One of the perks of working at the Anchor Bar is I get to watch the Wings games while I restock the beer coolers. A second perk is that I don't have to listen to the morons that call the game for NBC and Versus.
I know I've bashed them before, but I'm going to bash them again. Doc Emrick - his annoying growls drive me up the wall. Brian Engbloom - a poor man's Barry Melrose with a really stupid looking haircut. Keith Jones - always sits sideways and gives utterly useless commentary. One time I was watching the Wings on Versus and the announcer (not Doc Emrick, evidently there is a B crew underneath him) commented after one of Pavel's slick moves that "Pavel Datsyuk must have graduated valedictorian of Awesome School." He seriously said that, and I wanted to throw my Labatt Blue at the TV.
Of all the bad news you read about the Motor City these days, the silver lining is I get to watch hockey on CBC's broadcast. On CBC, I get the Racicot Chrysler and Windsor Lighting boutique commercials. On CBC the announcers don't try to get me fired up with their voice - they let the game do that. Lastly, on CBC I get to watch Ron McLean, who is my favorite (or should I say favourite) in studio sportscaster. Not only does he keep Don Cherry in check, he asks good questions and he provides good analysis himself. His interview of Gary Bettman a few years back just showed what kind of guy he is. He didn't back down from Bettman - he asked tough questions and tougher followups. But he also asked them in a colegial and measured manner, not raising his voice like a cable news anchor would. Also, if you're watching the CBC broadcast, notice how the in studio analysts talk to each other as opposed to the camera. I think the more conversational tone of Kelly Hrudy and Ron McLean talking two each other makes for better TV than Keith Jones reading off of a teleprompter.
Overall, I'm happy with the Wings play this series. Ozzie has played well, and the Wings D has looked sharp. I still want Datsyuk, Hank, and Marian to get it going, but I'm happy that players like Sammualson, Cleary, and Hudler have stepped up. Hopefully the big guys get it going sooner than later.
Showing posts with label CBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CBC. Show all posts
Monday, May 18, 2009
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
NHL vs. Versus
By Pete McGrath
Just watched the Wings lose to the Avalanche on Versus. While losing is never fun, I really hated having to watching them lose on Versus. The fact that the NHL isn’t on ESPN is one of the most inexplicable blunders of the Bettman reign of terror. While my biggest gripe is of course the fact that ESPN is so widely available, the Versus broadcast itself pisses me off for so many other reasons.
Leading off, the main camera on Versus is always too close to the ice. I realize the rationale in getting closer to the play- easier to see the players and easier to see the puck. However, this makes it hard to see the play develop. It’s hard to catch the precision of the tape to tape cross ice pass with this zoom in effect. In this day and age, most people have pretty nice TVs, so seeing the puck is not the problem people make it out to be. This is not to say I don’t mind the occasional on ice angle shot. With those shots, you get to see up close the speed and violence of the game. In fact I wish all sports showed more of these. It gives you a front row seat in your living room or local bar.
Doc Emrick, the announcer who growls his Rs, drives me up the wall. He’s always like “Lidstrom with a drrrrrrrive from the blue line that sails wide.” So many announcers out there think by growling the Rs it gets people excited. Not me. I suggest the league lets the local guys call the game. I would much rather hear Mickey and Ken call the game than those two clowns, or anyone in the World Series besides Tim McCarver. Also, it would be cool to hear out of town broadcasters call the occasional Wings game. I had MLB TV a few years back to watch the Tigers games while I was away at college, and I always enjoyed hearing the Boston guys or Vin Scully’s take on the game. Could’ve done without Hawk and DJ though.
Lastly, the ‘in studio’ portion of the broadcast leaves much to be desired, although it is much improved from their first year. The set Versus used the first year looked like it was constructed for a public access channel, and made the whole league look second rate. Luckily the NHL was able to side step that land mine by having their games on Versus, so nobody saw it. The set now looks alright, although not as good as TNT’s, CBC’s, or ESPN’s.
Now let’s get to the guys behind the set. Keith Jones always sits somewhat sideways, which is a annoying, and provides serviceable analysis at best. Brian Engblom fails miserably in his attempts to be a poor man’s Barry Melrose, both in his skill as a broadcaster and his pitiful excuse for a mullet. There are so many talented hockey guys over on ESPN, and they need to be the centerpiece of the NHL’s broadcast team. Steve Levy, Linda Cohn, John Buccigross (who writes a kickass column by the way), and Barry Melrose all know the game and are much better personalities on camera.
Lastly, for the love of God, get Don Cherry on TV in America.
Just watched the Wings lose to the Avalanche on Versus. While losing is never fun, I really hated having to watching them lose on Versus. The fact that the NHL isn’t on ESPN is one of the most inexplicable blunders of the Bettman reign of terror. While my biggest gripe is of course the fact that ESPN is so widely available, the Versus broadcast itself pisses me off for so many other reasons.
Leading off, the main camera on Versus is always too close to the ice. I realize the rationale in getting closer to the play- easier to see the players and easier to see the puck. However, this makes it hard to see the play develop. It’s hard to catch the precision of the tape to tape cross ice pass with this zoom in effect. In this day and age, most people have pretty nice TVs, so seeing the puck is not the problem people make it out to be. This is not to say I don’t mind the occasional on ice angle shot. With those shots, you get to see up close the speed and violence of the game. In fact I wish all sports showed more of these. It gives you a front row seat in your living room or local bar.
Doc Emrick, the announcer who growls his Rs, drives me up the wall. He’s always like “Lidstrom with a drrrrrrrive from the blue line that sails wide.” So many announcers out there think by growling the Rs it gets people excited. Not me. I suggest the league lets the local guys call the game. I would much rather hear Mickey and Ken call the game than those two clowns, or anyone in the World Series besides Tim McCarver. Also, it would be cool to hear out of town broadcasters call the occasional Wings game. I had MLB TV a few years back to watch the Tigers games while I was away at college, and I always enjoyed hearing the Boston guys or Vin Scully’s take on the game. Could’ve done without Hawk and DJ though.
Lastly, the ‘in studio’ portion of the broadcast leaves much to be desired, although it is much improved from their first year. The set Versus used the first year looked like it was constructed for a public access channel, and made the whole league look second rate. Luckily the NHL was able to side step that land mine by having their games on Versus, so nobody saw it. The set now looks alright, although not as good as TNT’s, CBC’s, or ESPN’s.
Now let’s get to the guys behind the set. Keith Jones always sits somewhat sideways, which is a annoying, and provides serviceable analysis at best. Brian Engblom fails miserably in his attempts to be a poor man’s Barry Melrose, both in his skill as a broadcaster and his pitiful excuse for a mullet. There are so many talented hockey guys over on ESPN, and they need to be the centerpiece of the NHL’s broadcast team. Steve Levy, Linda Cohn, John Buccigross (who writes a kickass column by the way), and Barry Melrose all know the game and are much better personalities on camera.
Lastly, for the love of God, get Don Cherry on TV in America.
Friday, October 24, 2008
If I ran the NHL Part Trois
By Pete McGrath
This edition will cover some of the league's marketing and its TV Deals. Through the years I've always heard people say about hockey on TV "But I can't see the puck." Nothing made me cringe as much as those words (until I saw the stupid light up puck the league tried out). I don't follow that logic. I have never had that problem my entire hockey watching life. So if you can't see the puck, I am not writing this for you.
The NHL has always been a distant fourth in the four major professional team sports in the United States. What the NFL shows every league out there is that dragging your season out all year is not the key to success. The NFL thrives on TV money because every game is a big deal, and seeing as how their TV contract is bigger than all of hockey's revenue put together, it safe to say they were right. So what the NHL needs to do is get more people to watch the game, both in person and more importantly on TV (that's where the money really is). Here are my ideas.
First thing the NHL needs to do is grow the game at a grassroots level. I went to college in Cleveland, and I was shocked at how little people knew about hockey there. Steve Yzerman who is basically canonized here in Detroit is unheard of in Cleveland. People who are rabid Browns, Indians, and Cavs fans (it's not that they don't like sports) literally do not know who he is. Aside from the occasional Sabres fan, the only people that cared about hockey that were not from Detroit were people that had actually played the game through high school.
For this reason, I believe the best thing the league can do for its long term success is get kids to play hockey. Kids in America usually play Little League as a right of passage, high school football is a big deal all over the country, and often people play at least intramural basketball through their college years. The NHL needs to sponsor and facilitate the construction of as many rinks and the formation of as many youth leagues as possible. In Canada, the game of choice is always hockey, weather its watching or playing. The United States will never be as hockey crazy as Canada, but part of the reason people appreciate their NHL clubs so much in Canada, Minnesota, Detroit, and other Northern American cities is that a large part of the populous played the game "back in the day," or still plays in a weekend beer league. Long story short, the nicest arena in America occasionally full of fans won't be worth much in the long run if there aren't a bunch of little rinks in the area full of kids playing the game.
Getting back to putting the game on TV, the NHL made a terrible mistake by signing the TV contract with Versus. Versus is rookieball compared to ESPN. The camera is too close to the ice,
the set looks like a high school doing the video announcements, and Brian Engbloom's mullet sucks compared to Barry Melrose's. Mullets notwithstanding, the global reach of ESPN is simply incredible. ESPN's brand name is worth more than any other channel out there. ESPN is in every basic cable package, is on in every sports bar, and every college guy's dorm room is tuned to ESPN. Versus simply isn't always available.
I realize that Versus offered 60 Million year instead of revenue sharing- but that comes out to 2 million a team, which is for all practical purposes pocket change. This is like turning down the unpaid internship at the best company in your field to work for McDonald's and make some money. Yeah you get a little money upfront, but you are killing your future. Get back on ESPN because that way fans who have never seen you before might. People watching something else on ESPN like Sports Center might forget to change the channel and give hockey a shot. Versus generally has hunting shows on all day, so the NHL isn't getting a whole lot of lead in viewers. Also, Versus simply isn't as widespread channel as ESPN. Any basic cable package has ESPN and ESPN 2. The same cannot be said for Versus, which has left a lot of people who actually want to watch hockey shit out of luck because their cable package does not carry the channel. In conclusion, the NHL needs to pad its resume and take its unpaid internship. The exposure gained from being on ESPN can only help the league.
The league needs to realize that it shouldn't try to out NBA the NBA. Instead the league should embrace and market those quirky things that make the NHL and its players so great. One of my favorite traditions in hockey is the playoff beard. However, come playoff time you hardly ever hear about it. They should market the hell out of this. My product placement gears were turning on this one- why don't they have Gillette sponsor a contest for the best beard in the playoffs? That seems like a no brainer for me.
I was also upset when Bettman changed the Wales and Campbell conference to East and West, along with directional names for the divisions as well. I thought it was cool that the divisions were named after people, and it was unique to hockey. While they can keep the current alignment of teams, think of two people to name two divisions after and bring the old way back. If anything it'll put the league in the news for a bit and will generate publicity just like David Stern did with the NBA dress code a few years back.
These days, when I watch a baseball team celebrate in the locker room I can't tell if they won their division or the World Series. However, hockey players know whats up. They don't touch the Campbell Bowl or the Wales Trophy, because the Stanley Cup is the only true championship. The league needs to let the folks out there know about this great superstition. Market the conference championships as the "Don't Touch the Trophy/Bowl" series.
The NBA is expanding aggressively throughout the world, and the NHL needs to do the same. I don't think the league needs to put teams in different countries, because due to travel that wouldn't be prudent. Players will go to play in the league with the best competition, and that will be the NHL for some time. For example, while Brazil and Argentina produce the world's best soccer players, and their national teams compete for the World Cup (and win it often), nearly all of the players play professionally in Europe. So I do not foresee the need for European teams in hockey (or basketball for that matter).
What the NHL could do though is have each NHL team partner up with a European or Asian city and play a series of games there before the season begins. It would be like having a sister city or a pen-pal for fans from both towns. Have each club play two or three games in one city, that way people can connect to one team, and this way the league can really expand its international footprint. The league already has international players, why not make more money off the international fans.
Back here in America, the league should do something similar by playing more neutral site games, or have some teams have a secondary city. The example that always comes to mind is Green Bay playing one game in Milwaukee every year. Obviously clubs like Detroit, Montreal, Toronto, etc, do not need to do this. However, it would be good for Columbus (if they don't move the team) to maybe play a couple games a season in Cleveland or Cincinnati. Maybe have the Blues play a couple games a year in Kansas City, the Kings in San Diego, the Sharks in Portland etc. If you're having trouble filling up your arena, you might as well take your act on the road where the novelty of a pro hockey game might give you a sellout at the gate. Also, you can get people in those cities to become fans of your club as well, selling more merchandise and getting more people to watch the games on TV.
The league needs to also think a little outside the box in terms of marketing. I got this idea from the World Series of Poker. Relatively speaking the winner's share of any modern trophy really isn't that much (compared to their contracts). For instance, the winner's share of the World Series Trophy was $308,235.75. Now three hundred grand ain't bad, but for guys with the contracts they have now that's chump change. Here's the idea, the league should have every team, and perhaps the NHLPA, ante up for the right to play for the cup in the beginning of the season. Have a couple sponsors (I'm talking about you Labatt) match the money, so this way the winner's share is around 3-4 million bucks per player. And no losers share either- just like the superstition says, conference championship does not count, only by winning the Stanley Cup are you a true champion. I realize that the Cup itself should be a worthy enough goal for any player, but this is really meant to motivate the owners just as much as the players. There are many owners that are doing a terrible job running their teams and are happy to just sit back and collect the revenue sharing. They won't be anymore. Lastly, World Series of Poker style, try to bring all the cash out on the ice as a photo op. I really feel this would be a great publicity stunt for the league, and will help the league out on the operational level by getting more teams to compete as well.
The league needs to do a better job of promoting its video games. While NHL 94 on Sega is widely considered to be a masterpiece, the games since have failed to have that sort of crossover success. Video games are big business these days, and hockey is a sport that translates very well to video games. The league needs to use its flagship game as one of its chief marketing tools the way the NFL does with Madden. If you're not going to play the sport, you should at least play the video game. Also, for an old school guy like me, package the most modern game with an emulator for the 94 version with today's players and rosters. Show the pizza boy/Sega scene from Swingers in the commercial then cut to a similar scene of guys hanging out and giving each other shit playing the modern game, and give a tag about how hanging with the guys never changes no matter what game you're playing.
Also, put Don Cherry on TV. People in Detroit and Buffalo love watching Ron McLean try to keep Don in check. Weather people love Don Cherry or think he's a moron, people still watch Coach's Corner. Also, I love his Fu Manchu playoff beards and crazy suits. Some of what he says I don't agree with, but there is no question that he cares deeply about hockey. Also, in a world of vanilla sportscasters, Don Cherry is refreshing as someone who speaks his mind. Perhaps the NHL should name it's aforementioned video game franchise after Don Cherry. Perhaps EA Sports should call the game Rock 'em Sock 'em Hockey. Just a thought.
Anywho, that's all I got for now. I'll cover game rules, rivalries and schedules next time.
This edition will cover some of the league's marketing and its TV Deals. Through the years I've always heard people say about hockey on TV "But I can't see the puck." Nothing made me cringe as much as those words (until I saw the stupid light up puck the league tried out). I don't follow that logic. I have never had that problem my entire hockey watching life. So if you can't see the puck, I am not writing this for you.
The NHL has always been a distant fourth in the four major professional team sports in the United States. What the NFL shows every league out there is that dragging your season out all year is not the key to success. The NFL thrives on TV money because every game is a big deal, and seeing as how their TV contract is bigger than all of hockey's revenue put together, it safe to say they were right. So what the NHL needs to do is get more people to watch the game, both in person and more importantly on TV (that's where the money really is). Here are my ideas.
First thing the NHL needs to do is grow the game at a grassroots level. I went to college in Cleveland, and I was shocked at how little people knew about hockey there. Steve Yzerman who is basically canonized here in Detroit is unheard of in Cleveland. People who are rabid Browns, Indians, and Cavs fans (it's not that they don't like sports) literally do not know who he is. Aside from the occasional Sabres fan, the only people that cared about hockey that were not from Detroit were people that had actually played the game through high school.
For this reason, I believe the best thing the league can do for its long term success is get kids to play hockey. Kids in America usually play Little League as a right of passage, high school football is a big deal all over the country, and often people play at least intramural basketball through their college years. The NHL needs to sponsor and facilitate the construction of as many rinks and the formation of as many youth leagues as possible. In Canada, the game of choice is always hockey, weather its watching or playing. The United States will never be as hockey crazy as Canada, but part of the reason people appreciate their NHL clubs so much in Canada, Minnesota, Detroit, and other Northern American cities is that a large part of the populous played the game "back in the day," or still plays in a weekend beer league. Long story short, the nicest arena in America occasionally full of fans won't be worth much in the long run if there aren't a bunch of little rinks in the area full of kids playing the game.
Getting back to putting the game on TV, the NHL made a terrible mistake by signing the TV contract with Versus. Versus is rookieball compared to ESPN. The camera is too close to the ice,
the set looks like a high school doing the video announcements, and Brian Engbloom's mullet sucks compared to Barry Melrose's. Mullets notwithstanding, the global reach of ESPN is simply incredible. ESPN's brand name is worth more than any other channel out there. ESPN is in every basic cable package, is on in every sports bar, and every college guy's dorm room is tuned to ESPN. Versus simply isn't always available.
I realize that Versus offered 60 Million year instead of revenue sharing- but that comes out to 2 million a team, which is for all practical purposes pocket change. This is like turning down the unpaid internship at the best company in your field to work for McDonald's and make some money. Yeah you get a little money upfront, but you are killing your future. Get back on ESPN because that way fans who have never seen you before might. People watching something else on ESPN like Sports Center might forget to change the channel and give hockey a shot. Versus generally has hunting shows on all day, so the NHL isn't getting a whole lot of lead in viewers. Also, Versus simply isn't as widespread channel as ESPN. Any basic cable package has ESPN and ESPN 2. The same cannot be said for Versus, which has left a lot of people who actually want to watch hockey shit out of luck because their cable package does not carry the channel. In conclusion, the NHL needs to pad its resume and take its unpaid internship. The exposure gained from being on ESPN can only help the league.
The league needs to realize that it shouldn't try to out NBA the NBA. Instead the league should embrace and market those quirky things that make the NHL and its players so great. One of my favorite traditions in hockey is the playoff beard. However, come playoff time you hardly ever hear about it. They should market the hell out of this. My product placement gears were turning on this one- why don't they have Gillette sponsor a contest for the best beard in the playoffs? That seems like a no brainer for me.
I was also upset when Bettman changed the Wales and Campbell conference to East and West, along with directional names for the divisions as well. I thought it was cool that the divisions were named after people, and it was unique to hockey. While they can keep the current alignment of teams, think of two people to name two divisions after and bring the old way back. If anything it'll put the league in the news for a bit and will generate publicity just like David Stern did with the NBA dress code a few years back.
These days, when I watch a baseball team celebrate in the locker room I can't tell if they won their division or the World Series. However, hockey players know whats up. They don't touch the Campbell Bowl or the Wales Trophy, because the Stanley Cup is the only true championship. The league needs to let the folks out there know about this great superstition. Market the conference championships as the "Don't Touch the Trophy/Bowl" series.
The NBA is expanding aggressively throughout the world, and the NHL needs to do the same. I don't think the league needs to put teams in different countries, because due to travel that wouldn't be prudent. Players will go to play in the league with the best competition, and that will be the NHL for some time. For example, while Brazil and Argentina produce the world's best soccer players, and their national teams compete for the World Cup (and win it often), nearly all of the players play professionally in Europe. So I do not foresee the need for European teams in hockey (or basketball for that matter).
What the NHL could do though is have each NHL team partner up with a European or Asian city and play a series of games there before the season begins. It would be like having a sister city or a pen-pal for fans from both towns. Have each club play two or three games in one city, that way people can connect to one team, and this way the league can really expand its international footprint. The league already has international players, why not make more money off the international fans.
Back here in America, the league should do something similar by playing more neutral site games, or have some teams have a secondary city. The example that always comes to mind is Green Bay playing one game in Milwaukee every year. Obviously clubs like Detroit, Montreal, Toronto, etc, do not need to do this. However, it would be good for Columbus (if they don't move the team) to maybe play a couple games a season in Cleveland or Cincinnati. Maybe have the Blues play a couple games a year in Kansas City, the Kings in San Diego, the Sharks in Portland etc. If you're having trouble filling up your arena, you might as well take your act on the road where the novelty of a pro hockey game might give you a sellout at the gate. Also, you can get people in those cities to become fans of your club as well, selling more merchandise and getting more people to watch the games on TV.
The league needs to also think a little outside the box in terms of marketing. I got this idea from the World Series of Poker. Relatively speaking the winner's share of any modern trophy really isn't that much (compared to their contracts). For instance, the winner's share of the World Series Trophy was $308,235.75. Now three hundred grand ain't bad, but for guys with the contracts they have now that's chump change. Here's the idea, the league should have every team, and perhaps the NHLPA, ante up for the right to play for the cup in the beginning of the season. Have a couple sponsors (I'm talking about you Labatt) match the money, so this way the winner's share is around 3-4 million bucks per player. And no losers share either- just like the superstition says, conference championship does not count, only by winning the Stanley Cup are you a true champion. I realize that the Cup itself should be a worthy enough goal for any player, but this is really meant to motivate the owners just as much as the players. There are many owners that are doing a terrible job running their teams and are happy to just sit back and collect the revenue sharing. They won't be anymore. Lastly, World Series of Poker style, try to bring all the cash out on the ice as a photo op. I really feel this would be a great publicity stunt for the league, and will help the league out on the operational level by getting more teams to compete as well.
The league needs to do a better job of promoting its video games. While NHL 94 on Sega is widely considered to be a masterpiece, the games since have failed to have that sort of crossover success. Video games are big business these days, and hockey is a sport that translates very well to video games. The league needs to use its flagship game as one of its chief marketing tools the way the NFL does with Madden. If you're not going to play the sport, you should at least play the video game. Also, for an old school guy like me, package the most modern game with an emulator for the 94 version with today's players and rosters. Show the pizza boy/Sega scene from Swingers in the commercial then cut to a similar scene of guys hanging out and giving each other shit playing the modern game, and give a tag about how hanging with the guys never changes no matter what game you're playing.
Also, put Don Cherry on TV. People in Detroit and Buffalo love watching Ron McLean try to keep Don in check. Weather people love Don Cherry or think he's a moron, people still watch Coach's Corner. Also, I love his Fu Manchu playoff beards and crazy suits. Some of what he says I don't agree with, but there is no question that he cares deeply about hockey. Also, in a world of vanilla sportscasters, Don Cherry is refreshing as someone who speaks his mind. Perhaps the NHL should name it's aforementioned video game franchise after Don Cherry. Perhaps EA Sports should call the game Rock 'em Sock 'em Hockey. Just a thought.
Anywho, that's all I got for now. I'll cover game rules, rivalries and schedules next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
