From NHL.com:
Going to school to enhance the hockey TV experience
Brad Holland | NHL.com Staff Writer
Mar 5, 2007
Coverage of the NHL on television today is far different than it was back in the 1970's, when the focus was on the individuals and not their statistics.
In an effort to improve the television product, and to draw in the casual hockey fan, the NHL is running a clinic.
Recently, the NHL put together an “all-star” team of television experts comprised of John Shannon, the NHL’s vice president of broadcasting, Jim Wilkes, an ex-Molstar TV executive and Al Mountford, famous in the broadcasting industry for his hockey camerawork and the man who shot the 1980 Lake Placid “Miracle On Ice.” The three men have compiled a DVD and have met with every team in the league in an effort to help the regional broadcasters produce a better televised hockey game.
“Every team has a copy of the DVD and we (finished reviewing it) with all 30 teams,” Shannon said. “And right now we’re in the process of writing a case-book to help the broadcasters.”
The DVD follows Mountford as he shoots a preseason game and provides his own play-by-play describing his shots and what he attempts to accomplish. His tips range from framing of the action to focusing of the camera to following the puck. Generally, while he runs the presentation and shows the DVD, Wilkes surveys the camera positions in the arena in an attempt to maximize efficiency of movement and to create standardized pictures.
In addition to the other points of the presentation, Shannon stresses to the broadcasters the importance of allowing the commentators enough time to add their own anecdotes and impressions about the game. This means maximizing the effect of time between whistles, when returning from commercial, during scrums, etc.
“We need to give the play-by-play guys time to tell a story, but not a statistical or analytical story,” Shannon said. “I want to hear about the person and his personality – about the game of hockey as a mental and personal battle, rather than a numbers game.
“I want to hear about a player,” he said. “I want to meet him in person, see what he is like. I want to know his burning desire, why he plays the game he does. I truly believe that the more we understand them as people, the more we empathize with them as people. I’m not even sure the numbers matter.”
Shannon has worked for both CBC’s Hockey Night in Canada and LeafsTV, so he knows a little something about putting together an entertaining product. In fact, most hockey viewers rank CBC’s Saturday HNIC broadcasts as the best televised hockey games in the world. He also knows that the only difference between Game 1, Game 1,000 and Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Final is the brand new story waiting to be told. And all that matters is how you choose to tell it.
Sometimes it takes a little creativity to tell the story. Sometimes, the stories basically tell themselves. Remember the epic hockey stories from the 1970s and '80s?
Some of the greatest hockey stories in the history of the game were written during these decades, by teams like Boston, Montreal, St. Louis, Edmonton, Philadelphia and the New York Islanders.
There were great characters: heroes like Mike Bossy, Jean Ratelle, Stan Mikita and Gilbert Perreault. And there were villains: tough guys like Bob Probert, Tiger Williams, Joey Kocur and perhaps the greatest agitator in the history of hockey, Bobby Clarke. There were rivalries – Boston vs. Philadelphia, Boston vs. Montreal, and Islanders vs. Rangers). There were epic struggles between nations (The Summit Series), and there were the leading men: Bobby Orr, Phil Esposito, Mark Messier, Steve Yzerman, and Wayne Gretzky. Viewers of this era were treated to monumental stories of revenge, of triumph, of failure and of heartbreak.
What some people don’t realize is that these stories were brought to the average hockey fan through television, and television alone. How many people witnessed the Summit Series live? Perhaps 100,000 people over eight nights in both Canada and Russia? Compare that with the millions of fans who were captivated by the action shown through their television screens, and the millions who have since enjoyed the Series on VHS and DVD.
Buildings these days house no more than 21,000, and yet millions watch the playoffs every year. Add these numbers up and it becomes quite clear that television is truly the medium of the masses. "I want to hear about the person and his personality – about the game of hockey as a mental and personal battle, rather than a numbers game."
But in the “good ol’ days,” the audience was mostly Canadian, or northern Americans; fans who knew the game, the histories, and the players. There were only a handful of major networks, no internet to contend with, no satellite TV and no 800 channels of digital cable.
Things have since changed. In addition to the changes in mass media, the League has grown, and with growth has come a different landscape. Expansion to markets not familiar to watching the game on TV, or live even, for that matter, has changed the broadcasting game for good.
Hockey broadcasts are no longer catering to hockey fans from Toronto and Calgary, who would watch hockey during even the Super Bowl. The aim of broadcasters these days has shifted to drawing-in the unfamiliar fan; the fan who isn’t as comfortable with the game and who didn’t grow up with it.
Shannon sees this as something which can be overcome.
“(Canadian) eyes are no different than American eyes,” he said. “It’s still hockey. I don’t think there is as much difference as people think.”
In fact, the differences in the broadcasts could be nothing more than the perception of hockey based on the media’s portrayal of the sport.
“I think Canadians tend to celebrate what the game is, instead of worry about what it is not – and we need to start doing that,” he said.
Shannon and his crew are taking the first steps necessary on the road to improvement. He feels that the final product from most of the work being done now won’t be perfected for up to “two years,” but he also believe that even the casual fan will find something he likes about the changes as early as the 2007 playoffs.
“This isn’t a giant shift, it’s going to be gradual and subtle changes,” he said. “By the end of this season I would be happy if the casual fan takes a look at the games and says “I don’t know why I like it more, but something is different.”
