pi2000 Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 Nobody wanted hockey. NBC is the only network to offer a TV deal when they were shopping their wares after the lockout. ESPN tried to lowball them and when they were turned down ESPN basically buried the NHL refusing to promote and showing only sparse highlights. ESPN will be broadcasting the World Cup of Hockey in September, which I think will be huge and a sign of things to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 See also: McGuire, Pierre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 How have we've spent almost a full page on NBC's coverage and how it is "killing the game" and not mentioned Emrick OR Milbury? I am compelled to turn the volume down with Emrick and the channel with Milbury. DOC just won a broadcasting Emmy... because he is so wonderful... :sick: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 How have we've spent almost a full page on NBC's coverage and how it is "killing the game" and not mentioned Emrick OR Milbury? I am compelled to turn the volume down with Emrick and the channel with Milbury. I have been Emerick's biggest critic for a long time,... a long time, for all the reasons we all know. I think he's been excellent in these playoffs. In the regular season he is brutal, but when there is a good game going that means something, he calls a great game. I think all the guys in the intermissions are just too serious. It's hockey FFS. Lighten up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 How have we've spent almost a full page on NBC's coverage and how it is "killing the game" and not mentioned Emrick OR Milbury? I am compelled to turn the volume down with Emrick and the channel with Milbury. I, for one, can't stand Doc Emrick. I don't understand why everybody always falls head over heels for the guy. He knows his hockey, but I can't stand his voice, like nails on a chalkboard for some reason. I prefer the canadian broadcast teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 When Doc actual is doing play by play and not blabbing about some random story that has no bearing, he isn't bad at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcal Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 But that isn't the point. You are implying that because you pay to watch hockey the league survives but the league survives because X number of people watch hockey so the league can charge X amount for ads and Y amount to NBC to carry the games. The league isn't making the majority of their cash because we pay to watch the game on TV they are making that money in ad revenue and sponsorships. According to a report I found the NHL made 447million in just sponsorship revenue in 2014/2015 http://www.sponsorship.com/iegsr/2015/06/01/NHL-Sponsorship-Revenue-To-Total-$447-Million-In-2.aspx The NHL makes 433million per year from the Rogers TV deal alone if you spread it out over the course of 12 years. I think you and I are saying the same thing. Advertisers pay for viewership numbers which are culled from all services legally showing hockey. The advertisers are paying to reach that amount of people with their adds be it commercials, on boards or throughout telecasts and arenas sport wide but all of those viewers paid in one way or another to view the game, either by having tickets or cable/dish or another approved NHL service. Illegal or pirated streams do not count in the viewership numbers(i'm not behooving anyone from watching any way they want or can and it doesnt matter to me either way) ESPN will be broadcasting the World Cup of Hockey in September, which I think will be huge and a sign of things to come.NBC holds exclusive NHL rights through the 2020-21 season. How have we've spent almost a full page on NBC's coverage and how it is "killing the game" and not mentioned Emrick OR Milbury? I am compelled to turn the volume down with Emrick and the channel with Milbury. You're right.... Mike Milbury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor of Philhousley Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 I, for one, can't stand Doc Emrick. I don't understand why everybody always falls head over heels for the guy. He knows his hockey, but I can't stand his voice, like nails on a chalkboard for some reason. I prefer the canadian broadcast teams. This, you've hit the nail on the head. His voice is the worst!!! Also Pi, you've got to change that Avatar. My eyes FOREVER UNCLEAN! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#freejame Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 How have we've spent almost a full page on NBC's coverage and how it is "killing the game" and not mentioned Emrick OR Milbury? I am compelled to turn the volume down with Emrick and the channel with Milbury. Sometimes I'll watch Orioles games just to listen to Gary Thorne call a game. It would be great if he ever went back to the NHL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted May 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 (edited) So the point is we have to lobby NBC/Comcast or whatever the parent company is to provide live streaming. Are there any NHL discussion threads on NBC? Edited May 12, 2016 by North Buffalo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 So the point is we have to lobby NBC/Comcast or whatever the parent company is to provide live streaming. Are there any NHL discussion threads on NBC? What's to lobby? They have a product that you don't pay for so you don't get it. Pretty simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 What's to lobby? They have a product that you don't pay for so you don't get it. Pretty simple. I know I've said this a million times, but the issue (IMO) is that they won't give us an option to pay for it. We're not asking for it for free; we're asking for them to provide us a way to pay for that product outside of a blanket cable subscription that includes a bunch of other crap channels we don't want or need. Why is that asking so much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 Because then you wouldn't have to pay for all the crap you don't want. Lost revenue (in the short view) for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 I know I've said this a million times, but the issue (IMO) is that they won't give us an option to pay for it. We're not asking for it for free; we're asking for them to provide us a way to pay for that product outside of a blanket cable subscription that includes a bunch of other crap channels we don't want or need. Why is that asking so much? For fifteen years while I either didn't have a TV or cable, I drove an hour into the city to meet my friends at a bar to watch every playoff game. It's not just cable companies that would lose out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 Because then you wouldn't have to pay for all the crap you don't want. Lost revenue (in the short view) for them. Why can't they "overcharge" for the standalone product in some way they feel would compensate? If it's too high, people won't buy it, so no loss. But they might be surprised at how many would still elect that over cable. I think I'd happily pay $20/mo for just NBC and NBCSN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 Why can't they "overcharge" for the standalone product in some way they feel would compensate? If it's too high, people won't buy it, so no loss. But they might be surprised at how many would still elect that over cable. I think I'd happily pay $20/mo for just NBC and NBCSN. I'm sure that either 1: they don't think it's worth it to them money-wise or 2: they're betting that by the time we're done having the net neutrality argument things will be even bleaker for us cord-cutters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 Why can't they "overcharge" for the standalone product in some way they feel would compensate? If it's too high, people won't buy it, so no loss. But they might be surprised at how many would still elect that over cable. I think I'd happily pay $20/mo for just NBC and NBCSN. It would do a disservice to the networks who are paying for exclusive coverage. Without exclusive coverage the broadcast rights are much less valuable. I doubt the league can make up the difference with streaming purchases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 It would do a disservice to the networks who are paying for exclusive coverage. Without exclusive coverage the broadcast rights are much less valuable. I doubt the league can make up the difference with streaming purchases. Why can't NBC retain the exclusive broadcast rights and offer a direct paid streaming service through them? I don't understand why that isn't an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 Why can't NBC retain the exclusive broadcast rights and offer a direct paid streaming service through them? I don't understand why that isn't an option. I'd be surprised if they didnt have verbage in the contracts with their cable/satellite broadcasters thatprevent online distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 I'd be surprised if they didnt have verbage in the contracts with their cable/satellite broadcasters thatprevent online distribution. How do they already have the option for NBC Live (or whatever the current streaming platform is called), then? Forgive me if I'm being dense; it just seems like the infrastructure is already in place and all they need to do is offer a paid (or pay per view?) option in addition to the current subscriber login method. It shouldn't be so complicated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcal Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 How do they already have the option for NBC Live (or whatever the current streaming platform is called), then? Forgive me if I'm being dense; it just seems like the infrastructure is already in place and all they need to do is offer a paid (or pay per view?) option in addition to the current subscriber login method. It shouldn't be so complicated!You have a valid point it seems. If you're willing to pay there should be a way. Can't imagine NBC would leave money on the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 Why can't NBC retain the exclusive broadcast rights and offer a direct paid streaming service through them? I don't understand why that isn't an option. How do they already have the option for NBC Live (or whatever the current streaming platform is called), then? Forgive me if I'm being dense; it just seems like the infrastructure is already in place and all they need to do is offer a paid (or pay per view?) option in addition to the current subscriber login method. It shouldn't be so complicated! Because they made a deal with cable and satellite providers saying they wouldn't do that. You are asking them to get rid of millions in ad revenue from the hundreds of millions that the cable and satellite providers distribute to so that a couple hundred thousand people can pay ala carte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 Because they made a deal with cable and satellite providers saying they wouldn't do that. You are asking them to get rid of millions in ad revenue from the hundreds of millions that the cable and satellite providers distribute to so that a couple hundred thousand people can pay ala carte. Blargh; so you're saying the exclusive rights are for the cable and satellite providers, not NBC. Still, if NBC is owned by Comcast, don't they get a cut regardless of whether you're paying Comcast or paying NBC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 Blargh; so you're saying the exclusive rights are for the cable and satellite providers, not NBC. Still, if NBC is owned by Comcast, don't they get a cut regardless of whether you're paying Comcast or paying NBC? Sure, in areas that have Comcast, but NBC is also distributed by DirectTv, FioS, Cablevision, TWC,... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 Sure, in areas that have Comcast, but NBC is also distributed by DirectTv, FioS, Cablevision, TWC,... Dammit... you make so much sense, and I don't like it. :nana: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.