For all the bashing Versus takes it was the willing to fork over the most greenbacks up front .  It would be a big slap in the face to them now to say “Thanx for the last 6 years,but see ya.” If the NHL does go to ESPN I hope it’s NOT an exclusive deal. They should do a deal like Campbell wrote. One like the NBA has with ESPN & TNT. The networks the better. All I can say is thank goodness for Center Ice.

Posted by Lindas1st on 07/18/09 at 10:39 AM ET

Agreed.  Center Ice is da bomb.

And I think we should stay with Versus.  Sportscenter sucks for hockey coverage.  They talk about Granderson’s bat for 15 minutes, then show all the NHL highlights from the previous night in under 30 seconds.  And those highlights are terrible.  They jump in and the score is 2-1 and they show some crappy lucky deflection goal and then say the final was 5-3, leaving you to fill in the rest.  Just awful.

Posted by DrW from Royal Oak, MI on 07/18/09 at 12:46 PM ET

I find it interesting a Canadian in Toronto knows who gets Versus on cable and who doesn’t in the US. I am not aware of any cable company that does not carry Versus, the continued trashing of a company willing to pay real dollars for a sport that it strongly supports, owned by a company that invests in the sport by owning a team and who provides a superior quality broadcast to anything ESPN has done for hockey, is shameful! To those so insecure about the status of hockey that you think you need ESPN approval to valid are seriously mistaken. ESPN does not represent the culture and values of hockey or get why it is the greatest sport in the world.

Posted by Tero from Tacoma on 07/18/09 at 12:50 PM ET

Tero, this is Gary Bettman we’re talking about.

He was completely, totally willing to screw over the fans of teams in Winnipeg, Hartford, Quebec and Minnesota when he percieved a larger market available to be had for that team in another city.

Why in the happy hell would anyone think he’d hesitate for a second to screw over Versus to go to an ESPN with a percieved larger market.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 07/18/09 at 01:04 PM ET

I am not aware of any cable company that does not carry Versus,

Comcast owns Versus and charges a major premium to all their competitors.
Here in HockeyTown, Wide Open West only carries Versus on their Expanded Primium (HD) package.  I have been without VS for 3 yrs, and finally cancelled WOW.  I rely on the internet for any games not carried by Fox and CBC.  If you can’t see too well, HD is pointless.

Posted by HockeyTownTodd from upset when blogs don’t live up to my expectations on 07/18/09 at 01:06 PM ET

Tero -

Many cable companies do carry Versus, but on a separate and more expensive tier than they carry ESPN on.  Usually ESPN and ESPN2 are on a fairly basic level, but channels like ESPNU and ESPN Classic and Versus are only available for an additional charge.

If Versus only carries two or three games a week (and sometimes just ONE) it isn’t smart to pay additional each month for a channel that you might only want to watch a few hours each week - and that assumes, of course, that the hockey fan in question actually gives a damn about the matchups that Versus is carrying that week, anyway.

There is no reason that ESPN couldn’t carry a couple games on nights that Versus doesn’t carry anything, except for the fact that they hate hockey because they have no stake in it financially.  ESPN is only interested in sports they have a stake in - otherwise, they might as well not exist.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 07/18/09 at 02:11 PM ET

There is no reason that ESPN couldn’t carry a couple games on nights that Versus doesn’t carry anything, except for the fact that they hate hockey because they have no stake in it financially.  ESPN is only interested in sports they have a stake in - otherwise, they might as well not exist.

And ESPN doesn’t have a stake in the NHL because when they did have a stake in the NHL they took a bath on it because nobody watched.

And you know what? Nobody’s watching yet, either.  The Cup Finals are still down 10% over what the viewership was in 1995.  The regular season still doesn’t draw better than a 1.0 and hasn’t since the lockout.  It drew a 2.0 back in 1995.

The TV market for the NHL is going backwards, and somehow people think that ESPN is going to want to pony up any kind of relevant deal to have the NHL?  Good grief, why?  They could put on replays of the World Series of Poker and get the numbers the NHL will get for them.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 07/18/09 at 02:17 PM ET

If you don’t have Comcast cable, aren’t willing to pony up the $5-25 to get the “premium” sports packages that are required to receive Versus on some cable systems, or simply find yourself unlucky enough to live in an area whose cable system doesn’t carry Versus (or happen to find yourself in a hotel--ask the Red Wings, who couldn’t watch the Washington Capitals-Carolina Hurricanes series from their hotel rooms in Chicago), you’re either investing in DirecTV/Dish Network or you’re screwed.  My cable system didn’t carry Versus and I couldn’t get a permit from my condo association for a satellite dish, so I didn’t get Versus for almost two years.  That’s just the luck of the draw.

In the U.S., if you don’t live within broadcast distance of the CBC and/or don’t get Versus, you pretty much need Center Ice to watch your own team’s games, never mind the rest of the league.

There’s something to be said for having fourth-fiddle status but still reaching more viewers.

Posted by George James Malik from South Lyon, MI on 07/18/09 at 02:21 PM ET

And ESPN doesn’t have a stake in the NHL because when they did have a stake in the NHL they took a bath on it because nobody watched.

Oh, I’m not saying it would be a good idea for them to pick up hockey - I was just pointing out that any further contracts with Versus shouldn’t preclude getting the NHL on ESPN in and of themselves.  That’s all.

Being a hockey fan in the US is sometimes so damnably hard.  It’s a wonder more of us just don’t give up and stop wasting our effort.  :(

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 07/18/09 at 02:55 PM ET

There is no reason that ESPN couldn’t carry a couple games on nights that Versus doesn’t carry anything,

There is no reason that ANY network couldn’t carry games on the other nights.  If I remember right, the USA network did a better job than Versus before ESPN took over.

The W/conference needs its own network apparently, due to VS’s tunnel vision.

Posted by HockeyTownTodd from upset when blogs don’t live up to my expectations on 07/18/09 at 03:47 PM ET

HTT, you’re right, USA Network carried the NHL in the mid 80’s (Oiler’s Championship years) and they did a descent job back then.

There’s no reason the NHL can’t keep games on Versus say a National Telecast with no other game be played on Monday and /or Tuesday while letting ESPN or ESPN2 get some regional games on another night(s).

Posted by Lindas1st on 07/18/09 at 04:36 PM ET

The more networks the better. NHL needs to negotiate with any network that will carry them, PLAIN AND SIMPLE! NO MORE EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS.

Posted by 123456 from ESPNVILLE on 07/19/09 at 02:05 AM ET

They’re screwed.

Posted by Hippy Dave from San Francisco by way of Detroit on 07/19/09 at 05:59 AM ET

My problem with versus is that they only have hockey on two nights a week, I find that unacceptable.

Posted by goon on 07/19/09 at 10:59 PM ET

I’d also like to mention that Comcast has a MAJOR role in this story. They (of course) own Versus and also have a joint venture with the NHL in the US version of the NHL Network. If I know Comcast, they’ll use every bit of lobbying power they have to keep the next TV deal exclusive to VS.

Posted by Sean from Wilson, NC on 07/20/09 at 12:14 AM ET

My problem with versus is that they only have hockey on two nights a week, I find that unacceptable.

Given the current schedule with NBA, and other sports, where would the NHL get more than 2 nights a week on ESPN???

Posted by canesice on 07/20/09 at 10:03 AM ET

Given the current schedule with NBA, and other sports, where would the NHL get more than 2 nights a week on ESPN???

If you take into account ESPN and ESPN2 there was more than two games a week on ESPN.

Posted by goon on 07/20/09 at 11:40 AM ET