In the post titled NBC: No Body Cares, I proclaimed my disdain for NBC's treatment and coverage of the NHL. I concluded by saying that they would be allowed one last chance to earn my respect. If they were to improve their coverage at the Olympics, I was willing to quit my public bantering of their actions. The Vancouver Games are not even a week old, and NBC has already managed to infuriate hockey fans, on multiple occasions.
First and foremost, the NHL has painstakingly altered their schedule to allow the players an opportunity to participate and represent their countries, which can only be viewed as a classy action. While many feel that the league should take every step towards granting their players this privilege, this article may change their mind. Commissioner Gary Bettman is considering not allowing NHL players to compete in the 2014 Games. His main point, $2.1 billion: the total value of contracts of all NHL players participating in Vancouver.
The NHL has been forced to alter their typical regular season schedule. Trying to squeeze 82 games into six months is a daunting task even without a 17 day hiatus for the Olympics. Teams have been forced to go on lengthy road trips and travel through blizzards to play on back-to-back nights. The NHL has even cancelled the All Star Game, unable to afford a weekend without regular season games. (The Guru's All Star rosters will be released soon.) Undoubtedly, the league and the players have made many sacrifices for the right to play in the Olympics.
But NBC doesn't care. As a matter of fact, they are taking what amounts to an All Star game, the USA-Canada Olympic matchup on Sunday, and hiding it from viewers. That's right. The game featuring stars like Sidney Crosby, Patrick Kane, and Martin Brodeur is being swept under the rug. Instead of broadcasting what might be the most anticipated showdown of the entire tournament, NBC will entertain (Is that the right word?) America with ice dancing, women's speedskating, men's freestyle skiing and men's giant slalom. Sounds like fun, right?
To NBC, it does. To NBC, women's curling sounds like fun. So does a blowout in women's hockey. Canada's Men's Ice Hockey team (the one with Crosby, Heatley, Thornton, etc.) was scheduled to have their first game of the tournament broadcasted. Everyone and their brother was excited to see how the team would play together, how much they would dominate, and whatever else about what may be the best hockey team ever. Instead of airing the game, NBC decided to stick with a women's curling match involving Japan that ran over its designated time slot. On another channel, NBC was broadcasting the final minutes of 13-0 blowout in women's hockey. So instead of seeing the best in the world, hockey fans were forced to watch these events (?), wondering what had happened to the interesting action taking place in Vancouver.
You may have read the post containing my previous feelings about NBC. I encourage you to do so. You too may develop a distaste for the Peacock. I have received feedback from followers (another thing I encourage you to do) who are also displeased with NBC. One follower went as far to send me this picture showing his bitterness towards the network.
The following image may disturb some of you. In fact, I do not feel comfortable displaying it on this blog. If you wish to view it, you must click the link below. Do so at your own risk. It advocates actions that may seem harsh. I feel they are. However, I also feel that the image fully grasps the feelings hockey fans have about NBC.
Click this link at your own risk. (Editor's Note: The link now works thanks to the help of a fellow blogger. Disregard the video. It has no relevance to this post. While you're there, check out the guy's blog. He's got a nice picture of Lord Stanley's Cup that he took himself. I think anyway, it's kind of a mystery.)
The guru does not support, condone, or encourage the defecation on NBC's properties or logo, nor that of its affiliates or partner stations.
Is the image funny or too graphic? Do you contemplate cutting off you ears every time you hear Mike Emrick's voice? I understand that the intent was probably to minimize his speaking role, but whose idea was it to let Edzo run the telestrator? Is ice dancing more exciting than Olympics hockey? Let me know in the comment section.
It's my pic. And DON'T ignore the vids!
ReplyDeleteI'm warnin' u... (followed by "that rabbit's got really sharp, pointy teeth...!)
Well I actually read you blog Josh, you may be shocked, and I am actually posting a comment, but I don't know why. You have to look at it from the point of view of NBC, Josh. While there may be a lot of Hockey fans in America, there are a lot more people who want to watch some unusual sport they never see, but ever four years. NBC is looking to make the most money during this Olympics, and that means targeting the biggest audience.
ReplyDeletePres. Sliz has spoken.
First off, I would like to thank you for visiting the site and letting me know what you think. I understand that it is interesting for some to see certain events in the Olympics that are not commonly played in America. However, I would venture to guess that more Americans would like to watch hockey, especially a game of this magnitude. Viewers looking for "something different" would likely not care about the competitors. They are more concerned with the sport itself. So why not choose to broadcast that event at another time, when the equivalent of hockey All Star games are not being played? One thing is certain: NBC angered more viewers by not airing hockey than they would have by not broadcasting the other events. In regards to finances, brandweek.com is reporting that NBC is expected to lose $250 million on the Winter Games. To put that into perspective, they will lose one quarter (1/4) billion dollars in just over two weeks. Obviously their decisions have not led to financial success.
ReplyDeleteThe guru has spoken.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I woud like to thank you for your interest in the guru's thoughts. As before, you bring up valid points. NHL.com reports that 44 million viewers in the USA and Canada alone watched the USA-Canada rematch on NBC. When you factor in those who watched the game on other channels, online, as you pointed out, or in other countries, viewership was off the charts. I reccommend that you go to NHL.com to get all the details. The stats there will blow your mind. Clearly, a lot of people are willing to "watch it in primetime" for an extended period of time, especially since Olympic hockey features shorter intermissions and no TV timeouts. I don't agree with your claim about less people watching the Olympics. This spectacle only comes about once every two years, four for the specific season. Everyone is interested in seeing world class athletes compete. And about everyone having 100+ channels, that is what sparked this debate to begin with. NBC put hockey on a channel most fans don't have, forcing die-hard fans of hockey (who easily out number those of, as you put it, "odd sports") scrambling to find a place to watch. The reason this game was so widely viewed has to do with the fanbase. Instead of pledging their allegiance to one of thirty odd teams in a league, fans had one obvious team to root for. In that sense, it appealed to people across the country instead of a primarily local crowd that exists in pro sports championships. Finally, if NBC knew that they were going to lose $250 million, I don't believe they would have decided to broadcast the Winter Games.
ReplyDelete