So, the NHL has extended their "deal" with NBC for two years?

Question

What are your thoughts on NBC paying ZERO dollars for the broadcast rights for the games? After NBC takes out it's production costs, they then split any revenues leftover.

Pros and cons?

Thoughts?

Answer 1

I think you're going to see a ton of sports properties (other than the NFL, which is helped by the fantasy football and gambling aspect) take a huge hit during the next round of rights fee negotiations.



Pros:

-NBC has had the US free-to-air rights since the lockout ended (consistency).

-NBC also has the Olympic rights (cross-promotion...synergy) locked up through 2014.

-Only viable free-to-air option (if ESPN were to acquire rights there would be no free-to-air hockey in America). A perusal of the other free-to-air networks...CBS is larded with the PGA Tour and US college basketball, FOX with NASCAR and baseball, and ABC with both college and NBA basketball. FOX and CBS have long-term deals with their properties.



Cons:

-No upfront revenues.

-Schedule is rigidly defined and limited to a limited number of teams.

-NBC, despite not paying upfront, seems to have a significant influence on scheduling.

-Due to the nature of the deal NBC is making broadcast decisions on ratings and ad potential above all (NBC is owned by General Electric, for what it's worth).



I know that a lot of the American regulars carp about NBC's work. It's not CBC, but it's not that horrible. They've had a couple high-profile screw-ups (the 2007 ECF cutaway to show a horse racing prerace show), and lord knows that the NBC broadcast team isn't in favour in this forum. But what of the alternative (no free-to-air broadcasts)?



To that point, it's instructive to note that one of Bettman's accomplishments (the anti-Bettman, pro-ESPN, anti-Versus people are going to hate me for sure) is getting the NHL on American free to air television (actual regular season, playoff, and Stanley Cup Final games). Factor in how many American households do not have cable, and as they say....there's your answer.



In short...not the greatest deal, but doubtful the league was going to find a better one.

Answer 2

1. Pittsburgh retiring Jagr 2 words here "Stanley cups". 2. Gotta say Neither but I think Kansas city would be more likely, Vegas is a great sports town but they possess no home town fans. 3. Well 30 years ago if you have asked the same questions about Howe and Hull the correct answer would have been both eh? haha, so I will say both. 4. Glenn Anderson, played for those amazing Oilers dynasty teams and was a key part of their winning system. I am amazed that no one talks about how great he was when I watch the old films of that team on classic. 5. LA (too bad though, I am a Leafs fan) 6. I believe the NHL is already behind Nascar but I would like to think we can make a comeback, either way I am a hockey fan for life and will never stop watching. 7. In the NHL? thats tough. I don't see drugs as becoming a problem in the NHL, so I'll say cheating. 8.Latin Americans. 9. Ovechkin, he is already only behind Gretzky and Bossy in Goals scored during their first 3 years. Kane could do it too but Alex will do it first and maybe go on to even more. 10.St. Louis, Andy Murray and company have worked hard to turn that organization around and have made steps in the right direction. Things in Florida just are not great because of the terrible hockey market there. St. Louis still has fans a good fan base that is loyal.

Answer 3

I think someone from the NHL needs to have the balls to step up to NBC and tell them that if you want to broadcast our games that it must pay the NHL for rights to broadcast but also be willing to cover all 30 teams and not a select few.



While I do understand the ratings aspect at the same time the NHL wants ratings to grow for teams like Phoenix and Florida.



I'd say let's have broadcasts of such teams on CNBC. Why not? During the past few Olympics hockey games were being shown on CNBC and did just fine in ratings.

Answer 4

Pros:

At least the league is on a mjor network



It beats Versus



We've had some sucsess in the ratings (The Winter Classics and Game 7 though the Winter Classic's would be watched on any major network)



I still have CBC to watch on if I want to get good annoncing



If this deal didn't go through, we could see the NHL getting cut from for UFC on SpikeTV



Cons:

It's not ESPN



They cut away from games



They don't have good annoncers



Few people are watching if NASCAR or the NBA are on



The sports not becoming relevant in the US



The Mellon Arena controversy if the Sabres make it back (No more Party in the Plaza?)

Answer 5

As much as I don't like NBC's coverage, and you know how much I just LOOOOOVE Mike Milbury, the NHL has no other choice. They want most of the Stanley Cup Finals on FREE TV( meaning not cable; They have to throw a bone to Versus for stepping up and taking them when nobody else wanted it). ABC is committed to the NBA Finals at the same time. CBS has wanted nothing to do with the NHL for a while now, plus they have commitments to the PGA and March Madness.



Not sure about Fox. I know they have NASCAR for part of the racing season plus MLB



Pro - Most Cup Finals games are on Free TV, no cable or satellite needed.

Con- MIke Milbury and the lousy show NBC puts on.



The Pros outweigh the Cons

Answer 6

Biggest potential drawback: The NHL continues to use it's affiliation with NBC as an excuse to not consider a return to ESPN - it's parent company is ABC. The NHL was shown some love at the ESPY's last night and the league needs ESPN, period. If they wanted to sign zero-dollar deals, they should have done so with ESPN.



As for the pros of the deal, at least they didn't take a step backwards. The Winter Classic and game 7 of the Finals provided the biggest US hockey audiences in decades so, I suppose that's something that can be built on....

Answer 7

http://www.wholesalesoccerjerseyser.com/



and regular jerseys. trying to get an old nuggets alex english jersey asap. amazon has some for 80 bucks. i know there are cheaper places.

Answer 8

Pros:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TBam6gzgLM

Darren Pang

Doc Emrick



Cons:

NBC refuses to show any games not involving Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Washington, NY Rangers, or Chicago



Ed Olzyck and Pierre McGuire



God forbid a SCF game interfere with NBC's beloved prime-time lineup, because NBC has soooo many good shows don't they?

Answer 9

I guess I look at it like this- the NHL is desperate for coverage, and they are sucking up for that.

However, given the situation (they then split any revenues leftover) I do not see how they expect to "get ahead.".. maybe in the long run?



On a personal note- tick tock tick tock...

are these your first? get ready for a life change. hehe

Answer 10

They cut the Sabres-Ottawa overtime game an couple yrs ago. Nothing more disrespectful. I no longer have any respect for NBC.

Answer 11

Disgrace. Zero Dollars?!?

Answer 12

NBC Blows

Answer 13

i hate their announcers!! they r never ever on our (blackhawk) side! the one game they broad-casted they picked at every single thing we did wrong...and exaggerated the other teams good moves! they piss me off! i prefer watching hockey on comcast sports net!! **** nbc and fox!

Answer 14

ESPN needs to grow up and bring the NHL back to their network.

Answer 15

In my word, "whatever". Hockey on my television is cool....I have a mute button.



Edit: two thumbs down without a troll around.....I must be hated. I need a hug.

Answer 16

remember they cut the playoffs in overtime.

con

pro they are american good for the american audience.

Not as bad as fox though

Answer 17

Pro - Better than not being on TV.



Con - Better than not being on TV.

Answer 18

Pros- good entrance theme song lol, and HD

Cons- anti-Rangers announcers (Milbury)

Answer 19

ALL DA ANNOUNCERS HATE MY TEAM