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

[TurnedTheCorner]

I don't think TSN will change overnight and not focus on the NHL. No national broadcasts obviously, but I imagine they will still show highlights, have local reporters following the teams, have Insider panels on SC for trades, rule changes, suspensions, deadline day, etc. It'll be interesting to see what things look like in 2-3 years.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

I guess what's left for TSN is CFL, NBA and Sunday / Monday NFL. They can always pick up more soccer, but I guess Sportsnet got a strong hold on that as well

Curling!* They got Ron Burgendy!

*actually SN has more curling now so they've killed TSN there too.

[dammage79]

Not to mention that the production crew will from HNIC will likely aid Sportsnet in getting theirs up to snuff. As after four years those guys will be working for SN anyhow.

[Tinordi]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...sports/274575/

If you're furious about the cost of cable TV, and you don't watch sports, just close this window and walk away. Seriously, don't even read another paragraph. It'll just make you too angry.

Still there? Okay, so here's where we left things last time we discussed the economics of sports and television.

In a sentence: Television economics are sports economics, and sports economics are television economics. Sports accounts for half of the programming costs of TV, and TV accounts for more than half the revenue of many professional sports leagues. Without television, professional sports could scarcely exist. Without sports, the TV cable bundle -- and the golden age of television that it's ushered into existence -- might unravel entirely.

Your cable bill -- $80 or $90, or whatever it is -- is best understood as two prices. The programming (i.e. the channels you watch) and the distribution (i.e. the infrastructure and profits for the cable companies). Every time you pay a cable bill, the channels collect a small fee. It's called an "affiliate fee." The most in-demand channels tend to negotiate the highest fees. And those tend to be sports channels. Take a look.

[Erick Estrada]

I'm still stunned the league would turn their backs on TSN. TSN has done a lot of good for hockey over the years with their WJC coverage, women's hockey coverage, trade deadline days, draft days, etc. TSN was covering all this stuff before RSN jumped on board and to me this sends a bad precedent that the league is more worried about money than the quality in that their product is portrayed and turning their backs on partners. At the end of the day Canadians will tune in to even the shoddy Sportsnet West broadcasts but personally if it's my brand I want it's broadcasting held to a high standard.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Why is it not likely Sportsnets crappy coverage will continue? They just spent $5.2 billion (do they have any money left for improvements?) and they have the rights locked up. If the coverage continues to sucks are people not going to watch because the studio analysts and play by play guys suck? I really don't think so.

You watch because you care about the game itself. Is there anyone now who doesn't watch Flames games on Sportsnet because of the terrible announcing and presentation? Complain about it? Sure. Not watch? No. Its been mentioned but Rogers payed $5.2 billion and they'll get that money back and then some. Spending a ton more on analysts and such doesn't help them get there. You'll see a few marquee names for national purposes, but the regional coverage will be as bad as it is now.

[Tinordi]

If anything, now that Sportsnet has the rights locked up it has less incentive to make the broadcast quality better. There is no competition for them anymore.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

If anything, now that Sportsnet has the rights locked up it has less incentive to make the broadcast quality better. There is no competition for them anymore.

People will stop watching hockey if it's crap. We're not sheep.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Why is it not likely Sportsnets crappy coverage will continue? They just spent $5.2 billion (do they have any money left for improvements?) and they have the rights locked up. If the coverage continues to sucks are people not going to watch because the studio analysts and play by play guys suck? I really don't think so.

This is what Brunt was getting at as he was wondering about what this would do to shareholder pricing etc. They blew a big wad of dough on this and as rich as they are there isn't an endless supply of money so there has to be a pinch somewhere.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

People will stop watching hockey if it's crap. We're not sheep.

Actually we are when it comes to Canadians and hockey. We all complain about Flames broadcasts but who's stopped watching? Really you can't get much worse than RSN Flames broadcasts so if we haven't stopped watching it tells me that broadcasters can get away with substandard broadcasts.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

People will stop watching hockey if it's crap. We're not sheep.

yes we are. even shutting down the league twice in the span of 8 years wasn't enough to keep us from coming back, so shoddy production values sure aren't going to make any difference in viewership.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

People will stop watching hockey if it's crap. We're not sheep.

lol

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

This is what Brunt was getting at as he was wondering about what this would do to shareholder pricing etc. They blew a big wad of dough on this and as rich as they are there isn't an endless supply of money so there has to be a pinch somewhere.

Carriage fees, national advertising dollars, apps for device viewing on tablets and phones, ads on those devices...there will be money coming in as well.

But I don't expect a trickle down effect that improves quality of the regional product, either. Time will tell.

[liamenator]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

People will stop watching hockey if it's crap. We're not sheep.

LOLLLL. How many times have we heard variations of this argument at both a local and a league level? Does anyone stop watching? Not since the mid-90s has there been even the slightest dent in fan support for the NHL. Through lockouts, franchise relocations, expansion, concussion debates, etc., we keep saying "this might be it for me!" and then come back 10 minutes later.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

If anything, now that Sportsnet has the rights locked up it has less incentive to make the broadcast quality better. There is no competition for them anymore.

One can only hope that SN will need to poach talent from TSN and CBC to broadcast that many games. Some of that experience will somehow be absorbed. Maybe somebody will tell them how to control the audio/video delay knobs in their studios.

This is what I am hoping.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Carriage fees, national advertising dollars, apps for device viewing on tablets and phones, ads on those devices...there will be money coming in as well.

But I don't expect a trickle down effect that improves quality of the regional product, either. Time will tell.

There could be some. If they are planning on carrying 7 games nationally or something, they'll at least have to have top notch equipment at these arenas.

[nik-]

My only hope is that Rogers uses, instead of replaces, CBC's production team because they're still the best technical team out there. Video work, sound team, cameramen, Rogers would be fools to just turf them and not utilize them.

[liamenator]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm still stunned the league would turn their backs on TSN. TSN has done a lot of good for hockey over the years with their WJC coverage, women's hockey coverage, trade deadline days, draft days, etc. TSN was covering all this stuff before RSN jumped on board and to me this sends a bad precedent that the league is more worried about money than the quality in that their product is portrayed and turning their backs on partners. At the end of the day Canadians will tune in to even the shoddy Sportsnet West broadcasts but personally if it's my brand I want it's broadcasting held to a high standard.

The way Bettman was dodging questions about this, you almost wonder if this became personal, and, if so, whose egos were involved. Did the TSN brass do something to rankle GB or the NHL BoG? Did the latter take issue with TSN's coverage of the lockout, for instance?

It seems to me that TSN's coverage of the NHL in general--though still by and large pandering--has always had more of a critical edge than Sportsnet. Certainly, in comparison, the latter's coverage of the Blue Jays is laughably soft. Did the league want to cozy up to the media corp that it thinks will be more receptive to the company message regarding how the NHL should be branded?

Probably not, but with the egos involved there is little that would surprise me.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by nik-

My only hope is that Rogers uses, instead of replaces, CBC's production team because they're still the best technical team out there. Video work, sound team, cameramen, Rogers would be fools to just turf them and not utilize them.

No they are going to Chinese them. Pick all their knowledge and brains for the next 4 years and then discard them.

[Tinordi]

The next MLSE board meeting is going to be interesting.