PDA

View Full Version : Sports Center--interrupted by a hockey game.



Pages : [1] 2 3

Skeeterman
04-10-2010, 09:08 PM
ESPN's coverage has got to be the laziest ever. The main deal is sports center, with some breaks to watch hockey. They couldn't have done any coverage of the teams? Any stories of the games leading up to this one? Maybe a summary of each team's season?

They didn't even cover all the regionals live. Can Fox Sports please take the NCAAs back again?

When will all these rhetorical questions end?

RaceBoarder
04-10-2010, 09:15 PM
ESPN's coverage has got to be the laziest ever. The main deal is sports center, with some breaks to watch hockey. They couldn't have done any coverage of the teams? Any stories of the games leading up to this one? Maybe a summary of each team's season?

They didn't even cover all the regionals live. Can Fox Sports please take the NCAAs back again?

When will all these rhetorical questions end?

When you take a Business 101 and/or Economics 101 class...

College hockey doesn't make ESPN money...

huskyfan
04-10-2010, 09:16 PM
I would like to see more Tiger Woods coverage during the hockey. :rolleyes:

ScoobyDoo
04-10-2010, 09:20 PM
The NCAA sells hockey along with a lot of other sports ESPN wants in the same package. Thus we're stuck with them, the network that doesn't care for the most important games of the year.

bronconick
04-10-2010, 09:58 PM
Ooh, right. Fox Sports. That's a great plan.

The NCAA Frozen Four: Live in Minnesota and Massachusetts...when a Boston team is there. Ignored in 48 other states.

Hockey is behind women's basketball, volleyball, softball, baseball and lacrosse alone in the package the NCAA makes ESPN buy if they wanted to show the women's bouncyball stuff. It gets literally no ratings. Dogs sitting on remotes across the country to show static get higher numbers.

You think the fact that the NHL gives away network rights and couldn't find anyone outside of a bull-riding/tour de france network at the time (it's since upgraded to MWC football and UFC, apparently) to pay anything to show games would be a hint. Here's another. The US is not like Minnesota. Most of the rest of us will be going into work at jobs Monday where if we brought up the BC-Wisconsin game, no one will know what we're talking about. If we're unusually lucky, one other person in 100 might.

Puck Swami
04-10-2010, 10:05 PM
ESPN's coverage has got to be the laziest ever.

This year, they had a record 15 cameras in Detroit. They didn't just mail it in.

GreenCat
04-10-2010, 10:05 PM
Ooh, right. Fox Sports. That's a great plan.

The NCAA Frozen Four: Live in Minnesota and Massachusetts...when a Boston team is there. Ignored in 48 other states.

Hockey is behind women's basketball, volleyball, softball, baseball and lacrosse alone in the package the NCAA makes ESPN buy if they wanted to show the women's bouncyball stuff. It gets literally no ratings. Dogs sitting on remotes across the country to show static get higher numbers.

You think the fact that the NHL gives away network rights and couldn't find anyone outside of a bull-riding/tour de france network at the time (it's since upgraded to MWC football and UFC, apparently) to pay anything to show games would be a hint. Here's another. The US is not like Minnesota. Most of the rest of us will be going into work at jobs Monday where if we brought up the BC-Wisconsin game, no one will know what we're talking about. If we're unusually lucky, one other person in 100 might.

Much of the problem with the NHL is they wait 'til summer to start the playoffs when everyone is playing Golf and other summer sports when some of the best hockey is played. The NCAA waits two weeks into late spring waiting for the bouncy ball finals before the hockey finals. Both think they are making money doing this when reality is rhat if they played a winter sport in the fall and winter they might actually get some viewership. Poor management from both and the NHL shows no interest in college hockey unlike the NBA that highlights the college game. Start hockey earlier and get the frozen four done before basketball.

WildKitty
04-10-2010, 10:09 PM
Could be worse. The game was interrupted for an EAS out here... I mean, who times that??? Do you think that would happen during squeaky ball finals??? *sigh*

SteveP
04-10-2010, 10:14 PM
The NCAA sells hockey along with a lot of other sports ESPN wants in the same package. Thus we're stuck with them, the network that doesn't care for the most important games of the year.

Three games, three blowouts is likely not going to impress the suits in Bristol. :rolleyes:

ericredaxe
04-10-2010, 10:19 PM
A few more minutes of post game would have been nice... seemed like they could not navigate away from Ford Field quickly enough.

LtPowers
04-10-2010, 10:23 PM
The NCAA waits two weeks into late spring waiting for the bouncy ball finals before the hockey finals.

In what strange corner of the world is early April "late spring"?


Powers &8^]

Priceless
04-10-2010, 10:27 PM
ESPN's coverage has got to be the laziest ever. The main deal is sports center, with some breaks to watch hockey. They couldn't have done any coverage of the teams? Any stories of the games leading up to this one? Maybe a summary of each team's season?

They didn't even cover all the regionals live. Can Fox Sports please take the NCAAs back again?

When will all these rhetorical questions end?

Average number of viewers for the regionals: 57,500
Viewers for the Michigan/BSU game: 5,750

Viewers for a typical night of the World Series of Poker: 1 million.
For the final table: 2.1 million

College hockey is very close to being completely irrelevant.

GreenCat
04-10-2010, 10:29 PM
In what strange corner of the world is early April "late spring"?


Powers &8^]

Global Warming :D We have had record 70 degree weather in March this year. Feels like summer....Probably due for a foot of snow soon to remind us it is New England.

SteveP
04-10-2010, 10:30 PM
A few more minutes of post game would have been nice... seemed like they could not navigate away from Ford Field quickly enough.

My thoughts exactly as soon as Thorne said "for more, go to ESPN News"

Ridiculous. :mad:

IrishHockeyFan
04-10-2010, 10:32 PM
A few more minutes of post game would have been nice... seemed like they could not navigate away from Ford Field quickly enough.

They didn't even wait for the top of the hour. SportsCenter kicked off at 9:56. To not even bother waiting for 10:00 (when the next program was scheduled to begin anyway) shows you just how much college hockey bleeds viewers away from ESPN.

My gripe with the coverage is the haste with which ESPN leads viewers away from college hockey even in the intermissions. I mean no one but NCAA hockey fans are tuned in anyway, so how about something more about our sport? Of course that would require production costs, and SportsCenter highlites don't, so there's your answer to that.

IrishHockeyFan
04-10-2010, 10:37 PM
Average number of viewers for the regionals: 57,500
Viewers for the Michigan/BSU game: 5,750

Where are these numbers from?



College hockey is very close to being completely irrelevant.

As far as TV is concerned, I'd pretty much agree. Sometimes I am surprised we get to still see basically the entire tournament covered live, and have for the last few years now. I don't think that is necessarily a permanent arrangement by any stretch.

Priceless
04-10-2010, 10:45 PM
Where are these numbers from?

An ESPN employee.

WeAreNDHockey
04-10-2010, 11:05 PM
An ESPN employee.



I would doubt the validity of them, especially the 5750 for the UM/BSU game. It seems odd that it is exactly 1/10 of the overall regional average to begin with, especially since UM is one of the biggest brand names in college sports, and one of the few teams that could draw in casual viewers. I also don't believe an accurate measurement of a number that low could be made with TV households numbering 114.9 million for this season. A rating of .1 would still be 114,900 viewers and that would equal a rating of .005.

bronconick
04-10-2010, 11:16 PM
The ESPN employee forgot the other number in that discussion

Number of people who have ESPNU without a $20 a month sports pack: 2,000,000

Priceless
04-10-2010, 11:55 PM
I would doubt the validity of them, especially the 5750 for the UM/BSU game. It seems odd that it is exactly 1/10 of the overall regional average to begin with, especially since UM is one of the biggest brand names in college sports, and one of the few teams that could draw in casual viewers. I also don't believe an accurate measurement of a number that low could be made with TV households numbering 114.9 million for this season. A rating of .1 would still be 114,900 viewers and that would equal a rating of .005.

.005 is correct.

Many Michigan fans watched the game on a regional syndication. Those are the numbers for ESPNU.

And what sports pack costs $20? :confused: The DTV sports pack costs $13 and Dish costs $6. It's not like these games were on PPV. According to ESPN, the channel is available in more than 55 million households.

For comparison, the NHL on NBC rating for 4/4 was .8, followed by a golf tournament that earned a 2. .8 is exactly the same rating ABC got for its NBA pre-game show. The games themselves earned a 2.1 and 2.5 rating. Horse racing earned a 1.5; a recent tape-delayed hour of Moto-Cross earned CBS a .6 rating.

Ratings for hockey suck. Argue semantics all you want, but the numbers for all hockey - and college hockey in particular - are abysmal.