The National Hockey League … how much do you care?

This helps my case - a discussion about hockey is quickly changed to one about football :)

Lizard, were you ever a KC Scouts fan? (For the few years they were around.) Appropriately, are you now a Devils fan?

Haxor, I’m not bashing you in the least - nor am I bashing your preference - but just waiting for baseball season to start, and having never been to a Caps game, also helps my case! :) I’m going to be a Nationals fan … mostly because they were the Expos :( (Montreal’s loss is Washington’s gain, eh?) It helps that they chose a good name for the team (as oppose to something silly like “Rage” or “Power” or otherwise XFL-ish)

Anyway, back to the damned NHL (who are now apparently changing their logo - which, to my knowledge, has remained the same since 1917 - presumably in order to attract non-traditional fans).

Dezrt -

Well I get there and I had to take my jacket off because we were so far from the Ice.

Is it colder at ice level? (this isn’t supposed to sound sarcastic; I’m just curious)

Now, Yanny … ;)

The most expensive door-price ticket to a Flames game is $183.50 (including taxes; Canadian dollars). Using the current exchange rate of about 0.80Cdn = 1.00US, that works out to about $146.80 American. And I’ve heard many times that Calgary had the lowest prices in the League.
These prices were much higher during the playoffs - tickets were being sold on ebay for upwards of $500 Canadian (and that’s a very conservative estimate) - and the Saddledome STILL sold out. This wasn’t just as the playoffs went on - this was during Round 1, too. I doubt the Coyotes would have huge lineups (with more people in them than can fit in the arena) for tickets for their first playoff home game.

In Ottawa, the highest game-day ticket price is $190 Canadian.
So the argument that attendance is low just because prices are high doesn’t hold water.

The MTS center seats 15,000 if I remember correctly. That would give Winnipeg the worst Arena in hockey, by a margin of over 3,000 seats. I’m not entirely sure if the Arena has luxery boxes, but I would be surprised if they had any of the high priced ones.

Up until '99, the Leafs played in Maple Leaf Gardens, which had no luxury boxes and did not hold much more than 15,000.

When the Senators entered the NHL back in '92, they played in Ottawa’s Civic Centre (the current home of the 67’s). The capacity of that building is about 10,000 - and I’m pretty sure it didn’t have luxury boxes (but the Sens may have installed some prior to their first game).

That leads me to point #3 … RENOVATIONS ARE POSSIBLE! And they DON’T have to be done before the team plays!

A 15,000 seat arena is not bad at all. The old Winnipeg Arena was not much bigger (if at all) - and that’s NOT the reason the Jets were forced to leave (escalating salaries and a desire to appease the Americans were).

Down in the South, a smaller arena could be bought for less - and it still wouldn’t fill up. A new Winnipeg team would fill that arena every night, and there would be a high demand for tickets (leading to high prices, which people will pay).

Another thing - Canadians WILL pay those prices in order to watch hockey (I’m not saying they’re reasonable - they ARE exorbitantly high - but still, they’re bought). In general, it appears Americans won’t. Tampa Bay’s cheapest seats for the Stanley Cup finals were $8 - and they still didn’t fill up. Calgary’s were at least $30.

Oh yeah, good time for another beef. Calgary’s “Sea of Red” was done without ANY prompting from the media, and without handing out ANY red clothing. The fans did it completely of their own initiative; they went out and found something red to wear (generally, a jersey). Tampa’s “Bay of White” was made by handing out white t-shirts to everyone who walked through the doors. Whose fans are more passionate?

If immediate interest were required for those franchises to survive, the franchises would have folded long ago. They are there for the long term for many reasons, mostly to grow the sport that you and I love. More on this later.

How long is “immediate”? The Panthers have been around since 1993, and still can’t draw flies - even after having made it to the Stanley Cup Final. Phoenix has been around since '96. Anaheim, also since '93. Nashville, since '98. Tampa, since '92 (and trust me, they do NOT get good crowds unless the team is DOMINANT - and I suspect there won’t be good crowds in the future, either). Carolina, since '97. Islanders since '72, Devils since ‘82 (btw, apparently Devils’ Stanley Cup parades are held in a parking lot before a scattering of people). Washington, since '74. To say nothing of the fact that a team in Atlanta has failed BEFORE - lasting only 8 years.

They are ATTEMPTING to grow the sport you and I love. They are failing miserably. They are expanding past their support. To use a military analogy, they are expanding in such a sense that an enemy would be able to walk right through them.

I highly doubt the intention of all these teams in all these silly places is to “grow the sport”. I expect it is to “grow their profit”.

Bobby Hull Jr., Brett Hull’s brother, has been quoted as saying “Nobody gives a crap about hockey down here – nobody. I coach kids’ hockey down here and you can start to see the disinterest in the game here with the kids.” (http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050110_152323_5056)

Learn a little about hockey for a second here.

I’m offended.

The Devils Arena looks more empty than it really is for two reasons.

The fact of the matter is, it’s still awfully empty.

38 million watched the game.

OK - point taken. Still, 38M/350M (at least) is MUCH less than 10M/30M. 10% vs 33% … And, it was the most watched show in Canadian TV history.

Canada cannot pay anything close to what the United States can.

As I’ve said many times before - I know. However, the US cannot come close to the fan support in Canada.

This is from a Nashville newspaper:
http://tennessean.com/sports/predators/archives/04/09/57715843.shtml?Element_ID=57715843

Players have admitted how difficult it is to play for southern teams. Perhaps this is why the average points per division show that the two northern divisions have, on average, more points.

Your math presumes player salaries are at where they are now … $5M for Martin Lapointe, $9M for Bobby Holik sort-of-thing. Thing is, those are WAY too high (in general) and WAAAAAAY too high for the sort of money the NHL brings in.

The CFL is loved up here, but the NHL is loved even more. Do you think that’s because there are 24 American teams? Do you think it’s because American teams are “worth more” than Canadian teams? Do you think it’s because players make about $6M more than they should? Do you think it’s because the NHL has a PATHETIC US TV deal? Do you think it’s because that, even though the CBC can’t compete with ABC, ESPN, etc in terms of money, but still HNiC is more popular?

Fact is, a Canadian Pro Hockey League would not only survive up here, it would thrive. If the Stanley Cup was the goal, and if the existing NHL teams were to remain, Canadian fans would not abandon the League simply because it wasn’t called the NHL. In fact, ignoring the difference in fundraising ability, the Canadian League would likely do better than the NHL (less teams = better talent; less crappy teams = better average attendance; less warm weather = better hockey and more interest).

I’m not denying Canada can’t pay as much as the States. And yes, US corporate sponsership (or what there is of it) would be cut off. But I think you underestimate Canada’s love for hockey. Perhaps the amount of dollars would be different - but relatively, it would be much more. And, if player salaries were reasonable, the League would be fine. The salaries could easily be higher than Euro salaries. An american counterpart may try and out-bid Canada … but how long would that endeavour last with little fan support, low TV contracts (not to mention NO national deal since there’s no team in Florida - and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing), low corporate interest, and no Stanley Cup to play for?

The Stanley Cup may be “owned” by the NHL BoG, but its original intent was not for the Cup to be “owned” by any League - and as a matter of fact, the Cup is for the hockey champion of the Dominion (ie, Canada). This website says all I need to say:

http://www.freestanley.com/release1.html

“Lord Stanley is quoted as stating: “I am willing to give a cup that shall be annually held by the winning club of the Dominion.”” (ie, not any league, including the NHL).

If the NHL were to disband, and two new major pro leagues were to spring up (one in Canada and one in the States), it would be an incredibly huge travesty for the Cup to be awared to the winner of the American League.

Not many Canadians are interested in watching American teams play each other (especially if it’s something like Carolina vs Florida).

tasteless advertising

This is what the NHL is attempting, with a new logo …

I hope the Pro Bowling Tour was a joke.

Only somewhat.

These programs (and most American media) talk about four different sports: Baseball, Basketball, Football, and Hockey.

Really? How sure are you of this? Is it possible that you may get a different sampling of radio, being that you live in the New York area, and not in the South? And where does hockey come in on that spectrum? 4th? I thought so.

Fact is, you live in one of the areas in the States where hockey is appreciated, and where teams are (for the most part) deserved. New York has had an NHL team since 1925; New York has had the same NHL team since 1926 (the Americans were around before the Rangers).

Even so, it is only the Rangers that enjoy any significant support. It doesn’t hurt that the Rangers are an original six team, back from when the NHL was a very respectable league. The Islanders and Devils enjoy moderate admiration, at best.

The NE US and Minnesota area are relative “hockey hotbeds” in the States (still, when I was stopped over in a Minnesota airport, the sports store there had Vikings, T-Wolves and Twins merchandise - no hockey. And this was during the winter).

South of Colorado or Washington (and that’s pushing it), I would be VERY surprised to find much talk of hockey (anywhere).

Hockey doesn’t get good rating on National TV. Great. Hockey still gets excellent local ratings

Perhaps - in the markets mentioned above. However, as playoffs go on, more and more games are shown nationally. Still, ratings are pathetic. When the Stanley Cup rolls around, other than the two cities involved, who’s interested? If one of the cities is Canadian (eg, Calgary), well, then, all of Canada is interested. If both are Canadian, Canada is going nuts. The American ratings for this year’s Stanley Cup paled in comparison to the Canadian ratings. Last year’s Stanley Cup wasn’t much better (and the Devils won that time … )

Here’s a REALLY good article (out of Detroit). Granted it’s a bit old, but it’s not far from the truth:
http://www.detnews.com/2002/sports/0206/03/a01-505146.htm

And here:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/martzke/2003-06-03-martzke_x.htm

The new NHL national US TV deal is half of what it used to be:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2004-05-19-martzke-nbc_x.htm

This mentions the Game 7 rating for the 2003 Final - yes, Devils vs Ducks. New York vs LA. The rating is 4.6. That’s about the rating for your average Frasier episode - ranked 32nd in the nation at the time. Games 1 and 2 drew 1.4 and 1.1 - some show called “Push, Nevada” got a 1.4 average.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/jon_dolezar/news/2003/06/10/hockey_ontv/

Here’s one with reference to Boston:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4695614/

I’m sure I’ve made my point; but I can come up with more if you like (in particular, numbers from this past Stanley Cup).

I’m very passionate about hockey … and I hope this isn’t offensive ;)

I hear ya dezrt … those experiences are the best. The Saddledome is quite warm, but most other rinks in Calgary are good and cold :) The outdoor ones are the best; good memories there. To me, it’s just not hockey if it’s not cold … but that’s my Canadian bias :-?
The cheap prices are always great, too. We’ve got the Hitmen (a junior team) and their tickets are $11 for students. It’s great hockey, a lot of fun to watch … I’ve got some of my best memories from those guys (sitting in the front row in a sold-out Saddledome when they won the League championship!) Of course, my absolute best memories are from the Flame’s playoff run … <sigh>Fortunately, except for the Flames sports in Calgary are quite affordable (and relative to the rest of the NHL, the Flames really aren’t that bad at all!) The Stampeders (Canadian Football League) charge as low as $100 for a season ticket - $10 a game. My season’s cost $140 … $14 a game is a helluva deal! The Roughnecks (NLL - you a ‘Sting’ fan?) charge $25.50 per game … which I think is a bit much given that it’s a relatively new and less popular sport in Calgary, but what are you gonna do. Personally, I think the value I get for CFL games is incredible. Great football, low price!</sigh>

Completely … I’m more than willing to go a season without the NHL (I love the Flames, and I love the Canadian teams in general, and I love hockey … but I hate the NHL, because it’s so screwed up) if it means a deal that will fix the League - ie, allow survival and competitive ability of the franchises that matter the most to the League, ie, those in traditional areas, and those that support the sport the most. If a few of the non-traditional cities are lost, that’s OK too ;)

I think contraction is necessary for this to be a GOOD league. To me, the problem with the NHL is that it’s a (relatively) small league, trying to be a big one. It’s trying to be something it’s not, and, surprise, it’s not working. If it was to admit that it’s not going to be able to compete with the NFL, NBA and MLB (which is fine), then it will be more than successful for its size. There is nothing wrong with being a smaller league. Players can take a huge cut in salary and still be the best-paid hockey players in the world (easily). I love using the CFL as an example. True, it’s had some tough times - but currently, it’s sticking to its roots and not trying to grow beyond its means. As a result, it is thriving in Canada.

I suggest a smaller League - 20 teams or so. Get out of the South, except for MAYBE LA and Dallas (I’m not sold at all on whether Dallas can support a team, but they seem to be doing alright … LA has shown they can support the Kings). So, there’s two teams. Keep Colorado, Detroit, Chicago, Boston, the Rangers, Philly, Minnesota, and either Pittsburgh or one other from the New York area (Islanders, Devils, Sabres). My personal choice would be the Sabres. I wouldn’t mind seeing a team in Seattle. Of course, keep the current 6 Canadian teams, and ideally add teams in Quebec City and Winnipeg again, and perhaps Hamilton.

That’s about 20 teams … easily two conferences of 10, four divisions of 5. Each team could play a 64-game schedule: 6 games against each divisional opponent, 4 games against each team in your conference’s other division, and 2 games against each team in the other conference.

6 or 7 teams from each conference could make the playoffs (6 teams: division winners get byes; 7 teams: conference champion gets a bye). Of course, series would still be 4/7.

This would increase the talent in the League, make each game more meaningful, tire the players out less (hence better hockey) and be good for the game all-around.

As for the game itself, dump the OT loss point, and DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT INTRODUCING A SHOOTOUT. I hate the shootout idea. It’s another gimmick to entice the non-hockey fan, in order to make an extra buck. A shootout gives NO justice to one of the most important concepts in hockey: teamwork. A goalie can have an off-night, but if his defence hangs in there, they can still come out with the win. However, if there’s a shootout, the goalie is hung out to dry, and his entire team is saddled with a loss.

I’m alright with 4-on-4 OT, but I’d rather they bring back the 5-on-5. How to make the two teams fight it out for a win, instead of settling for a tie? Make a win worth 3 points. Soccer did the change, and it worked out great. Tie is one point; loss (in OT or not) is 0 points.

For everyone who would complain about the old records for most points in a season being gypped, well, they really already are thanks to that lovely “OT loss” crap …

Keep the 2-line-pass offside. Move the nets back. Allow the goalie to play the puck!!! That’s part of the game!!! Make a crease that surrounds the net - and if the goalie plays the puck outside of that, he’s fair game to be hit. Simplify the offside rule (tag-up). And so on …

Geez … I hate the NHL. ;) It better improve itself. Still love the Flames … hate the NHL.

You know CK - as long as we are building a fantasy “it would be nice but prolly won’t happen” league, why not give Atlantic Canada a team? Heck - i’d go to Halifax just to party, nevermind to see a hockey game. Also i think that if you built an areana equidistant between S-toon and Regina, you’d capture a massive, rabid/fanatical hockey market (look at how well the Roughriders do in getting fans into Regina).

That would be ideal … it would be much more unlikely than teams in Winnipeg, Quebec and Hamilton, but it would be sweet nonetheless. I’m sure a team in Saskatoon would do pretty well on its own (I’m not sure what else there is to do in Saskatchewan other than watch sports and drink, anyway!) I think Regina and Saskatoon are about 3 hrs away from each other … Did you know that in '83, the Blues were sold to a group from Saskatoon, but the NHL rejected the sale? … the Saskatoon Blues … interesting ;)

Ah well … I was focusing on cities that have had teams, or could very likely support one … but it would be incredible if there was a team in every province from BC to Quebec, and a team for the maritimes, too.

Which reminds me … Quebec has one team, florida has two; Ontario has two teams, california has three … ???

According to former NHL players living in Boston, Pittsburgh and Dallas, the NHL lockout gets hardly any mention down in the States. Apparently hockey doesn’t get much coverage in Dallas anyway; now that there’s no hockey, well, there’s basically no coverage. In the New England area - even before the NFL playoffs - there would be some short “NHL report” once a week - and that’s it. In Pittsburgh, again - no mention of the lockout. Players who live in the States and came up to Calgary to play in a little 3-on-3 pond hockey tournament learnt more about the lockout in 6 hours than they have all year (it’s a quote in the Calgary Herald). Meanwhile, in Canada, the lockout continues to dominate sports news.

This is why I complain about American teams in the NHL … look how passionate Canada is about (lack of) NHL - there is daily news on the lockout. And yet, in the States, it appears as if it would make no difference to them if there were no NHL or not. So why is the NHL wasting its time down there while simultaneously depriving Canadians of better hockey?

Hey Amon-Sul,

Looks like the owners and the players are going to meet up again sometime this week - although time is quickly running out. If they don’t strike a deal by the end of January, there will very likely not be a season. It’s possible that they’ll figure something out as the “deadline” approaches, but I think both Bettman and Goodenow are too bone-headed to agree on anything.

I saw a comic in the Herald the other day … it had Bettman and Goodenow standing behind a podium saying, "Well, no, we haven’t made any progress in the labour talks but on the plus side, we did resolve all the problems in the Middle East … "

Lizard, it looks like you and I have something in common … although Gretzky never played for our hometown, he did play in our province/state (me Edmonton, you St Louis). … Lucky for you, the team he played for is one you like … Flames fans and Oilers fans were mutually exclusive in the 80’s (now, one will root for the other if the “enemy” is in the playoffs, and your team isn’t).

Gretzky did a LOT for hockey in the South - look where he took the Kings. Now, without him, hockey is left without a visible face in the States.

A man who recently died in Ottawa asked for his obit to say that Bettman and Goodenow are skunks for not letting him watch the NHL in his last days, and that Gretzky should take over as NHL commissioner.

Gretzky would be good for the League. At least he knows hockey - because Bettman sure doesn’t …

I suppose the $35M minimum is to appease the players … though I still can’t see how a minimum needs to be included ;)

The owners getting off the hard cap is a must for the players to accept anything, it seems.

But I maintain I will ONLY be happy - and guardedly optimistic - if the new deal allows hockey to easily and healthily survive in the markets where it matters the most to the fans - and those markets tend to be small markets.

I’d prefer it if this came about by moving some teams out of the markets that have no fan appreciation into the markets that do … or if there was contraction (I think it’s a necessity, since you can’t turn back the clock and stop expansion at 24 teams) … however, that’s a pipe dream …

If the new deal is going to allow teams like Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Buffalo, and, sadly, even Montreal to keep floundering under huge burdens, (and helping teams that are going nowhere off the ice to survive), then I will be even more pissed off than I am now (and I’m sure you can tell I’m pretty bitter!) … and I can’t see the NHL continuing on if that’s the case.

Admittedly, I do miss being able to easily watch hockey. And I know once mid-April rolls around, I’ll feel a huge emptiness what with lack of playoffs. (It already hurts to think of!) But any deal that they do sign has GOT to be the right one. This isn’t such a big deal to the Rangers as it is to the Flames … know what I mean?

(btw, I’m all for blaming the Rangers ;) … how much was Gretz hyped when he played for them? I think it was in '97 they almost made it to the Final … how was that down there?)