The NHL On Ice: ESPN bids the NHL adieu. Could things get any worse for pro hockey?

The Weekly Standard ^ | June 10, 2005 | Duncan Currie

[quidnunc]

The National Hockey League's long march to irrelevance continues apace. Last week, cable-sports king ESPN broke off negotiations with NHL execs and said it will move to schedule alternate programming for next season. This came just days after the network announced it would not exercise its $60-million option to claim broadcast rights if and when the 2005-2006 campaign gets underway. "We really had no choice," said Mark Shapiro, ESPN's executive VP for programming and production. "We're not going to be held hostage like we were last season."

The NHL, you see, has never been very good to ESPN. Leave aside, for a moment, pro hockey's ongoing labor spat, which cost the league its 2004-2005 season. The roots of the NHL-ESPN partnership date back to the network's founding in 1979. ESPN briefly held the cable broadcast rights to NHL contests during the 1980s — until the league dumped ESPN in 1988 and chose to go with Sports Channel instead. At the time, hockey legend Wayne Gretzky said sticking with ESPN would've been "better for the game." "Sure, we got more money from Sports Channel," the Great One wrote in his 1990 autobiography, "but how much did we lose in exposure?"

Good point, and one that NHL suits quickly took note of. ESPN regained the cable broadcast rights to NHL action in 1992. This time, the network's choice proved felicitous. Hockey's popularity skyrocketed following the New York Rangers' gripping Stanley Cup run in 1994. Suddenly, everybody wanted a piece of "the coolest game on earth." But over the past several years, the talent pool has been diluted by near-constant league expansion, scoring has plunged, the games have gotten slow and boring, and TV ratings have sunk. The heady days of the mid 1990s seem a distant memory.

-snip-

[dbwz]

"Sure, we got more money from Sports Channel," the Great One wrote in his 1990 autobiography, "but how much did we lose in exposure?"

I remember when this happened, and I remember thinking, "Why do they want to go hide themselves on this little cable network?" Nobody could find the games unless they wanted to pay for what was at the time premium cable TV. You weren't going to run across a game flipping channels on a weekend afternoon, which was how I discovered hockey.

I love the game, and I really missed being able to watch it this year, but the NHL has become a prime example of how not to run a league. They either need to gut the structure and remodel from the inside out, or just tear the whole thing down and start over.

[Alberta's Child]

No, I don't. Hockey is the best sport out there today, despite the NHL's ongoing problems.

What are your favorite sports?

[rang1995]

soccer is just there as a sleep aid --please

[speedy]

Concur totally. A Gordie Howe-Doug Harvey fight was one thing. A Tiger Williams-Dave Schultz fight was something else, more like a scripted event.

[speedy]

If Don Cherry says it, I believe it.

[AGreatPer]

I remember the days when goalies had no face masks. Some of those goalies faces looked like dart boards.

[mcg1969]

What's hockey?

[Stentor]

2.No helmets ( all boarding checks from behind,even a push,equals automatic penalty)

Won't stop headlong slides into the boards from accidental trips. I know what you're after. I went to Flyers games in the 60's when the only guys who wore helmets were named Jean Guy something or other.

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

If Don Cherry says it, I believe it.

I had a big C-band satellite dish that used to pick up CBC feeds in the 1990s. I have to say I enjoyed Don Cherry's Coach's Corner more than I did the actual hockey games.

[speedy]

If I recall, Cesar Maniago of the North Stars was the last mask-less goalie, in the early 1970s. It might not have been smart, but it looked cool.

[speedy]

I remember when he coached the Bruins back in their Esposito-Orr-Bucyk-Hodge-Cashman glory days. He was always very quotable. One of the best exemplars of Old Time Hockey.

[sirthomasthemore]

What are your thoughts on it?

---

Speedy,

Amateur athelete still, I've always held the view, more equipment= more injuries. We all played sandlot whatever, e.g. tackle football- w/o equipment. I don't remember ANY injuries. Sort of "self policing" as to not injure a rival, and perhaps, more selfishly, yourself. The more pads, the more one becomes a more hostile projectile- thinking both you and your rival are insulated from injury.

So, as to hockey, less equipment would mean more "measured" checks; less careless sticks, etc.- The "goons" could still bang away, but the finesse players could more concentrate on skill and speed that once made hockey fun to watch,

As to helmets and face masks, (IMPORTANT PREFACE, I'M NOT GAY, actually or subliminally- :-)) but these are young athletes. The trademark of Guy Lafleur was his speed, which was partly evinced by how his hair (instead of now, his toupee :)) streamed back -he looked like a jet on ice. One could see the determination, concentration and competitive fire in the players' expressions.

Equipped with helmets and shields, they look like skating robots- no personality. I just think that the game would have more appeal and vibrancy, especially to females, if the fans could more readily identify and "personalize" the players.

Just my thought on marketing the game, once the NHL finally gets back on the ice and jettisons Mr. Basketball Bettman, and his "vision" that destroyed the game during his tenure.

[gipper81]

The author of this article misses a very critical point here. Pro hockey never "matured" from a cult sport at all -- the NHL simply gave the appearance that it had become popular on a national level by relocating and expanding into U.S. television markets with large populations but no real hockey fan support. In their NBA-oriented style of TV-based marketing of the 1990s, the NHL -- through former NBA executive Gary Bettman -- decided that a Phoenix market with 20,000 casual fans among 4 million people represented a more lucrative opportunity than a Winnipeg market with 500,000 die-hard fans among 600,000 people.

I've been in that casual Phoenix market for 20+ yrs (even though I'm originally a die-hard BroadStreetBully fan). I'm not going to argue the Phoenix point, but I will argue the Winnipeg point.

When economic-push-came-to-shove Winnipeg didn't want to or couldn't support NHL hockey. This goes beyond the discounted Canadian dollar. Winnipeg had more than enough time to show that they wanted hockey to stay. Die-hard fans are great, but they have to support the game. They have to financially support the game over 80+ games. I remember reading articles at the time that stated many Winnipeg fans resented millionaire players, didn't want to raise taxes to support a new rink, etc. Where were the big business players in Winnipeg at the time? Die-hard fans are great, but they have to also afford the ticket price. They couldn't. That said, I am not unsympathetic to Winnipeg fans. Years ago I used to see many fans with Jets jerseys at Coyotes games. I did feel sorry for them. But when hockey left town in Winnipeg, this market was making a 20+ year or even lifetime decision relative to NHL hockey. Love for the game from these fans are great, but it takes economics now. Are the players more interested in economics or are they still in it for the love of the game?

[gamarob1]

Looks like some other network has taken the mantle in showing Australian Rules Football... I just saw it this morning for the first time in years. What a coincidence...

[gamarob1]

Yeah, soccer is in that category too. Too low scoring for me, and possession of the ball changes teams way too fast for me. I guess that's what soccer and hockey both have in common, with possession changing so fast

[quidnunc]

Alberta's Child wrote: No, I don't. Hockey is the best sport out there today, despite the NHL's ongoing problems. What are your favorite sports?

These days I only watch football (American rules).

Baseball has gotten boring since they slowed the game down (games nowadays average an hour or more longer than they did back in the '50s).

Hockey has come to resemble a game of shinny since the NHL switched to the Euro-style offense..

[RIGHTWING WACKO FROM MASS.]

The NHL is the one thing that is ruined by Americanizing it. Trying to sell hockey to places that don't love hockey has destroyed the game. The mad marketeers don't like fighting, hard hitting and the bench clearing brawl. It's offensive to the casual hockey fan. The commie republic of Mass my not know much but we do bleed black and gold and love old time hockey! Nothing like a Bruin and Canadian brawl!

[FormerACLUmember]

When hockey was HOCKEY:

[HitmanLV]

It's all baseball, all the time for me. During the season I enjoy the games, and in the off-season I take a few months off from sports almost entirely (November-February) and then gear up for spring training.

I love baseball!

[HitmanLV]

It's all baseball, all the time for me. During the season I enjoy the games, and in the off-season I take a few months off from sports almost entirely (November-February) and then gear up for spring training.

I love baseball!