Local vs. National Exclusive Playoffs

We've reached that point of the year when the Stanley Cup and NBA Playoffs overlap for weeks at a time.  As well as the awkward situation where they're on the same networks, so you have no idea which league is on which channel on any given night (a situation that will be made at least a little bit easier next year when the NBA's new TV contract...sans TNT...kicks in).  Fortunately, in the first round, you still have the ability to watch the team on their familiar local channel.  Which is something that has drawn totally different opinions from national broadcasters for each sport.

Mike Breen is the lead play-by-play voice for the NBA on ESPN/ABC, as well as the primary play-by-play man for the Knicks on MSG.  Which led to a very interesting viewing experience for Game 1 of the Knicks-Pistons series.  Breen was doing the game on ESPN while his backup was calling the game for MSG.  He was back on MSG for Game 2, when he mentioned that he likes it that fans are able to watch the game with their regular announcers.

ESPN NHL broadcaster John Buccigross has the complete opposite viewpoint.  He doesn't like it that local broadcasts are available for the first round of the playoffs because he thinks it cuts into ESPN's potential audience.  This is especially true in larger markets like Boston and New York (although, it should be noted, the Bruins and Rangers didn't make the playoffs this season, so it's not like people are watching their local broadcasts, either).  If given the option of watching "their" announcers or the national broadcast, it's pretty clear which will be the preference most of the time.

They both have a point, although I think their completely opposite opinions are based on their completely different frames of reference.  Breen is both a local and a national broadcaster, so he's more likely to see the value of the local broadcast because he knows how connected fans of a team feel to the announcers they hear every day.  Buccigross only works with ESPN, so he's coming from that national perspective and wants those national broadcasts to have the biggest audience possible.

What's interesting, though, is that the local and national broadcasts coexist in teams' home markets.  In the past, the national broadcast would be blacked out in local markets if it wasn't exclusive (in fact, all national broadcasts were blacked out locally until not too long ago, and the NHL didn't even broadcast every game of the first round nationally until fairly recently, which meant the local broadcasts were all you could watch).  That's still the case for any game in either league on ABC in the first round (of which the NHL has none).  For national games on cable, though, the national and local broadcasts are both available.  So, I'd argue that they might both siphon audience from each other.

It's also worth noting that local playoff broadcasts are limited to the first round.  This detail was probably written into the local contracts because they have minimum game guarantees, but it's also a practical consideration.  It's the place where fans know they'll be able to see their team.  That's an important thing to remember when the national broadcast of first-round playoff games depends on which network's turn it is to have coverage that night.  A seven-game series could be on as many as four different national broadcasters!  Once the second round hits, though, each series is on the same network for every game.  Which is obviously a heck of a lot easier to follow.

This phenomenon is also exclusive to basketball and hockey.  Come next year, it'll just be the NHL.  Baseball did away with local broadcasts during the playoffs decades ago, and the NFL, of course, has long been only on national TV.  Whether that continues in the NHL's next TV contract will be very interesting to see.  Because there's definitely value in having local broadcasts during the first round of the playoffs.

The NHL, in fact, was the last of the four major sports to go to exclusive national broadcasts during the playoffs.  It wasn't until the 1994-95 season that the Stanley Cup Final was only available via the national broadcaster.  Before then, there were both national and local broadcasts throughout the playoffs.  And you actually couldn't even watch the national broadcast if your team was in it.  Which is why my only memories of the Rangers' Stanley Cup run in 1994 are of watching Sam Rosen on MSG.

Local broadcasts of the Stanley Cup Final are completely unfathomable these days.  It seems crazy to even think about.  The playoffs and championship round are the biggest time of the year, which is what makes them the most valuable property for the league's broadcast partners.  Which is part of the point John Buccigross was making.  It makes sense that you'd want the most eyeballs on the most important games.  If those games aren't exclusive, though, that greatly reduces the value of the TV contract.

Keeping those playoff rights are just as important for local broadcasters.  The sports media environment is rapidly changing, and many RSNs have fallen victim to cord-cutting and streaming.  If those remaining RSNs lose access to playoff games, that could endanger them even more.  While it's probably a stretch to say being able to air first-round playoff games is what's keeping the RSN model afloat, it's easy to see cable providers wanting to reduce how much they pay for those channels if they suddenly aren't airing as many games.

So, for that reason, I really can see the benefit of letting the local broadcasters keep their first-round playoff rights.  I get why national broadcasters are irked the idea.  But, whether they're watching their local channel or the national broadcast, they're still watching the game.  That's the most important thing to remember.  And, yes, sometimes it's easier to put on the channel they watch all season than trying to find which network has the national broadcast that night.

Which brings me to another point about the opening weekend of the NBA/Stanley Cup Playoffs.  Phil Jackson complained about NBA playoff games being played on Easter.  Jackson also doesn't like it how the NBA plays five games on Christmas every year, but that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.  Nor does playing on Easter (the date of which varies and actually lines up with the playoffs very infrequently).  The NBA Playoffs drew great ratings for the Easter games, too, so I think Phil's probably gonna lose that argument.

Easter was a different story for the NHL, which had very justified complaints about something totally different during the first few days of the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  TNT did a remote broadcast for Game 1 of the Jets-Blues series in Winnipeg.  They plan on doing the same thing for all games in Canadian cities that aren't Toronto or Montreal.  That's unacceptable!  Not only that, it's just plain lazy!  It also shows a lack of respect for both the viewers and the product.  Doing it during the regular season is one thing, but not having announcers on-site for a playoff game is a giant slap in the face.  At the very least, hire some local Canadian broadcasters if you don't want to fly your regular people up there.  (ESPN, it should be noted, is broadcasting all games from Canada on-site.)  I bet Blues fans appreciated having their local crew on-site.

In baseball, local broadcasters often get FOMO during the playoffs.  They do games all season, only to get shut out of the most important games of the year.  Meanwhile, the national broadcasters go from calling a handful of a team's games during the regular season to calling all of them in the playoffs.  Fans not only don't have that connection with them, they usually complain about not being able to watch the game on their local channel.  The NBA and NHL give local broadcasters that chance.  And, really, what's the harm in it?