Shaela ([info]shaela) wrote,
@ 2007-05-25 23:38:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
The State of Hockey
I thought this was a pretty interesting article from FoxSports about the NHL and Gary Bettman.  Maybe it's just interesting because I hate Bettman, but I digress. 

Bettman's Vision of NHL Crumbling

Al Strachan / FOXSports.com

It has been said that journalism is the first draft of history.

So allowing for possible revision down the road, let's go out on a limb and say that it is quite possible that we have just witnessed the beginning of the end for NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's dream.

His vision of his league as a popular sport with a solid television package, a sparkling image and franchises all across the United States lies in ruins.

Jim Balsillie, the co-CEO of the company behind the Blackberry, is about to purchase the Nashville Predators, and for Bettman's vision, this may turn out to be one step too far down the slippery slope.

Bettman's dream of major network television was already a travesty, having suffered the ultimate embarrassment last Saturday when NBC dropped coverage of a Stanley Cup semifinal playoff game after three periods with the score tied.

There's only one person to blame for that and it's no one at NBC. It's Bettman himself, who authorized the TV deal knowing full well that NBC was contractually bound to a pre-race show for the Preakness.

The network didn't even drop overtime for the race itself, just for the one-hour pre-race hype and some taped features.

Would it have been too much to expect Bettman to exhibit enough foresight to start the Anaheim-Detroit game at 1 p.m. rather than 2 p.m. and thereby minimize the risk of such an occurrence?

Apparently it would. Gary is big on legal matters but not so good on understanding hockey. Oh, they can have more than five minutes of overtime in the playoffs? Who knew?

Bettman had already embarrassed himself and his league with his overall network "strategy," which puts most of the games on Versus, a nondescript network that hardly anyone seems to get, despite the network's assurances to the contrary.

He sold the NBC playoff rights for zero dollars, then let NBC dictate the schedule. Bettman professes his concern for Canadian fans, but in this move alone, he showed the disdain that more accurately represents his feeling. The concerns of Hockey Night in Canada, a national tradition, were shoved aside as he groveled to NBC.

This was a move that not only infuriated Canadians from coast to coast, but did severe damage to the hospitality segment of many urban economies. A playoff game on television is a huge draw for many Canadian bars and taverns. But even Canadians, despite their legendary thirst, aren't going to sit in a bar to watch a hockey game on one of the first sunny spring afternoons after a long winter. Well, some of them are, but nowhere near as many as would have been the case had the games been played at night.

Thanks to Bettman's network-TV fiasco, combined with his astonishingly stupid decision to kill the 2004-05 season to please a few wealthy owners who wanted to become wealthier, hockey is now viewed as a niche sport in the United States.

In 1994, after the Rangers won the Stanley Cup, there existed another universal view of the game, a view that was diametrically opposite to the one held today. At that time, the NHL was seen as the league poised for stardom.

So naturally, Bettman did what he does best. He shut the league down. It was only half a year that time, but it brought the league's momentum to a screeching halt.

And it has gone downhill ever since.

As for his expansion program, it too has been a spectacular failure. Now that Balsillie has entered the picture, the tide might be about to turn and leave Bettman's vision as flotsam.

Last year, Balsillie tried to buy the Pittsburgh Penguins. Now he appears almost certain to get the Nashville Preditors. In neither case has he expressed any particular interest in keeping the team where it is.

He would love to have a team in his home town, the major metropolis of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

The legal requirements for such an eventuality are so boring that only Bettman could love to recite them, but this much is certain. A move to Waterloo is possible.

And if the NHL is ready to move an American franchise back to Canada, then you should be able to figure out just how bad the league's American position is.

For decades, American owners have been doing everything they can to minimize Canadian involvement, not because they have anything against the country, but simply because their every action is financially motivated.

This is a league that does not share its attendance revenues. So a Canadian team might draw well at home, but an American owner couldn't care less. He's not going to see any of it. What he does know is that Canadian teams are traditionally the NHL's worst road draws. An owner in a major American city doesn't want to try to sell tickets for games against teams from places like Winnipeg, Quebec and Waterloo — or even Calgary and Edmonton for that matter. He wants visits from New York, Boston, Los Angeles and so on.

Now, once Balsillie purchases the Predators, the battle will be on. He will want to move that team out of Nashville and into Canada. Perhaps, down the road, some other entrepreneur will try to follow a similar pattern with the Atlanta Thrashers or the Florida Panthers, and some of the other cities that Bettman brought into the NHL.

And while Canada is a nice place, it's not the place to be if you're trying to establish your sports league as a major league in the United States.

This is what Bettman has wrought.

I can't help but see this author's point of view.  Just looking at the NHL schedule is enough to prove to me that something is broken (I can see the Canucks four times a season and haven't seen Sidney Crosby yet.  The Avs played the Sabres and the Bruins back to back once this year and had to call that an Eastern Conference road trip.  It's ridiculous)  The rest is just icing on the cake.

I love hockey.  I love hockey enough that I don't really realize its stability in the United States is wavering...or perhaps was never really there in the first place.  I can something can change here but I'm not really sure. 

One thing I do know, however, is that Bettman is a jackass.

-Shaela



(7 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]protectorwind
2007-05-26 04:21 pm UTC (link)
You know, Canada doesn't always have it better than we do. Manitoba's coverage of Game 6 between the Ducks and Red Wings was cut in favor of their provencial election...which was a landslide victory that was determined only 40 minutes after the polls closed. And that network of shame was...CBC, home of Hockey Night in Canada.

I fully expect the Preds to ship out. Sure, some fans will be unhappy. Just like fans in Quebec, Winnepeg, and Minnesota (with the North Stars) felt when their teams left home.

Really, I can name only a handful of teams that should feel secure in their hometowns remaining the same: Toronto, Montreal, Boston, Chicago, NY Rangers, Detroit, Vancouver, and Colorado (I'm optimistic). Everyone else has gone through sales or are going through sales, so the possibility remains. Those that I listed above (Original Six and a few others) seem like the places most likely to riot if their team left.

Bettman figures that if it's broken, wait and see if it will work later. The schedule is flawed, and it's going to be at least another year before he even thinks of fixing it. We'll see Crosby, but the Avs won't even play the Leafs...and that makes me sad. Rivalry is great, but I could always do with six games in division and replace those extra eight games (for our division) could shift to us playing everyone once. Ultimately we should play every team at least twice (1 home, 1 away), but I think we're years from that dream being realized.

And Bettman is a jackass, but before long he'll be an unemployed jackass.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-05-27 12:59 am UTC (link)
my proposal:
3 home, 3 away vs. division = 6 games x 4 teams = 24 games
1 h, 1 a, 1 alternating vs. rest of conference = 3 g x 10 t = 30 g
1 h, 1 a vs. opposing conference = 2 g x 15 t = 30 g
total = 84 games

consider moving jersey to where they'll be appreciated.
florida, phoenix, washington, chicago, ny islanders, and columbus should all consider firing their owner and/or general manager and/or coach. moving the team not really the problem. team regularly sucking balls is the problem.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]protectorwind
2007-05-27 04:16 pm UTC (link)
Your schedule idea gives an uneven number of home and away games. Even if that alternating game versus the conference is 2 here and 3 away, you end up with more away games (and the same is obvious). There is no way the owners will pass something like that, especially since there is not profit sharing in the NHL.

I'd get rid of preseason games (that frees up six extra games), then have:
6 division (3 home, 3 away) = 24 games
4 conference (2 home, 2 away) = 40 games
2 non-conference (1 home, 1 away) = 30 games
leaving us with a total of 94 games. Seems like a ton, but your plan puts you at 90 (including the 6 preseason), so it's not much of a stretch.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-05-27 10:44 pm UTC (link)
uneven home and away? 2 here and 3 away? i'm not sure you understood. take the avs for example. they'd play 6 games against the other four NW teams, 3 games against the PAC and CEN divisions, and 2 against all Eastern teams. so yes, the third game against in-conference teams would alternate every two years. you could break it up by division (2 home against CEN, 2 away against PAC this year; switch it next year) or by teams (2 home against Det, StL, and Nsh; 2 away against Cob & Chi (and you could even switch the teams every two year cycle)). But however you work it out, you would still have 15 home and 15 away games total, it's just how you break up the third games. if you subscribe to the school of thought that it's important to maintain division races by having all NW teams play the same schedule, you would break up the third games by division (the first of my two examples).

i don't see why you'd say the owners wouldn't go for it. you'd still have an equal number of home and away games in the schedule, although not an equal number against your conference opponents. the owners have already shown they're comfortable slanting the schedule, since under the current plan there are five teams in the opposite conference you play only home, five only road, and five you don't play at all. the playoff races are essentially conference-wide, yet every division has a completely different schedule of who they play from the other conference. plus, under my plan the owners actually gain a home game (84 game season vs. current 82) so that already means increased revenue.

i think your 94 game season is too long. let's face it, if anything the NHL season is already too long. yeah, i like watching hockey and if it were up to me it'd go on year-round. but for casual fans, it can be hard to follow for 82 games. that's the genius of football - with only 16 games, each one is a spectacle with huge implications for the playoff picture. most fans would rather spend $150 apiece on season tickets to 8 broncos games than $25 apiece on avs season tickets. you probably already set aside all your sundays (monday nights, and thanksgiving) to watch football. very few people try to watch all 82 hockey games. i do and you do, but if you want to grow the sport and make it more appealing to the general population, their attention span isn't that long. god forbid, i don't want a 16 game NHL season, but lengthening it is a step in the wrong direction. i'm sure someone at the NHL has done the math - it's better to have the stadiums 90% full for 80 games than 95% full for 70 games or 85% full for 90 games (don't check that math, it's a hypothetical).

plus you'll just have to put asterisks on every record because they had a longer season to do it in (already Brodeur's win record is bullshit because if you take away his OT and SO wins, he's far under the previous record of 47, and that was a smaller rule change than adding 12 games). and if my plan puts it at 90, then yours puts it at 100; you're still adding 10 games.

also, profit sharing is a good idea. i don't really know what the current plan calls for, but they could probably use more of it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]protectorwind
2007-05-28 04:49 pm UTC (link)
See, I'm no good with math, so I can't add properly. And, if 82 is too much, why not make the schedule shorter? Only do 2 (1 home, 1 away) in conference. That would make the season shorter, and make points more important.

I think that no matter what you do to the schedule, someone won't like it...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-05-28 07:17 pm UTC (link)
shortening it is always an option. i basically just wanted to see every eastern team at home once per year, so that's 30 games. the 24 in-division and 30 in-conference games basically come from trying to balance the playoff race so that it's still weighted towards your division and secondarily to your conference. if you play in-conference teams 1 home and 1 away (same as opposite conference), you only play 44 in-conference games and 30 cross-conference games. really, i wasn't trying to shorten the season with my plan; i was actually trying to stay close to the current 82-game schedule and not rock the boat either direction (the NHL played 84 game seasons in 92-92 and 93-94).

but, if i had to shorten the season, i'd play opposing conference once (rotating home-ice each year), in-conference 3 times, and in-division 6 times. that would put you at 69 games. that would still give you strong divisional races (24 of your 69 games), weight the playoff races towards conference performance (30 games) but give you the novelty of seeing your team play (albeit half the time on TV) all of the other conference's teams (15).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]protectorwind
2007-05-29 06:23 pm UTC (link)
Seems reasonable to me. Plus, your plan would put the Leafs in town every other year, as well as Crosby and Ovechkin. Fans would be able to see everything, so I'd accept that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(7 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…