NHL lockout hurts fledgling NBC Sports Network

[hf101]

At least one NHL owner really has to hope the NHL lockout ends soon.

As the owner of the NHL's Philadephia Flyers, Comcast Corp. might want the NHL to be tough in talks with the league's players, who were locked out at midnight Saturday. But Comcast execs are entitled to mixed emotions: The company's NBC Sports Network cable channel could end up taking an untimely hit if the season is severely delayed or canceled.

Not that the NHL delivers big national TV ratings to Comcast's NBC outlets. NBC's dozen regular-season NHL games last year averaged 1% of U.S. households -- about as low as regular-season broadcast ratings get -- while NBCSN's 90 games drew 0.2% of cable TV homes.Yikes.

But after Versus (which previously had been the Outdoor Life Network) was rebranded as NBCSN in January, the channel was supposed to get a boost in exposure as one of NBC's London Olympic platforms. That happened, as the women's Olympic soccer final on NBCSN drew more viewers â?? 4.3 million -- than any of last year's NHL playoff games. The Games were supposed to serve as a lead-in to the channel in general and to what NBCSN programming head Jon Miller has called "our most important property" -- NHL games.

NBC/NBCSN last year started a10-year NHL deal -- in which it will pay at least $1.8 billion -- for games that will at least create plenty of TV tonnage. Coverage on NBCSN, which was supposed to carry at least 90-plus games, is scheduled to start with an Oct. 11 Boston-Philadelphia/St. Louis-Colorado doubleheader. (Hey, what a lucky break that the Flyers get to be in the opener!) NBC's coverage does not start until Nov. 23.

Said NBC spokesman Chris McCloskey on Sunday: "We are preparing a selection of replacement programming that includes soccer, boxing, original programming, and college football, basketball and hockey."

[radoran]

(Hey, what a lucky break that the Flyers get to be in the opener!)

[idahophilly]

If I was NBC I'd be flat out pissed! They have bent over backwards to brand the NHL going as far as to change names on TV stations then Bettman pulls this crap! 8 million a year and these are the decisions he makes? The more I think about the paticulars the more against the owners and Bettman I am...

[DinahMoeHumm]

8 million a year and these are the decisions he makes? The more I think about the paticulars the more against the owners and Bettman I am...

There is no logic at all. This is all about power and greed. All rational thought seems to have flown out the proverbial window. I fully believe that Bettman and the owners (maybe not *all* of them) wanted the lockout. That's really the only power move they have and, once again, they just used it. What grinds my gears the most is how the league has shown *zero* respect for the fans, the vendors... all of the little guys. They expect to be taken seriously and for us to buy their silly little statement about the lockout when they're publicly touting record revenues and the owners are throwing around money (good after bad) with large, long-term contracts to players who, while good, just aren't worth that kind of money or commitment. I mean, at least respect us enough to *try* to give us the snowjob. But they don't care. Their attitude is basically "eff them, they'll all be back." As a true fan, I'd at least like the respect of a statement saying the league is worried that they'll lose fans and that the fans are their biggest concern in all of this... even if it's a total B.S. statement (which they seem to be good at producing anyway).

Anyway, end of rant. But I'm with you Idaho...

[idahophilly]

Minnesota (which happens to be my 2nd fav team) is the poster child for this. Sign Suter and Parise to huge long term contracts then cry poor! And don't even get me started on Phoenix!

[radoran]

Minnesota (which happens to be my 2nd fav team) is the poster child for this. Sign Suter and Parise to huge long term contracts then cry poor! And don't even get me started on Phoenix!

Minny is reportedly also offering their fans 10% interest on their season ticket money (I'll wager it has to be applied to next year's season ticket rates, which will likely increase to offset it)...

The owners are coming off more and more as the out-of-touch, entitled to priviledge, selfish prats that they're always been.

[idahophilly]

(I'll wager it has to be applied to next year's season ticket rates, which will likely increase to offset it)...

Man, I wish we would remember to check on that next year because I bet they will raise ticket prices! I bet most teams do, even after they get a sizable % rollback from the players...

[radoran]

At least one NHL owner really has to hope the NHL lockout ends soon.

As the owner of the NHL's Philadephia Flyers, Comcast Corp. might want the NHL to be tough in talks with the league's players, who were locked out at midnight Saturday. But Comcast execs are entitled to mixed emotions: The company's NBC Sports Network cable channel could end up taking an untimely hit if the season is severely delayed or canceled.

...

NBC/NBCSN last year started a10-year NHL deal -- in which it will pay at least $1.8 billion -- for games that will at least create plenty of TV tonnage.

At least we found one place where the owners are into revenue sharing.

You think ESPN/ABC would have agreed to pay the contract if there was no product? To the NHL?

Nope.

[DinahMoeHumm]

Minnesota (which happens to be my 2nd fav team) is the poster child for this. Sign Suter and Parise to huge long term contracts then cry poor! And don't even get me started on Phoenix!

Yep, and I'm a fan of Minnesota, too. No one is immune to the hypocrisy...

As an aside, what are your thoughts on Phoenix?

[idahophilly]

Yep, and I'm a fan of Minnesota, too. No one is immune to the hypocrisy...

As an aside, what are your thoughts on Phoenix?

Let it die! The league, in my opinion, had no right to buy the team then complain about week teams and revenue sharing. There are a nice handful of cities that want an NHL team and would be hard pressed to do worse finacialy than Phoenix has. I remember seeing some parts of Phoenix home games last season and the arena was frick'n empty compared to almost every other team. I heard the attendence in other arena's when Phoenix comes in was down to.

I'm not against trying to spread the NHL into other -non traditional markets but it's gotta work or cut your loss and admit the mistake for the sake of the entire NHL. And for god sake, locate the arena in a logical place that's easy for the fans to get to! Glendale! Brilliant move!

[DinahMoeHumm]

The league, in my opinion, had no right to buy the team then complain about week teams and revenue sharing.

I couldn't agree more!

I'm not against trying to spread the NHL into other -non traditional markets but it's gotta work or cut your loss and admit the mistake for the sake of the entire NHL.

And that's one of the major problems. Bettman just isn't willing to admit those kinds of mistakes. Instead he continues to try to force the idea down peoples' throats, even when it's plainly obvious that it isn't working. But *why* won't he admit it and do what's best for the league as a whole? Isn't that his job? Wouldn't he look better if he admitted it and moved a franchise to a place where it thrived... or at the very least didn't bleed money? I just don't get that part. No one can convince me that Quebec, Hartford, Seattle, etc. wouldn't have much better support and a better fanbase. And Seattle's rolling right now, given the go-ahead to look for a new basketball team, and the proposed new arena would easily support NHL hockey, too. Personally, I think Seattle could do well with an NHL team. At the very least they'd do light years beyond what Phoenix is doing. But even if it's not Seattle, get it the he|| out of Phoenix or just fold it altogether. OH yeah, and Glendale??!! I agree...

[idahophilly]

I have to look at a map of Phoenix but someone on here last year said getting to the arena in Glendale was a nightmare for most of the metro area...

You ask why Bettman won't admit the mistake(s)? Well, I don't know but maybe he's gettin some kickbacks? Probably not but just sayin'. Maybe his ego IS SO BIG that this is some sort of legacy thing for him (expanding into the sunny south and making it work, a legend in his own mind kind of thing). Or maybe he really doesn't care since he's making 8 million a year! If i had to choose I'd say EEEEGGGGOOOO! Maybe he thinks he's a bad ass and gets his kicks with making everyone bend to his will? Maybe he thinks "all those kids with the millions, all fit and in their prime. They have to do what I say. And when it's all said and done I'm the one who grew the game in the south".

Yeah, pretty big leap to get in his head but if anyone has a better idea/motivation for the lockout and Phoenix/Columbus/ect mistakes then let me know...

[DinahMoeHumm]

@idahophilly: No, I think you're probably right, or at least pretty close to right. Nothing else that's logical (or otherwise, I suppose) seems to explain it. Why else would someone continue to press something that's so terribly obviously not working. In most businesses that I know of, if you try something and that particular facet of the business fails, you cut your losses and move on. You don't continue to sink money into it. I realize that some things take time to "ramp up" as they say, but I'd like to think that Phoenix has had ample time to prove whether or not it's going to work... and it's so obviously not. And the arena location was just another astoundingly bad decision. That whole thing was almost doomed to fail from the start, at least with the way that it was handled.

[idahophilly]

I have given considerable thought (way to much) on Bettman's motivations, business decisions and such and can't come up with anything else but ego on several levels. Ego about power/legacy/cba and so on.

I can see any business trying something new, having it fail and maybe tweaking it and trying once more. But after the 2nd try fails you gotta cut the losses. That would be like GM buying one of it's own subsideries and then asking all the other subsideries AND the workers to pitch in to finance the failed subsidiery... And the NHL wonders why the players have a problem with that. And they wonder why all the other subsideries (owners in this case) don't want their profits going to Bettman's mistakes.

Now, to be fare, the owners did vote for these things also. They enabled Bettman's bad decisions like a crack dealer giving the junkie a freebie to keep him hooked...

[DinahMoeHumm]

It almost *has* to be ego. And you're right, the owners have to share some of the blame in this, too. I just can't believe that eventually they wouldn't band together and just tell Bettman, "look, we've gone with this, given it multiple opportunities to succeed and it's just not working. It was a nice thought, but for the health of the league we need to bury this thing. Sorry, Gary." I mean, I *must* be missing something. Perhaps my flaw is trying to think logically... or just plain not understanding the desires and thought processes of the elite. There's obviously some reason they haven't moved or folded that franchise.

[radoran]

It almost *has* to be ego. And you're right, the owners have to share some of the blame in this, too. I just can't believe that eventually they wouldn't band together and just tell Bettman, "look, we've gone with this, given it multiple opportunities to succeed and it's just not working. It was a nice thought, but for the health of the league we need to bury this thing. Sorry, Gary." I mean, I *must* be missing something. Perhaps my flaw is trying to think logically... or just plain not understanding the desires and thought processes of the elite. There's obviously some reason they haven't moved or folded that franchise.

How would "contraction" work, exactly? I believe you would need to buy out the existing owners...

Effectively you're asking a bunch of owners who don't want to give SMALL amounts of money annually to existing franchises to give LARGE amounts of money, up front, to the same franchises...

[DinahMoeHumm]

How would "contraction" work, exactly? I believe you would need to buy out the existing owners...

Effectively you're asking a bunch of owners who don't want to give SMALL amounts of money annually to existing franchises to give LARGE amounts of money, up front, to the same franchises...

To be honest, I don't know exactly how that would work out. But it doesn't have to mean contraction; that's just one option. There are several other markets hungry for an NHL team, so relocation is certainly an option, if not a better one. But even if it *is* contraction, there are people much smarter than I in the NHL operations (at least I'd sure hope) that should be able to figure it out. If they can figure out how to "float" a moribund franchise and pretend there's a light at the end of the tunnel then they should certainly be able to figure out how to get rid of it. Bottom line, it's just not working in Phoenix, no matter how you look at it.

[jammer2]

@DinahMoeHumm The only way the NHLPA would be on board is moving the teams, not contraction. Like any other union, they don't want their rank and file reduced. Less money and overhead for the union. There should be a way to *eventually* move teams to where they can be more profitable. That is if it's ok with the massive ego of Gary. He cares more about how history will view him than what's best for the league...so if there is a way where he can come out smelling like roses, and it happens to be the best thing for the league at the same time....we will see movement.

[radoran]

@DinahMoeHumm The only way the NHLPA would be on board is moving the teams, not contraction. Like any other union, they don't want their rank and file reduced. Less money and overhead for the union. There should be a way to *eventually* move teams to where they can be more profitable. That is if it's ok with the massive ego of Gary. He cares more about how history will view him than what's best for the league...so if there is a way where he can come out smelling like roses, and it happens to be the best thing for the league at the same time....we will see movement.

IMO, there are not 30 cities in North America that will support an NHL franchise without several of them having the same or similar problems to the ones that exist now.

We can talk all about Kansas City, Utah, Vegas and maybe perhaps the NHL can put a team in Hamilton. Does anyone think Kansas City is going to be better than Columbus, Arizona or Florida? The bloom is seriously off the Vegas "boom" rose as well.

Quebec would have the same problems it did before.

Seattle is unproven as an NHL market for the past 78 years but does seem to have a hankering (especially with losing their NBA franchise).

Those are your best options for hockey markets and they will *still* have some of the same open questions that the existing franchises that would move there had.

Heck, Winnipeg wouldn't have a franchise if the league didn't have the revenue sharing it does have (although they didn't need it in year one).

By all accounts we're looking at Columbus, Phoenix and Dallas as seriously financially strapped. Then you have questions as to whether two teams in Florida and two teams in LA can make a go of it.

The NHL itself declared that it believed that there were 30 North American hockey markets.

The onus is on them to prove it.

[jammer2]

@radoran " By all accounts we're looking at Columbus, Phoenix and Dallas as seriously financially strapped. Then you have questions as to whether two teams in Florida and two teams in LA can make a go of it."

You forgot the Devils who are nearly bankrupt and the Isles (who have always sucked with Wang) that will probably never get that new arena they need to stay afloat long term. Yeah, some *definate* problems there, just saying the NHLPA would not be in favour of contraction, only relocation.

Of those options, I consider Quebec legit, Seattle possibly legit and the rest very murky. Hamilton as you alluded to will never happen, leaving KC, Utah, Vegas....not good options at all. Thing is, by the time the current teams fail, and these teams have their shot and fail....at NHL speeds, you could be talking 40 years.

[DinahMoeHumm]

You forgot the Devils who are nearly bankrupt and the Isles (who have always sucked with Wang) that will probably never get that new arena they need to stay afloat long term.

Yeah I know, technically not true, but I had to grab the low-hanging fruit

[DinahMoeHumm]

IMO, there are not 30 cities in North America that will support an NHL franchise without several of them having the same or similar problems to the ones that exist now.

We can talk all about Kansas City, Utah, Vegas and maybe perhaps the NHL can put a team in Hamilton. Does anyone think Kansas City is going to be better than Columbus, Arizona or Florida? The bloom is seriously off the Vegas "boom" rose as well.

Quebec would have the same problems it did before.

Seattle is unproven as an NHL market for the past 78 years but does seem to have a hankering (especially with losing their NBA franchise).

Those are your best options for hockey markets and they will *still* have some of the same open questions that the existing franchises that would move there had.

Heck, Winnipeg wouldn't have a franchise if the league didn't have the revenue sharing it does have (although they didn't need it in year one).

By all accounts we're looking at Columbus, Phoenix and Dallas as seriously financially strapped. Then you have questions as to whether two teams in Florida and two teams in LA can make a go of it.

The NHL itself declared that it believed that there were 30 North American hockey markets.

The onus is on them to prove it.

I can't necessarily disagree with you here. But, wouldn't it at least be better to *try* an unproven market (Seattle, for example) and give it a shot rather than muddling along with something you *know* isn't working? I believe that @jammer2 is right in saying that the NHLPA would only be on board with relocation, not contraction. Fair enough. But why continue to throw good money after bad into something that is an abject failure?

Note: I'm not questioning you, I'm just thinking out loud I guess.

[radoran]

I can't necessarily disagree with you here. But, wouldn't it at least be better to *try* an unproven market (Seattle, for example) and give it a shot rather than muddling along with something you *know* isn't working? I believe that @jammer2 is right in saying that the NHLPA would only be on board with relocation, not contraction. Fair enough. But why continue to throw good money after bad into something that is an abject failure?

Note: I'm not questioning you, I'm just thinking out loud I guess.

Oh, I think Seattle is a viable option right out of the gate. Quebec, too.

But if you're talking about 5-6 "troubled" franchises - as was alluded to earlier in the thread - you're still going to have 3-4 existing "troubled" franchises and two more in places that are good prospects with significant questions.

Then you have the whackadoo up in Edmonton threatening to move, too.

What significantly changes with "relocation"?

[DinahMoeHumm]

Oh, I think Seattle is a viable option right out of the gate. Quebec, too.

But if you're talking about 5-6 "troubled" franchises - as was alluded to earlier in the thread - you're still going to have 3-4 existing "troubled" franchises and two more in places that are good prospects with significant questions.

Then you have the whackadoo up in Edmonton threatening to move, too.

What significantly changes with "relocation"?

Well, certainly all of these franchises and situations would have to be treated differently. Moving 5-6 troubled franchises, at least in a short amount of time, could prove very troublesome. But, you have to start somewhere. As for what changes significantly... well, the hope is that the franchise gets turned around. Obviously there are no guarantees, but in a case like Phoenix, can you imagine it being much worse? I wish I had some grand plan that would make it all work out. But alas, I do not. However, even if I did and I could prove it, I doubt the NHL would listen to me.

[idahophilly]

What changes is the "possibility". We KNOW right now about the teams that are struggling. Once relocated we don't YET know if they will struggle or not. We are just simply projecting/guessing what might happen in the future as opposed to what we actually do know now. At the very least they are highly unlikely to do worse. So, if an owner ship group wants to relocate any given team or buy one I say take the chance...