Gary Bettman may be the worst commisioner the NHL has ever seen. With so many mass media tools at their disposal, other commisioners have taken their sports into the next genereation. Bettman has sqaundered the chance to solidify hockey as one of the top sports in the world. Can anyone convince me that he has done anywhere near enough good to justify all the horrible things he's done? Or just talk smack about him if you like!
2007-02-22 15:51:41 · 14 answers · asked by Matt 2 in Sports ➔ Hockey
Nope, he's the worst thing to ever happen to hockey. I think he did it on purpose because he really wants the NBA to get more fans since he used to work for them. If someone would give me a loaded gun and put me in a room with him I'd do us all a favor.
2007-02-22 15:55:38 · answer #1 · answered by njdss4 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He has come up with some positives, but mostly negatives. He helped cause the lockout, but his shootout idea is very good to me. He is still the worst thing to come to hockey, especially after some of his ideas.. like the glowing puck on Fox, when hockey was on Fox. If you like hockey, you should know where the puck is, and be able to follow it, if not, you aren't a true hockey fan. He also proposed a new retarded idea, 3 points, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss. It got turned down for next season, but he is just so retarded and so bad for the sport. If we got rid of him, we'll gain fans back instantly. I say we trade Stern from basketball for Bettman, maybe he knows how to gain fans back, because Bettman sure as hell doesn't.
2007-02-23 01:12:10 · answer #2 · answered by jkc3953 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll add my rant - he's bad for the sport. I can't think of a single thing I like about the guy (refuse to call him a man). I am tired of hearing about how poorly hockey ratings are when they are televised by a cable channel no one gets ! No one watched the All Star Game 'cause they COULDN'T not because they didn't have interest !! Hockey is NOT dead...but Bettman should be !
2007-02-23 01:57:17 · answer #3 · answered by Nance 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No Bettman really sucks. You should watch the Canadian movie called Bon Cop, Bad Cop. It's half french (with English subtitles) and is about revenge on hockey. There is one character who strongly resembles Bettman and he gets his.
2007-02-22 16:55:22 · answer #4 · answered by yzertuzzi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. Buttman has done nothing except lose interest from the die-hard hockey fans like you and myself. This guy has no idea what he's doing and should just go back to doing NBA bs. Have you noticed that more and more players and coaches are becoming more verbal about how much the game has changed? I think that says it all. Buttman blows.
2007-02-22 16:14:56 · answer #5 · answered by cubsjunkie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I cannot. But I do not want to hear anything about him being American. That has nothing to do with it.
The fact is that no single person can do anything without a process of approval. The league owners vote on any proposals before they are implemented.
I certainly don't like the state of the game as it is today. Anyone could be in his place and the game will be the same as it is today because the owners gave their approval.
2007-02-22 16:58:30 · answer #6 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Possibly the worst commishner in sports. unless Im forgetting someone big. He has screwed over every single hockey fan with putting the games on versus. No one should ever defend him
2007-02-22 16:56:55 · answer #7 · answered by gnarlyRedWingsdude 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For the life of me, I have no idea how a guy who was commish for 2 lockouts is still commish.
One good thing you can say he did was adding the shootout, thats really it. The shootout has helped the league a bit, but its so minimal compared to how much bad Bettman has done for the league.
2007-02-22 15:57:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
pros: -Bettman is the in effortless words commissioner to have an entire season locked out by using confusing artwork themes. i do not see him as a Bud Selig type guy regardless of that, notwithstanding it ought to help the league's public image. i in my opinion do not see it. -you're in a position to pass franchises that are not understanding like Phoenix and Atlanta extra fairly than you would earlier. i do not see this as an anti-Canadian stance notwithstanding, notwithstanding it really is ridiculous to attempt to save a interest that individuals have little to no interest in for said markets. Cons: -You lose a guy that has bought hockey to Fox, ABC/ESPN, and NBC/as against in tremendous monetary deals for the league. regardless of the lockout, the NHL is worth a reliable 4 to 5 circumstances more suitable than it became at the same time as he took over. He has an impressive employer experience, and it really is helped the league proceed to comeback after their modern-day lockout. -Say what you'll, notwithstanding it really is not any longer as notwithstanding particular communities were leaving Canada and the northern u . s . for the heck of it. it really is because they were financially strapped for funds. Winnipeg, Quebec, Hartford, or perhaps Minnesota were having themes in that branch. Relocation helped those franchises on the time. would a clean commissioner comprehend that or in simple terms attempt to deliver all of them decrease back north for the heck of it? -also, said "public image" is proficient about by those that do not get it. lower back, this league mandatory that lockout because issues were getting out of control. as a replace of folding up or contracting, the league has began to make sure an excellent extra deal of interest interior the rankings. it really is in simple terms not the different 3 events interior america, notwithstanding it really is turning out to be a good #4 once lower back.
2016-12-04 20:04:55 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think he has done the game much good - But, in his defence I think he's only done what the his bosses; the owners, want him to do. Arguably though, he should show some leadership and convince them to act in the common interest of the game.
2007-02-22 16:59:25 · answer #10 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the only arguement I see FOR Bettman is that, he got rid of the 2 line pass rule, the red line, and the trap. He's tough on steroids too, i think.
one that could go both ways is selling the broadcast rights to NBC. ESPN, in their offer, required a profit-sharing plan. (SHARE-PROFIT WITH A TV NETWORK?! you can't rebuild a pro sports league by giving half your profit to the loan sharks).
That's all i can think of.
2007-02-22 16:04:08 · answer #11 · answered by 3dot3dash3dot 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋