12/21/24
October 12, 2005
NHL inks TV deal: with NASN - Could this help the NHL attain previous revenue levels?
It can't hurt. Of course, I had no idea what NASN was, I although I was hoping for the Nasty Ass Stripper Network, 'cause then I knew they'd have Viking games also.
posted by wfrazerjr at 12:22 PM on October 12, 2005
No. Not unless the Irish and English start coming over here for the hockey. Good for the Scandinavian folk though, provided they can even get this channel.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:22 PM on October 12, 2005
yahhhhhhhhhhhhh hockey
posted by HATER 187 at 12:28 PM on October 12, 2005
Good for the NHL
posted by daddisamm at 01:04 PM on October 12, 2005
frazer made me laugh. Hey, more eyeballs, wherever they be, is a good thing at this point. The pointyheads at the NHL are still beggars, not choosers.
posted by chicobangs at 01:13 PM on October 12, 2005
spofi hockey threads are the coolest... I was going to submit this as a column, but its not long enough, and its yesterday's news. Plus, I don't want to fool myself into thinking I have something valuable to contribute, so I'll just post it below. My first column that never was, entitled : The Bestest rivalry in the new NHL The numbers are indisputable, despite the season being only a week old: Toronto Maple Leafs and Ottawa Senators games are the bestest in the league. How could this be discerned so soon, and how could the best rivlary even be defined, you ask? Two games played. Several lead changes each game. Late third period comebacks to tie. End to end overtime. Shootouts. That should suffice to quell any doubters as to the legitimacy of my claim. No other so-called rivalry has been as closely contested, and that's what makes a rivlary tick; the chance that either team could be the day's victor. Irregardlessible if ties are still a vital and relevant part of hockey, the skin-of-my-teeth parity between the teams thus far is undeniable. In this observer's opinion, neither team was playing for a tie, but a tie is what each team deserved, furthering raising the temperature of said penultimate rivalry. (Take note Bettman & Co., true hockey fans like ties. And we're getting sick and tired of you catering to the fans you don't have. And another thing, stop with the 'my NHL' ads every 0.5 second. I've got a better idea, give us loyal and insulted fans a check, cash, moola, greenbacks, something to repay us for the lockout. Because Crouching Tiger drum beats and sultry, innuendo-laden whispers ain't cuttin' it.) Of course, my favor lies on the losing side of both games so far, but I find solace in the fact these are battles lost without the Maple Leafs' greatest warrior. If all else remains equal, when Mats re-enters the equation he shall woo significant favor from the hockey gods to shift the balance of power back to the Maple Leafs. But as it stands, the Maple Leafs are the provincial underdogs; a role welcome, yet unfamiliar. And you know what they say about underdogs....yeah, me neither.
posted by garfield at 02:13 PM on October 12, 2005
Like leather or juicy tenderness, you decide [via]
posted by garfield at 03:48 PM on October 12, 2005
I have to disagree, garfield. I didn't find the first game entertaining at all, and only bits and pieces of the second game. See, right now, teams are able to come back so forcefully because their opponents do not yet know how to play effective defence under the new rules. Comebacks are fueled by the defense being either too aggressive and taking penalties, or too passive and tentative and letting the skaters skate around them. Yes, there are lots of goals, but only because the defence is really crappy right now. The forwards are skating lots and lots and lots, which is exciting, but a lot of the time the defencemen are standing stone still, afraid of the whistle. That's not entertaining. I'm not ready to make any sort of pronouncement upon this league right now. I'm going to give things a month or two to settle down, 'cause right now, at any given time, half the players don't know how to play. They'll learn, of course, and we'll just have to see what things are like then. Also, maybe by that point, the Sens will have remember how to play not like crap.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 04:45 PM on October 12, 2005
Yeah. Way to completely hide your presence to Europeans. NASN is a subscription-based satellite and cable channel. I already subscribe to Sky Sports. I'm not paying for any more sports channels.
posted by salmacis at 04:45 PM on October 12, 2005
the Sens will have remember how to play not like crap Its not that they've forgotten, the Leafs just force them to play like crap. That's the only reason the Leafs have beat the Sens in the past. If the Sens played like the Sens for an entire 60 minutes, the Leafs wouldn't be able to brag about the playoffs. And I'm not proclaiming the new NHL all that is holy. But I am saying the Leafs/Sens rivalry has been the best so far. And I see your point about defense, but the only glaring issue I see with how the games are being played and called is the area in front of the net. Lindros cleared some bodies out from the crease last night, and I didn't know what was happening. Can he do that? The problem right now is that nobody thinks they can clear the front of the net, so there are scrambles for the puck, which seems makes every defending player look retarded because they don't check anybody. It's a big game of hungry hungry hippos in the slot.
posted by garfield at 04:57 PM on October 12, 2005
I live in the Northeast, where hockey is very popular, currently get 120 channels on my TV, and the only one of those that broadcast any hockey is MSG (Madison Square Garden Network), and even they don't broadcast all that much. THAT's the NHL's real problem. Hockey in the the U.S. is too European as it is, and they (the NHL) need to increase the popularity here first.
posted by dyams at 07:19 PM on October 12, 2005
As of now, the NHL needs all the help they can get. I don't think that they will ever return to their previously attained heights of whatever. Whether or not this will help the situation, well...who knows?
posted by ohiodonnell at 10:00 PM on October 12, 2005
salmacis - i guess the exclusivity of the deal means that there will no longer be late night hockey (tuesday or wednesday nights, if I recall) on five? in any case, I imagine that the audience is so limited that given the choice between viewing one game a week really late at night and having access to a more comprehensive package then the bigger coverage (up to six live games a week) would win even if it is a subscription channel. the article also mentions "rights to stream live games over the Internet". that might not be all bad. I was watching the Scotland-Belarus world cup match online over the weekend (nothing shady, the ISP has some arrangement to stream some of the euro world cup qualifying matches to their broadband customers) and it was pretty good.
posted by gspm at 10:31 PM on October 12, 2005
Crap, I don't pay for NASN. They need to put it on Sky Sports Extra, then I can see it for free. They want 10 extra Euro a month for NASN. Put it on one of the other sports stations I get for free.
posted by Stealth_72 at 05:19 AM on October 13, 2005
it is a double sided coin -- i would like the opportunity to catch some games that aren't usually broadcasted here in Columbus -- and accessing them via the net would be a great way to do so [and I am sure the Russians would like to see some of their former coutnrymen play in Detroit] -- but we also need to increase the viewership here in the states. second note but also related -- I am tired of being frurtrated at these new rules and why my hockey can't look like it used to just because some person in a sunny state that has never really watched hockey before can't follow the puck on TV [sorry if anyone here lives in the south and didn't grow up playing/watching pond hockey because lasting ice doesn't exist -- I don't mean to offend just stating an opinion. :)] And when someone like me, who has been watching hockey since I was a kid, turns away from a game because I haven't had the time to fully understand the rule changes -- then what are we really gaining? That being said -- I still love hockey and watch it as much as I can I just think that people that love hockey are going to watch hockey and people that don't aren't goign to watch it on TV [but they still like the games] ergo changing all the rules around and changing the game for a TV viewership might not have been a great idea. you really want to bring viewers back -- let them fight like it is the minor leagues -- I have friends in Oklahoma that go to watch the minor league team in OK City play JUST for the fights. - people enjoy a good fight! I know that was long and rambling -- but just my thoughts on what is going on.
posted by hockey girl at 08:11 AM on October 13, 2005
What?!? I'm loving the new NHL. It's anything but a turn-off. I'm with the good Doctor, in that, in a few months we'll see if the constant combacks are par for the course. But as far as the amount of icings, and the length and pace of games go - it's miles ahead of two years ago. Miles! And I like the Battle of Ontario for rivalry, too - I'm not currently aware of any other rivalry that has the same spunk. Certainly Boston/Montreal is pretty decent, as is Colorado and Detroit - but recently it has been Ottawa/Toronto.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:20 AM on October 13, 2005
I don't see, given the same rule enforcement standards apply, how teams can protect a lead without attacking? Blanketing and smothering the opposition seems almost impossible, which is the point of the new offense-biased enforcement standards. You'll hold a lead in the new NHL by forechecking and keeping the puck in the opposing end, which isn't revolutionary, but emphasizes the need to play the game beyond negating opposing forwards.
posted by garfield at 09:02 AM on October 13, 2005
I am tired of being frurtrated at these new rules After a week? Are you still pissed they don't use a 6th man Rover in games west of the Mississippi?
posted by yerfatma at 10:17 AM on October 13, 2005
hockey girl - I'm a big hockey fan but I hadn't seen more than a handful of games in the last three years (lockout one year, living in the UK the other two). Last Saturday night was Hockey Night in Canada. I watched that. I was having trouble seeing the puck when it was shot. I had no trouble following the action and I already love hockey but I was able to understand, after being out of "watching hockey on tv practice", exactly the dismissive statement about not being able to see the puck. I certainly enjoyed watching the game but I think, from what I have heard about it, HDTV is the answer and will be a big asset to selling the game on TV in places like you mention. Though that is probably years away from having any impact. I for one, cannot wait for our NHL on HDTV overlords.
posted by gspm at 11:51 AM on October 13, 2005
Yeah, HD makes a difference in "seeing" the puck. You can complain about people who says they can't "see" the puck, but if you pay attention to yourself watching a hockey game, you might notice you don't always see the puck either. After watching the game for a sufficient amount of time you begin to learn where the puck should be and watch that spot. It's a barrier to entry for new fans and the NHL would do well to address it in some manner. Other than a flaming overlay.
posted by yerfatma at 12:17 PM on October 13, 2005
Oh yeah. new Power Rankings....