2023-2024 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread

[BlueOil]

they announce who is replacing panger yet?

Jamie Rivers to replace Darren Pang on Bally Sports Midwest's Blues telecasts this season

 

[542365]

Jamie Rivers to replace Darren Pang on Bally Sports Midwest's Blues telecasts this season

View attachment 736445

Was really hoping for Vitale.

 

[TheDizee]

Jamie Rivers to replace Darren Pang on Bally Sports Midwest's Blues telecasts this season

View attachment 736445

nice, blues are dumpster diving now too

 

[Thallis]

Jamie Rivers to replace Darren Pang on Bally Sports Midwest's Blues telecasts this season

Can't say I'm surprised, but our broadcast is about to be basically unwatchable. The Rivers fill in games last season were so bad.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

It’s not a stretch to say I’ll probably be watching fewer games. Rivers is awful.

 

[stl76]

Rivers seems like a good guy, but let’s be honest - it’s a HUGE downgrade for a world class broadcaster like Panger to Jamie Rivers. There’s been a lot of complaining from some fans about Panger the past couple years, but I think those folks are about to find they didn’t know how good they had it.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Don’t have much of an opinion about rivers. I’m just glad we don’t have to suffer through Pang again.

 

[stlbluz]

That's the nice thing about streaming games, you can choose the 'away' broadcast. That's not always better but at least it's an option.

 

[Brian39]

I'm not a fan of Rivers, but the reality is that there was absolutely no budget to hire anyone else. We can't even say with confidence that the Blues will be aired on Bally Sports Midwest this year.

As of today, the broadcaster hasn't committed to airing Blues games.

The bankruptcy court gave Sinclair/Diamond until September 30 to come up with a reorganization plan (which is essentially them telling the courts which TV contracts it wants to keep). In response, the NHL informed the courts that they may seek emergency relief before then since the season starts less than 2 weeks later. They can negotiate new contract terms in the meantime and there is a decent chance we get a final answer before that 9/30 deadline. But at the moment, Blues games not being on Bally Sports Midwest is a very real possibility. Given that, no one was ever going to pony up a competitive salary for a color guy.

To turn this topic back towards the actual team, the lack of clarity on the TV deal is almost certainly part of the front office's decision to try and ice a decent product this year. I'm honestly not sure what incentive Diamond/Sinclair would have to keep the Blues' TV rights if the team was selling a long rebuild where the team stopped trying to win games. The Cards being terrible almost certainly impacted the profitability of Bally Sports Midwest and if the Blues look like a clear money loser too then the network very well may be viewed as a liability.

Again, I don't like Rivers as a TV personality. But he was likely the only candidate for the job and we don't even know that the job will exist in 2 months. I'm still preparing for a season where the only avenue to watch Blues games is by gaining access to the opposition's broadcast (with NHL-provided neutral broadcasts of the games between teams who lost their local TV deals). I'll take Rivers doing color over that option every day of the week.

 

[shpongle falls]

I did like when Rivers would analyze plays on the pre game show, I don’t mind him as a color commentator. Would rather have Joe Vitale in that spot instead but oh well.

I’ve been wondering about the scenario where Bally isn’t able to broadcast Blues games this year what the other options be? Anyone have any ideas?

 

[Brian39]

I did like when Rivers would analyze plays on the pre game show, I don’t mind him as a color commentator. Would rather have Joe Vitale in that spot instead but oh well.

I’ve been wondering about the scenario where Bally isn’t able to broadcast Blues games this year what the other options be? Anyone have any ideas?

Tons of possibilities.

The team could sell the TV rights to another network (or combination of networks) and the only difference would be the channel we tune in to.

The team could take over the entire production and sell an in-market streaming subscription.

The league could take over production for all the teams that lose their deals. This option creates a number of ways in which the games are sold to fans.

One option would be to simply air games on the NHL Network. If there were several NHL-produced teams playing on a given night, the game you see is based on your location.

Another option would be to just encourage fans to subscribe to ESPN+. The games wouldn't be on TV locally at all so they wouldn't be blacked out (except when they were playing on national TV).

Another option would be to try and re-work their deals with ESPN and TNT to get a bunch more games onto these networks affiliate channels. Getting 15 Blues games onto ESPNews, 12 games on TBS, etc to cobble together a schedule where at least half of our games are on TV in the local market.

Or it could be a combination of these options. Some games on NHL Network, some games on ESPNews, some games on over-the-air local TV, and the rest of the games available as streaming-only.

It is probably going to be a shit show for all the teams that lose their deal with Sinclair/Diamond. The teams and league will be trying to cobble together a plan with 3-5 weeks notice and then communicate that plan to their fans. I'm confident that the league has been making contingency plans all summer, but who knows what they are prioritizing. I'd hope that they are making fan accessibility their top priority, but it very well might be limiting financial loss.

This could be the moment that changes how the NHL is presented to fans. The league could use it as an opportunity to test-run a direct-to-consumer streaming model where all of the production is done by the teams and league (and all of the subscription/ad revenue goes to the teams/league). Or it could be a blip in the radar where the league throw a bandaid on this season and every team simply finds another TV partner using the existing business model. The only people who have any idea are being paid for their input on the subject and certainly aren't sharing with us.

 

[Mike Liut]

Rivers seems like a good guy, but let’s be honest - it’s a HUGE downgrade for a world class broadcaster like Panger to Jamie Rivers. There’s been a lot of complaining from some fans about Panger the past couple years, but I think those folks are about to find they didn’t know how good they had it.

Panger is the best. I like Rivers, he’ll do a fine job.

 

[TheDizee]

steve levy and darren pang was the best broadcast tandem in NHL history and we replaced panger with a dumpster dive broadcast move.

 

[STL fan in MN]

steve levy and darren pang was the best broadcast tandem in NHL history and we replaced panger with a dumpster dive broadcast move.

 

[Celtic Note]

Tons of possibilities.

The team could sell the TV rights to another network (or combination of networks) and the only difference would be the channel we tune in to.

The team could take over the entire production and sell an in-market streaming subscription.

The league could take over production for all the teams that lose their deals. This option creates a number of ways in which the games are sold to fans.

One option would be to simply air games on the NHL Network. If there were several NHL-produced teams playing on a given night, the game you see is based on your location.

Another option would be to just encourage fans to subscribe to ESPN+. The games wouldn't be on TV locally at all so they wouldn't be blacked out (except when they were playing on national TV).

Another option would be to try and re-work their deals with ESPN and TNT to get a bunch more games onto these networks affiliate channels. Getting 15 Blues games onto ESPNews, 12 games on TBS, etc to cobble together a schedule where at least half of our games are on TV in the local market.

Or it could be a combination of these options. Some games on NHL Network, some games on ESPNews, some games on over-the-air local TV, and the rest of the games available as streaming-only.

It is probably going to be a shit show for all the teams that lose their deal with Sinclair/Diamond. The teams and league will be trying to cobble together a plan with 3-5 weeks notice and then communicate that plan to their fans. I'm confident that the league has been making contingency plans all summer, but who knows what they are prioritizing. I'd hope that they are making fan accessibility their top priority, but it very well might be limiting financial loss.

This could be the moment that changes how the NHL is presented to fans. The league could use it as an opportunity to test-run a direct-to-consumer streaming model where all of the production is done by the teams and league (and all of the subscription/ad revenue goes to the teams/league). Or it could be a blip in the radar where the league throw a bandaid on this season and every team simply finds another TV partner using the existing business model. The only people who have any idea are being paid for their input on the subject and certainly aren't sharing with us.

The NHL Network has so many holes in coverage. How many providers actually cover them? It doesn’t seem like that model works unless the can go a streaming route and bypass the exclusivity.

ESPN+ seems better positioned to handle the temporary transition.

The NHL really needs to be careful that teams get viewership. This could really hurt in a lot of ways both short term and long term.

A partnership with the Cardinals could be a way forward.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Tons of possibilities.

The team could sell the TV rights to another network (or combination of networks) and the only difference would be the channel we tune in to.

The team could take over the entire production and sell an in-market streaming subscription.

The league could take over production for all the teams that lose their deals. This option creates a number of ways in which the games are sold to fans.

One option would be to simply air games on the NHL Network. If there were several NHL-produced teams playing on a given night, the game you see is based on your location.

Another option would be to just encourage fans to subscribe to ESPN+. The games wouldn't be on TV locally at all so they wouldn't be blacked out (except when they were playing on national TV).

Another option would be to try and re-work their deals with ESPN and TNT to get a bunch more games onto these networks affiliate channels. Getting 15 Blues games onto ESPNews, 12 games on TBS, etc to cobble together a schedule where at least half of our games are on TV in the local market.

Or it could be a combination of these options. Some games on NHL Network, some games on ESPNews, some games on over-the-air local TV, and the rest of the games available as streaming-only.

It is probably going to be a shit show for all the teams that lose their deal with Sinclair/Diamond. The teams and league will be trying to cobble together a plan with 3-5 weeks notice and then communicate that plan to their fans. I'm confident that the league has been making contingency plans all summer, but who knows what they are prioritizing. I'd hope that they are making fan accessibility their top priority, but it very well might be limiting financial loss.

This could be the moment that changes how the NHL is presented to fans. The league could use it as an opportunity to test-run a direct-to-consumer streaming model where all of the production is done by the teams and league (and all of the subscription/ad revenue goes to the teams/league). Or it could be a blip in the radar where the league throw a bandaid on this season and every team simply finds another TV partner using the existing business model. The only people who have any idea are being paid for their input on the subject and certainly aren't sharing with us.

isn't there a team that is airing games on free tv for in-market fans and selling streaming for out of market games? might be an nba team that adopted it, suns maybe? the blues could go back to channel 11 like the old days.

 

[Xerloris]

isn't there a team that is airing games on free tv for in-market fans and selling streaming for out of market games? might be an nba team that adopted it, suns maybe? the blues could go back to channel 11 like the old days.

Man that gave me nostalgia and ptsd from terrible tv's in the 90's.

 

[Reality Czech]

steve levy and darren pang was the best broadcast tandem in NHL history and we replaced panger with a dumpster dive broadcast move.

Who do you mean by "we?" Do you work for Bally Sports?

 

[Renard]

Mike Weber is the new Asst in charge of the defense.

Michael Babcock will be doing prescouting, skill development etc.

That is the first mistake I've made on this board since Jean-Guy Talbot was coach.

Mike Weber is the new Asst in charge of the defense.

Michael Babcock will be doing prescouting, skill development etc.

 

[Thallis]

isn't there a team that is airing games on free tv for in-market fans and selling streaming for out of market games? might be an nba team that adopted it, suns maybe? the blues could go back to channel 11 like the old days.

Vegas is doing that

 

[Brian39]

isn't there a team that is airing games on free tv for in-market fans and selling streaming for out of market games? might be an nba team that adopted it, suns maybe? the blues could go back to channel 11 like the old days.

I believe it is the Utah Jazz. Their owner was on the 32 Thoughts Podcast to discuss his interest in an NHL team and I'm pretty sure that was the model they adopted.

 

[Brian39]

The NHL Network has so many holes in coverage. How many providers actually cover them? It doesn’t seem like that model works unless the can go a streaming route and bypass the exclusivity.

ESPN+ seems better positioned to handle the temporary transition.

The NHL really needs to be careful that teams get viewership. This could really hurt in a lot of ways both short term and long term.

A partnership with the Cardinals could be a way forward.

The NHL Network model doesn't work if the primary goal is maximizing the amount of fans who can still watch the team. I agree that this should be the primary goal, but the league and teams very well might not.

The problem with just funneling people to ESPN+ subscriptions is that all that money goes to ESPN instead of the league. Barring a new agreement specifically for the teams that lose their deals, ESPN has already paid for the right to stream games that aren't on TV in the area where a user is watching from.

As a fan, I'd love for my ESPN+ app to allow me to stream every Blues game. But it would hurt the team financially to just suddenly have a $0 income stream for their TV rights.

 

[mk80]

The NHL Network has so many holes in coverage. How many providers actually cover them? It doesn’t seem like that model works unless the can go a streaming route and bypass the exclusivity.

ESPN+ seems better positioned to handle the temporary transition.

The NHL really needs to be careful that teams get viewership. This could really hurt in a lot of ways both short term and long term.

A partnership with the Cardinals could be a way forward.

The Cardinals do own a 30% stake of Bally's Sports Midwest. I have long thought that if Diamond continues to collapse and the Dewitt's could get a good price, they would be a good candidate to purchase it outright from Diamond. The Blues (Tom Stillman) would be wise to get in on a deal as well to have some sliver of ownership stake.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

Don’t have much of an opinion about rivers. I’m just glad we don’t have to suffer through Pang again.

Agreed, I used to enjoy Panger, but I've felt he's turned into a tangent machine over the past couple years and has been dragging John Kelly down with him. I felt like Kelly was significantly better with Rivers as his partner this past season because he could just call the game rather than getting pulled into random topics by Pang every couple of shifts.

 

[TheOrganist]

Agreed, I used to enjoy Panger, but I've felt he's turned into a tangent machine over the past couple years and has been dragging John Kelly down with him. I felt like Kelly was significantly better with Rivers as his partner this past season because he could just call the game rather than getting pulled into random topics by Pang every couple of shifts.

You mean you were annoyed that Pang mentioned the distance control of his 9 iron every 5 minutes? As someone who used to broadcast hockey in another lifetime, having a guy like Pang as my analyst would have annoyed the f*** out of me. Engaging personality and all but he could grate on your nerves for sure. I don’t mind Rivers. He’s funny on 101 when I listen.