What ESPN Gets Wrong During NHL Coverage

ESPN and the NHL need each other. ESPN needs the NHL’s content for ESPN+, and the NHL needs the exposure being associated with ESPN provides. For better or worse, the two are in a relationship built on necessity.

And when The Worldwide Leader began broadcasting the league in 2021, it came with much fanfare, and justifiably so. Hockey fans believed the network had abandoned them — because that was the truth — and looked forward to seeing the sport return to prominence on shows like SportsCenter, First Take, and The Pat McAfee Show.

Many hockey diehards are adamant that ESPN’s coverage has been lackluster. I don’t share that opinion. I think the talent ESPN has assembled to dissect the game broadcasts, the play-by-players, and studio hosts have all been great additions. Are there some rinkside reporters, analysts, and game-callers that are better than others? Of course, but ESPN has made investments in covering the game that others weren’t willing to make.

However, that doesn’t mean the network’s coverage of the sport is perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

My first criticism is one I have waffled on. I’ve gone back and forth in my head a few different times on how I feel about it.

While one team is on the powerplay, ESPN will display the last name of the player of the team on the man advantage who is possessing the puck.

My first question, which I’m not certain I love the answer to, is: Why?

On the surface, I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing, because I like to assume the network has the game’s best interest at heart. I would guess the person who designed the element thought “We’re building brand awareness and name recognition by displaying the names.”

And that’s all well and good, but I think it comes across as a bit pandering to the audience. It’s almost as if the thought is “You’re not smart enough to figure out who is who on the ice, so we’ll tell you who it is, because this is really hard to follow.” But admitting “this is really hard to follow” isn’t the world’s great sales pitch for why people should watch the sport more, is it?

Also, can you imagine a scenario where, during an NBA broadcast, ESPN would tag LeBron James or Joel Embiid with a graphic showing which of the five players had the ball and where they were on the court? Of course not, because that would be ridiculous.

If giving ESPN the benefit of the doubt and thinking they’re well-intentioned with the use of the technology, I’m willing to accept that it might be good for the game. But my prevailing thought is “If you feel like you need to identify who is who on the ice, we’ve got bigger problems.”

Secondly, this isn’t an ESPN-specific criticism, it’s hockey-specific. The digital ads displayed on the boards are annoying. Not all of them. The static ads are fine. But any ads with motion are the most ridiculous development in broadcasting history. Fast food marketing executives uncovered that motion draws your eyes to whatever is moving. They use it to draw your eyes to new, higher-priced, menu items.

And I understand why advertisers on national television would want you to look at their ads instead of what’s happening on the ice, but…I didn’t tune into the game to watch your ad. Watching commercials is a trade-off for watching the game. But is it unreasonable to expect that the only things moving on the screen are the players and the puck, and not the Enterprise Rent-A-Car logo? Those ads are not a pleasurable viewing experience, and I view the companies who employ them less favorably than those static ads. But I highly doubt anyone cares as long as the check clears.

I have, however, prodded ESPN in the past to be a leader in the industry. I hope they can become a force for change and put their foot down by saying “We’re already encroaching ads all over the playing surface, can we at least make sure they don’t move and draw eyes away from the action?” But, again, when it’s all about the Benjamins, the viewing experience comes second.

Finally, the NHL is a unique sport to call as a play-by-play broadcaster. There’s a certain controlled chaos that comes with a sport that moves that fast. That controlled chaos also comes with a certain energy required to truly replicate the atmosphere felt inside the league’s arenas.

Not to discredit Sean McDonough, who does a good job and is great at college football/basketball, and an outstanding baseball game caller, Bob Wischusen should be the network’s lead play-by-play voice.

Wischusen is equipped with the same qualities that the two national play-by-play voices most closely associated as the best to call hockey — Doc Emerick and Gary Thorne. Great pacing, great energy, an understanding of the game, and he uses his voice as an instrument as well as any hockey broadcaster you’ll hear. His voice lends a gravitas and an energy to the broadcast that McDonough’s just doesn’t. In a fast-paced environment, McDonough just feels more purpose-built for a slower-paced sport.

Overall, the presentation of the NHL on ESPN is good, bordering on very good. I know not everyone shares my opinion on that, but the investment the network has put into the game with studio shows and shoulder programming shows it is serious about providing a pleasurable experience for hockey viewers. But, like nearly everything else, there’s still room for improvement.

Garrett Searight

Garrett Searight is Barrett Media’s News Editor, which includes writing daily news stories, features, and opinion columns. He joined Barrett Media in 2022 after a decade leading several radio brands in several formats, as well as a 5-year stint working in local television. In addition to his work with Barrett Media, he is a radio and TV play-by-play broadcaster. Reach out to him at Garrett@BarrettMedia.com.