Good column from Grantland

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    In response to 49-North's comment:

    In response to nrguy's comment:

    I mean this board has regressed to people just attacking each other instead of other team's fans. What has become of this world when everyone is being cordial to 49-North. Unacceptable.



    These are strange times, indeed.

     

     



    Enjoy it 49, because once the season starts I will become your worst NITEMARE again! BooohAAAAAAA!!!!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    In response to 49-North's comment:

    In response to nrguy's comment:

    I mean this board has regressed to people just attacking each other instead of other team's fans. What has become of this world when everyone is being cordial to 49-North. Unacceptable.



    These are strange times, indeed.

     

     



    Enjoy it 49, because once the season starts I will become your worst NITEMARE again! BooohAAAAAAA!!!!




    I would expect nothing less!  lol

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    In response to stevegm's comment:

      It's expected that the newest TV deal, is the biggest in history .  Unless these birds screw everything totally up, the next TV deal will probably be the biggest in league history, and that'll happen regardless who is running the league.

    Percentage wide, growth really took off after 05-06, however, the NHL lost ground to the NBA.  I don't see reason to applaud Bettman in that category.   What gets your panties in such a knot ?



    My panties are being washed so that is the reason they might be in a knot. I ask becuase maybe there is some research that I am missing that you might have had that I didn't and I don't ask anyone on here who I don't care for their opininion.

    How would the TV contrats happen without Bettman ? No one else but Bettman negotiates with the networks. Daly doesn't go out and get them. Illitch and Jacobs don't go get them. Bettman cultivated a relationship with Dick Ebersol and Ken Schanzer then convinced NBC to outbid Fox and ESPN. I don't see this happening with Campbell nor Ziegler.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:

      It's expected that the newest TV deal, is the biggest in history .  Unless these birds screw everything totally up, the next TV deal will probably be the biggest in league history, and that'll happen regardless who is running the league.

    Percentage wide, growth really took off after 05-06, however, the NHL lost ground to the NBA.  I don't see reason to applaud Bettman in that category.   What gets your panties in such a knot ?



    My panties are being washed so that is the reason they might be in a knot. I ask becuase maybe there is some research that I am missing that you might have had that I didn't and I don't ask anyone on here who I don't care for their opininion.

    How would the TV contrats happen without Bettman ? No one else but Bettman negotiates with the networks. Daly doesn't go out and get them. Illitch and Jacobs don't go get them. Bettman cultivated a relationship with Dick Ebersol and Ken Schanzer then convinced NBC to outbid Fox and ESPN. I don't see this happening with Campbell nor Ziegler.




    Rather than be argumentive Sandog, lets just review and put this in perspective.  I merely suggested both the league and Bettman may be getting tired of such amped controversy.  Hardly, a controversial opinion.  It's been suggested in one way or another by a gazillion media outlets.  Anyone is entitled to disagree.

    I said Bettman has garnered more mistrust and hate than his predecessors.  When asked if he was more "popular" than two former presidents, I didn't argue the sematics of any translation, I merely said "yes".  There are many obvious reasons for that insignificant opinion, but it seems pretty clear to me, that a league president who has a league trophy named after him, is probably more "popular" than one who in all reality, never will. Having a trophy named after you suggests some level of popularity doesn't it?   Anyone's entitled to disagree, however, I'm not willing to debate that into eternity.  I never said those before him were better or smarter.  A really insignificant myopic morsel of a much broader inference.

    From there, the conversation got even more ridiculous. It turned into whether Bettman should get credit for "anything".    I think he should, so I really don't want to debate that.  I will though, argue those things which I feel he is either being unfairly villanized for....or in this case....given undue credit for.

    I don't believe the TV thing is a big plus.  If he gets a star for that, he should get a kick for the Versus deal.  Both were under his watch, and despite this newest one, it's still in about the same slot compared to the other big 3, and blown out of the water by nascar.  If you negotiate any deal... if that percentage,  is comparable to those within your industry, it's usually no big deal.  If GM car sales are up 15%...the party gets wound down real quick if it's discovered Ford and Chrysler are up 20%.

    Same with revenue growth.  Bettman's been around for 20 years.  For 2/3 of his tenure, growth wasn't a huge deal.  If he had "started the job", when the growth spurt started, I think it would be more fair to give him all the credit, but not just because he was there.  Cripes, Ovechkin's career alighns perfectly with the dynamic growth, so it would be no more ridiculous to credit him.

    On the other hand, Bettman's been blamed for expansion, and I don't think that's fair.  I wrote some stuff about attendance in the sun belt on another thread.  These teams should be able to make a go of it if they aren't saddled with too much debt.  There's an interesting recent article I came across... something like "why do billionaires keep buying losing NHL teams"(Edmonton journal).  It talks about the Panthers.  You may also be surprised to learn what Phoenix's attendance figures were when they were lousy.  Check them out.  Plus there are many other positives in making the sport "more national".

    Most of what a league commissioner does, we don't know much about.  Obviously, if he's been there almost 20 years, he's doing what's intended.  I assume he's done a good job. 

    My original point, my current point is that the level of hate and mistrust(not by the media or fans) could be a distraction.  Going back to this idiotic "popularity" foolishness, another "enquirer" question could be "who's the NHL's most famous league president/commissioner".   My quick answer would be Bettman.  Think he has much more notoriety than those before hand.  I'd say even some hockey fans never heard of Ziegler or Campbell, and that's a good thing.  Like a referee, you never take much notice of a good one.  Anwyay, it doesn't matter.  Isn't worth debate, just the answer to another insignificant passing question.

    I think a different commish could come in and say exactly the same things as Bettman, and get a much better reaction from the players.  I think Fehr's entrance is a result of Bettmans style.

    I assume Bettmans done a lot of good things, but now...he's a lightning rod for negativity.  More than ever, the league and players have to work together for prosperity.  Can't fire all the players.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    " Same with revenue growth.  Bettman's been around for 20 years.  For 2/3 of his tenure, growth wasn't a huge deal.  If he had "started the job", when the growth spurt started, I think it would be more fair to give him all the credit, but not just because he was there. "

    Guess we will agree to disagree then becuase I feel Bettman was a big part of bringing the networks back into having heavy interest in the NHL again, not just something that evolved with normal market growth. I also have read that Dick Ebersol talked NBC into buying Versus for the specific intention of getting/keeping the NHL.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    OK.  Guess my side is that nobody "talks anybody into billion dollar deals".  The TV deal regressed under Bettman, then it got good again.  I consider that a wash.  Not bragging material.

    Couple things hi-lite TV interest.  In Nascar's case, years ago, a new, fledgling TV network had virtually no programming(ESPN), and set out to aquire what was cheap....and not on anyone elses network.  That's an example that works for much more than just auto racing, and it's a realistic example of the position NBC's new sports network is in.

    The second thing is increased popularity vs. cost.  Contrary to popular belief, the media doesn't drive viewing tastes...it just follows them.  It's all about the price vs the perceived audience.  If NHL hockey delivers 1/20th the audience of the NFL, but costs 1/30th the price...it's a super deal and a good moneymaker for the network.

    Guess you could credit GB with all of that...but it seems a little too charitable to me.  Not that he doesn't deserve his kudos, but in this case...he was steering the ship during times when TV deals were both postive and negative.  Can't count one, without considering the other.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    Bettman could have taken ESPN's awful lowball offer after the lockout and signed a 20 year deal with them.  Instead, he gave them the finger and went with OLN.  Next thing you know, it's a billion dollar deal with NBC.

    I credit Bettman with making that decision.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    Bettman could have taken ESPN's awful lowball offer after the lockout and signed a 20 year deal with them.  Instead, he gave them the finger and went with OLN.  Next thing you know, it's a billion dollar deal with NBC.

    I credit Bettman with making that decision.




    Wasn't aware ESPN offered a 20 year deal.  Sources?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    Bettman could have taken ESPN's awful lowball offer after the lockout and signed a 20 year deal with them.  Instead, he gave them the finger and went with OLN.  Next thing you know, it's a billion dollar deal with NBC.

    I credit Bettman with making that decision.




    Wasn't aware ESPN offered a 20 year deal.  Sources?




    It's not real, stevegm.  It's an example.  However, if it were real, I would have to provide no sources or links as I do not post lies here.  Save your due diligence for Oatescam's stats.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    Bettman could have taken ESPN's awful lowball offer after the lockout and signed a 20 year deal with them.  Instead, he gave them the finger and went with OLN.  Next thing you know, it's a billion dollar deal with NBC.

    I credit Bettman with making that decision.




    Wasn't aware ESPN offered a 20 year deal.  Sources?




    It's not real, stevegm.  It's an example.  However, if it were real, I would have to provide no sources or links as I do not post lies here.  Save your due diligence for Oatescam's stats.

     




    wrong again.  it's not an "example".  it's a "gross exxageration"

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    One thing that is certain, ESPN's offer was lowball and Bettman said FU.In the end, via OLN, the NHL signed a lucrative deal with NBC.Lucrative by NHL standards anyway, as compared to the other leagues, NBA,NFL,MLB it would seem small. Bettman at least had the stones to tell ESPN that the league wasn't that desperate.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    Okay, how about this - Bettman got them the deal on Fox that ultimately tanked because Fox catered to the Mighty Ducks crowd and not to sports fans.  Their package was an embarrassment to broadcasting. You could argue that the TV deals regressed more because of the mistakes of the partner than of the NHL - in fact, that's what I'm arguing. It hurt the brand, and I think they learned from it.  Hockey is a sport; appeal to sports fans.  So they go to ESPN and restore the brand, then make a smart decision not to take a bad offer from ESPN who were frankly trying to to bully them because they thought the NHL was desperate.  The OLN detour was consistent with what they had to do to prove that the problem was with Fox's how and not their what.  They had to have a sports-focused partner who saw the NHL as premium content and would treat it as a cornerstone of their growth plans.  It didn't do jack for OLN, but as soon as NBC got into 24hr sports, it set the league up for a return to major network coverage with the key lesson in place: treat hockey as a sport and you will get viewers.  Treat it as Hannah Montana on ice, you will not.  Bettman oversaw that process, and it could have been a lot worse than it was if they had just taken the dollars on the table without a real stategy.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    It sure did help OLN.  OLN became Versus and then became NBC Sports. 

    They went from duck hunting and rodeo to the Cup playoffs and the Triple Crown.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    It sure did help OLN.  OLN became Versus and then became NBC Sports. 

    They went from duck hunting and rodeo to the Cup playoffs and the Triple Crown.

     




    Duck hunting is an outstanding spectator sport.  Understand they're considering broadcasting the Triple Crown of duck hunting.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Good column from Grantland

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Okay, how about this - Bettman got them the deal on Fox that ultimately tanked because Fox catered to the Mighty Ducks crowd and not to sports fans.  Their package was an embarrassment to broadcasting. You could argue that the TV deals regressed more because of the mistakes of the partner than of the NHL - in fact, that's what I'm arguing. It hurt the brand, and I think they learned from it.  Hockey is a sport; appeal to sports fans.  So they go to ESPN and restore the brand, then make a smart decision not to take a bad offer from ESPN who were frankly trying to to bully them because they thought the NHL was desperate.  The OLN detour was consistent with what they had to do to prove that the problem was with Fox's how and not their what.  They had to have a sports-focused partner who saw the NHL as premium content and would treat it as a cornerstone of their growth plans.  It didn't do jack for OLN, but as soon as NBC got into 24hr sports, it set the league up for a return to major network coverage with the key lesson in place: treat hockey as a sport and you will get viewers.  Treat it as Hannah Montana on ice, you will not.  Bettman oversaw that process, and it could have been a lot worse than it was if they had just taken the dollars on the table without a real stategy.



    Yeah.  Nothing terrible about that...just nothing to jump up on the soapbx about either.

    Not sure though, the league had a "vision" as to how the product should have been telecast.  Don't think they picked OLN because it was better, or it alighned with their phiosophy on broadcast.....just money.  Although we'll never be able to say for certain, it's not  unreasonable to wonder if TV demand wouldn't have grown faster and higher with ESPN during those years.  If for no other reason than circulation.

      Hard to credit Bettman for knowing OLN would morph into a big 4 sports network.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share