• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

NHL to OLN

F

fatbastard

Guest
NHL's Board of Governors is about to approve 2-year $100 million
deal with Comcast's OLN which calls for 2 regular season
games a week, plus playoffs. Not bad for NHL considering Comcast
will pony up all the cash upfront and they get 2 games a week on an
established network which is both on cable and the dish.
Disney wanted strictly revenue sharing if NHL were to come
back to ESPN.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/12337268.htm
 
I thought that even though ESPN's previous contract with the NHL was terminated, that network had the right to match any other offer for a renewal.

The thing is, I don't think ESPN would see the NHL as being worth $50 million a year, and I don't think ESPN would, even if they had the NHL, be interested in carrying any regular-season games during 2005/2006.

If indeed OLN gets the NHL, given the late date the deal gets signed, I expect that many of the games, especially at the start of the season, will be simulcasts of Philadelphia Flyers, Washington Capitals, and Chicago Blackhawks games being produced by corporate sister Comcast Sportsnet's networks in Philadelphia, Washington/Baltimore, and Chicago respectively.

But if the contract is signed early enough, I do expect that OLN's first NHL game will not be a simulcast of a Comcast Sportsnet local telecast, but the October 5th opening-night contest between New Jersey and Pittsburgh, which will be Sidney Crosby's first NHL contest.

I remember that when the now-defunct Sportschannel-America had the NHL between 1988 and 1992, that most of the regular-season games (especially after the 1988/89 season) were merely simulcasts of local NHL telecasts from various Sportschannel regional networks. There was a disproportionate number of New York Islanders, New Jersey Devils, Hartford Whalers and Chicago Blackhawks games, given that those were the four teams (at the time) whose games were being covered by local Sportschannel networks.
 
> I thought that even though ESPN's previous contract with the
> NHL was terminated, that network had the right to match any
> other offer for a renewal.

ESPN offered $30 million a year for NHL in the spring. They won't jump
to $50million on a loss leader.

> The thing is, I don't think ESPN would see the NHL as being
> worth $50 million a year, and I don't think ESPN would, even
> if they had the NHL, be interested in carrying any
> regular-season games during 2005/2006.

Plus, Comcast already believes in the product being the Flyers' owner
and all. COmcast is in the hockey business. ESPN used hockey as a
promotional vehicle for its other programming and ABC.

Comcast has bigger plans. If they land NFL's new Thursday/Saturday package
as epexected, watch out ESPN!

> If indeed OLN gets the NHL, given the late date the deal
> gets signed, I expect that many of the games, especially at
> the start of the season, will be simulcasts of Philadelphia
> Flyers, Washington Capitals, and Chicago Blackhawks games
> being produced by corporate sister Comcast Sportsnet's
> networks in Philadelphia, Washington/Baltimore, and Chicago
> respectively.

Not likely they'll only focuse on CSN markets. They may just use local announcing crew for the national telecast. That's what NBA-TV often does.

> But if the contract is signed early enough, I do expect that
> OLN's first NHL game will not be a simulcast of a Comcast
> Sportsnet local telecast, but the October 5th opening-night
> contest between New Jersey and Pittsburgh, which will be
> Sidney Crosby's first NHL contest.
>
> I remember that when the now-defunct Sportschannel-America
> had the NHL between 1988 and 1992, that most of the
> regular-season games (especially after the 1988/89 season)
> were merely simulcasts of local NHL telecasts from various
> Sportschannel regional networks. There was a
> disproportionate number of New York Islanders, New Jersey
> Devils, Hartford Whalers and Chicago Blackhawks games, given
> that those were the four teams (at the time) whose games
> were being covered by local Sportschannel networks.
>
Different time, different players. Plus Comcast has lots of
cash to spend. Something Doan never had.
 
> Comcast has bigger plans. If they land NFL's new
> Thursday/Saturday package as epexected, watch out ESPN!

I've heard a name change for OLN might be in the works as well. Although Comcast is regularly lambasted on various media boards (mainly due to marketing and distribution quirks) I'll sure be interested to see how they handle the NHL and other future acquisitions. Might not be much different from the existing RSN stuff at first, but there's a lot of room for growth. At least Comcast gives OLN an existing sports infrastructure to build upon--they're in a better position than FOX was when it first landed the NFL.
 
My question with this move to OLN, is how many people WILL NOT be able to see the games?

I know on DISH, OLN is offered on the upper tier programming choices (AT 180 and above). So, those like me, who don't have the "AT 180" or "Everything Pack" tier won't get the games. Is this the same that goes for digital cable?

While I understand the $$$ behind this, I question whether this is a smart move for NHL at this time. They're at a very crucial time when they need to do all they can do to sway fans they lost/pissed off BACK to the game! I guess we'll see.
 
> Plus, Comcast already believes in the product being the
> Flyers' owner and all. COmcast is in the hockey business.

Can you say conflict of interest?
I knew you could!<P ID="signature">______________
WCBS = We're Crazy Buffoons and Schmucks
<a href=http://chuck.spotteddogs.org/tv/>Spotted Dog TV Talk - for all your non-news TV Talk</a></P>
 
In Des Moines, Mediacom carries OLN on basic cable.

> My question with this move to OLN, is how many people WILL
> NOT be able to see the games?
>
> I know on DISH, OLN is offered on the upper tier programming
> choices (AT 180 and above). So, those like me, who don't
> have the "AT 180" or "Everything Pack" tier won't get the
> games. Is this the same that goes for digital cable?
>
> While I understand the $$$ behind this, I question whether
> this is a smart move for NHL at this time. They're at a
> very crucial time when they need to do all they can do to
> sway fans they lost/pissed off BACK to the game! I guess
> we'll see.
>
 
> > Plus, Comcast already believes in the product being the
> > Flyers' owner and all. COmcast is in the hockey business.
>
> Can you say conflict of interest?
> I knew you could!
>

Yes, but that's allowed and very encouraged by NBA, NHL and MLB, but strictly prohibitted by the NFL, primarily because they don't allow big corporations to own franchises, only individuals.

NewsCorp owned the Dodgers and had the rights to MLB on Fox, plus other Fox RSN's at one time. Disney owned part of NHL Ducks and NHL rights on ESPN/ABC. Turner owned the Hawks and TNT/TBS package at one time. Big media=big money.
 
> > Comcast has bigger plans. If they land NFL's new
> > Thursday/Saturday package as epexected, watch out ESPN!
>
> I've heard a name change for OLN might be in the works as
> well. Although Comcast is regularly lambasted on various
> media boards (mainly due to marketing and distribution
> quirks) I'll sure be interested to see how they handle the
> NHL and other future acquisitions. Might not be much
> different from the existing RSN stuff at first, but there's
> a lot of room for growth. At least Comcast gives OLN an
> existing sports infrastructure to build upon--they're in a
> better position than FOX was when it first landed the NFL.
>

Name is not as important as having the largest distribution pipe(MSO) in the US and owning the content provider(OLN). Plus, they can place OLN
into more favorable "beachfront" property line-up(under channel 35)
on their MSO's. That's one big advantage of being the #1 MSO and owning
an existing network. Not only it's a good move by NHL, it's a great one. Comcast
is laying groundwork for something much bigger than just an NHL channel. They'll get the NFL Thursday/Saturday package. They'll definitely go after the next MLB and NBA cable deals. Having all 4 major sports is one way to keep/bring back a sports fan into the cable universe and make a few bucks as well.
 
I believe OLN is (as of now) seen in about ten million fewer homes than ESPN2 and about fifteen million fewer homes than ESPN.

The NHL deal probably won't change that.

But a deal for Thursday/Sunday NFL games (and isn't the NFL supposed to announce within the week who's going to get that package?) could change everything. If OLN gets that, it will indirectly help the NHL.

But I think the Thursday/Saturday NFL package may well wind up on the league's own NFL Network. That would make a compelling reason to turn NFL Network into a "basic" channel.

But so would OLN if they got the Thursday/Saturday NFL package.

By the way, if my memory serves me correct, Sportschannel-America's 1988-1992 NHL package was only available to about one-third of the nation's cable households at the time, mostly on the various Sportschannel networks (with a couple of other regional cable networks in non-Sportschannel cities who also had NHL teams also picking up the package). Two-thirds of the nation's cable homes, including many NHL cities, were shut out of the league's national TV package (including telecasts of the Stanley Cup Finals) during that time.

At least it won't be that bad with OLN.

I wonder if OLN would get the first two games of the Stanley Cup Finals, or would the NHL's deal with NBC be amended to give the Peacock Network the entire Finals.

One note about NBC: Don't be surprised if the NBC/NHL deal is amended so that weekend games of the Stanley Cup Finals (except possibly for game 7) get moved to the afternoon, so NBC would only have three nights of prime-time coverage of the Finals (assuming they air games 3-onward), and thus, minimizing ratings damage.
 
> I believe OLN is (as of now) seen in about ten million fewer
> homes than ESPN2 and about fifteen million fewer homes than
> ESPN.
>
> The NHL deal probably won't change that.
>
> But a deal for Thursday/Sunday NFL games (and isn't the NFL
> supposed to announce within the week who's going to get that
> package?) could change everything. If OLN gets that, it will
> indirectly help the NHL.
>
> But I think the Thursday/Saturday NFL package may well wind
> up on the league's own NFL Network. That would make a
> compelling reason to turn NFL Network into a "basic"
> channel.
>
> But so would OLN if they got the Thursday/Saturday NFL
> package.
>
> By the way, if my memory serves me correct,
> Sportschannel-America's 1988-1992 NHL package was only
> available to about one-third of the nation's cable
> households at the time, mostly on the various Sportschannel
> networks (with a couple of other regional cable networks in
> non-Sportschannel cities who also had NHL teams also picking
> up the package). Two-thirds of the nation's cable homes,
> including many NHL cities, were shut out of the league's
> national TV package (including telecasts of the Stanley Cup
> Finals) during that time.
>
> At least it won't be that bad with OLN.
>
> I wonder if OLN would get the first two games of the Stanley
> Cup Finals, or would the NHL's deal with NBC be amended to
> give the Peacock Network the entire Finals.
>
> One note about NBC: Don't be surprised if the NBC/NHL deal
> is amended so that weekend games of the Stanley Cup Finals
> (except possibly for game 7) get moved to the afternoon, so
> NBC would only have three nights of prime-time coverage of
> the Finals (assuming they air games 3-onward), and thus,
> minimizing ratings damage.
>
Here's a really stupid question --- How does NHL Hockey fit on the OUTDOOR LIFE NETWORK????? Or do we come up with a new name now?? (Oilers Live Network?)
 
> I know on DISH, OLN is offered on the upper tier programming
> choices (AT 180 and above). So, those like me, who don't
> have the "AT 180" or "Everything Pack" tier won't get the
> games. Is this the same that goes for digital cable?

On DirecTV, OLN is on the most basic package (Total Choice).

On Time Warner West San Fernando Valley, OLN is on "Digital Variety 2" which is one of five tiers that customers can choose from as part of their basic service (one comes with basic service, additional tiers cost $3/mo.)

On Adelphia East San Fernando Valley, OLN is on the Digital Basic tier.

I hope that helps some.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
>
> Here's a really stupid question --- How does NHL Hockey fit
> on the OUTDOOR LIFE NETWORK????? Or do we come up with a
> new name now?? (Oilers Live Network?)
>

The thought is that ice hockey originally started outdoors on frozen ponds.

I'm sure there will be an eventual name change..my question is, will the defending Stanley Cup Champion Tampa Bay Lightning make an appearance? or will OLN go the way of ESPN and only air games from Detroit/Chicago/Colorado/New York/Boston and Philly?
 
I think it'll be interesting to see how the NHL does on a network like OLN. Oh and in my area(Lakewood-Pierce County, Washington) OLN is carried on Comcast's Expanded Basic package I believe, however I do know it's carried on channel 34. As for Click Network which is Tacoma's other cable provider i'm not sure.
 
> NewsCorp owned the Dodgers and had the rights to MLB on Fox,
> plus other Fox RSN's at one time. Disney owned part of NHL
> Ducks and NHL rights on ESPN/ABC. Turner owned the Hawks and
> TNT/TBS package at one time. Big media=big money.
>
Ugh, please don't mention the Squawks, especially around dinner time....

Here in Atlanta, it might be interesting with Comcast and OLN, since Comcast is the major cable franchisee here and they have their own regional sports net (CSS-Comcast Sports Southeast)...I wonder if a few games of the Thrashers may make it over to CSS when OLN or Turner South or the local broadcast affiliate doesn't carry them?

And to answer the question, to protect the rights of the Predators, they would be sending an alternate feed, just like they do with High School Sports live telecasts....

Just my .02 worth.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
COX Cable (all 3 CT Franchises) moved OLN from Expanded Basic to Digital last year.
 
OLN has already snatched what used to be the marquee events from ESPN (mainly the america's Cup..and from what I understand COULD be in the running to maybe go to Aussie Football
 
Studiotwenty asked:

> I'm sure there will be an eventual name change (from OLN)..my question
> is, will the defending Stanley Cup Champion Tampa Bay
> Lightning make an appearance? or will OLN go the way of
> ESPN and only air games from Detroit/Chicago/Colorado/New
> York/Boston and Philly?

I would think that given the fact that they're defending champions (from 2004), yes, Tampa Bay will be seen several times in an OLN/NHL package (and also on a few Saturday afternoon regional telecasts on NBC, but those games will likely be seen only in Northern and Central Florida as well as the opposing team's home region).

However, as I had noted earlier in this thread, I think that most of OLN's NHL coverage during the early weeks of the season (outside of the New Jersey/Pittsburgh game on Opening Night, October 5th, which I think they'll cover because it will be the first NHL game for Pittsburgh rookie Sidney Crosby) will be simulcasts of local Comcast Sportsnet games featuring Philadelphia, Washington, and Chicago for the simple reason that there was so little leadtime between the signing of the contract and the start of the season. But I would think that by late November, OLN will be doing many of it's own originations of NHL games.
 
One other issue relating to a possible move of the NHL's national cable coverage to OLN: OLN's bid would call for two regular-season games a week.

If OLN's bid includes making their NHL telecasts the only NHL game(s) that could be broadcast on a particular night, that would cause havoc with the local broadcast and cable-TV packages of the league's 24 U.S.-based teams. If OLN has such exclusivity for their games and schedules them on nights when there are several other NHL games being played, this would result in each U.S.-based NHL team having several regular-season games each year that could not be televised (or at least, could not be televised live) due to the OLN/NHL package. I know here in Boston, the New England Sports Network (NESN) would get angry phone calls if a Boston Bruins game could not be televised live by NESN because of an exclusive OLN broadcast window.

Perhaps OLN's games will be scheduled on nights when there are very few NHL games being scheduled with American-based teams to avoid the possibility of seeing several games of each team be kept off local broadcast or cable TV in the teams' home markets.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom