How To Fix The NHL

[scomvp316]

I have been a rabid hockey fan for nearly thirty years. I have some concepts that could fix the NHL and lets see what the casual and hardcore hockey fan thinks.

The league should only have between 17-25 Teams
Go back to the conference and division names before Bettman was hired
Re-align the conference to one has majority US Teams and the other has majority Canadian Teams
US Conference:
Boston
NY Rangers
NY Islanders
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
New Jersey
Washington
Carolina
St. Louis
Chicago
Colorado
Las Vegas
Anaheim
Los Angeles
Canadian Conference:
Buffalo
Detroit
Minnesota
Montreal
Quebec
Toronto
Ottawa
Winnipeg
Calgary
Edmonton
Vancouver

Playoff Tree should be set-up with a US Teams vs Canadien Team with the hope that the Finals would have USA vs Canada
Ice Surface should be Olympic size
Shoot Out should be eliminated
OT Format should be first ten minutes is 5 On 5 and if still tied the final ten minutes of OT should be 4 On 4
Win in Regulation and first half of OT-3 Points
Loss in regulation and first half of OT-0 Points
Win in second half of OT-2 Points
Loss in second half of OT-1 Point
Ties- Each team gets a .5 Point

Hockey Hall of Fame game should be a outdoor game between the best US Teams vs Canadian Team of the previous seaon based off of regular season points
Hockey Day in Canada should be a outdoor game of a Original Six Match-Up
Hockey Day in US should be an outdoor game
Salary Cap should not go above 55%
Cap should only go up half a % when the league increased revenue by $500 mill
DVD/Blu Ray business is weak in the NHL and every year before the start of the season the complete previous Playoff year should be released via anthology set or fans can purchase individual series
Archives of Playoff rivalaries should be released on DVD
One set that I think would sell well would be all televised games between Boston/Montreal
TSN,CBC,and Roger Sports channels should be accessible through cable systems in US hockey markets
Out of Market Playoff games before Championship Rounds should be available on NHL Center Ice
NHL Network should expand to a channel that replays all Playoff games in their original entirety from the NHL Archives
Have all of the Online Team Channels from NHL.com be available in out of market locations much like Leafs TV might be launched outside of Ontario within the next year

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Do you have data to suggest that any of these purported changes would actually benefit the NHL? If not, I'm afraid this thread screams of misguided anger with Gary Bettman, masquerading as a ploy to "fix" the NHL—a league that has seen it's revenue skyrocket under his reign from $400 million a year to $3.3 billion annually.

Please explain to me how a league that has made eight times what it did prior to Bettman coming on board, needs to be "fixed"?

 

[Poop Master Flex]

There is only 1 way and 1 way only to get more people watching the NHL again (outside of the players and owners settling on a CBA and just get back to actually playing) and that is new stars.

Basketball didn't become popular until 2 guys named Larry Bird and Magic Johnson came along who were then succeeded by Michael Jordan, probably the greatest player of all time. Boxing was at its best when there were great fighters like Ali, Frazier and Tyson coming out and doing their thing. Football always has guys so its always gonna be popular but hockey hasn't really recovered since Gretzky left. Sid and Alexander the Great are great players but people don't like Ovi because he's so cocky and with Crosby he either seems to get the reputation of a whiner or he's hurt. The truth is if there aren't amazing G.O.A.T. caliber players that casual fans can get behind ratings can only go so high.

I do think they should get the NHL out of markets that don't give a shit about hockey no matter how good their team is, there's an issue when I go to a Western Conference Final game in California and the Arrowhead pond is half full, just saying. These lockouts aren't helping things either. I know a lot of people who never watched another NHL game after the '04-'05 lockout and many more (myself included) have almost given up on the NHL because of this years lockout. Even if its a situation where the NHLPA is 100% in the right (for the record they aren't) it just makes them look greedy plain and simple. Most people don't care why they aren't playing, they only care that they aren't playing.

Outside of the lockouts and the over abundance of abysmal NHL markets there really isn't much wrong with the NHL, after the 04-05 lockout I had a blast watching hockey.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

There is only 1 way and 1 way only to get more people watching the NHL again (outside of the players and owners settling on a CBA and just get back to actually playing) and that is new stars.

Basketball didn't become popular until 2 guys named Larry Bird and Magic Johnson came along who were then succeeded by Michael Jordan, probably the greatest player of all time. Boxing was at its best when there were great fighters like Ali, Frazier and Tyson coming out and doing their thing. Football always has guys so its always gonna be popular but hockey hasn't really recovered since Gretzky left. Sid and Alexander the Great are great players but people don't like Ovi because he's so cocky and with Crosby he either seems to get the reputation of a whiner or he's hurt. The truth is if there aren't amazing G.O.A.T. caliber players that casual fans can get behind ratings can only go so high.

I do think they should get the NHL out of markets that don't give a shit about hockey no matter how good their team is, there's an issue when I go to a Western Conference Final game in California and the Arrowhead pond is half full, just saying. These lockouts aren't helping things either. I know a lot of people who never watched another NHL game after the '04-'05 lockout and many more (myself included) have almost given up on the NHL because of this years lockout. Even if its a situation where the NHLPA is 100% in the right (for the record they aren't) it just makes them look greedy plain and simple. Most people don't care why they aren't playing, they only care that they aren't playing.

Outside of the lockouts and the over abundance of abysmal NHL markets there really isn't much wrong with the NHL, after the 04-05 lockout I had a blast watching hockey.

Every star has his knocks. Gretzky was just as big a whiner as Crosby, if not worse, as was Lemieux — it didn't stop either of them from dominating the sport, and the spotlight.

Arrowhead Pond was selling out left-and-right when the Ducks won the Stanley Cup a few years back, so I also completely disagree with this idea that the NHL should "move out of markets that don't give a shit about hockey", because it doesn't exist. Every market cares about hockey, and every market cares about it's team, but in sports (period), winning is what breeds sale. No one wants to pay to see a loser, which is why the Islanders are now moving to Brooklyn. What happened to the fans they had from the 80's and 90's? They stopped being fans, and stopped showing up, because the team on the ice is miserable.

The only two markets right now that seem unsustainable (and remember, unsustainable does not mean "does not give a shit", as Winnipeg and Québec were both unsustainable before) are Phoenix and Columbus — a winning culture can go a long way to changing that, and if not, relocation.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Every star has his knocks. Gretzky was just as big a whiner as Crosby, if not worse, as was Lemieux — it didn't stop either of them from dominating the sport, and the spotlight.

Let me reiterate my original statement. Gretzky and Lemieux were still overwhelmingly popular and more popular than the NHL in general. Back in those days even if a team was abysmal they would still often sell out games when Gretzky and Lemieux were in their respective cities. They most certainly had their knocks, I won't dispute that but I would still hear often how great they were on the ice. Sidney's a great player, I think injuries have hurt him more than anything but for whatever reason 9 times out of 10 I hear about Sid its always negative. I don't necessarily agree with the hate but it is what it is. To me it seems like Sid and Alex rub people the wrong way, almost to the point it overshadows their skills in the fans eyes. Now I don't live in the North Eastern states where these guys play, I don't how people talk about these guys down there but I certainly know how they talk about these guys in Western Alberta and the amount of hate these guys get up here is crazy. Calgarians hate Crosby more than Gretzky and considering Gretzky was an Oiler that's quite the feat.

Arrowhead Pond was selling out left-and-right when the Ducks won the Stanley Cup a few years back, so I also completely disagree with this idea that the NHL should "move out of markets that don't give a shit about hockey", because it doesn't exist. Every market cares about hockey, and every market cares about it's team, but in sports (period), winning is what breeds sale. No one wants to pay to see a loser, which is why the Islanders are now moving to Brooklyn. What happened to the fans they had from the 80's and 90's? They stopped being fans, and stopped showing up, because the team on the ice is miserable.

That's true in most cases but not all. For example both Calgary and Edmonton have no issues packing in fans even when their teams suck, same could be said about Toronto and numerous other cities. I will say though when I was in Anaheim in '06 and went to Game 1 of the Western Conference Finals between Anaheim and Edmonton I was shocked to see a half full arena. From a hockey loving country that just blew my mind. I just think it shouldn't take a Stanley Cup to have a strong market. The year Anaheim won the cup I think most people knew it was gonna be a cup year for them so it made sense to have sell outs but the year before when they still did pretty damn good they really didn't have much of a fanbase from what I saw.

The only two markets right now that seem unsustainable (and remember, unsustainable does not mean "does not give a shit", as Winnipeg and Québec were both unsustainable before) are Phoenix and Columbus — a winning culture can go a long way to changing that, and if not, relocation.

I will say I agree winning can go a long way but there are definitely markets where hockey just isn't that popular no matter how much they win. You mentioned Phoenix but the last few years they have had winning seasons but it hasn't changed things much there.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Let me reiterate my original statement. Gretzky and Lemieux were still overwhelmingly popular and more popular than the NHL in general. Back in those days even if a team was abysmal they would still often sell out games when Gretzky and Lemieux were in their respective cities. They most certainly had their knocks, I won't dispute that but I would still hear often how great they were on the ice. Sidney's a great player, I think injuries have hurt him more than anything but for whatever reason 9 times out of 10 I hear about Sid its always negative. I don't necessarily agree with the hate but it is what it is. To me it seems like Sid and Alex rub people the wrong way, almost to the point it overshadows their skills in the fans eyes. Now I don't live in the North Eastern states where these guys play, I don't how people talk about these guys down there but I certainly know how they talk about these guys in Western Alberta and the amount of hate these guys get up here is crazy. Calgarians hate Crosby more than Gretzky and considering Gretzky was an Oiler that's quite the feat.

This is sort of a misnomer, or at the very least a bit of a false pretense. Crosby isn't actually that hated — it's the NHL machine churning behind him that that true hatred is targeted at, similar to the "hatred" for Gary Bettman when it's actually the NHL Board of Governors making the decisions, with him as a spokesman. The hate for him has grown as a result of both his attitude and play on the ice, but it's made a thousand times worse because of the fact that the NHL chooses to push him as a bit of a poster boy. "Hardcore" fans hate poster boys — especially ones not on their club, and most especially ones that aren't consummate professionals.

That's true in most cases but not all. For example both Calgary and Edmonton have no issues packing in fans even when their teams suck, same could be said about Toronto and numerous other cities. I will say though when I was in Anaheim in '06 and went to Game 1 of the Western Conference Finals between Anaheim and Edmonton I was shocked to see a half full arena. From a hockey loving country that just blew my mind. I just think it shouldn't take a Stanley Cup to have a strong market. The year Anaheim won the cup I think most people knew it was gonna be a cup year for them so it made sense to have sell outs but the year before when they still did pretty damn good they really didn't have much of a fanbase from what I saw.

Well, something we're not touching on here, which is also a major contributor here, is advertising. The reason Toronto has no issue packing in fans is because they have corporate money there to keep the team well above the water, even when they're awful (like now). The same goes for Edmonton and Calgary, and most Canadian franchises. This is why I made note of the fact that markets that don't give a shit about hockey" don't actually exist. Every market, even ones like Phoenix and Columbus, give a shit. The problem is that those markets also struggle mightily with securing corporate sponsorship, which makes all the day-to-day/hockey operations that much tighter to work with, which in turn results in less money to spend on stars as a means to help to sell the team as a contender each year. It's all cyclical, but it starts (and ends) with icing a competitive team. The worse off you are on the ice, generally speaking, the worse off you will be in the bank, and the worse off you are in the bank, the worse off you will be on the ice.

I will say I agree winning can go a long way but there are definitely markets where hockey just isn't that popular no matter how much they win. You mentioned Phoenix but the last few years they have had winning seasons but it hasn't changed things much there.

Sure has. Look at the attendance figures.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

Phoenix 2011-12: AVG of 12,420 (72.5%) — placed 3rd in the West
Phoenix: 2010-11: AVG of 12, 188 (71.2%) — placed 6th in the West
Phoenix: 2009-10: AVG of 11,989 (68.5%) — placed 4th in the West

They're on the rise again, and all of this with an incredibly unstable ownership situation, which has seriously damaged their ability to compete in the free agent market.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

This is sort of a misnomer, or at the very least a bit of a false pretense. Crosby isn't actually that hated — it's the NHL machine churning behind him that that true hatred is targeted at, similar to the "hatred" for Gary Bettman when it's actually the NHL Board of Governors making the decisions, with him as a spokesman. The hate for him has grown as a result of both his attitude and play on the ice, but it's made a thousand times worse because of the fact that the NHL chooses to push him as a bit of a poster boy. "Hardcore" fans hate poster boys — especially ones not on their club, and most especially ones that aren't consummate professionals.

This is actually a very good point. I'll be the first to admit my major issues with Crosby initially was that he was the poster boy before he played 1 NHL game. That hatred from my POV is gone as I feel Crosby has since proved himself and he's a phenomenal player but its true that ton's of hardcore fan's hate the poster boy because he's a poster boy. The same could be said for Lebron as well.

Well, something we're not touching on here, which is also a major contributor here, is advertising. The reason Toronto has no issue packing in fans is because they have corporate money there to keep the team well above the water, even when they're awful (like now). The same goes for Edmonton and Calgary, and most Canadian franchises. This is why I made note of the fact that markets that don't give a shit about hockey" don't actually exist. Every market, even ones like Phoenix and Columbus, give a shit. The problem is that those markets also struggle mightily with securing corporate sponsorship, which makes all the day-to-day/hockey operations that much tighter to work with, which in turn results in less money to spend on stars as a means to help to sell the team as a contender each year. It's all cyclical, but it starts (and ends) with icing a competitive team. The worse off you are on the ice, generally speaking, the worse off you will be in the bank, and the worse off you are in the bank, the worse off you will be on the ice.

That's very true for the most part. Canadian cities don't have these issues because outside of Toronto every Canadian city has 1 pro sports team (unless you count the CFL) and considering Canada is a hockey hotbed its easy to sell hockey here. When you are in lets say Anaheim and you have 2 of everything in pro sports its a lot harder to secure advertising especially when you have a horrendous team. That's also why San Jose has a good fan base as well.

Sure has. Look at the attendance figures.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

Phoenix 2011-12: AVG of 12,420 (72.5%) — placed 3rd in the West
Phoenix: 2010-11: AVG of 12, 188 (71.2%) — placed 6th in the West
Phoenix: 2009-10: AVG of 11,989 (68.5%) — placed 4th in the West

They're on the rise again, and all of this with an incredibly unstable ownership situation, which has seriously damaged their ability to compete in the free agent market.

You mentioned Phoenix is a unsustainable market for hockey and there seems to be quite a few out there. Looking at your numbers and especially how much Phoenix has improved I think its not a good sign when your team wins the division and they can only average less than 500 fans a game more so I don't know if I would call the Coyotes a team "on the rise". I guess what I'm saying is I can look at lets say the NFL and their markets and no matter how bad a team is they can still do a decent job of packing in fans (KC for example). It just seems that in a lot of NHL markets unless they are championship caliber they don't do that well. Tampa Bay had issues selling out regular season games the year they won the cup which is quite the eyebrow raiser. Maybe not giving a shit is a bad term but it does seem like there are more than a few unsustainable markets out there.

 

[scomvp316]

I love it when some fans at least try to talk about hockey when they don't know the real facts. So hockey is important in Tampa but in 04 when they made the Finals thay had to give away almost 60% of their tickets to make it look like a sellout crowd. You mention when Bettman took over they were making $400 mill and now they make 3.3 bill. When you add new teams you will make more money its simple economics. The one thing Bettman worked on since 93 was make the games more accessible via digital markets. Its a known fact Finals that depict US Teams vs Canadian Teams sells very well to both markets. Expanding the ice level the super majority of NHLPA has been wanting this to happen since 02. The one thing Bettman does get credit for under his leadership the game has improved from a marketing standpoint. Tampa is on their third owner and Anaheim is going through its fourth owner in seven years. Hockey isn't popular in Phoenix,any teams in Florida,Nashville,Columbus. Some of the markets that are encouraging are San Jose as long as they are winning and surprising Dallas. Hockey has been considerably popular in Northwest Texas and Western Oklahoma for well over two decades. The one non-hockey climate that has strived even when their teams isn't doing well is Carolina. Hockey has grown in US not because of more NHL Teams but because of the success of US Teams in the Olympics and World Juniors. My ideas in the OP are ideas expressed by hockey fans all over the world mostly of US and Canadian fans. I welcome the debate but if you make any sport more accessible via digital markets you will sell more tickets and merchandise

 

[scomvp316]

Every fan knows a US vs Canadian match-ups is a great storyline which is desperately needed in the NHL. It also garners both fans of those markets with emotion which is lacking in this sport for a very very longtime. Any casual hockey fan that thinks re-setting the conferences and having every First Round Game of US vs Canada won't work doesn't know the sport and its fans. The Outdoor Game is a specialized event that should be played for special occasions. Those occasions are HOF Game,Hockey Day In Canada,and Hockey Day In America. Actually last year Heritage Classic the Outdoor Game in Calgary had a higher tv rating,sold out quicker,and had higher sponsor money than the Winter Classic. Most fans and players despise Bettman because he's not a hockey guy and Bettman last year stated he was still learning the game and its fans. Almost two decades and he still doesn't know the game and its fans and this guy is hockey's savior? My ideas was how to improve the game from a presentation level for regular season,OT,Playoffs, and the digital markets. These ideas come from fans,players,and many involved in hockey management of teams of all levels and not a anti-Bettman stance

 

[It's Damn Real!]

You mentioned Phoenix is a unsustainable market for hockey and there seems to be quite a few out there. Looking at your numbers and especially how much Phoenix has improved I think its not a good sign when your team wins the division and they can only average less than 500 fans a game more so I don't know if I would call the Coyotes a team "on the rise". I guess what I'm saying is I can look at lets say the NFL and their markets and no matter how bad a team is they can still do a decent job of packing in fans (KC for example). It just seems that in a lot of NHL markets unless they are championship caliber they don't do that well. Tampa Bay had issues selling out regular season games the year they won the cup which is quite the eyebrow raiser. Maybe not giving a shit is a bad term but it does seem like there are more than a few unsustainable markets out there.

Well remember — the ownership situation has landed big time to just how much they've struggled the last three years. Prior to that they were actually averaging closer to 14,500 fans a year, which is a number that would actually sustain the club without issue were they able to match it consistently. A solidified ownership situation would go a long way into helping them regain that sort of stability, and if an ownership group can't be found within a reasonable time frame (as the Jamison deal seems to have fallen through completely at this point), then the team needs to be relocated, just as the Thrashers were.

The NHL can't really be compared to the NFL here, because the NFL plays just 16 games a season. Add to that fact that it's the single most popular sport in the US and you've got a big apples and oranges scenario on your hands.

I get what you are saying, and I don't really disagree in principle, but as I've illustrated already, fielding a competitive team has proven in the past to be a recipe for success, even for expansion franchises. The problem is that none have been able to sustain that success, which also lends to why they tend not to retain that fan base year-to-year.

Something else we haven't touched on much yet is also the youth hockey presence, as well as high school and college level cultures in these areas. Northern Texas, for example, as well as Oklahoma actually have a very strong youth hockey culture already in place, which is why tickets to a Houston Aeros game are actually a difficult buy on any given game night. Cities that embrace this tend to find longer-term success, because at the end of the day, a youth hockey system in place in a city with an expansion team serves as something of a farm system for breeding new generations of fans. San José has embraced this big time, especially with the rise of youth hockey in Southern California.

I love it when some fans at least try to talk about hockey when they don't know the real facts. So hockey is important in Tampa but in 04 when they made the Finals thay had to give away almost 60% of their tickets to make it look like a sellout crowd. You mention when Bettman took over they were making $400 mill and now they make 3.3 bill. When you add new teams you will make more money its simple economics. The one thing Bettman worked on since 93 was make the games more accessible via digital markets. Its a known fact Finals that depict US Teams vs Canadian Teams sells very well to both markets. Expanding the ice level the super majority of NHLPA has been wanting this to happen since 02. The one thing Bettman does get credit for under his leadership the game has improved from a marketing standpoint. Tampa is on their third owner and Anaheim is going through its fourth owner in seven years. Hockey isn't popular in Phoenix,any teams in Florida,Nashville,Columbus. Some of the markets that are encouraging are San Jose as long as they are winning and surprising Dallas. Hockey has been considerably popular in Northwest Texas and Western Oklahoma for well over two decades. The one non-hockey climate that has strived even when their teams isn't doing well is Carolina. Hockey has grown in US not because of more NHL Teams but because of the success of US Teams in the Olympics and World Juniors. My ideas in the OP are ideas expressed by hockey fans all over the world mostly of US and Canadian fans. I welcome the debate but if you make any sport more accessible via digital markets you will sell more tickets and merchandise

Yes, simple economics, that prove that he's taken the NHL from $400 Million to $3.3 Billion — exactly eight and a half times what the NHL was making when Bettman took over in 1993. Wanna know how many teams have been added since 1993? Four. Nashville, Minnesota, Columbus and Atlanta. Four others moved — Québec to Colorado, Minnesota to Dallas, Winnipeg to Phoenix and Hartford to Carolina. All others were already in place by the NHL expansion committee before he even took office, including all the clubs in the South West (minus Phoenix).

You really think adding Nashville (a club that nearly went bankrupt), Minnesota, Columbus and Atlanta (who had to move back to Winnipeg), and relocating four others (two of which are choking financially right now [Colorado, Phoenix]) equates to the financial GAIN in difference between $3.3 Billion and $400 Million? Are you serious? I think your economic principles need reevaluation.

The game is doing eight and a half times better, financially speaking, than it was before he took office. They just signed a 10-year/$2 Billion dollar contract with NBC Sports.

Bettman isn't without his criticisms, and a number of them would be pinned on his decisions to open a second franchise in Atlanta — a market that had already failed once, Columbus — a market that has never shown any semblance of hockey culture/acceptance, and Phoenix — though at the time they were one of the fastest growing cities in the US, so I do understand why that decision was made. But the vitriol he gets laced with as though he's driven the sport into the ground is absurdly misplaced and inappropriate.

But hey, if you don't think I know what I'm talking about, then continue to think it. Facts are facts, regardless of whether you choose to believe them or not.

 

[scomvp316]

Actually the teams he help to add that most have not been highly successful over a long-term tenure are Anaheim,San Jose,Phoenix,Dallas,Nashville,Columbus,Tampa Bay,Florida,Atlanta. The one exception is obvious Dallas who during most of their tenure they have made the playoffs. There is no doubt Nordiques and North Stars had to move. I believe when Bettman took over there were only 17 teams in the league. He does get credit for the success for Dallas,Colorado,San Jose,Anaheim,and Carolina. Many critics believe most of those markets hockey wouldn't last. If you read my post I mentioned the best thing Bettman did was expand the league digitally and doing that will increase your profit margin for both tickets and merchandise. There was nothing wrong with the old names for the divisions and conferences because thats what made the NHL unique compared to other leagues. People who made mass sacrifices and success to hockey were honored other than just naming trophies after them. The ideas I mentioned I know most of them will not see the light of day because of the lack of marketing ideas from the top brass of the NHL. The one idea that did has worked for the NHL was NHL Center Ice. Bettman completely screwed those fans over by having a deal with NBCUniversal in the last playoff session. Most of the highest rating for NHL Center Ice Games were out of market playoff games. The ratings on NBCUniversal compared to the previous year of playoff games were as much as 50% decline. People can talk about how many total viewers NBC got but thats over multiple channels and if any fan figures out the total viewers divided by playoff games thats around 2.5 mill fans which would equate to about 1.6-1.8 rating. I have played hockey semi-professional and my family owns a hockey retail store in Canada so I do know the history of the game and what could and should work. That doesn't mean other fans know more or less than I do and their opinion is valued as much as anyones. I find it comical when any type of fans might say hockey works in warm climates and the only new warmer climate teams that have been successful are Carolina,Dallas,and Anaheim. All most all of the teams Bettman has added have been a failure on most levels except the previous three teams I have mentioned!

 

[scomvp316]

I apologize for some of misinformation. Actually Bettman under his leadership has added a total of six teams. Thats what happens when you have multiple dates in your head when teams came into existence. I do welcome an open forum discussion and wonder what concepts some fans think could increase viewership for the NHL?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Actually the teams he help to add that most have not been highly successful over a long-term tenure are Anaheim,San Jose,Phoenix,Dallas,Nashville,Columbus,Tampa Bay,Florida,Atlanta. The one exception is obvious Dallas who during most of their tenure they have made the playoffs. There is no doubt Nordiques and North Stars had to move. I believe when Bettman took over there were only 17 teams in the league. He does get credit for the success for Dallas,Colorado,San Jose,Anaheim,and Carolina. Many critics believe most of those markets hockey wouldn't last. If you read my post I mentioned the best thing Bettman did was expand the league digitally and doing that will increase your profit margin for both tickets and merchandise. There was nothing wrong with the old names for the divisions and conferences because thats what made the NHL unique compared to other leagues. People who made mass sacrifices and success to hockey were honored other than just naming trophies after them. The ideas I mentioned I know most of them will not see the light of day because of the lack of marketing ideas from the top brass of the NHL. The one idea that did has worked for the NHL was NHL Center Ice. Bettman completely screwed those fans over by having a deal with NBCUniversal in the last playoff session. Most of the highest rating for NHL Center Ice Games were out of market playoff games. The ratings on NBCUniversal compared to the previous year of playoff games were as much as 50% decline. People can talk about how many total viewers NBC got but thats over multiple channels and if any fan figures out the total viewers divided by playoff games thats around 2.5 mill fans which would equate to about 1.6-1.8 rating. I have played hockey semi-professional and my family owns a hockey retail store in Canada so I do know the history of the game and what could and should work. That doesn't mean other fans know more or less than I do and their opinion is valued as much as anyones. I find it comical when any type of fans might say hockey works in warm climates and the only new warmer climate teams that have been successful are Carolina,Dallas,and Anaheim. All most all of the teams Bettman has added have been a failure on most levels except the previous three teams I have mentioned!

Florida and Anaheim were in place before Bettman took office. The NHL expansion committee already had those wheels greased and in motion. The teams took effect for the 93-94 season, but the plan to put them in motion was already in place.

If you read the other half of my last post, you'd also see that I don't champion Bettman's decisions to move into "untraditional" markets. One of the biggest selling points for establishing hockey culture, as I'm sure you are aware, is the presence of youth hockey in the community. It's quite difficult, as you can imagine, to get that going when your'e dealing with a town with an average yearly temperature of 80 degrees or so. That's not to say it's not possible, as Anaheim and San José can attest to, but for the most part it's a risky business.

But regardless of that fact, you simply cannot deny that the financial situation of the NHL, despite THREE work stoppages under Bettman's watch, has been tremendously successful — much more so than prior to his coming into office.

Something most people don't realize is that Bettman really isn't the puppet master — he's the straw man the BOG allow to burn in front of their agendas. If you have major issues with the financial decisions made in the last decade plus, talk to Jeremy Jacobs and Ed Snider.

 

[justinsayne]

You want to "fix" the NHL then get the players & owners to fucking agree long-term on CBA. The only thing, or at least the biggest thing, keeping the NHL from moving forward is them having a damn lockout ever 8-10 yrs. They product we're getting on the ice right now is great, their playoff format is by far the best & provides some of the most exciting moments in sports today. Aside from lockout after lockout after lockout, the NHL is doing great, & just keeps getting better.

 

[scomvp316]

The smartest thing Bettman did was he took the NHL out of the dark ages where most teams were seen on tv regionally and he helped making NHL Center Ice more accessible over newer cable systems. NHL Games are being seen all over the world now via streaming and cable/satellite providers. I believe the NHL was the first sport in NA to have their games streamed live online. The only problem I have with Bettman is his stance on Canadian Franchises. It seems Bettman tries everything to keep US Teams where they are but when it comes to some Canadian Franchises that are struggling he's so quick to move those clubs to the US. Back in 02 Bettman wanted to move the Flames and didn't understand the importance of the Flames to the community. Only one owner voted to move the Flames and then the following season they made it the SC Finals. Bettman should get praise in taking the NHL out of the dark ages with exceptional revenue increases and major increases in ad revenues that didn't exist before he became the Commish! Many fans believe he is a Anti-Canadian Commish with his stances on Canadian Franchises and the continuance of The Heritage Classic

 

[scomvp316]

I do believe with positive presentation changes will drastically affect the NHL's bottom line which we all have seen since 05-06 Season. The one way to enhance the presentation is expand the ice sheet to Olympic Size Ice. This would cut down concussions up the middle of the ice as the game would be played even faster as we see in European Leagues concussions are a non-factor as older players and overly physical players would have to learn how to skate to keep up with the game. The one thing the NHL must do is when TSN and CBC in 2014 are re-negotiating their rights to carry NHL Games then those two networks should be available in most hockey markets in the US. I do know for a fact TSN has considered in the past to air their programming in the US outside of Detroit and Buffalo which some cable/satellite subscribers get during the NHL season. I have talked to alot of fans and people involved with NHL about the possibility of re-alignment of conferences with the idea of having one conference with majority of canadian teams and the other conference with majority of US teams. For some fans to see what the conferences should or could look like look at my OP in this thread. I do think with past SC Finals the casual US hockey fan will tune into certain games in the Finals being supportive for their country's NHL team. The raw emotion of US vs Canada in NHL match-ups in the Playoffs is much higher than a routine playoff match-up. I think all First Round Match-Ups of US vs Canada will be easily sold to advertisers and even ESPN would consider some sort of partnership with NBCUniversal after seeing the first year of this concept if ratings were to be up around 25-33%. The last part is about the Outdoor Games. This concept of outdoor games gets back to the roots of all hockey fans especially the ones who have played this great game at some level. These games should only be played on special occasions. HOF game should pit the two best teams based off of the previous regular season's points of a US Team vs Canadian Team. The other two games should involve a Original Six Team but the game should be played in Canada on Hockey Day In Canada. The final game should be played in the US on the day of Hockey Day In America.

 

[braveh]

Not much will ever change about hockey because the fans are a bunch of never-change-anything-know-it-alls.

• Hockey stats are stupid, a player could potentially win the stats rankings by just being on the ice a lot. Every player on the ice gets the assist point it seems.
  
• If every team a fixed first line it would be easier for casual fans to get know the players and maybe one or two of them could become celebrities. Now it's FOUR lines with players being thrown around back and forth all the time. Yeah there's a lot of players in football too but in fotball the QB is so important you don't have to pay attention to much else if you're a casual viewer. You're going to tell me goalie is the QB of hockey?
  
• Help me follow the puck on tv. When they tried the fox puck the hockey fans went nuts. Sorry they tried to bring in casual fans.

 

[scomvp316]

Actually most hardcore hockey fans are willing to change the rules if they make sense and don't damage the game. After the third pass is made and a goal is scored it counts as an unassisted goal. The old age argument of not following the puck has been DQ'd with the technology of HDTV and HD cameras that most networks use. If you don't know stars of certain teams and the faces of the league then you must not follow hockey much. Most of the big stars are the goalies and last time I checked much like QB's and Catchers in other sports is equally important.

 

[braveh]

Actually most hardcore hockey fans are willing to change the rules if they make sense and don't damage the game. A

Point in case: You! "Make hockey popular again but wah wah wah don't change anything"

After the third pass is made and a goal is scored it counts as an unassisted goal.

Ridiculous. It makes most of the hockey stats a big joke.

The old age argument of not following the puck has been DQ'd with the technology of HDTV and HD cameras that most networks use.

And how many people now watch highlight reels on youtube and on their smartphones?

 

[scomvp316]

The real question is are you even a hockey fan? You sound alot like the majority of anti-hockey fans. The assisted play argument is the same rule they have in basketball as well. There is a small percentage of hockey fans that would enjoy games that would end it scores such as 5-4,6-5,and 7-6. If you read some of my posts I had given ideas that fans and management of the whole hockey spectrum have shared over the last few years. Go and read my posts in this thread and then come back and discuss what you think is good or can work and if there are some ideas you don't like I welcome your opinion. Also give some ideas some reasonable ideas that you think would work that doesn't damage the tradition of this great sport!

 

[scomvp316]

My ideas are from a presentation standpoint. The assist argument makes no sense just because there aren't guys approaching the numbers of Gretzky and Lemieux did with over 200 points. Your argument points are the same type of arguments that anti-hockey fans have been making for quite some time now. Like I mentioned before take a look at some of my posts in this thread and make comments on whether you like those ideas or not. Feel free to give some ideas that make sense and won't harm the integrity of the game

 

[It's Damn Real!]

The "I can't see the puck" argument is flawed, and an argument that is completely full of shit. Wanna know why?

The size of a puck is approximately 1" thick and 3" in diameter.

By comparison, the size of a tennis ball is between 2.5 and 2.58" — SMALLER than a hockey puck, yet I'm willing to bet NO ONE complains about not being able to see the ball in tennis, eh?

But lemme guess... you can see the tennis ball on the highlights on YouTube or your smartphone? Bullshit.

 

[justinsayne]

If you can't see a black puck on white ice, you need to get your vision checked. That complaint has always been fucking stupid to me. I remember when Fox had the NHL & they introduced the stupid glowing puck, that shit was fucking annoying, anytime the puck was up against the boards it appeared as if it was 3 rows deep in the crowd, & it never made it easier to follow at all, & cost Fox something like $2.5 Mil. to get everything set up to use it per game. it was a waste of money & just looked stupid. With HD tv if you can't see a think black dot on a giant white surface, than you either are not paying attention to the game at all or have a serious vision problem.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

If you can't see a black puck on white ice, you need to get your vision checked. That complaint has always been fucking stupid to me. I remember when Fox had the NHL & they introduced the stupid glowing puck, that shit was fucking annoying, anytime the puck was up against the boards it appeared as if it was 3 rows deep in the crowd, & it never made it easier to follow at all, & cost Fox something like $2.5 Mil. to get everything set up to use it per game. it was a waste of money & just looked stupid. With HD tv if you can't see a think black dot on a giant white surface, than you either are not paying attention to the game at all or have a serious vision problem.

Or don't actually watch the game enough to understand the mechanics of it. Everyone who watches hockey knows you almost never "watch the puck". You watch the play, and the puck actually follows. It's why the main camera man is almost always right on top of it, and rarely focusing on an area of the ice where the puck is not.

I also agree that HDTV has come a long way to shoring up the complaints behind the "I can't see the puck" crowd, but I also don't really think that the vast majority of that crowd are actually fans. They're people who put a hockey game on for 30 seconds, go "this is dumb" and then complain about every little arbitrary thing as a means for their not wanting to watch. Their mind was made up well before they "couldn't see the puck".

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I think contraction is necessary. Let's face reality. Hockey is not a sport that is naturally popular everywhere (I'm referring to the United States in particular). Kids in Florida don't grow up aspiring to be hockey players or grow up playing hockey. Same goes for Phoenix, and North Carolina, and other warm weather climates. YES I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THESE AREAS THAT PLAY HOCKEY. However, it's not nearly as common as basketball, baseball or football. I live in Michigan and kids DO grow up playing hockey and many kids pick up a hockey stick before a baskeball, baseball, etc. But that's because we're a cold weather climate and have a long history of hockey, in terms of popularity.

So, because this sport is a cold weather sport by nature and isn't popular (in general) in the warm weather climates, those teams unfortunately need to be contracted. What they've done is force a market where there isn't one. Does Florida need one team let alone two? Carolina? Nashville? Sure, those areas have good fanbases now because those teams have had success but people are always going to cheer for a winner. As soon as those teams stink, you've got no fans. So, of course those markets are going to struggle.

If Bettman is so against contraction, then at the very least, he should continue to relocate. How does Seattle not have a team but Florida has two and Phoenix has one (for the time being)? How does Quebec not have a team anymore. Put your teams in areas where you'll have a fan base and then these teams, even "small market" ones won't struggle? How is there not a team in Wisconsin, a hockey hotbed? How is there not one in Maine?


Another thing I think needs to happen is a TV deal with ESPN. The league has many, many young players who would be marketable. But when you're on podunk networks and have national games on NBC once a week for only part of the year, how do you expect these stars to be exposed to the "casual fan" and even "non-fan?" I realize the league would get less of a percentage of the TV money by making a deal with ESPN but ESPN markets the shit out of teams, players, leagues, etc. That's what this league needs right now. People that have never heard of Crosby, Nash, Malkin, Ovechkin, etc. need to have these guys shoved in their face and that's exactly what ESPN would do.


All of this is easier said than done obviously but these are my thoughts.