The Other Problem With NBC's Hockey Coverage

If you tuned into NBC for Sunday afternoon's Anaheim/Detroit game (you know, the game this weekend that NBC showed in its entirety), you got to hear former Red Wing Brett Hull in between periods going on and on about how awful the Ducks were playing... or are... or always have been -- it was hard to tell, really, where the analysis ended and the personal feelings began.

As Jim Kelley put it in a column today, Hull's analysis was "abysmal and patently one-sided." In fact, continues Kelley,

Hull has spent virtually every moment he's been on NBC railing against past enemies (Mike Keenan being the most frequent target) while praising past teams he's played for and people he likes. When he's not doing that, he's defending his 1999 Stanley Cup winning goal, refusing to even acknowledge that it was one of the most controversial scores in the sport's history.

Of course, Kelley is a Buffalo guy, so you can understand his disdain for Hull. But he's spot on to take Hull to task for his analysis (or lack thereof) -- a minor annoyance that has grown into borderline-unwatchable television.

And now Hull has somehow managed to insert himself into the series, as members of the Ducks had to actually field questions about Hull's claim that "If [he] was Detroit, [he] would not be worried about being down 3-2" in the series (in case you're wondering, they couldn't care less what Hull says -- shocking, I know).

I understand that Hull is supposed to be "outspoken," "edgy," and "controversial," and I understand that Hull is entitled to his opinion. But viewers are entitled to some relatively unbiased analysis, and they're not getting it from Hull.

Great weekend for the NHL on NBC, eh?