are you ready for some...outdoor life network?

[ajs510 122]

ESPN opted not to pick up it's option to air NHL games this season, all games will be appearing on the Outdoor Life Network instead. FOX and CBS are paying 1 billion dollars for the rights to the NFL, and ESPN took a pass on the NHL allowing OLN to buy the rights for $65 million dollars. I'm glad I get the NHL total package so I won't be missing games, this is some ridiculous sh[/size]it.

[digitalmonkey 929]

ESPN opted not to pick up it's option to air NHL games this season, all games will be appearing on the Outdoor Life Network instead. FOX and CBS are paying 1 billion dollars for the rights to the NFL, and ESPN took a pass on the NHL allowing OLN to buy the rights for $65 million dollars. I'm glad I get the NHL total package so I won't be missing games, this is some ridiculous sh[/size]it.

It's $65 million for this year and $70 million for next year.

[eYank 0]

the outdoor life network??i dont even get that channelw/e the rangers suck again so i probably wont even watch :cry:

[digitalmonkey 929]

w/e the rangers suck again so i probably wont even watch :cry:

Consider it a classic comic/tragedy!

[AceyDeucy 0]

That I won't get to see any games in HD...jerks.

[copernicus 0]

because the Center Ice package will now pick up more CBC feeds.

[aadams_22 3]

ESPN opted not to pick up it's option to air NHL games this season, all games will be appearing on the Outdoor Life Network instead. FOX and CBS are paying 1 billion dollars for the rights to the NFL, and ESPN took a pass on the NHL allowing OLN to buy the rights for $65 million dollars. I'm glad I get the NHL total package so I won't be missing games, this is some ridiculous sh[/size]it.

.This blows, I have to pay extra to get Outdoor Life Network and it's not even in HD. To top that off on NHL.com it said that OLN will also be the sole carrier of the NHL All Star Game. The NHL puts on the only All Star Game that I can actually sit down, watch, and enjoy and now it's also tucked away on a digital cable channel. Bettman is trying to push this like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Just one more reason to kick his a.ss out of the commissioner's office. He has just set the NHL back even farther...he wants to bring back fans so he signs a TV deal with a cable network that only exists on digital cable and satellite carriers. REEEEEEAL great Mr. Commissioner :roll: everyone knows to get fans to watch you must stick your product in some dark corner. Now if Fox Sports Midwest stops broadcasting Blues games then I will really be screwed since I don't KPLR WB 11 where I am at anymore.

[digitalmonkey 929]

I'm sure someone not on digital cable will pick up the NHL all-star game.As for the OLN.....for Bell Expressvu "subscibers" it's part of the Sports 1 Theme Pack with Sportsnet and TSN. With all the games we will be able to watch, I'm hoping the CentreIce package comes out under $100, but I'm sure they'll want $129 for the early bird price and $159 after that.

[digitalmonkey 929]

After some research, it appears that the OLN in Canada and the OLN in the USA offer different programming. Apparently Canadian viewers will not be able to see NHL games on OLN. This, of course, is thanks to TSN, Sportsnet and the CRTC.booyaaaahfuck

[Untilted 158]

Fortunately in NY, I get all the Ranger, Isles and Devils games on local cable without OLN. So I can get my fix without ESPN and all their stupid street and outdoor basketball programming.

[digitalmonkey 929]

That I won't get to see any games in HD...jerks.

From what I understand from this article it will be in HD!

[woodsy 0]

I think this was a horrible move for the NHL. You're trying to build your fan base back up. So what do they do? They put the games on a channel that people have to pay extra for. The only people that are going to do that are people that are already hockey fans. WTF? How does that help you build up the game? They are going to miss out on all of the channel surfers that might stumble upon an NHL game, start to watch it, and figure out what a great game it is. Instead, the NHL goes for a bigger payday now and the hell with the future. I guess some people never learn their lesson.

[digitalmonkey 929]

I think this was a horrible move for the NHL. You're trying to build your fan base back up. So what do they do? They put the games on a channel that people have to pay extra for. The only people that are going to do that are people that are already hockey fans. WTF? How does that help you build up the game? They are going to miss out on all of the channel surfers that might stumble upon an NHL game, start to watch it, and figure out what a great game it is. Instead, the NHL goes for a bigger payday now and the hell with the future. I guess some people never learn their lesson.

They've only committed to one year as the second year is the NHL's option. It's not like they had a multitude of offers to consider.

[woodsy 0]

I think this was a horrible move for the NHL.  You're trying to build your fan base back up.  So what do they do?  They put the games on a channel that people have to pay extra for.  The only people that are going to do that are people that are already hockey fans.  WTF?  How does that help you build up the game?  They are going to miss out on all of the channel surfers that might stumble upon an NHL game, start to watch it, and figure out what a great game it is.  Instead, the NHL goes for a bigger payday now and the hell with the future.  I guess some people never learn their lesson.

They've only committed to one year as the second year is the NHL's option. It's not like they had a multitude of offers to consider.

I think they could have stayed with ESPN for less money, maybe $50m a year. Yeah, they lose some up front, but you have a much larger potential audience with ESPN.

[ajs510 122]

I think this was a horrible move for the NHL.  You're trying to build your fan base back up.  So what do they do?  They put the games on a channel that people have to pay extra for.  The only people that are going to do that are people that are already hockey fans.  WTF?  How does that help you build up the game?  They are going to miss out on all of the channel surfers that might stumble upon an NHL game, start to watch it, and figure out what a great game it is.  Instead, the NHL goes for a bigger payday now and the hell with the future.  I guess some people never learn their lesson.

They've only committed to one year as the second year is the NHL's option. It's not like they had a multitude of offers to consider.

Besides, $65 million for an entire season of major league sports isn't exactly a big payday. ESPN basically told the NHL they're not interested in their product, which isn't surprising considering the goldmine of programming they have with the WSOP footage. Sucks though, no more National Hockey Night, no more Steve Levy and John Buccigross, it won't be the same.

[aadams_22 3]

That I won't get to see any games in HD...jerks.

From what I understand from this article it will be in HD!

It will be in HD only in selected areas...and mine isn't one of them.

[vonteego3 0]

I think this was a horrible move for the NHL. You're trying to build your fan base back up. So what do they do? They put the games on a channel that people have to pay extra for. The only people that are going to do that are people that are already hockey fans. WTF? How does that help you build up the game? They are going to miss out on all of the channel surfers that might stumble upon an NHL game, start to watch it, and figure out what a great game it is. Instead, the NHL goes for a bigger payday now and the hell with the future. I guess some people never learn their lesson.

They've only committed to one year as the second year is the NHL's option. It's not like they had a multitude of offers to consider.

I think they could have stayed with ESPN for less money, maybe $50m a year. Yeah, they lose some up front, but you have a much larger potential audience with ESPN.

ESPN declined an option @ 50m for last season... ESPN has come out and said that the product's value has dropped, so if they wouldn't pay 50 then, why now? The league took the only option they had. Besides that, the games were only on ESPN2 the last season they played I believe, because ESPN had NBA... OLN is available in maybe 5% less homes than ESPN2.Oh, and if your cable company requires you to pay extra for OLN, or if it's up in the 200's on digital... then your cable company sucks. It's channel 68 on TWC in San Antonio, and I'm sure it's close to that in every other TWC city too.

[aadams_22 3]

Oh, and if your cable company requires you to pay extra for OLN, or if it's up in the 200's on digital... then your cable company sucks. It's channel 68 on TWC in San Antonio, and I'm sure it's close to that in every other TWC city too.

You're right, my cable company does suck. However there isn't much I can do about it since cable companies are regionalized. Here in southern Illinois we run off of Mediacom, when I lived in St. Louis the entire metro area ran off Charter Communications. I can only use what is offered to me.

[valen 0]

I think this was a horrible move for the NHL.  You're trying to build your fan base back up.  So what do they do?  They put the games on a channel that people have to pay extra for.  The only people that are going to do that are people that are already hockey fans.  WTF?  How does that help you build up the game?  They are going to miss out on all of the channel surfers that might stumble upon an NHL game, start to watch it, and figure out what a great game it is.  Instead, the NHL goes for a bigger payday now and the hell with the future.  I guess some people never learn their lesson.

Well, they actually didn't 'Put' their games on OLN. ESPN had the option of matching the Comcast offer (Comcast owns OLN). ESPN kept insisting that they get the same deal that NBC got (it's the Arena Football deal where NBC pays no rights fees, but works together with the NHL to sell Ads and the two parties split revenue). The NHL was fine with doing that for a Broadcast Network, but needed some guaranteed revenue from a Cable package. As far as the ESPN deal goes, in the US TV market, Hockey is very much a regional game. If you're living outside of Philadelphia or New York, you are very unlikely (ratings wise) to watch Philly vs. the Rangers on ESPN. This did cause some friction with local broadcasters like Comcast or the MSG network. ESPN would get exclusive rights to those games, so MSG for instance would have many of their marqee matchups taken away by ESPN. The NHL is probably going to have to grow in Pockets in the US. I think by now they've proven they can't do the numbers nationally. They should focus at being as strong regionally as possible.Comcast is on the cusp of starting a national sports network as well. They are currently in discussions with NBA and NFL to pick up some coverage of those sports. Comcast has so much money to burn, that maybe they can make some of this work...Time will tell.briguy

[aadams_22 3]

I think this was a horrible move for the NHL.  You're trying to build your fan base back up.  So what do they do?  They put the games on a channel that people have to pay extra for.  The only people that are going to do that are people that are already hockey fans.  WTF?  How does that help you build up the game?  They are going to miss out on all of the channel surfers that might stumble upon an NHL game, start to watch it, and figure out what a great game it is.  Instead, the NHL goes for a bigger payday now and the hell with the future.  I guess some people never learn their lesson.

Well, they actually didn't 'Put' their games on OLN. ESPN had the option of matching the Comcast offer (Comcast owns OLN). ESPN kept insisting that they get the same deal that NBC got (it's the Arena Football deal where NBC pays no rights fees, but works together with the NHL to sell Ads and the two parties split revenue). The NHL was fine with doing that for a Broadcast Network, but needed some guaranteed revenue from a Cable package. As far as the ESPN deal goes, in the US TV market, Hockey is very much a regional game. If you're living outside of Philadelphia or New York, you are very unlikely (ratings wise) to watch Philly vs. the Rangers on ESPN. This did cause some friction with local broadcasters like Comcast or the MSG network. ESPN would get exclusive rights to those games, so MSG for instance would have many of their marqee matchups taken away by ESPN. The NHL is probably going to have to grow in Pockets in the US. I think by now they've proven they can't do the numbers nationally. They should focus at being as strong regionally as possible.Comcast is on the cusp of starting a national sports network as well. They are currently in discussions with NBA and NFL to pick up some coverage of those sports. Comcast has so much money to burn, that maybe they can make some of this work...Time will tell.briguy

The million dollar question is will Comcast actually put their sports network onto other cable providers or will Comcast be the only one that will carry it?