You should never wish death on anyone...

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

Yes, but the majority of them think he's doing a good job.

In an ideal world they would toss him to the curb like a cheap hooker, but I doubt it ever happens.

for choosing said avatar, you must make reference to Giguere.

[stevkrause 1,247]

So the only choice is "or death"? I'll have the chicken then, please.

the chicken, with a side of death to Bettman?

[TheOctopusKid 19]

This might be a death wish to whatever reputation I have on these boards - but I find myself coming to the defense of...Gary Bettman (I just threw up a little in my mouth). Before my Man-Card is revoked and I'm dragged into the streets and beaten with a bag full of used pucks - know that there is sound reasoning why I find myself the defense of Bettman.

I believe a lot of the general hatred towards Gary Bettman is misdirected based upon confusion and ambiguity regarding what it is he's actually responsible for. As much as we like to romanticize what the NHL is, it is a business first and a competitive sports league second and as such, it is run entirely like a business. The NHL Commissioner is the de facto "CEO" of the league and as such, reports to the "Board of Directors" like any CEO would, in this particular case the Board of Directors is actually referred as the Board of Governors. The NHL Board of Governors is comprised of representatives from all the NHL franchises whether that is actually the owner (in the case of Peter Karmanos of the Carolina Hurricanes), or a senior official for that team (Brian Burke of the Toronto Maple Leafs). So this large collection of individuals are actually the driving force behind any and all decisions made by the NHL. This includes but is not exclusive to: Appointment of the NHL Commissioner, the CBA, Rules, Players, Marketing, Revenue Sharing, Expansion, and Transfer of Ownership.

The Board of Governors acts very much as a Board of Directors for a large Fortune 500 company. The met periodically and discuss the general estate of their business, determine the strategic objectives of the company, and agree upon the rules and governance that the organization will adhere to.

Gary Bettman is tasked with the execution of whatever it is the Board of Governors decide. Any systematic or structural change to the game is not a unilateral decision made by Bettman - it is an order from the Board of Governors for him to achieve. Cheif Executive Officer - he executes, he doesn't dictate strategy or direction.

Bettman's responsibilities are neatly written within the NHL guidelines when the position was created back in 1993. I'll not bore with legalese, but basically he role is over Business Operations: Budget, Marketing Contracts, The Officials, etc., as as a conflict negotiator/resolvement. If there is a disagreement or contract breach between any number of parties: Clubs, Players, Officials, Business Partners, etc - he can mediate and judge based upon his discretion and further review by....The Board of Governors.

Bettman is at best, the central public spokesman of the NHL ownership to ensure successful business operation consistent with their direction. The owners task him to execute particular strategy and allow the league to have a central figure in which the NHLPA, and the general public as a whole to interact with.

Some "questionable" decisions that Gary Bettman that the fans typically hold him responsible for:

1) Expansion into Underdevloped Hockey Markets, particularly the South.

The expansion was well underway before Gary Bettman was appointed the NHL commissioner. In the summer of 1991, the San Jose Sharks were added to the NHL. In the summer of 1992, the Ottawa Senators and the Tampa Bay Lightning were added to the NHL. That is three added teams, two of which in questionable markets while Bettman was still with the NBA. In 1993, the Anaheim Mighty Ducks were added and the Minnesota North Stars were moved to Dallas. So within 1 year of Bettman's reign, another team was added to a warm weather market, and a northern team who was financially failing was moved to a southern market. In the course of the next decade seven franchises were added or moved.

How can Bettman be held accountable for these decisions that 1) started before he was commissioner 2) he actually has no jurisdiction over? It's not as if Gary Bettman was like, "Well Hartford, you all are terrible so I've decided to take your team from you and move it to Raleigh." The decision to move or create new franchises lie solely with the Board of Governors and the Owners. These are hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, that financial consequence and agreements before this type of action to occur. Municipal argreements with a town, market research and forcast to determine if their is a large enough consumer base, construction or destruction of arenas, a new owner who has the financial resources to make this happen, and the unanimous vote of the existing ownership. Bettman cannot not make all of this happen.

So why would the NHL turn to underdeveloped markets where there is not hockey footprint? Money. It really makes no other decision other than the chance to generate more revenue. With the revenue sharing structure of the league, all franchises pool a percent of generated revenue from ticket sales, mechandise, and TV contracts (regional and national) and split the profit amongst them. Move a team to Dallas? How many potential new hockey fans is that? Roughy 7M people around the metro area. That's a lot of jersey sales, regional broadcasts, and more ticket office sales. The more franchsies, the larger the fan base, the larger the collective pool of revenue.

2) The NHL Lockout

Expansion into non-traditional hockey markets didn't exactly turn out the way that the owners that it would. Despite Bettman providing the public face for the whole debacle, the owners chase for more revenue was met with angry defunct franchises (I hear you Quebec), and the new markets are floundering as the NHL failed to understand how to properly market and build a consumer base into markets that had no exposure to hockey before. So now half of the league's franchises are operating at a net loss and the revenue of the larger established markets (Toronto, Montreal, New York, Detroit) are being undercut and sapped by the smaller failing markets. So, what should we do about this? (I imagine the conversation went something like this):

Florida Panthers Owner:

"Wah! We're terrible and I'm losing money because no one wants to come to our games!"

Detroit Red Wings Owner:

"Well, maybe if you actually spent some money on a team and won a couple of game, you can afford better players and win even more games and build a fan base."

Florida Panthers Owner:

"But then I would lose even more money because Florida is a hard place to sell hockey. Poor us! You have an unfair advantage to outbid us."

Detroit Red WIngs Owner:

"Well maybe you should have thought about all of that before you randomly decided to build a hockey franchise in freakin' Florida. Then, maybe I wouldn't have to subsidize a mismanaged, cost inflated, hell hole of a franchise that does noting but suck cash from the collective revenue pool. There are so many of you right now that are underperforming that we need a deep run into the playoffs to break even this year."

All Owners:

"Yeah, this expansion thing wasn't a great idea. And the only obvious solution to make the league more competitive and to get us profitable again is to cap the roster salaries and the maximum amount a player can make."

Bettman:

"The NHLPA isn't going to like that."

All Owners:

"Tell them to go to hell. And don't come back here until there is a hard cap. We can't afford to operate at a lost. Cancel the season if you have to."

3) Marketing

John Collins, VP of NHL Marketing/Corporate Sales. That is the man who is responsible for the current NHL marketing campaigns. At least to some degree. Granted, Bettman approved his hiring but he is the individual responsible for the National marketing campaigns that are conducted. So, the Crosby centric advertisements are a collaboration between him and the corporate sponsors. For NHL to secure strategic commerical partners (Visa, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, etc.), certain marketing agreements must be met between them. As the NHL has a limited consumer base, they are unfortunately at the collective decision makers at these business. So, Visa wants to agree with the NHL to a 5 year, $50M dollar contract to be the sponser for the NHL. Excellent. Part of the agreement for the NHL to receive this money is that they must allow certain levels of access, tickets, board space, commercial time, and access to players.

Now, the head of Visa marketing speaks with John Collins and wants to run an NHL marketing campaign to attract new customers. NHL is contract obligated to provide player access and time to run the Visa commercial during games. Visa gets it's pick of NHL footage. Who do you think they ask for? The player with the largest name recognition (according to the marketing polls, it's Crosby), who can speak english well (Goodbye European players), is personable (Sorry Pronger), and is a winner (Getzlaf, Kane, Toews, get back to us when you're on the cover of Sports Illustrated when you win something). So the National marketing campaigns are a collaboration between the strategic partners and John Collins. I fail to see how Bettman is responsible for this. His involvement is the contract negotiations and fulfillment. Unfortunately the NHL does not have the bargaining power of the NFL and cannot walk away from large corporate sponsors when something doesn't suit them. So, the end result is we end up with Crosby centric commercials. Young, Champion Superstars sell a lot more than Foreign Born, Aging Legends (Sorry Lidstrom).

Additionally the other smaller issues that Bettman is held accountable for:

Rule Changes: Competition Committee (Owners, and NHLPA)

Restructure of Conferences: Board of Governors

Fines, Assessments, Suspensions: Disciplinary Committee (Colin Campbell)

Glowing Puck: Production and Marketing

And bear it mind, all of these changes and decisions ultimately rest upon the approval of the Owners - it is Bettman's role to implement the changes ask of him.

Finally, the last note that someone mentioned "Can the Board of Governors remove Bettman?"

Of course, the absolutely can remove him. However, why would they want to? Every change and decision made is their choice and Bettman is valued in two categories: 1) Did the NHL institute the change? 2) Is he the focal point for all protests against the NHL?

Yes...and Yes.

Bettman is doing his job perfectly in the fact he protects and deflects all criticism and anger of the general public away from the owners. He is the face of the League but if far from the brains that makes the decision. The very fact that he is universally blamed for all of these changes makes his an effective commissioner. He is there to be unpopular. Do you think that the owners are unaware that Bettman is hated by the fans and players? Of course they are. If they were so concerned with that level of unrest, wouldn't they have released him a long time ago? Yes, but that is what he is there for. To be the "bad guy" while allowing the owners anonymity to make unpopular decisions without public backlash.

If you truly want someone to blame, turn your attention to profit seeking ownership who ignore their fan bases, continually put forth a subpar product on the ice, and cut cost to maximize their revenue with disregard to the health of the league as a whole. These at the individuals who drive franchises into odd locations, refuse to spend to build a competitive team, demands more parity in terms of business revenue and ignore the tradition of the game to increase ticket sales.

Edited March 25, 2010 by TheOctopusKid

[T-Ruff 47]

EDIT: ^^ Nice post TheOctopusKid, nice to see someone else realizing the over-done Bettman hate

I'll preface this by saying that I certainly think someone else could do a better job than Bettman has, but I am always annoyed by every single little thing being blamed on him

Want to tell me how he's been good for the league?

Just because they're turning a profit, doesn't mean that they couldn't be doing WORLD'S better... there should have been a cap awhile ago, but even that was done wrong and they NEVER should have lost a season due to a LOCK OUT... he has alienated it's core base while chasing fringe fans, forced teams into poor markets and making the stronger teams bail them out, done a HORRENDOUS job marketing his product and/or putting the proper people in place, discipline is a joke and there is no consistency, the All-Star game has become a travesty, the TV deal, shall I go on??????

"should have never had a lock out"

- It turned out that was necessary sacrifice in order to get a salary cap and keep the league from completely going bankrupt. Yes it was one of the worst years ever, but it was worth it as there was also a nice side-effect of getting the improved product we see on the ice today.

Saying he should have got the cap earlier is a weak point, it was done as soon as possible (end of the CBA, would have been hard to predict that it would be required for the future in 1994), and turned out to require a lockout, you can't count both against him.

Discipline is a joke and there's no consistency

Agreed, and that's Colin Campbell's responsibility, not Bettman's.

"TV Deal"

The deal that ESPN offered the NHL post-lockout was a complete slap in the face to the NHL, and coming from a network that had a reputation for not valuing the NHL at all. OLN turned Versus offered them a much better deal, and many speculate that the NHL will be back on ESPN soon, and naturally with a much better offer as a result. Had they not gone to Versus and created a little bit of a competitor for ESPN, ESPN could have continued to low-ball the NHL. Versus' TV presentation has been getting better all the time as well, of course it was crappy in the beginning but thats part of the growing pains. aside: If you have a beef with the in-game interviews on the bench (which I have seen complaints about before), consider the fact that they are actually done during the commercial breaks and then played when the game is back on.

"Bad markets"

This is a valid point, but its not one that could have been easily foreseen. Phoenix had one of the highest populations in the US... and look at them now, they might end up ok after all. His blocking of Jim Balsillie can't be counted against him because, as much as I'd love to see him get a team (and think it is inevitable), he didn't play by the rules and pissed off all the other owners (Gary's bosses)

I'd also ask you to clarify how the All-Star game has become a travesty, and how they are alienating their core while chasing fringe fans?

also T-Ruff:

glowing puck

instigator rule

conference re-alignment

trapezoid

unbalanced schedules

ANY mention of not participating in the Olympics

Glowing Puck - Gimmick that was implemented by FOX when they won the rights to broadcast games, it was indeed a dumb idea, but it was FOX's dumb idea. It's not around anymore and only lasted 2 years... weak point. (In fact 7 out of 10 newcomers to the game liked the glowing puck as it made it easier to follow the game, but now with HD TV following the puck is not an issue for newcomers to the game)

Conference re-alignment is a good thing, much easier to understand

trapezoid - Has had the desired effect to a limited degree, and there is talks of getting rid of it anyway

Unbalanced schedules - an ill advised idea that was quickly remedied and now everyone plays everyone every year ever since last season

Instigator rule - agreed, bad idea, but recall that rule changes are decided upon by the board of governors, Bettman's bosses. It's not like it (or the trapezoid for that matter) was his idea and his alone.

Any mention of not going to the Olympics is simply posturing for the next CBA. That way the NHL will be able to "give in" on that issue, which is good business sense. I personally see no way that NHL players don't go to the Olympics, it makes too much sense.

Want to tell me how he's been good for the league?

Well if you're going to knock him for the trapezoid and instigator rule, then you're also giving him credit for the delayed offside, elimination of two-line pass violations, and also the new blindside headshot rule going into effect tonight.

Salary cap for much improved long-term stability and less separation between the top and bottom teams, putting a greater emphasis on good management and good drafting and devleopment.

As a result of the lockout the game we see today is more of an emphasis on skill, as obstruction is less tolerated but the playoffs are still a bit looser and result in great battles.

There are also no more ties, as the shootout has simultaneously eliminated them as well as added a new exciting aspect to the game. Another credit you can give is that there is still no shootouts in the playoffs or serious talk of it. The extra point system is not ideal of course, but if you're paying attention to the discourse around the hockey world, a revised point system can't be far off.

The NHL is getting better all the time and IMO it doesn't matter if Bettman is at the (darren) helm or someone else, but the owners love Gary so get used to it, it's not so bad

Edited March 25, 2010 by T-Ruff

[mwagner468 12]

So the only choice is "or death"? I'll have the chicken then, please.

You have to love anytime you can fit a Eddie Izzard refrence in. we are going to run out of cake at this rate. We didnt expect such a rush.

[mjlegend 155]

I must be crazy because I like ties better than I like loser OT and loser shootout points. How we went from the tie system to rewarding teams for losing is beyond me.

The NHL was a much better place when it was 21 teams in hockey markets, playing an 80 game season. The salary cap has been a good thing, but it would be even better if the league didn't have a dozen teams consistently losing money in bad markets. Bettman's insistence on keeping teams in the money pit, sunny US markets has bogged down both the quality of hockey and the growth of the game.

Does it look better for the game to have 18-20 markets selling out their arenas, or to have the same ten damn teams with "For Sale" signs every year/two years because they can only put 11,000 butts in the seats no matter where they are in the standings?

Remember 1994? The Rangers had just won the Cup. Messier was dating Madonna. SI had a piece about the NHL being the new NBA. The first lockout, which solved nothing, sucked all that momentum right out. The second one snuffed it entirely.

Is the NHL better than it was 16 years ago? I say no. It's a stagnant business model right now and it doesn't show any signs of growth.

Bettman was a step up from Gil Stein, though, the one-year president who tried to elect himself into the HHOF. Merely being one tiny step up from a crooked, inept boob is no reason for myself or anyone with any interest in the NHL to throw a tickertape parade for Gary Bettman.

[Buppy 1,720]

...I believe a lot of the general hatred towards Gary Bettman is misdirected based upon confusion and ambiguity regarding what it is he's actually responsible for. ...

While I agree to a point, and I am not really a rabid Bettman critic myself, you should realize that this type of criticism, like that aimed at a President, is typically directed at the administration as a whole, through its most visible agent.

However, I think you are greatly understating his responsibilities. While of course he doesn't make decisions all on his own, and some things are surely beyond his control, I'd say he's more than the figurehead you paint him as.

In most organization, the governing board will provide generalized direction, and the CEO/COO determines how best to meet the established goals. Something like 'increase market share', 'lower operating overhead', 'improve brand image'. The NHL board, being comprised of individuals who may often be competing with each other, may take a more specific interest at times, but ultimately I'd bet it's still a matter of the board deciding the 'what' and Bettman determining the 'how'. Also, I'd imagine the relationship isn't nearly as one-sided as you suggest. Bettman likely has a great deal of input into the decisions made by the board, advisory at the very least.

Furthermore, you give license for Bettman to pass the buck on to his superiors, but deny the same to his subordinates like Campbell. Bettman, Campbell, the BoG, and anyone else with authority has to share culpability for the horrendous performance of the disciplinary committee.

As I said, I'm not visciously anti-Bettman, but I don't think he's great either.

My biggest problems with the Bettman regime (is that phrasing better?):

Two work stoppages, and rumors/fears that we could see another when the current CBA expires. We need better negotiators at the very least. The commissioner's office is the only involved party without a personal interest in the negotiations. The best interests of the NHL should always be the priority. The lion's share of the burden then falls on Bettman and his crew to ensure that both the owners and the NHLPA keep their priorities where they belong. Could either work stoppage have been avoided? More to the point, could Bettman have done more to prevent them? Of course, we can't say for sure, but I believe so.

Officiating. Bettman's office has for years tacitly condoned the terrible officiating by his refusal to demand improvement. I don't think I've ever seen anything more than 'well, they have a very difficult job' from him. Usually, it's 'we think they do a fantastic job'. He either doesn't know how bad it is, or he doesn't care. Either way it won't lead to any improvement.

Marketing/TV/League management. I could care less about Visa commercials. I really don't care about Crosby and Ovechkin showing up in just about every NHL commercial either. (The Pens OT goal being the featured 'playoff moment' rather than the customary Cup winner was irksome, but still not that terrible, IMO). What I hate is that a TV network has the authority to determine scheduling, to the detriment of the integrity of the Championship series. And that Bettman had no problem with it. I hate that it seems nothing is being done to address failing franchises like Columbus, Atlanta, the Islanders, Nashville, etc. It's almost as though the 'plan' is eventual bankruptcy, with the side hope that those teams will be awful enough long enough to grab a bunch of marketable stars. Bettman, when asked, barely ackowledges that 1/3 (or more) of the league is struggling financially. Instead he talks about record ratings and revenues as if that really means anything.

None of those things, of course, are the sole purview of Bettman. But it is a sign to me that the league is being mismanaged. Change is needed, and change should start at the top.