si.com's Alan Muir Q&A with Bettman

[WingsZR2 1]

A couple of weeks ago si.com ran an article giving fans a chance to submit a question that Muir would ask Bettman.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writ...view/index.html

60% of fans are happy with the current schedule. I want names and addresses.

[yzerman&thewings=CUP 0]

A couple of weeks ago si.com ran an article giving fans a chance to submit a question that Muir would ask Bettman.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writ...view/index.html

60% of fans are happy with the current schedule. I want names and addresses.

like Betman himself says, he's like a politician, so why are you surprised he's spinning facts in his favor just like a politician would?

[GoWings1905 2,694]

The 60% is from Eastern Conference fans that get 7:00 start times all season and only have to travel outside their time zone a couple of times in 82 games.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Bettman:

There is nothing wrong with the NHL or its schedule. Any report about lack of ratings or fan unhappiness is a result of the liberal media trying to advance their own unpopular agenda. Anything you say criticizing the game undermines the NHL and hurts the morale of the players. Why do you hate hockey?

[stevie for president 42]

Can someone help me? I'm only 20 years old, and my earliest NHLmemory was the 1994 series vs. the sharks. It might be cheveldae's game 7 let down in the prior year, I'm not sure if I remember it live or from the red wings 1st championship movie. Anyways, like I said, I really only remember 13 years or so of NHL, and thats mostly the play on the ice. I dont remember the state of the NHL. for example, was there a huge buzz for the nhl before bettman? were the economics of the game better? i hear that the style of "old time hockey" was amazing, but ive never been able to see it.

I just couldnt fathom the NHL ever being all the talk in the USA, so what I'm asking is, is Gary Bettman really as bad as we all think he is, or is he just taking the blame for trying innovative ideas that might stir up mass interest in a game that has never had it?

[betterREDthandead 58]

Y'know, we Red Wings fans moan about the unbalanced schedule because it means 8 games with Columbus. But has anyone bothered to think that, say, Atlantic Division and Northeast Division fans might just LOVE the schedule? Fans in NY and NJ, for example, have TONS of opportunity to go to games because the Rangers play eight road games right there in the NY/NJ metro area anyway. Philly fans can travel there easily too. Buffalo gets eight chances to beat the hated Maple Leafs. I can think of a lot of reasons fans elsewhere might like it - Detroit Red Wing fans do not speak for NHL fans as a whole.

[GoWings1905 2,694]

The 60% is from Eastern Conference fans that get 7:00 start times all season and only have to travel outside their time zone a couple of times in 82 games.

That is what I meant by this post. The schedule is great for Eastern Conference teams. I couldn't agree more with you.

Edited May 2, 2007 by GoWings1905

[betterREDthandead 58]

Can someone help me? I'm only 20 years old, and my earliest NHLmemory was the 1994 series vs. the sharks. It might be cheveldae's game 7 let down in the prior year, I'm not sure if I remember it live or from the red wings 1st championship movie. Anyways, like I said, I really only remember 13 years or so of NHL, and thats mostly the play on the ice. I dont remember the state of the NHL. for example, was there a huge buzz for the nhl before bettman? were the economics of the game better? i hear that the style of "old time hockey" was amazing, but ive never been able to see it.

I just couldnt fathom the NHL ever being all the talk in the USA, so what I'm asking is, is Gary Bettman really as bad as we all think he is, or is he just taking the blame for trying innovative ideas that might stir up mass interest in a game that has never had it?

The NHL was kind of a hot product in the early and '90s. Lot of visibility. Little things like, say, Clerks coming out and featuring hockey. There was an SI cover that featured the NHL as a rising star and wondering what on earth was happening to the NBA.

I can't pinpoint a reason why hockey's been pushed to the back burner a bit. Labor trouble in the mid '90s, bul MLB and the NBA had the same problems. People say expansion did it, but the other leagues were expanding too. Maybe a combination of marketing, lot of the old-school teams moving around, labor troubles, etc. I can't point to any one thing Bettman did or didn't do that allowed the NHL to be pushed to the back burner.

[Firehawk 305]

A few issues with alot said there.

1. Where is he getting the idea that the refs are doing a terrific job? Even if you lump them all together, as a whole, they all suck. It's like they don't really understand the rules and what to look for. I mean my God. It's not rocket science.

2. Versus sucks. ESPN was way better. He's making it sound like Versus' coverage is so much better than ESPN ever was. I disagree with that.

3. The lack of physicality? I don't remember people saying there was a lack of physicality, people said it was a lack of fighting in the league now, WHICH IS TRUE. I still think if you had more fighting, people wouldn't take such liberties with the star players. I also think you take away some pads and you get less whacking and hacking going on. But they'll never do that. Like with any corporation, once they put a Safety measure in place no matter how stupid it is, it's there to stay.

4. 60% are happy with the schedule? Even if that's true, you still have nearly half of people who aren't which is significant enough to do something about. I still think they need to work on getting a 75% approval there. But, i'd love to see who the hell they are polling. It must be east coast teams. I bet if they polled all west coast fans they'd get more like 75% are unhappy.

5. Game on the ice is strong? I am not one of the fans of the new CBA. I don't like making all the teams mediocre. Yeah when your best team is mediocre compared to what some teams were 5 years ago, it's goign to look strong. But fans who knew the old system (unless they were fans of terrible teams) know what I'm saying about the difference. I don't like the idea of all teams being equal or close.

6. LOL People tell him how much they're enjoying the game? Yah right, and every woman i walk by tells me I'm the hottest guy on the planet.

[timsummers 0]

he used "now having said that" and "well frankly" entirely too much in that interview

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

One thing that jumped out at me in this piece was the bit about late hits. Everytime I say something about the players not respecting each other in a thread, I get torn apart. Guess I wasn't so far from the truth.

Hah, as for that 60% who approve of the scheduling, he must have polled fans in the current Rangers-Buffalo series.

Hilarious how he dodged the booing question!

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

A few issues with alot said there.

1. Where is he getting the idea that the refs are doing a terrific job? Even if you lump them all together, as a whole, they all suck. It's like they don't really understand the rules and what to look for. I mean my God. It's not rocket science.

I can understand him not really calling out the refs in an interview.

2. Versus sucks. ESPN was way better. He's making it sound like Versus' coverage is so much better than ESPN ever was. I disagree with that.

Versus ain't great, but I'm willing to give it a chance if hockey stays a flagship sport on the station, intstead of it being somewhere behind poker or dog shows on ESPN.

3. The lack of physicality? I don't remember people saying there was a lack of physicality, people said it was a lack of fighting in the league now, WHICH IS TRUE. I still think if you had more fighting, people wouldn't take such liberties with the star players. I also think you take away some pads and you get less whacking and hacking going on. But they'll never do that. Like with any corporation, once they put a Safety measure in place no matter how stupid it is, it's there to stay.

That answer was classic Bettman. Either he's an idiot and doesn't understand the difference, or he's intentionally misrepresenting what fans are telling him. Lack of hitting and concern about all the cheap shots are not mutually exclusive. The new rules did affect the amount of hitting, but there's also been a lot more shots to the head. It's not unreasonable for fans to what more hits, but clean ones.

4. 60% are happy with the schedule? Even if that's true, you still have nearly half of people who aren't which is significant enough to do something about. I still think they need to work on getting a 75% approval there. But, i'd love to see who the hell they are polling. It must be east coast teams. I bet if they polled all west coast fans they'd get more like 75% are unhappy.

yeah. that 60% is a crock. there's a positive for the owners in terms of lack of travel, but the fans don't really care about that. an away game is an away game. it'd be nice to see some different opponents once in a while instead of these fictional rivalries that Bettman keeps alluding to.

5. Game on the ice is strong? I am not one of the fans of the new CBA. I don't like making all the teams mediocre. Yeah when your best team is mediocre compared to what some teams were 5 years ago, it's goign to look strong. But fans who knew the old system (unless they were fans of terrible teams) know what I'm saying about the difference. I don't like the idea of all teams being equal or close.

There needed to be some limits on owners spending, since they clearly couldn't control themselves, but I do agree that parity is not good. The NHL is more popular when there's a few teams that are powerhouses. why do you think all these people around the country are Red Wings fans? They're not all former Michiganders.

Having Tampa win one year, then Carolina, then whoever, then another team next year isn't that exciting. Especially when the teams that played for the Cup last year don't even make the playoffs.

6. LOL People tell him how much they're enjoying the game? Yah right, and every woman i walk by tells me I'm the hottest guy on the planet.

Again, that's standard Bettman doublespeak. He gets booed everywhere, but talks about how fans come up and tell him how much they love the game. Even if it's true, that's the majority opinion that's booing you Gary. Edited May 2, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[stevie for president 42]

Hey about that CBA. The fact is next year's cap will be around $50 million. This is horrible for parity because now teams will stay around $40 million again and then you will have Toronto, Detroit, the Rangers, and other big markets spending the almost $50 million. I fear that that year long lockout is for no reason because after 2 years teams are already saying they cant afford to spend next years cap (see tampa bay). Why not add that to the list of why we hate bettman?

[betterREDthandead 58]

yeah. that 60% is a crock. there's a positive for the owners in terms of lack of travel, but the fans don't really care about that. an away game is an away game. it'd be nice to see some different opponents once in a while instead of these fictional rivalries that Bettman keeps alluding to.

Totally, totally disagree. Rangers, Isles, and Devils fans get to see their team play eight "road" games in basically the same city. It's like the Wings going to the Palace for a road game. Wings fans can make a trip of it if the Wings are in Columbus or Chicago. You can't tell me that, all other things being equal, if you were offered tickets to either a game in Columbus or a game in Phoenix that you'd find it just as easy to get to Arizona as Ohio. (Assuming you live in Detroit.)

Just because the Wings don't have any natural rivals in the division that are any good doesn't mean the rest of the league doesn't. We whine that Bettman's trying to force us into a rivalry with Columbus, but we forget that Blues fans consider the Wings their most hated team. We forget that Sabres fans, now that the team is scary good, love beating up on the Leafs as much as they can. We forget that Boston and Montreal have it going on old-school style, that Calgary and Edmonton relish each chance they get at each other, that Toronto and Ottawa can't get enough of beating each other up, that LA and the Ducks enjoy the same advantage that the NY teams do, that Colorado and Vancouver hate each others guts and have some very spirited games. Just 'cause Bettman hasn't swung by LGW or doesn't look at scheduling through red-tinted goggles doesn't mean there aren't plenty of fans who might have reasons to like the schedule the way it is.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Totally, totally disagree. Rangers, Isles, and Devils fans get to see their team play eight "road" games in basically the same city. It's like the Wings going to the Palace for a road game. Wings fans can make a trip of it if the Wings are in Columbus or Chicago. You can't tell me that, all other things being equal, if you were offered tickets to either a game in Columbus or a game in Phoenix that you'd find it just as easy to get to Arizona as Ohio. (Assuming you live in Detroit.)

Just because the Wings don't have any natural rivals in the division that are any good doesn't mean the rest of the league doesn't. We whine that Bettman's trying to force us into a rivalry with Columbus, but we forget that Blues fans consider the Wings their most hated team. We forget that Sabres fans, now that the team is scary good, love beating up on the Leafs as much as they can. We forget that Boston and Montreal have it going on old-school style, that Calgary and Edmonton relish each chance they get at each other, that Toronto and Ottawa can't get enough of beating each other up, that LA and the Ducks enjoy the same advantage that the NY teams do, that Colorado and Vancouver hate each others guts and have some very spirited games. Just 'cause Bettman hasn't swung by LGW or doesn't look at scheduling through red-tinted goggles doesn't mean there aren't plenty of fans who might have reasons to like the schedule the way it is.

On paper the schedule looks like a benefit to hardcore hockey fans in New York. But even then I bet they don't travel to the other games as much as you'd think.

Maybe some Rangers fans going to see the Islanders, and vice versa, but Jersey? To the Rangers fans I know in New York, that seems farther than someone from Detroit going to Phoenix. And Long Island to Manhattan ain't much better. The Devils have trouble getting people to go to their own games. I'm guessing not many follow them around the boroughs.

LA Anaheim is a more reasonable example. Still, assuming that all is true, so fans of those 5 teams out of 30 make up a big portion of the alleged 60% approval?

This isn't just something invented by homer Wings fans.

Fans have talked about it. Announcers have talked about it. Sportswriters have talked about it. There were complaints by owners about their fans not getting to see many of the league's stars. I hear there's this kid Crosby and some AO guy that are supposed to be good, but I've never had the chance to see them play...

As for rivalries:

St. Louis-Detroit = old Norris division rivalry dating back to the early 80s and includes years of playoff battles.

Boston - Montreal = two original six teams in fanatical sports cities.

Calgary - Edmonton = division rivals since the Smythe days, plus the two cities have a rivalry that extends beyond hockey.

Colorado-Vancouver = Bertuzzi incident.

Toronto-Ottawa = I wasn't really aware of an intense rivalry that's any greater than any other canadian team loving to beat the Leafs.

so what rivalries has this great new schedule created that weren't already there?

Playing a team over and over and over will not manufacture a rivalry. All great rivalries come from games that actually mean something. Detroit Colorado was born not just from the Draper incident, but from two powerhouse teams having to get past one another to get to the Cup.

Besides, a new schedule would still have the teams playing their division rivals more often, just not so many damn times in one year. And it'd be nice to occassionally play a team from the other conference.

This was a cost-cutting measure made by the owners in a money grab once they broke the players union.

The new schedule is bad for hockey.

And I'd bet there's more than 40% of hockey fans out there who agree with me.

Edited May 2, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[KATIEBARTHEDOOR24 426]

Thanks, I feel 60% dumber after reading that. Like the 60% of fans that like the schedule. Positive-He is adamant on the playoff overtime format and the NHL network coming to the US(please)

,

[betterREDthandead 58]

On paper the schedule looks like a benefit to hardcore hockey fans in New York. But even then I bet they don't travel to the other games as much as you'd think.

Maybe some Rangers fans going to see the Islanders, and vice versa, but Jersey? To the Rangers fans I know in New York, that seems farther than someone from Detroit going to Phoenix. And Long Island to Manhattan ain't much better. The Devils have trouble getting people to go to their own games. I'm guessing not many follow them around the boroughs.

LA Anaheim is a more reasonable example. Still, assuming that all is true, so fans of those 5 teams out of 30 make up a big portion of the alleged 60% approval?

This isn't just something invented by homer Wings fans.

Fans have talked about it. Announcers have talked about it. Sportswriters have talked about it. There were complaints by owners about their fans not getting to see many of the league's stars. I hear there's this kid Crosby and some AO guy that are supposed to be good, but I've never had the chance to see them play...

As for rivalries:

St. Louis-Detroit = old Norris division rivalry dating back to the early 80s and includes years of playoff battles.

Boston - Montreal = two original six teams in fanatical sports cities.

Calgary - Edmonton = division rivals since the Smythe days, plus the two cities have a rivalry that extends beyond hockey.

Colorado-Vancouver = Bertuzzi incident.

Toronto-Ottawa = I wasn't really aware of an intense rivalry that's any greater than any other canadian team loving to beat the Leafs.

so what rivalries has this great new schedule created that weren't already there?

Playing a team over and over and over will not manufacture a rivalry. All great rivalries come from games that actually mean something. Detroit Colorado was born not just from the Draper incident, but from two powerhouse teams having to get past one another to get to the Cup.

Besides, a new schedule would still have the teams playing their division rivals more often, just not so many damn times in one year. And it'd be nice to occassionally play a team from the other conference.

This was a cost-cutting measure made by the owners in a money grab once they broke the players union.

The new schedule is bad for hockey.

And I'd bet there's more than 40% of hockey fans out there who agree with me.

Fans, sportswriters, and announcers, and even players have all mused about the possibility and potential benefits of a playoff shootout too, and that was pretty quickly shot down by Bettman just now (which, I notice, he gets little credit for, since most people are very quick to point out his negatives only.)

As for Crosby and Ovechkin, I don't buy the argument that "more people would get to see them." Under the old schedule they'd have come to town once a year. That means 20,000 out of the millions of people in Detroit get to see Sidney Crosby in person. A big percentage of those are perennial season ticket holders which means they would see him every year if they so choose, shut out the rest of us, and anyway they'll see him eventually even under this plan. The vast majority of Wings fans are lucky if they get to go to three or four games a year and very often we don't get to pick which ones, or have to choose based on the constraints of our own schedules or ticket pricing. Long and short of it is, even if the league goes back to playing two games a year against each team in the other conference, I will be very lucky indeed if I ever get to see Sidney Crosby play in Detroit in person. The vast majority of us will be watching on TV, and in that case it doesn't matter if the game's in Detroit or Moscow.

I'm not arguing to keep this schedule, my point simply is (as it has always been) that no schedule will keep everyone happy. I just don't see how hard it is to understand that there surely are plenty people, especially fans of other teams, that do like the schedule the way it is. Whether or not it's really 60%, who can say? I don't buy the "it creates rivalries" schtick any more than you, but I find it very hard to get worked up about the schedule to the point of calling it "bad for hockey."

[Mickeyisms Rule! 0]

Hey about that CBA. The fact is next year's cap will be around $50 million. This is horrible for parity because now teams will stay around $40 million again and then you will have Toronto, Detroit, the Rangers, and other big markets spending the almost $50 million. I fear that that year long lockout is for no reason because after 2 years teams are already saying they cant afford to spend next years cap (see tampa bay). Why not add that to the list of why we hate bettman?

Personally I couldn't care less that some teams can't afford gto spend the cap. If they need money to spend up to the cap then they should foster the growth of hockey as entertainment in their own market. I don't blame Gary Bettman for this (this may be the only thing that isn't his fault). Of course, if he hadn't been behind the massive expansion that took place in the 90's, then we wouldn't be looking at teams in Tampa Bay, or Florida, or SJ, or Anaheim right now.

Some of these franchises have been massively successful, and they even play some pretty good hockey, but some of these franchises (like Tampa) can't even draw a crowd into their arena when they win the Stanley Cup!

The people in these markets are saying that they don't want to see hockey. So move or shut down the teams.

Bettman needs to get out of the NHL and let someone with a true love and understanding of the game run things.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

betterREDthandead, I'm with you in trying to expand outside the LGW box in term of the scheduling aspect and divisional play, but at least for me, I don't care if my main rival is 10 or 1000 miles away, 8 times a year is too much. I do not like this schedule format, let's see all teams at least once a year. This way, the NHL poster boys of today (Crosby and Overchekin) can be seen everywhere with more frequency.

Not sure what Bettman is thinking with the officiating either.

Kudos to him shooting down shootouts in overtime (hey that's repetitive ).

And Versus' coverage of the NHL hasn't sucked. It was terrible at first immediately after the 1st season from the lockout resumed, but it has improved leaps and bounds since then. If you are looking at the TV deal with the viewpoint of ESPN being more available in households and searching for immediate results in a 1-3 year window, you are going to be disappointed.

A deal with Versus was struck, at least in my opinion, with long-term implications. Anywhere from 5-10 years out. Versus is doing a damn good job, and it's primarily up to the network, and not so much Gary Bettman, to get the station available in more households.

Versus now also broadcasts some college football games now. They are never going to come close to ESPN broadcast coverage in terms of reaching mass markets, but they are becoming a bit more 'mainstream' with sports broadcasts and are shedding their old "Outdoor Life Network" label of primarily hunting/fishing.

Look, I question a lot of Bettman's thoughts with him looking through rose-budded glasses on some things. But he has done some good and is trying to think in an innovative fashion.

Be patient with the Versus deal and give it some more time. I think it could be a good relationship in about 5-7 years.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Fans, sportswriters, and announcers, and even players have all mused about the possibility and potential benefits of a playoff shootout too, and that was pretty quickly shot down by Bettman just now (which, I notice, he gets little credit for, since most people are very quick to point out his negatives only.)

As for Crosby and Ovechkin, I don't buy the argument that "more people would get to see them." Under the old schedule they'd have come to town once a year. That means 20,000 out of the millions of people in Detroit get to see Sidney Crosby in person. A big percentage of those are perennial season ticket holders which means they would see him every year if they so choose, shut out the rest of us, and anyway they'll see him eventually even under this plan. The vast majority of Wings fans are lucky if they get to go to three or four games a year and very often we don't get to pick which ones, or have to choose based on the constraints of our own schedules or ticket pricing. Long and short of it is, even if the league goes back to playing two games a year against each team in the other conference, I will be very lucky indeed if I ever get to see Sidney Crosby play in Detroit in person. The vast majority of us will be watching on TV, and in that case it doesn't matter if the game's in Detroit or Moscow.

I'm not arguing to keep this schedule, my point simply is (as it has always been) that no schedule will keep everyone happy. I just don't see how hard it is to understand that there surely are plenty people, especially fans of other teams, that do like the schedule the way it is. Whether or not it's really 60%, who can say? I don't buy the "it creates rivalries" schtick any more than you, but I find it very hard to get worked up about the schedule to the point of calling it "bad for hockey."

The musing of a playoff shootout by a few sportswriters is hardly comparable to the widespread complaints about the new schedule. They're not even close. Especially since any article I've read that floats the shootout idea usually includes them admitting it would never happen and be unpopular.

Certainly no schedule will keep everyone happy, but I'm confident they can work out one that will make more people happy. If this one's so popular, why did 19 owners vote to change it? Most teams do enjoy less travel as a result of the schedule. Why would they vote against something that saves them money and time?

And I'm certain there are people who like this schedule, but I bet it's not close to 60%. According to my research only 32.7% of hockey fans approve of it (I can make up stats just like Gary can)

I think it is]/i] bad for hockey. The season has a few too many games as it is. Then when you play a team for the eighth time that season, it does just the opposite of what they allege it does. Instead of it creating a rivalry and heightening the intensity, it makes the game nothing special.

As for the Crosby/AO issue, I wasn't even necessarily talking just about seeing them live. There's so few conference games that teams don't get to play them at all, so the fans can't even watch them on t.v.

Edited May 2, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

Bettmans motto must be '60% of the time, I am right every time' What a toolbox this guy is!!! We need a commish who knows hockey. BOBBY ORR FOR COMMISH!!!!!

[auxlepli 17]

A quiet 60 percent?!?! Spin it all you want Gary. You're freakin lying!!!!!