Editorial - the NHL on television.

We do not editorialize very much on the Steamer blog. That is a bit uncommon for a budding national media outlet with a loyal following of over 6 readers. That being said, I have seen a lot of recent talk about the NHL on television.

I guess I have a couple of the same questions that you hear on occasion. Does the NHL need more coverage? Since the lock-out is the NHL just a niche sport? Are you really going to gain more hockey fans or will it just be the same die-hards watching on a new channel?

I'll post a couple of links to some great discussion which all have one central theme. Should the NHL go back to ESPN? Don't get me wrong, I think ESPN totally sucks. I tried to watch Sportscenter the other night and it is brutal. As Slim Shady said, why did they need an NBATV channel when ESPN already exists? And although it is not the NBA season, and shockingly, the Yankees and Red Sox were not on ESPN for the whole hour - it was the standard crap festival. You see my point.

Where was I? Seeing the newest debate between Comcast and Direct TV made me re-think the issue. I guess "the rub" is that Comcast owns the Philadelphia Flyers. Comcast has just raised the fee for Versus for Direct TV - as they did with Dish Network a couple of years ago. My hatred of Comcast and the Flyers aside, that just seems like an inherent conflict of interest.

Anyway, a couple of unique arguments are brought out in the following articles:

Ken Campbell of The Hockey News wrote this interesting take. I think the most salient point is that even if the NHL goes back to ESPN they might still be behind golf, NASCAR, and poker.

Mike Chen busted out this beauty on Kukla's Korner. This is a compelling article as he points out that with Center Ice, the NHL Network, the internet and the BLOG world - you really don't need ESPN. I guess people in favor of "growing the game" might take issue with this quality read.

But here is the article you should read from Tom Reed of the Columbus Dispatch. Brief and simply put, he makes a lot of sense. I have to say that I found this as the most persuasive article. Harlan Pepper sort of emphasized this point when he referenced last season when reporters asked Zetterberg if he had watched one of the games. HZ said no because the hotel they were staying in didn't have Versus.

There is another vicious cycle hurting the NHL. Being the best spectator sport, seeing it live in person will "grow the game." Of course, going to the games is tough as the ticket prices are so high. Why are they so expensive? Because of the terrible TV contract. And while hockey is the best sport in HD, don't kids need to be able to go to the games?

I guess the corollary to that argument is the Quebec Nordiques becoming the Colorado Avalanche. Since their arrival in 1995, youth hockey and the building of rinks has increased in the Denver area. There are kids from Denver that include the # 2 prospect in the Carolina Hurricanes system, and players in Division I hockey at Northeastern and Notre Dame. And of course, there and 7 Colorado kids playing for the University of Denver - who will likely be the pre-season #1 in college hockey this Fall. Is that a result of these kids attending AVS games, watching them on national TV or following them on the local carrier Fox Sports or Altitude? I really don't know.

At this point though, I guess I really wonder if we should want the NHL to grow? Do you want more competition to buy tickets? On the other hand, it would be nice to go into a sports bar and be able to get playoff games on the big TV without The Professor having buff and shine the cougar waitress.

What is my rambling point? I guess I'd like to see the NHL return to be the # 4 sport in the USA. But maybe I realize that at this point the NHL is like your favorite band - people either get them, or they don't.