gorocks99;747076 wrote:Just a thought, but I think the NHL worries, rightly or wrongly, about being seen as a "foreign" sport in this country if they expand too much into Canada. If they moved teams to say, Quebec, Winnipeg and Hamilton, you'd have 1/3 of the league playing north of the border and they might worry that American fans would start to tune out if the playoffs is Hamliton versus Ottawa, Vancouver versus Calgary, Quebec versus Montreal. Die hards wouldn't, but I bet they worry the "casual" fan would.

Plus, the money maker is audience size (because size = ad and sponsorship dollars) and the eyeballs are going to come from the country with 300 million people, 20% of whom watch hockey, before they come from the country with 35 million people where 70% watch hockey.

However, I absolutely believe the NHL needs to be smarter about where their teams are located. Phoenix is a failed experiment. Fort Lauderdale? Turrible. Nashville is lucky to have a team that competes or it would be deadsville. Columbus, despite my fandom, was a poor choice for expansion.

rock_knutne;747007 wrote:Totally agree with that move. I also could never figure out why Hamilton Ontario can't get an NHL franchise.

rock_knutne;747127 wrote:With the new rules and salary cap, all these former small market NHL cities would have a fair chance to succeed.

ts1227;747187 wrote:All they need is Bettman to swallow his pride (or whatever he has) and admit that his shifting of teams into the South and West was a massive failure. But, they keep on fighting it with everything they have because they still think what they have now is right.

Just a thought, but I think the NHL worries, rightly or wrongly, about being seen as a "foreign" sport in this country if they expand too much into Canada. If they moved teams to say, Quebec, Winnipeg and Hamilton, you'd have 1/3 of the league playing north of the border and they might worry that American fans would start to tune out if the playoffs is Hamliton versus Ottawa, Vancouver versus Calgary, Quebec versus Montreal. Die hards wouldn't, but I bet they worry the "casual" fan would.

Plus, the money maker is audience size (because size = ad and sponsorship dollars) and the eyeballs are going to come from the country with 300 million people, 20% of whom watch hockey, before they come from the country with 35 million people where 70% watch hockey.

The_Crosby_Show;747211 wrote:Anaheim, San Jose, Los Angeles, Dallas, Colorado, Nashville, Carolina, and Tampa Bay have done very well.

The teams than need to move Phoenix (pretty much a given), Atlanta, and Florida.

jordo212000;747217 wrote:Would you prefer empty stadiums in apathetic markets? The NHL would be wise to get some teams back in Canada. Putting hockey teams in Atlanta and Phoenix was absolutely laughable. People living in these cities have undoubtedly probably never had the chance to play ice hockey. And now you want these people to automatically become fans?

The_Crosby_Show;747222 wrote:In defense of the lightning, their attendance should be higher due to them making the playoffs and re-signing Stamkos in the off-season.

Carolina is a great market when they're in the playoffs.

Colorado is going through a rebuild right now. Not many people want to witness that, just look at Columbus's numbers for that. Also, Colorado has some of the highest priced tickets as well.

gorocks99;747221 wrote:Was this directed toward me or rock?

Midstate01;746817 wrote:I'm sorta glad espn didn't get it. I'd rather watch mid
major bball games or more NBA games. Hockey has just fallen off for me so much in the last few years. I can't watch a game till the playoffs, then I gotta find the vs network somewhere on the tv.

The_Crosby_Show;747306 wrote:VS is being re-branded at the end of the playoffs I believe.

ts1227;747308 wrote:I saw that in one of the articles, but unfortunately it doesn't change the fact that it isn't distributed worth a shit.

jordo212000;747310 wrote:I have a feeling that this new deal and their alliance with NBC will probably help them get better placement and wider distribution.

Laley23;747444 wrote:They gotta lower their asking price from the cable companies first. They are for a pretty penny when all the cover is Hockey. I hope it happens, cause Versus in more homes is good for everything sports, but at the current time...not many cable companies will add it to their cheap packages, cause it costs them too much to carry for the amount of people who want it

Though the two are friends, Bettman had a tough message to deliver: Days earlier, ESPN told the league that it would make an aggressive bid on the NHL’s media package. Bettman told Roberts that ESPN’s planned bid of $160 million to $170 million per year would test NBC’s and Versus’ right-to-match clause, which several media executives described as the tightest such clause they had ever seen. The clause gave NBC the right to match any deal the NHL signed with another network.

But it would be hard for NBC to match ESPN’s planned offer. ESPN told the NHL that it would televise every Stanley Cup playoff game nationally. ESPN said that it would stream the games to authenticated broadband and mobile users. And ESPN guaranteed an international component as part of its planned offer. ESPN’s deal would include a regular-season Game of the Week, but it was not making the broadcast network ABC available. The details were new for Roberts, who did not want to lose the NHL. In early discussions with the league, the NBC Sports Group had resisted the idea of televising every Stanley Cup playoff game nationally. And Comcast could not match ESPN’s streaming plans or international offerings.

It was clear to Roberts that ESPN’s plan was expansive enough that NBC would have trouble matching. He assured Bettman that his company would come up with a plan.