I am surprised being on site to call the games is not part of the contract with the NHL.

torontostan wrote:

RA.... comparing ESPN to local radio crews is laughable. Apples and oranges. 

I don't recall me or the article mentioning ESPN in relation to hockey. True, they cover baseball (although their contract with MLB ends after this season.)

This was about Rogers deciding not to send their radio crews on the road for the Jays. Part of that, as I recall, used COVID as an excuse, but it kept happening even after the pandemic ended.

In either event, sending your crew to cover a live sporting event - regardless of organization - is part of the game, no pun intended. I recall at least one instance when Ben Wagner, who was the play-by-play guy at the time, couldn't call a play on the field because it was out of camera range. He embarrassedly had to admit that on air. Unacceptable on a professional nationwide broadcast regardless of who is doing it. 

RadioActive wrote:

torontostan wrote:

RA.... comparing ESPN to local radio crews is laughable. Apples and oranges. 

I don't recall me or the article mentioning ESPN in relation to hockey. True, they cover baseball (although their contract with MLB ends after this season.)

This was about Rogers deciding not to send their radio crews on the road for the Jays. Part of that, as I recall, used COVID as an excuse, but it kept happening even after the pandemic ended.

In either event, sending your crew to cover a live sporting event - regardless of organization - is part of the game, no pun intended. I recall at least one instance when Ben Wagner, who was the play-by-play guy at the time, couldn't call a play on the field because it was out of camera range. He embarrassedly had to admit that on air. Unacceptable on a professional nationwide broadcast regardless of who is doing it. 

Sorry, you indirectly referenced TNT, not ESPN. Even still, playoff radio is a audio medium and its audience would be measured in thousands, playoff TV is a visual medium and its audience would be measured in millions. There's zero justification for continuing to send radio announcers to cover games like it's 1970.... I guarantee you none of them breakeven on the travel & staffing expenses associated with it. If TNT is tight on budget for sending staff, rest assured radio is in the red. The only reason it remains is rights-holders want to please the teams to keep their agreements in place, without it many of these stations would have no selling point to their local advertisers.... and very often the air travel is covered by the team jet, however that will see it's end in the next few years for hockey and basketball if I had to bet... the other reason is bad PR when they do shut it down, being called "cheap" by people who have no idea how to run a business. All that, and to boot... the old white men running teams still think sports radio play by play is relevant... numbers don't lie RA.
 

torontostan wrote:

RadioAaron wrote:

Islanders are (I believe) the first NHL team to end radio-only broadcasts:

https://radioink.com/2025/04/23/new-york-islanders-sweep-clean-their-radio-broadcast-booth/

 

There's quite a few in the NHL..... Islanders, Sabres, Hurricanes, Ducks, Sharks. Can't think of any in the NBA so far...

Oh wow, didn’t know.

RadioActive wrote:

So it seems it's not just TNT doing this. It may be a lot closer to home.


 

I'm sure they could drive themselves if they wanted to.... 

PMC wrote:

Bowen let it slip at the start of the game last night, discussing the atmosphere in the building that he saw "on the monitor"

I might take that as Bowen being honest with the audience while taking a swipe at the corporate decision to not send them to Ottawa.

torontostan wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

So it seems it's not just TNT doing this. It may be a lot closer to home.


 

I'm sure they could drive themselves if they wanted to.... 

Is this sarcasm, or are you one of Ted Rogers' grandchildren? 🤔

torontostan wrote:

Easily Amused wrote:

Is this sarcasm, or are you one of Ted Rogers' grandchildren? 🤔

Not sarcasm.... I'm just the only realist on this forum. I dislike Rogers & Bell as much as the next guy.... but I don't see why the team nor the radio stations should be paying for two guys to travel for the negligible benefit of (maybe) a few thousand people. It's a definite way to lose money. Nobody prefers the radio broadcast, it's only there in cases where you're in the car..... and I'm serious about driving; if they're so juvenile and entitled to think they deserve a place in the visitors arena, why didn't they just drive to Ottawa?

Quite honestly, why wouldn't Rogers make arrangements to get them on the team's transportation?  You can 'farm out' or 'remote' some aspects of an away broadcast, but the corporation is cheaping out by not sending two play by play announcers.

Easily Amused wrote:

Quite honestly, why wouldn't Rogers make arrangements to get them on the team's transportation? You can 'farm out' or 'remote' some aspects of an away broadcast, but the corporation is cheaping out by not sending two play by play announcers.

Simple, because there are costs involved that are in no way reciprocated by them travelling. It's airfare, it's meals, it's buses, it's hotels, it's equipment and remote staff, and for what? $0 of additional revenue. Never mind also having two additional guys poking around and breathing down your players necks. 

Shorty Wave wrote:

What I don’t get is that Rogers has a sports radio station in Toronto, AM 590, and you’d think that the Stanley Cup playoffs would be one of their big events of the year. Yet they chintz out when it comes to decent coverage as the play-by-play uses a monitor. This same company just dropped $11 billion for another NHL deal, so they must have a few shekels. Maybe get out of radio if you can’t offer a decent service. God they annoy me!

A wise coworker often said "tripping over $100 bills to pick up nickels."

Easily Amused wrote:

Shorty Wave wrote:

What I don’t get is that Rogers has a sports radio station in Toronto, AM 590, and you’d think that the Stanley Cup playoffs would be one of their big events of the year. Yet they chintz out when it comes to decent coverage as the play-by-play uses a monitor. This same company just dropped $11 billion for another NHL deal, so they must have a few shekels. Maybe get out of radio if you can’t offer a decent service. God they annoy me!

A wise coworker often said "tripping over $100 bills to pick up nickels."

 
That describes them to a tee, cheap in the wrong places, that’s for sure! God, they still annoy me!!

I watched a TNT game yesterday and the coverage was way below the usual HNIC / Sportsnet standards.   One instance that comes to mind is their lack of goal replays.     One goal was covered only once and the replay was so fast that you couldn't tell what happened, how the puck went in.    Leading into the replay they replayed some preceding play that was of no consequence to the goal and it was slowed down.       HNIC plays the goal over, and over, and over gain with multiple angles etc.    A noticeable difference and I think the US fans would get more out of the game by having better replays of goals.
 

RadioActive wrote:

So it seems it's not just TNT doing this. It may be a lot closer to home.


 

So let me get this straight - Rogers sends a radio crew to Los Angeles to cover the Jays games there. But they couldn't fork over the dough to send two announcers to Ottawa for the first round of the Leafs playoffs? In what world does this make any sense?

If that's true, they better hope the cable doesn't go out!