[News] Sportsnet signs 12 year $5.2 billion for NHL CDN Broadcast rights.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I suspect Sportsnet will start with the same approach they have now. If the ratings are good they'll do nothing to change, and if the ratings are terrible they'll be forced to change. But as of now they have no reason or incentive to pay more for broadcasts. The deal is locked in, and all spending more on production and talent does is hurt the bottom line. Again people can complain and hate how Sportsnet does things, but they aren't going to take some 12 year sabbatical from watching NHL hockey because its on Sportsnet.

[GirlySports]

I'm surprised to hear some of you say they have a monopoly and there's nothing to lose.

There's always something to lose. They could lose eyeballs and advertisers. People could just not watch hockey. Hockey is religion for us, it's not for the 18-25 demographic.

If it's a really fancy production with cool programs then the kids will watch. For example even though we are not NBA fans, we watched Michael Jordan in the 90s because of the great production of the NBA on NBC. Shows like NBA Showtime.

Rogers needs to grab some of that magic.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well I browsed all the Canadian team forums at HF and they all have devoted threads to the topic and the general consensus is nearly identical to here. Most fans consider RSN 3rd rate compared to TSN and HNIC. Go take a look for yourselves as it seems like some fanbases are even more upset than we are.

All the people I talk to here love Sportsnet and hate TSN

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by kevman

I know it's cool to hate Sportsnet but just a few years ago we were watching Flames PPV games and as recent as 10 years ago the radio was your only option for every 2nd game.

Second tier broadcast or not Sportsnet has done a lot to bring more Flames hockey into our living rooms.

This is an odd way of looking at the situation. You, and others, are making it sound as if Sportsnet provided us Flames/Oilers/Canucks content not for their own profit, but as an act of charity towards us fans.

They didn't bring Flames hockey into our living rooms. They sold it into our living rooms, and made a lot of money doing so.

[The Fonz]

RSN, just please bring in some better talent. Listening to Brad May, Doug MacLean, etc at intermission is beer league locker room quality. Watching Kypreos on deadline day feels about the same as following Eklund's blog.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

All the people I talk to here love Sportsnet and hate TSN

Wow. that is really hard to believe!

All the people i know watch sportscenter every nite or most nites. I don't know anyone who watches the Sportsnet highlight show. haha i don't even know what it's called.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Wow. that is really hard to believe!

When your team is the Canucks and you have pbp guys like Hughson and Shorthouse with super homer Garrett, it's good. When you have a not so well received Kerr with a bland color man, the pinion would follow

[IntenseFan]

I was perhaps one of the minority in the board to not have an opinion one way or the other about Sportsnet. While they obviously aren't as polished as TSN, they represented an alternative - competition.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what is gone from this 12 year deal - competition.

Also, I don't like the fact that Rogers got to add $200 million from CBC to their coffers for the next 4 years on the "subcontract". That's taxpayer money that is essentially going in and out of Rogers account straight to the NHL. It actually takes the Rogers bid from $4.4 billion to the $5.2 they ended up paying. AND now CBC will not be able to recoup any of that $200 million from advertising. They continue to be very generous with other people's money.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

When your team is the Canucks and you have pbp guys like Hughson and Shorthouse with super homer Garrett, it's good. When you have a not so well received Kerr with a bland color man, the pinion would follow

How does that explain why they love sportsnet and hate TSN? hehe TSN doesn't do regional Canuck or Flames broadcasts. The only thing to compare between them are the highlight shows and their on air personalities. and Sportsnet is on the bottom rung for sure. Close to shaw tv quality. So it's more than having crappy Rob Kerr and Simmer.

It's like saying I hate sportsnet because they don't have Chris Cuthbert, Rod Black or Duane Ford calling CFL games.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

This is an odd way of looking at the situation. You, and others, are making it sound as if Sportsnet provided us Flames/Oilers/Canucks content not for their own profit, but as an act of charity towards us fans.

They didn't bring Flames hockey into our living rooms. They sold it into our living rooms, and made a lot of money doing so.

My point wasn't to say that Roger's is a "white night" as someone else put it but rather to say it wasn't long ago that we didn't have the option of watching hockey on TV every night. It's not like we're going from a current state where only a small minority of games are on Sportsnet. As it stands the MAJORITY of Flames games are already broadcast on Sportsnet so at the end of the day, outside of a few Saturday's and Wednesday's, is this really going to change much?

That said I'm in the apparent minority that likes to watch hockey and doesn't really care who shows the game. It doesn't matter if it's RSN, TSN or CBC doing the broadcast, I'm just happy that I have the option to watch every game if I so chose.

[troutman]

Comparing the top-lines:

Gaillard - Osmak - Cameron >>> Hedger - Beirness - Staniszewski

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by troutman

Comparing the top-lines:

Gaillard - Osmak - Cameron <<< Hedger - Beirness - Staniszewski

Fixed!!

and TSN wins just cuz they have the best woman sportscaster in the world! Sara Orlesky!

[GirlySports]

Also Sportsnet radio blows TSN radio out of the water. There can be no argument here.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by moon

I am not sure why TSN would be gone in a few years. They still have a ton of other content, Sportscenter is light years ahead of Connected, their talent (even if they lose some) is still lightyears ahead of Sportsnet, they have a deal with ESPN that gives them solid programming and Sportsnet survived without hockey and morons running it so TSN should be fine with actual intelligent people running it.

Sportsnet has shown in the past the care about going cheap rather than getting actual talented people in place so it will be interesting to see if they do take some of the good people from TSN or go with the god awful people they already have in place.

Principe, Quinn or Kerr involved in a national broadcast would be a nightmare. DeBrusk and Garrett's super homerism would not translate well at all to a national game and Simmer puts people to sleep on the local broadcast.

Hard to see this as anything but a huge downgrade based on what we have seen from Sportsnet on all their programming not just hockey. Up to this point there has been nothing they do remotely close to as well as TSN so hopefully that improves a lot.

Sportsnet had lots regional deals to show hockey.

TSN has one, and maybe two.

Face it, they're done. Sure, they might still exist, but it won't even be close to what they are now.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

How does that explain why they love sportsnet and hate TSN? hehe TSN doesn't do regional Canuck or Flames broadcasts. The only thing to compare between them are the highlight shows and their on air personalities. and Sportsnet is on the bottom rung for sure. Close to shaw tv quality. So it's more than having crappy Rob Kerr and Simmer.

It's like saying I hate sportsnet because they don't have Chris Cuthbert, Rod Black or Duane Ford calling CFL games.

It's the "They love my favorite team and the other guys don't" favoritism.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Also Sportsnet radio blows TSN radio out of the water. There can be no argument here.

Good point. They don't have that delay with the audio/video on the Fan960.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by troutman

Comparing the top-lines:

Gaillard - Osmak - Cameron >>> Hedger - Beirness - Staniszewski

Hmm. I don't know. There's something about Beirness...

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Hmm. I don't know. There's something about Beirness...

I like her too, but her hair is from 1976 and her voice reminds me of Wiig's Target Lady character on SNL.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

TSN will be fine. Now they have more money to get other programming. If they were wise they'd try and get as much NFL content as possible. Theoritically, with CTV and TSN2, they could show as many as 8-10 NFL games a week. Football draws from the most important advertising demo, 18-49 males. And if Andrew Wiggins does become LeBron North, TSN is already on the ground floor there (showing every Kansas game this year) and again thats a good demo for advertisers. TSN also has ESPN backing so they'll have enough content to fill the NHL void.

Why do they have more money? Hockey was obviously their cash cow in terms of advertising dollars. They don't have hockey anymore.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fire

lol no. Some people are overreacting, like those that thought the Flames would be playing this season in Saskatoon because of the floods.

Obviously losing national rights is a big blow, but they still have the CFL, NFL, NBA, World Juniors. Plus they will still be the place to go for hockey news ("That's Hockey") and general sport highlights ("SportsCentre").

So they're basically going to be like The Score plus a little more.

Which is nothing compared to what they are now.