54 replies to this topic

[Carman]

This is irrelevant - that's comparing a league in a time when sports in general were down, to current times without taking into consideration inflation, TV rights, the leagues OWN network, etc...

This is using skewed examples to make a point... for the final time - just because the owners are making money and the league is doing OK(not great, JUST OK) does not mean it couldn't be doing WORLD'S better

Fair enough, but still I think you are putting too much stock into what Bettman's job actually is. He's merely a puppet, you have to go after the BOG to actually change the rules of the game which I'm pretty sure is your issue with the current league correct? What are your actual concerns with the league currently?

[Ram]

F'in pig.

Go to hell, Bettman!

[hellsson]

"Roger Goodell (uncapped year, potential lockout,all the players in trouble with the law)"

I think this argument doesn't fly. Goodell didn't take over the league until 2006, he hasn't had enough time to deal with all the issues. He has been hard on many of the players with serious league problems. Not to mention he is dealing with the largest sport in America, that makes more the twice that of the NHL. I think Goodell is by far the better commissioner of the two.

I would also love to see how much the NFL made in comparison of the NHL in 1993. I think if you look and the spread, I would bet that it was closer back then compared to now. Back then NHL was the forth largest sport and now it's 5th.

[stevkrause]

Fair enough, but still I think you are putting too much stock into what Bettman's job actually is. He's merely a puppet, you have to go after the BOG to actually change the rules of the game which I'm pretty sure is your issue with the current league correct? What are your actual concerns with the league currently?

I agree he's a puppet and that the BOG still makes the final calls, but that is all the more reason that they need a strong leader who will actually stand up to them and tell them what is best for the league (and for themselves and revenues) once in awhile - A good commissioner isn't a doormat and will stand up to owners and do what's best for the owner's in the long term (not just the short - ie. the NFL's Roger Goodell)

My biggest problems with the league currently are:
- the horrible marketing and cross promotion of the league
- poor product placement by forcing teams into failing markets after they've proven they can't survive there
- lack of exposure in more traditional TV markets (VS can still be it's flagship station and I actually think they do a pretty good job, minus Renaugh and McGuire), but they should have had a secondary TV deal with ESPN, to at least have a couple games a month on there and that would have opened the door to ABC, instead of the atrocity that is NBC
- absolute joke of disciplinary rulings (I know this is Campbell - but this is where the commissioner needs to step up, have the stones and make a difficult personnel change)

What it really comes down to, is the NHL needs a firm leader and a REAL hockey guy who knows the game and will stand up for things when it matters, not a spineless, sniveling little doormat...

"Roger Goodell (uncapped year, potential lockout,all the players in trouble with the law)"

I think this argument doesn't fly. Goodell didn't take over the league until 2006, he hasn't had enough time to deal with all the issues. He has been hard on many of the players with serious league problems. Not to mention he is dealing with the largest sport in America, that makes more the twice that of the NHL. I think Goodell is by far the better commissioner of the two.

I would also love to see how much the NFL made in comparison of the NHL in 1993. I think if you look and the spread, I would bet that it was closer back then compared to now. Back then NHL was the forth largest sport and now it's 5th.

I actually don't think any of these arguments fly - he's actually handled all of these issues BRILLIANTLY and is holding guys accountable... the off the field actions are more a result of the player's upbringings and where they come from, than the league they play in... as for the CBA issue they have now - I can guarantee it will get worked out... Goodell knows what he's doing and is the perfect example of what a commissioner should be in a professional sports league

[Carman]

My biggest problems with the league currently are:
- the horrible marketing and cross promotion of the league
- poor product placement by forcing teams into failing markets after they've proven they can't survive there
- lack of exposure in more traditional TV markets (VS can still be it's flagship station and I actually think they do a pretty good job, minus Renaugh and McGuire), but they should have had a secondary TV deal with ESPN, to at least have a couple games a month on there and that would have opened the door to ABC, instead of the atrocity that is NBC
- absolute joke of disciplinary rulings (I know this is Campbell - but this is where the commissioner needs to step up, have the stones and make a difficult personnel change)

What it really comes down to, is the NHL needs a firm leader and a REAL hockey guy who knows the game and will stand up for things when it matters, not a spineless, sniveling little doormat...

Marketing and cross promotion of the league could be improved, although I do think that's a little petty. The TV ratings have been improving.

Now this one I really have a problem with, the league needs hockey to grow in those areas. Proven they can't survive? How is that at all "proven".
Phoenix will be success, they just need an owner that actually knows how to lead a franchise. It's hard to grow a franchise when you don't win. Don't punish the area for the short comings of the past ownership.

And ESPN just doesn't make sense yet, it was too expensive at the time. I see this changing soon though.

And the disciplinary rules definitely need refining, I'll agree that Bettman could put in some more suggestions then he currently is.

The person I think you are describing would be a disaster unless he has the ability to manage a multi billion dollar league, that is the single most important thing in professional sports.

Edited by Carman, 13 July 2010 - 10:15 AM.

[stevkrause]

Marketing and cross promotion of the league could be improved, although I don't think that's a little petty. The TV ratings have been improving.

Now this one I really have a problem with, the league needs hockey to grow in those areas. Proven they can't survive? How is that at all "proven".
Phoenix will be success, they just need an owner that actually knows how to lead a franchise. It's hard to grow a franchise when you don't win. Don't punish the area for the short comings of the past ownership.

And ESPN just doesn't make sense yet, it was too expensive at the time. I see this changing soon though.

And the disciplinary rules definitely need refining, I'll agree that Bettman could put in some more suggestions then he currently is.

The person I think you are describing would be a disaster unless he has the ability to manage a multi billion dollar league, that is the single most important thing in professional sports.

Marketing is one of the biggest things to a sports league - look at the NFL, that should be number 1 on everyone's list of problem's with Bettman... this is what makes the league money, by making it a brand and having people talking about it year 'round.

Phoenix has now been a franchise for almost 14 years and has been hemorrhaging money since day 1, they have gone through 4 ownership groups in that time and are a league leading low in attendance almost yearly - If this isn't "proving" it to you, I don't know what will - they don't care about hockey there. period........ Dallas, Tampa Bay, Florida to some extent and Carolina more or less have all at least been viable businesses, but to argue that "Phoenix just hasn't been given a chance" is asinine and they need to know when to pull the plug and admit they're wrong (something else Bettman has proven incapable of from day one)

ESPN rights could have been GIVEN away, while still signing the deal with VS - Some major, national exposure is better than none... if they did not want to sign a deal with ESPN, why didn't they at least pursue at least another network which was in homes nationwide(TBS, TNT, etc...) for at least some supplementary exposure?

As for the person that doesn't exist... how about some guy named Ken Dryden? Yea, he covers all those requirements.

Edited by stevkrause, 13 July 2010 - 10:28 AM.

[Majsheppard]

I will do that job for 40k, free hockey games, and airplane tickets to get to where I need to be for the job. Then maybe the league would be viable.

[Carman]

Phoenix has now been a franchise for almost 14 years and has been hemorrhaging money since day 1, they have gone through 4 ownership groups in that time and are a league leading low in attendance almost yearly - If this isn't "proving" it to you, I don't know what will - they don't care about hockey there. period........ Dallas, Tampa Bay, Florida to some extent and Carolina more or less have all at least been viable businesses, but to argue that "Phoenix just hasn't been given a chance" is asinine and they need to know when to pull the plug and admit they're wrong (something else Bettman has proven incapable of from day one)

Did you not see the attendance numbers this year?

October 9,999
November 9,843
December 11,122
January 12,195
February 15,078
March 14,730
April 17,140

As you can see, there is a steady rise in attendance throughout the season. While the final average attendance was just 11,989 (ranking dead last in the NHL), the Coyotes post-Christmas attendance averaged 13,870, which was better than the Thrashers or the Islanders and within a hundred of the Avalanche. Is it right to completely discount the first half of the season? Of course not; but it is clear that once the Coyotes started winning, and more and more news came out about the ownership probably being resolved, fans started to come out to Glendale.

[stevkrause]

Did you not see the attendance numbers this year?

October 9,999
November 9,843
December 11,122
January 12,195
February 15,078
March 14,730
April 17,140

As you can see, there is a steady rise in attendance throughout the season. While the final average attendance was just 11,989 (ranking dead last in the NHL), the Coyotes post-Christmas attendance averaged 13,870, which was better than the Thrashers or the Islanders and within a hundred of the Avalanche. Is it right to completely discount the first half of the season? Of course not; but it is clear that once the Coyotes started winning, and more and more news came out about the ownership probably being resolved, fans started to come out to Glendale.

you're right, because 3mths of attendance, clearly is the constant and not the anomaly in a 14 year history of a franchise...

A healthy team draws regardless of winning... as soon as they started losing again, fans would stop showing up and QUICK... that is not a viable market.

EDIT - FYI, I was just going back through the numbers and they have consistently been in the bottom 5 in terms of attendance since their inception...

Edited by stevkrause, 13 July 2010 - 10:50 AM.

[Electrophile]

Gary Bettman makes Bud Selig look like Mahatma Gandhi.

[hooon]

They should have a salary cap.

[Carman]

you're right, because 3mths of attendance, clearly is the constant and not the anomaly in a 14 year history of a franchise...

A healthy team draws regardless of winning... as soon as they started losing again, fans would stop showing up and QUICK... that is not a viable market.

EDIT - FYI, I was just going back through the numbers and they have consistently been in the bottom 5 in terms of attendance since their inception...

A healthy team is a team that has had a local fan base for a long time and has cemented itself within the households of the area.

Phoenix is a brand new market, and the team has been AWFUL all 14 years.

I can see you have no interest in growing and spreading this great game.

Everything isn't going to be perfect when you first start in non-traditional markets(Philadelphia, San Jose, Anaheim etc.), but fans are fickle. Chicago is a perfect example, they went from the bottom of attendance to the top all based on the teams performance.

Coyotes have been in the bottom half, but it's unfair to say they will never have a good fanbase when the fans have had barely anything to cheer about. The first time they've had a playoff caliber team the fans started to come. Let's see how they do from now on.

The advantages of having a successful franchise in Arizona far out-weigh the negatives of just marketing to fans that already love the game. You have to take risks to grow, and I feel the risk is definitely worth it.

[FireCaptain]

I hear Bettman took a home town discount.




... there's a joke in there somewhere..

[F.Michael]

downright disgusting - I don't care if he's "doing what the owners want", he's not even a hockey guy and is a disgrace to the game...

Just because the league is doing "ok" - doesn't mean it couldn't be doing great...

As I've said all along, Ken Dryden should be the commissioner.

Isn't Dryden a member of Parliment?....Maybe in a few years - if we could all be so lucky.

[F.Michael]

Fair enough, but still I think you are putting too much stock into what Bettman's job actually is. He's merely a puppet, you have to go after the BOG to actually change the rules of the game which I'm pretty sure is your issue with the current league correct? What are your actual concerns with the league currently?

Agreed - as much as I would like to see Gary Bettman removed - the reality is that many of the owners are happy with him.

What interests me most is what national tv deal will the NHL get after this upcoming season?..I get the impression it'll continue to be the NBC/VS combo since there hasn't been much talk as of late concerning another network wanting "in".

[DyingAlive]

Mike Murphy(notes), who manages the NHL's video review war room, makes much less but bridges the gap with bribes from the L.A. Kings. (That's just a joke, Vancouver. Put down the tin foil.)

Haha

Can't complain too much considering he is paid least out of all top 4.

[stevkrause]

A healthy team is a team that has had a local fan base for a long time and has cemented itself within the households of the area.

Phoenix is a brand new market, and the team has been AWFUL all 14 years.

I can see you have no interest in growing and spreading this great game.

Everything isn't going to be perfect when you first start in non-traditional markets(Philadelphia, San Jose, Anaheim etc.), but fans are fickle. Chicago is a perfect example, they went from the bottom of attendance to the top all based on the teams performance.

Coyotes have been in the bottom half, but it's unfair to say they will never have a good fanbase when the fans have had barely anything to cheer about. The first time they've had a playoff caliber team the fans started to come. Let's see how they do from now on.

The advantages of having a successful franchise in Arizona far out-weigh the negatives of just marketing to fans that already love the game. You have to take risks to grow, and I feel the risk is definitely worth it.

To even make the comment in bold is a joke - As I already said earlier, Carolina, Dallas, Tampa Bay, etc... are all non-traditional markets and have been very viable and I am of the mindset that Nashville is one that deserves to have it's growing pains as well, but 14 years is not a "give it a chance" scenario, or a "young" team... they made the playoffs in the 01-02 season and followed that up with the 2nd worst attendance in the league the following season... they also made the playoffs in 99 and followed that up with the 4th worst attendance in the league the following season...

Expanding the game is ALSO about putting hockey where it can grow, not just "taking chances" and I would hardly say that qualifies in Phoenix... furthermore, to even state that the health of a team in Arizona would outweigh the negatives is downright laughable, as it is not even one of the more important markets in the US sports wise, let alone for the NHL...

Completely separate, HOW is Philadelphia a "non-traditional" hockey market?!??!?!?

Isn't Dryden a member of Parliment?....Maybe in a few years - if we could all be so lucky.

He is indeed... Bettman's contract is still for a few more years anyway though, isn't it? I would do cartwheels in the street if this happened...

[Carman]

To even make the comment in bold is a joke - As I already said earlier, Carolina, Dallas, Tampa Bay, etc... are all non-traditional markets and have been very viable and I am of the mindset that Nashville is one that deserves to have it's growing pains as well, but 14 years is not a "give it a chance" scenario, or a "young" team... they made the playoffs in the 01-02 season and followed that up with the 2nd worst attendance in the league the following season... they also made the playoffs in 99 and followed that up with the 4th worst attendance in the league the following season...

Expanding the game is ALSO about putting hockey where it can grow, not just "taking chances" and I would hardly say that qualifies in Phoenix... furthermore, to even state that the health of a team in Arizona would outweigh the negatives is downright laughable, as it is not even one of the more important markets in the US sports wise, let alone for the NHL...

Completely separate, HOW is Philadelphia a "non-traditional" hockey market?!??!?!?

Yet they were 19th in attendance the year before the lock out?

The people are there, they just need something to cheer about. Do you think it's just a coincidence that the teams in the bottom of the attendance also are usually in the bottom of the standings?

Phoenix is a growing area, a lot of northern transplants that are just beginning to start their families. It would also help to actually have a stable owner that can market and gain sponsors.

And Philadelphia was highly detested when the team was first brought there too, but it grew because the team actually you know, won games.

[EZBAKETHAGANGSTA]

not surprised at all. i wish they could vote to get rid of this clown.

Shanny for comish please!!!!

Expected, but undeserved. With that being said, I think its safe to say Bettman's job is safe as long as there is increasing revenue. Believe it or not, most Owners of the league like what hes done so far.

Edited by EZBAKETHAGANGSTA, 13 July 2010 - 11:52 PM.

[stevkrause]

Yet they were 19th in attendance the year before the lock out?

The people are there, they just need something to cheer about. Do you think it's just a coincidence that the teams in the bottom of the attendance also are usually in the bottom of the standings?

Phoenix is a growing area, a lot of northern transplants that are just beginning to start their families. It would also help to actually have a stable owner that can market and gain sponsors.

And Philadelphia was highly detested when the team was first brought there too, but it grew because the team actually you know, won games.

The difference is, that teams that are bad for a LONG time, that start to have decreasing attendance (Islanders, Pittsburgh, Chicago) jump back and STAY strong as soon as they start to win again and it takes them 3 times as long of losing as it does of winning, for the numbers to drop again - But a team with in a weak market can win for a couple years, but as soon as they start to lose again, at all, they lose the fans just as quick as they obtained them when they were winning... and THAT is not viable to long term stability.

By the way, Phoenix's population just had one of it's first drops this year after remaining flat since 2007 and I've had several friends that moved out there, that have since moved elsewhere, or moved back here because the job market there had flattened out and the opportunities weren't there anymore... hardly a booming area...