PDA

View Full Version : Promoters asleep at the switch?



Osorojo
11-19-2011, 10:05 AM
At times when I channel surf I encounter as many as four channels broadcasting or rebroadcasting college women's field hockey games, but no men's or women's ice hockey games. Is women's field hockey intrinsically a better TV spectator sport than ice hockey or does DI college hockey lack a promotional strategy?

FlagDUDE08
11-19-2011, 10:29 AM
At times when I channel surf I encounter as many as four channels broadcasting or rebroadcasting college women's field hockey games, but no men's or women's ice hockey games. Is women's field hockey intrinsically a better TV spectator sport than ice hockey or does DI college hockey lack a promotional strategy?

I remember one game where I was at HFH and overheard a Time Warner broadcaster say, "I hate covering hockey, I hope our next game is basketball, I don't have to worry about a puck flying at me." Given the speed of hockey and amount of picture coverage you have with respect to the detail you need (after all, they call them the cheap seats for a reason), it's a very difficult sport to broadcast. With the popularity of widescreen TV (as well as high definition), hockey has become easier to broadcast, and so we see much more hockey being shown on TV. Look at NBC capitalizing on it with not only their flagship network station but also Versus. ESPN is solid basketball so you won't see much there unless they're forced to show it. NBC used to cover basketball, but with CBS also picking it up, cable getting more popular (TBS, TNT for the locked out NBA), NBC saw an opportunity for hockey and jumped on it.

Osorojo
11-19-2011, 11:26 AM
FlagDUDE08: I concur. Close up shots tend to lose the flow of the game; long shots lose the puck. Televised hockey games require top-shelf camera men and directors more than they need engaging announcers and color commentators. Still, I fear that college hockey conferences have neglected active promotion of their sport to the electronic media.

JW Tigers
11-19-2011, 11:54 AM
At times when I channel surf I encounter as many as four channels broadcasting or rebroadcasting college women's field hockey games, but no men's or women's ice hockey games. Is women's field hockey intrinsically a better TV spectator sport than ice hockey or does DI college hockey lack a promotional strategy?
There's actually a very simple answer. It is the field hockey Final Four, and the NCAA has TV deals to show a ton of Final Fours for different sports.

FlagDUDE08
11-19-2011, 12:19 PM
There's actually a very simple answer. It is the field hockey Final Four, and the NCAA has TV deals to show a ton of Final Fours for different sports.

Now that NBC is actually going to be running college hockey (on Versus obviously, not the flagship), do you think they make a pitch for the Frozen Four? I realize the NHL potential conflicts, but I could see it happen.

FlagDUDE08
11-19-2011, 12:31 PM
FlagDUDE08: I concur. Close up shots tend to lose the flow of the game; long shots lose the puck. Televised hockey games require top-shelf camera men and directors more than they need engaging announcers and color commentators. Still, I fear that college hockey conferences have neglected active promotion of their sport to the electronic media.

I disagree with you from a regional standpoint. Fox Sports Net seems to get a good number of CCHA and WCHA games. With Hockey East you have NESN, and the ECAC and Atlantic (at least the New York State teams) are covered by Time Warner Cable, which has looked to simulcast their programming all across the state (so sometimes even people in Buffalo get to watch RPI/Union). National exposure has been a problem for a while, not only because of the challenges I presented, but much of the country has been looking towards basketball (look at ESPN's and CBS's (CSTV) main showings). However, look at NBC now getting into the game nationally. They've realized that people will watch their product (i.e. broadcast of the NHL), and Major Junior is popular to watch in Canada, so why not show the United States equivalent in college games? You also have the poster GreatLakerMohawk occasionally referring to the college game in his hockey blog on NBC's pro sports website. I'd say your concerns, though warranted in the past, have been realized and have now received action.

JW Tigers
11-19-2011, 12:42 PM
Now that NBC is actually going to be running college hockey (on Versus obviously, not the flagship), do you think they make a pitch for the Frozen Four? I realize the NHL potential conflicts, but I could see it happen.
I'd love to see that. Versus (or NBC Sports Network, as I think they'll be called in January) seems to care about hockey, and I really like their NHL coverage. I don't have a clue what the contracts are like with ESPN, but I think Versus would do a great job.

FlagDUDE08
11-19-2011, 01:29 PM
I'd love to see that. Versus (or NBC Sports Network, as I think they'll be called in January) seems to care about hockey, and I really like their NHL coverage. I don't have a clue what the contracts are like with ESPN, but I think Versus would do a great job.

I'd bet you anything that the NCAA threatened ESPN and CBS into showing the other sports so they could show football and basketball. It makes me wonder if, assuming that NBC is willing to show college hockey and not just Notre Dame hockey (which sounds like is what's happening), and they're willing to do the tournament (or even FOX for that matter, although they're delving more into regional action minus NFL), the NCAA relaxed the hockey caveat for CBS and ESPN so long as all their sports received air time. It could work the other way, where NBC would have to pick up some other college sports to get hockey, although given it's not a college cash cow, I don't foresee the latter occurring.

JW Tigers
11-19-2011, 02:46 PM
I'd bet you anything that the NCAA threatened ESPN and CBS into showing the other sports so they could show football and basketball. It makes me wonder if, assuming that NBC is willing to show college hockey and not just Notre Dame hockey (which sounds like is what's happening), and they're willing to do the tournament (or even FOX for that matter, although they're delving more into regional action minus NFL), the NCAA relaxed the hockey caveat for CBS and ESPN so long as all their sports received air time. It could work the other way, where NBC would have to pick up some other college sports to get hockey, although given it's not a college cash cow, I don't foresee the latter occurring.
I'm guessing that's the case as well. ESPN gets the ratings/money benefit of football and basketball while the NCAA gets the benefit of exposure for the sports of lesser interest. I would think ESPN and the NCAA would be happy to have Versus take over the college hockey tournament if Versus were inclined to do so. I mean, I think ESPN does a good job with the tournament, and it's been great to have all of the tournament games televised (which I'm not sure Versus would be able to do as of now), but if Versus is willing and able, it would be a good thing. Versus has become a hockey first network, and I think it would make lot of sense for them to take on some college hockey as well. Although, I have to agree with your idea that it might be more like Notre Dame hockey than college hockey in general. But even that's better than nothing, especially because it means I'd get to see some HEA teams on TV. :)

FlagDUDE08
11-19-2011, 03:29 PM
I'm guessing that's the case as well. ESPN gets the ratings/money benefit of football and basketball while the NCAA gets the benefit of exposure for the sports of lesser interest. I would think ESPN and the NCAA would be happy to have Versus take over the college hockey tournament if Versus were inclined to do so. I mean, I think ESPN does a good job with the tournament, and it's been great to have all of the tournament games televised (which I'm not sure Versus would be able to do as of now), but if Versus is willing and able, it would be a good thing. Versus has become a hockey first network, and I think it would make lot of sense for them to take on some college hockey as well. Although, I have to agree with your idea that it might be more like Notre Dame hockey than college hockey in general. But even that's better than nothing, especially because it means I'd get to see some HEA teams on TV. :)

Not all of them are televised, as some are shown online via E:360, but regionally yes (like with RPI/UND, Time Warner had a deal to show the New York State teams in the tournament across the state). Versus doesn't have an online feed yet, but it would not surprise me if they looked down that path.

JW Tigers
11-19-2011, 04:41 PM
Not all of them are televised, as some are shown online via E:360, but regionally yes (like with RPI/UND, Time Warner had a deal to show the New York State teams in the tournament across the state). Versus doesn't have an online feed yet, but it would not surprise me if they looked down that path.
Yeah, I should have said, "most" were televised. Given what a hockey nerd I am (along with a lot of us on this board), for the tourney games that were only on ESPN360, I had my laptop on the table streaming those feeds while watching the TV game so we could watch everything. Right now, Versus wouldn't be able to give us that, but IF they decided to do tourney games, I imagine they would come up with a way to show all games in one format or another.

FlagDUDE08
11-19-2011, 05:31 PM
Yeah, I should have said, "most" were televised. Given what a hockey nerd I am (along with a lot of us on this board), for the tourney games that were only on ESPN360, I had my laptop on the table streaming those feeds while watching the TV game so we could watch everything. Right now, Versus wouldn't be able to give us that, but IF they decided to do tourney games, I imagine they would come up with a way to show all games in one format or another.

It'd give CNBC something to do on the weekend. ;)

uaafanblog
11-19-2011, 08:14 PM
D-1 hockey would do itself a favor if individual programs would simply give away their webstreams. We're talking only hundreds or low thousands of dollars per weekend at most for any program. UAA's webstream is free and during the Gophers series at one point it had 8000 viewers. 99 percent of those viewers wouldn't have watched it if they'd had to pay for it. If ALL D-1 schools gave away their webstream it would help raise the profile of the sport.

Patman
11-19-2011, 10:30 PM
D-1 hockey would do itself a favor if individual programs would simply give away their webstreams. We're talking only hundreds or low thousands of dollars per weekend at most for any program. UAA's webstream is free and during the Gophers series at one point it had 8000 viewers. 99 percent of those viewers wouldn't have watched it if they'd had to pay for it. If ALL D-1 schools gave away their webstream it would help raise the profile of the sport.

so, are you willing to pay for it? does this money come out of a miracle box?

LynahFan
11-19-2011, 10:59 PM
At times when I channel surf I encounter as many as four channels broadcasting or rebroadcasting college women's field hockey games, but no men's or women's ice hockey games. Is women's field hockey intrinsically a better TV spectator sport than ice hockey or does DI college hockey lack a promotional strategy?
So you're saying you wish there was more $$$ in college hockey? Rather a different tune than you usually sing...

FlagDUDE08
11-20-2011, 04:10 AM
D-1 hockey would do itself a favor if individual programs would simply give away their webstreams. We're talking only hundreds or low thousands of dollars per weekend at most for any program. UAA's webstream is free and during the Gophers series at one point it had 8000 viewers. 99 percent of those viewers wouldn't have watched it if they'd had to pay for it. If ALL D-1 schools gave away their webstream it would help raise the profile of the sport.

That only really works if the normal place to watch it has a low if not non-existant cost, Minnie. ;) It may make us moochers happy, but for the schools (and the conferences come playoff time), it's still a business. I do agree that something needs to be sacrificed in order to maximize the product. Obviously in the case of UAA-Gophers, I'm assuming the series was in Alaska, so it's a good trade-off. If you're talking people that won't go 20 miles to see the game (with consideration of whether or not the game is sold out), then you have an issue. What if they were to institute a system to black out IP addresses and encourage people to go to the games (at least with the private institutions, not sure what implications that would have with public institutions)? Keep radio free, that's for sure, but video is obviously the issue here.

The biggest trick with the streams is to use them to encourage people to go to the games in person, or to watch either on the pay site. Also, why couldn't local advertising be used to offset the costs (should there be any moochers out there)? I realize most school TV clubs run a non-profit budget, but there has to be some room in there for revenue somewhere.

FlagDUDE08
11-20-2011, 04:11 AM
So you're saying you wish there was more $$$ in college hockey? Rather a different tune than you usually sing...

Srsly... this has to be one of the first times that relevant debate has come from one of Bear Red's threads!

Osorojo
11-20-2011, 10:39 AM
So you're saying you wish there was more $$$ in college hockey? Rather a different tune than you usually sing...

I fear you are tone deaf. I would love to see AMATEUR college hockey expand and flourish. To do this college hockey must become a self-sustaining sport, perhaps even generate revenue - within reason. The chief sources of revenue for hockey are ticket sales and TV contracts. Ticket sales are at the mercy of the size of the puck, the size and cost of the arena, and the vagaries of weather. TV only has to cope with the size of the puck, and the potential for TV revenue is relatively great. Incurable optimist that I am, I do not believe that an influx of sports revenue invariably corrupts a school's academic standards, recruiting standards, or ethics. Cash flow is still a wretched excuse to justify shabby conduct by athletic departments.

FlagDUDE08
11-20-2011, 11:38 AM
I fear you are tone deaf. I would love to see AMATEUR college hockey expand and flourish. To do this college hockey must become a self-sustaining sport, perhaps even generate revenue - within reason. The chief sources of revenue for hockey are ticket sales and TV contracts. Ticket sales are at the mercy of the size of the puck, the size and cost of the arena, and the vagaries of weather. TV only has to cope with the size of the puck, and the potential for TV revenue is relatively great. Incurable optimist that I am, I do not believe that an influx of sports revenue invariably corrupts a school's academic standards, recruiting standards, or ethics. Cash flow is still a wretched excuse to justify shabby conduct by athletic departments.

Uhhhh.... what college hockey is not considered amateur? Unless you're talking about how the CIS (Canadian colleges) allows Major Junior players...

You should also include local advertising in this. Obviously there's a correlation between advertising dollars and butts in seats, but the reciprocal isn't true. Take Yale for example. There's no local advertising along the boards or on the ice. I'm unaware of any other in-house advertising (through programs or signs on the outer walls) they have as I haven't been there in 4 years, but local companies pay good money at most arenas to get their message at a location where people will see it. It's not an ivy rule, either, as Cornell's boards are filled to the brim with local business messages.