morning, at every update they give they will list EVERY NBA score from the previous evening and NO NHL scores. You cannot tell me that there is more demand nationally for the score and/or highlights of Milwaukee vs Charlotte then ANY coverage of the NHL.
I'm having a good laugh at all the anti-ESPN comments.
ESPN is covering what the viewers want them to cover, otherwise no one would be watching ESPN. Simple supply and demand.
ESPN's appeal is in its simplistic analysis. Every loss is a lack of hard work. Every win is inspirational. Any moron can then talk about sports by just sticking to hard work, grit, heart, ect.
Its sad that dumbing down discussions for the masses has become acceptable because its profitable. Intelligent discussion has no place in America unless you're a comedian and all you can do is laugh at the absurdity of a culture that worships KISS (and not the band).
ESPN's appeal is in its simplistic analysis. Every loss is a lack of hard work. Every win is inspirational. Any moron can then talk about sports by just sticking to hard work, grit, heart, ect.
Its sad that dumbing down discussions for the masses has become acceptable because its profitable. Intelligent discussion has no place in America unless you're a comedian and all you can do is laugh at the absurdity of a culture that worships KISS (and not the band).
When Mark Cuban ripped on Skip Bayless he put it perfectly, basically stating what you are right now. I find the leagues own networks put out a better product than ESPN, I watch NFL networks pregame and analysis shows over ESPN and think it's far superior. The only thing on ESPN I even remotely like is College Gameday for football, since I think Corso and Herbstreit are actually good personalities.
Almost all of the other personalities on ESPN are a bunch of blowhards spewing crap.
TSN is probably guilty of the opposite, only to a higher degree.
TSN shows more basketball highlights and has more basketball segments than ESPN does hockey.
I've watched ESPN when there was only a handful of NBA games on the night before and more than double the hockey games. They did full highlight packages of all the NBA games, got analysis for the games, then showed some interviews from those games. After that they did some stuff on college basketball, football and a bit on the NFL offseason. Then they started to do those NBA highlights again. 10 minutes later they finally got to hockey, but they only showed 2 of the games.
TSN almost always gets to every game unless there was too many games, then they'll cut out games from teams like the Bobcats or Pistons.
TSN focuses on hockey, but they talk enough about the other sports. NBA is the one they least talk about (I'd say it's hockey, then Blue Jays baseball, then a tie between other teams MLB/NFL football then NBA but it's not like they ignore games like ESPN does. ESPN treats basketball like its the number one sport in the USA when its not. TSN treats hockey like it's the number one sport in Canada which it is.
ESPN makes the news, it doesn't report it. I stopped watching a long time ago. They contribute to the problems we have in society these days. Just rubbish being put on TV with people eating it up. Makes me sick. Just watch local shows.
Maybe try a browser that works, I can see all of the scores fine on chrome.
I use chrome and that has nothing to do with the browser. ESPN's website said there were not any games my computer/browser did not magically hack into ESPN and change their website to say there were not any games.
If it weren't for the LA Kings then yeah it probably would of been 6x. Nobody would of watched a Coyotes-Devils finals. Not to mention the NBA had a lot more superstars playing than the NHL did.
House of cards arguemnt....Are they superstars because ESPN says they are with their coverage?
In terms of coverage...ESPNNEWS is different---it does do much more NHL highlights. Its more diven by this is what happening now.
With Sportscenter its about cross pollination/promoting what is on their network.
On Wed nights show there was no coverage of Lindy Ruff being fired and there also was no coverage of the snow in tuscon causing the postponement of the PGA. If they didnt own cable rights to some of the majors, and exclusive US rihgts the the british open they wouldnt cover golf either.
I don't hate ESPN because they don't cover the NHL, I hate them because they do cover the NHL.
The little time they do spend talking about hockey is with their idiot NBA analysts who believe that basketball's no contact crap is the only way to go and that the NHL will eternally suck until they ban fighting.
So I'd rather they not talk about it at all if they're going to pollute the sport with their piss poor brainwashed opinions.
I don't hate ESPN because they don't cover the NHL, I hate them because they do cover the NHL.
The little time they do spend talking about hockey is with their idiot NBA analysts who believe that basketball's no contact crap is the only way to go and that the NHL will eternally suck until they ban fighting.
So I'd rather they not talk about it at all if they're going to pollute the sport with their piss poor brainwashed opinions.
Wait are they using their NBA analysts for hockey too?
I haven't watched sportscenter or any form of espn news since and used to watch it all the time for years. I know I am not alone eihter. I advise them not to show highlights and stay with what they have been doing because they already lost NHL fans by and large.
Wait are they using their NBA analysts for hockey too?
About a year ago there was a PTI segment where the two bozos were going over the opening faceoff brawl between the Rangers and Devils.
The first thing the two idiots were saying is that's not what the game is about... Umm... What the hell do you know about the game.
The second thing was a prediction that the time is coming where the players were going to stand up and demand for a ban on fighting.
That second part was funny, because they were claiming that about a month after the players poll came out... The one where 98% of players said they were in support of fighting.
They (ESPN anchors and analysts) also went on a rant about it a month ago after the AHL brawl happened.
ESPN is covering what the viewers want them to cover, otherwise no one would be watching ESPN. Simple supply and demand.
Or is the problem is that the NHL isn't popular on ESPN is because they don't cover it? The typical ESPN viewer probably have no idea that the NHL exists.
I no longer watch it at home unless Monday Night Football is on. Sportscenter covers 10 topics (Lakers, Kobe, Lebron, Yankees/Sox rivalry, Tombrady, the NFL, NCAA, any relevant suspension, a rehash of things shown earlier, and the top 10 dunks).
First Take is a rehash of Sportscenter, except for two horses' (rear ends) yelling at each other without making a single point.
Ditto PTI (except Cowlishaw who tries to mention the NHL)
Ditto Around The Horn.
There are a few times when it's on at work and I notice when the NHL is covered. Usually it's when Levy or Bucci is hosting Sportscenter and they're cramming in some news into a 15 second piece that's closing the show.
I watch ESPN as little as possible, but occasionally I'll check it out on occasion.
Sportscenter used to be the ultimate highlight/recap show along with relevant news. Now it is a story driven show that more resembles a sports version of TMZ than actual news/highlights.
And for those that think ESPN is about demand-driven programming? Please. They are making a big play for female audiences by shoving women's athletics down our throats, because it's PC and they know that their predominantly male audience will begrudgingly watch it...because it's ESPN.
Not showing proportional hockey coverage is a business decision. Stick it to the NHL for having the audacity to choose another sports network. Fine, you don't exist. We'll bury you and promote the NBA to force people to think it's popular.
The thing is, occasionally you can tell that some of the ESPN anchors really miss hockey, as they'll throw random hockey references throughout the broadcast. I've noticed Steve Levy and John Anderson do that.
And Barry Melrose...even though I think he's an asshat, I do feel sorry for him. He has to sit around all day waiting for a 2 minute segment where he does some meaningless analysis. I'm surprised he hasn't bolted from that place. It couldn't be a lucrative job career-wise at this point.
