Like I'm Telling You?

Question

Since the early 1990s, the National Hockey League has undergone a major transformation: rapid expansion, two nasty labor wars and teams relocating from Canada to the southern United States.
Result: huge losses and falling television ratings. After canceling the 2004-05 season, the owners entered the next year armed with control of player salaries, and the league's best players can supposedly more fully showcase their talents, thanks to new rules designed to remove player interference and speed up the game.
In an effort to build its fan base, the National Hockey League made a big push in the 1990s to expand beyond its traditional roots in Canada and the northern U.S. to cities in the deep South. Was this successful?
Although existing owners divvied up $570 million in expansion fees, the game plan failed. As the league grew from 21 teams to 30, heightened demand for players pushed up costs while TV ratings were embarrassingly low.

Result: The league lost $1 billion-plus during the first decade of Bettman's tenure and incurred two vicious labor disputes, the latest resulting in the cancellation of the entire 2004-05 season by the owners.

The players, many of whom played abroad for peanuts during the lockout, surrendered, and the season began with a payroll cap ($39 million per team this year) that is linked to revenue. In May of that year, ESPN refused its option to broadcast games (worth $60 million to the league) because of low ratings; the NHL subsequently signed a $135 million, two-year deal with Comcast's OLN channel (formerly Outdoor Life Network) that also gave the cable company the right to stream live games over the Internet.

The salary cap helps mend the league's balance sheet. But it still remains to be seen whether the teams in Atlanta, North Carolina and Nashville have enough fans to survive.

Should read that the salary cap was 39 million the first year. It has since gone up twice and is now over 50 million.
Who has suffered the most? Canadian hockey fans and fans of big market U.S. teams all in this effort to force feed the NHL to places where it fails. Mr. Bettman will tell you it is about "growing the game". Would it not be a better plan to put a spotlight on places where it succeeds and have a strong league? Instead of force feeding it to places that could care less?
Who does the onus of the labor disputes and a season lost to a lock-out fall upon?
Sure, something had to give with the owners losing so much money but a good commissioner would have never let it come to that and it was after Bettman's arrival and subsequent alterations that the league got in such shambles in the first place.

Mike, I absolutely disagree with Hamilton and Las Vegas. Both would be more viable franchises than Quebec, Winnipeg or Seattle IMO.
Also, you better take a better look at your population numbers for the Toronto area. It can also not be compared to NY because go around the streets of NY and ask 1,000 people who Sidney Crosby is- now do the same in Toronto and you will see a HUGE difference in the 2 cities. The Toronto area IS WITHOUT doubt a hockey HOTBED.
As for Vegas, we don't need to rehash that, we have been down that road a million times before-agree to disagree. I will say that Vegas would do ten times better than a PHX or NASHVILLE.

Also Mike, you don't understand the typical Canadian hockey fan if you think Leafs fans would hop over to the other team if they were doing better. Just doesn't work that way up here.

Anyways, we are getting off topic.

Well said Snoop. Very thought provoking. The big difference with the football and baseball is that they were expanded to football and baseball markets. I don't see the NFL salivating at adding a team to the Toronto market, in fact they have balked at that idea. Even though the market is there. Can you imagine the NFL or MLB expanding to other non-baseball, non-football markets to try to shove it down their throats in an "effort to grow the game"??? No, they concentrate on the good product they already have and strengthening it.

Like I am Telling You- I think we are just looking at it in two different perspectives. You are looking at it in the sense that Bettman has beeen good for the owners ( are you a shareholder maybe?) and I am looking at it from a fans perspective. NEVER ever can a lost season be looked at as a good thing. If the owners were attracted by the fact that Bettman said he would cancel a season, they are even bigger fools than I thought. Baseball has finally just worked it's fan base back up but it took years after their lost World Series. Did the owners learn nothing from this? Besides, let's face it, the owners just had to be saved from themselves, they were the ones going nuts to begin with.

Answer 1

Bob
Television ratings, as provided by the providers to the league have not dropped, but they have not risen (This was borne out during the labour talks in 2004 and 2005). The average viewership has actually increased, but less than the increase in number of televisions. The numbers I provided last night are the numbers used to attract sponsorship

Similar to the huge losses, after having the books examined by Arthur Levitt, the losses were nowhere near as large as the owners led the public to believe.............nor were they as little as the players wanted us to believe.

Was expansion successful?
No, nor did I address that in my questions last evening.
Expansion has been very detrimental to the game. And even worse, the cities under Bettman's rule (Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, and Minnesota) are in a lot more trouble than the ones added by Ziegler (San Jose, Ottawa, Tampa Bay, Anaheim, and Florida). But again, put yourself in both men's shoes. You have owners who see free money, what do you say to make them realize that it won't work? Remember, the owners keep that money. Bettman doesn't (nor anybody in the NHL) get a piece of it. And, is there somebody out there that has the ability to make the owners understand

As for the labour disputes, Bettman was hired for that purpose. Out of the 11 candidates to replace Gil Stein, he was the only one who told the owners he would cancel a season. That is what the owners wanted to hear. That is why he was hired.

"Would it not be a better plan to put a spotlight on places where it succeeds and have a strong league? Instead of force feeding it to places that could care less?"

Most certainly, but try telling that to Jeremy Jacobs (Boston), Harley Hotchkiss (Calgary), and Bruce McNall (Los Angeles). These were the men who convinced Ziegler that in order to get a better TV deal, he needed to expand. They found several interested cities (including Houston, Portland, and Hamilton) and chose Tampa and Ottawa. Florida and Anaheim. As the expansion fee goes up, the existing owners see dollar signs.



"Sure, something had to give with the owners losing so much money but a good commissioner would have never let it come to that and it was after Bettman's arrival and subsequent alterations that the league got in such shambles in the first place"

The losses as a percentage of revenue were greater during the 15 years of Ziegler's reign than they have been under Bettman's reign. Things just look smaller when the entire league payroll is $68MM vs 1.2BB


I just don't think that there is anybody who is strong enough to turn this around.
Between 1980 and 1990, the NFL increased it's television ratings 158%
Between 1980 and 1990, the NBA incresead it's television ratings 391% (to the point that in 1989 and 1990 the NBA was the most popular television sport in the US)
Between 1980 and 1990, the NHL decreased it's television ratings 0.8%
Between 1980 and 1990, MLB decreased it's television ratings 16%

Who was responsible for the NBA's sudden fan base?
- some say it was Michael Jordan
- some say it was the NCAA
- the NHL owners say it was Gary Bettman

The owners looked at that money, and that is what they wanted. They were determined (and many still are) to get it. And, they weren't willing to wait.

The end result today is that the owners are making money, the players are making money, and those groups are happy. (and unfortunately both believe that there is more out there).







My Personal Opinion
1. The NHL needs to contract about 10-15 teams (including Edmonton) and concentrate on it's core markets
2. The NHL needs to revamp it's upper hierarchy. There are a LOT of people working in head office when you add up everybody in Montreal (~50), Toronto (~200), and NYC (~1000).
3. The NHL needs to be based in Canada
4. The salary cap needs to be tighter (which in turn will squeeze out teams feeding on the bottom)

Fewer players will result in a better product on the ice. The NHL is the most international of the North American team sports, and this needs to continue.

1. American television ratings will never grow drastically (at least not in my lifetime) so the owners need to stop chasing the perpetual ghost
2. Like soccer, millions of youths playing the sport does not guarantee television ratings. If they did, soccer would be king.
3. Just because the rink is oval, doesn't mean that the rednecks will come!

Answer 2

Yes, I know, Hockey doesn't belong in some cities. That's why the NHL should use my plan to solve the problem:

Get rid of the Coyotes and Panthers alltogether.

Take the Hurricanes, and move them to either Seattle, Quebec, or Winnipeg.

Take the Predators, and move them to either Seattle, Quebec, or Winnipeg.

Even though "Like I'm telling..." showed how hard it is to put a team in Winnipeg, he did say that it's not impossible. So I'm just throwing it out there as an option.

Do NOT expand the league, no matter what, that's the dumbest idea ever. The NHL does NOT need more teams than the NBA or MLB.

Do NOT get rid of the Islanders, Blue Jackets, Devils, Kings, Ducks, Lightning or Devils. The Islanders and Kings are historic NHL teams, they were there from the first expansion. The Lightning's attendance % is through the roof, and they have a great fan base. The Devils have won 3 Cups in the last 15 years, can't get rid of them. The Ducks are a pretty good team and they just won the Cup, and their attendance % was 95%. Leave them alone for a couple of years, then, maybe, if it's not working out, move them to either Winnipeg, Seattle or Quebec. The Jackets suck, but they are in Columbus, at least it snows there. I think hockey will really catch on there when they get a competitive team.

Do NOT put a team in Las Vegas, no matter what. I have explained why not at least 4 times already, but if someone must ask, I guess I could explain again.

Do NOT put a team in Hamilton, no matter what. Hamilton is only 30 miles away from Toronto, that's way too close. You're going to ask; "But Mike, what about the teams in the NY area?", well the NY area has a much bigger population than Toronto. Putting two teams that close together, with an area population that's just over 3 mil., that will create many bandwagon fans. When one team is losing, they cheer for the other. I just don't like two teams in Toronto.

This format leaves the NHL with 28 teams, which I think is a good number.

And there we go, problem solved. lol, it's not as easy as it seems, I know, but I think it could work, and I think it would be better and will benefit everyone.

~

Bob; I actually heard about the Leafs fans hopping over thing from several people on here before.

~~

OK, I'm sorry Kimmy, but I've only stated the fact that the Panthers should be removed twice before I think. I'm not aggressively lobbying for their removal here, lol. I don't dislike them in any way, actually, I think they have a realistic chance at the playoffs this year.

Answer 3

All things considered, the fact that Bettman was hired by the owners tells me where the blame for anything truly lies. While he is agreeably the enabler, what else could anyone expect from a group hell-bent on making money.

The "growth of the sport" also included the growth of team coffers. The profit sharing is of minimal impact to teams that divvied up the $570 million expansion fees.

Any of the ridiculous changes to the game are fundamentally about the Great Cash Grab. That is, the owners sold out us traditional fans in an attempt to dress up the sport for the casual sports fan.

So blame Bettman if you will, he has a hand in all this, but personally, I'd like to see the owners get their share of the bashing too. After all, they started all this.

As for Las Vegas, I think a team could work there, but it may be a team that has to be carried along by the Toronto's, New York's, Detroit's, and Philly's, etc. And I would not be in any hurry to place a team there in the first place. Is Las Vegas any more a hotbed for hockey than Phoenix?

Answer 4

Bob,

You bring up some very interesting, and valid points.

I do agree with the need to have teams in markets that are strong, and not try to force people to support a team in a market that doesn't care for the game.

With the resurgence of the Canadian dollar, I believe the time is right for a team or two to relocate back to Canada, where the fans are obviously into the game.

I don't have the answer for boosting TV ratings, or building a bigger fan base for the game, and neither does Gary Bettman. It is time for him to leave the game. He has clearly been a one-sided supporter of the game leaning heavily in the owner's interests, while all the while telling everyone who will listen he is reaching out to new fans. He sounds like a typical politician, saying what people want to hear, but always coming up short on his promises.

There will always be labor disputes in professional sports, due to the lucrative nature of the beast. I believe that those disputes can be held to a minimum with the right attitude, and people in place who truely have the best interest of the game in mind. Who are these people? Good question. Whoever they are, they need to possess the ability to put aside the current attitudes displayed by greedy owners, and greedier agents that don't seem to care that the cheapest ticket to get into the rink is climbing every year, and forcing the real fans to be left out in the cold.

Thanks for reading this....

Steve.

Answer 5

One thing: I love how everybody thinks the Jackets are in trouble and that hockey hasn't caught on here.


No, the Jackets are NOT in trouble. God, we sold out a crapload of games the first few years. And now we have a d*** good coach and a GM who won't blow up on everybody. And as bad as we suck, there's still a core group of diehard fans that go to as many games as possible. I know of a guy who drives out from the Dayton area for almost every game. And I go to as many games as we can get the tickets for.

And hockey has really caught on since we drafted Nash. You can't go to Nationwide and walk past the Ice Haus without seeing some kid's team playing. I hated hockey until the Jackets came. Eight years later I refuse to watch any other sport on TV (except Ohio State games and I can't even watch those as much as I want anymore because of the ingenious idea of the Big Ten Network. And that's sarcasm for those who missed it), and if my ankles weren't so weak I can't skate I'd be out there playing in some local league. Come to Columbus and come to a game.

I think Columbus and Minnesota were the two best choices for the most recent wave of expansion (hopefully it'll be the LAST wave).

And I personally think the NHL definitely overdid it with the expansion. It's common sense: Why put a hockey team in the deep south? It's not like most of the people there understand the skill required to play hockey, god, they find NASCAR entertaining!

I think Florida should get the axe or get relocated. But no team should end up in Kansas City. I lived there for a while and it probably won't work out. Although I don't really think they gave the Scouts much of a chance.

Answer 6

Bob, history has proven that a smart business leader will do everything in their power to strengthen their product, then make necessary modifications to improve upon it. For example, Kennesaw Mountain Landis, baseball's first leader, was quite successful in keeping his league limited in the Midwest and East Coast of the U.S. (granted he had 16 teams to work with and a partial talent base, but nevertheless baseball was the most popular sport in the land). Television contracts were not a problem, as there was no television until 1939 (and radio was starting to take off). It was that way for the better part of nearly fourty years, until the Dodgers and Giants went west. At that point, expansion was not only imperative, it would prove to be extremely lucurative, especially in California, New York, and Georgia. These franchise shifts helped tons. In football, Pete Rozelle also had a small league to work with, but he was a visionary. Taing advantage of the television boom, he secured contracts with the major networks, and even compromised with a rival league. This compromise, a championship between the two leagues to determine an overall football champion, eventually led to the combination of said leagues into the professional sports powerhouse we know and pretend to love in front of our co-workers. My point? Gary Bettman did not even attempt to strengthen his league, as pointed out by Bob. To pay for his sins, he has in essence ruined the NHL for future generations. Whoever follows Bettman as the NHL's next leader, this is what they face: teams in struggling markets, a lackluster television contract, banal promotion, a lack of a strong grass roots program to get more children involved in hockey (in the United States), a salary cap that the struggling markets will have trouble meeting its minimum, and a drained talent pool. No question in my mind that the NHL is much weaker than what is used to be.

Answer 7

Mike for the umpteenth time. The Panthers are doing just fine. In the middle of attendance figures and making money. There are plenty of fans too. We are doing better than some of the "traditional" markets. So stop it already. It's really getting annoying. As for the question. I really can't see anything major happening on any front. I can only guess that this one of the ebbs in fandom that happen occasionally. The NBA had it now it is our turn. I believe things will be looking up sooner rather than later.

Answer 8

Ok if they brought a team to Las Vegas the market would be amazing. Las Vegas has over 3 million people, and more tourists then any place in the united states. People in Vegas could supply a great center for any team. Las Vegas has a great atmosphere for a lot of things, and i feel that hockey would be another. Hockey is about to have a collapse, and without bringing teams to places with a better market, their is no chance for success. Lets face it, Sacremento ain't cutting it.

Answer 9

off topic and probably doesn't answer any of your questions... but just my rants...

In the later 80's to late 90's... there was a great boom in talented players coming from the junior and pro levels. Changes in International rules allowed foreign players to come to North America to play. Fedorov, Bure and Jagr was supposed to be just the beginning of the import rush... Lindros, Daigle, Brodeur and Potvin supposed to continue the rush of Canadian talent.

Somewhere along time the game has changed and talented budding stars weren't able to advance and the league's talent pool diluted. Milan Kraft, Rico Fata, Manny Malhotra comes to mind... As a result, the product itself took a step back. Rookies finishing the season with 50pts was considered outstanding whereas in the 80's it took 100+ points to earn Calder votes... the average veteran player was ale to play longer, demand for premium experienced players drove up the average salary.

With a lower quality product on the ice, new potential fans weren't able to experience the full experience of high quality NHL games. New NHL markets had crappy expansion teams to present to new fans. Look at the first 3 years of each expansion team since the 90's. Who were their leading scorers? were those names actually marketable? Are you going to successfully market a team thats destined for last place for the next 3-4 years? Thats a huge risk when you're trying to sell to a new market. I mean the BlueJackets still never made the playoffs in its history...! As a result, TV ratings fall, media wonders away and fans shows less attention.

---

Expansion was not a bad idea but the NHL thought it could just sit there and expect people to eventually accept hockey as their city's new past-time. This was a gamble because those are not hockey markets. Who knows what was written in the expansion or relocating proposals but they seemed to of focused on the city's population size rather then a realistic market size.

To Canadians it was rather comical with glowing pucks and introduction to the game videos during intermission.

In all, it is nice to see Hockey as spread out accross the continent, hopefully one day it'll be a healthy 40 team league with the playoff winner challenging the NHL Europe playoff winner for the Stanley cup.

---

How can there not be a big enough population to support a Hamilton Team? The Greater Toronto area, the golden horseshoe/Upstate New York/Niagara Frontier IS the 5th largest largest population concentration in North America... IT IS also by far the largest concentration of Hockey fans in North America... It's strange how people give full support for a team to return to Quebec City and Winnipeg and not Hamilton.

Hamilton will have no problem selling out their building in a Hockey starved market. Maple Leafs season ticket application waiting period stretches to over 35 years, whereas in places like Nashville, they couldn't give them away last season... Hamilton Copps Coliseum Hockey Capacity holds over 19,000...

Winnipeg has a metro population of 700,000 and would be the smallest of all NHL cities (currently its Edmonton at just under 950,000). Compare that to Kansas city with a 2 million Metro population and an attractive arena deal... Seattle with a Metro population of over 3 million and Portland, Oregon with a Metro population of over 2 million... Having a team back in Winnipeg would be awesome but can the Winnipeg MTS Centre that holds only 15,000 qualify towards NHL arena specs? where other new arenas seat 18,000 or more..!

Snow is a silly excuse. It doesn't matter if it snows... It snows in Quebec, Hartford, Minnesota and Winnipeg and they all lost teams... what makes Columbus an exception. - I have nothing against Columbus, I think its one of the better expansion locations, I'm just using it as an example of a potential fragile Hockey market like Carolina and Nashville...

Answer 10

It's a mess. And it's time to take out the trash. Quick stuff the garden gnome into a bag and stick it out by the curb I hear the trash collectors coming.