NHL Lockout

[Deuce]

I've been following the GTHL & OHL closer this season as I doubt the NHL is going to get their act together anytime soon. It's especially disconcerting that the lockout had to take place this year as I won the ticket lottery to go to the Winter Classic on NYD in Detroit. Now it seems as if the game as well as the season will be cancelled any week now.

What do you hockey fans plan to do to pass the time?

[Jiblethead]

I used to be an avid hockey fan, the previous lockout really turned me off the sport, and I haven't been much of fan since then. This current lockout is an opportunity to get more involved in local sports, I have been following my local London Knights a lot more since the NHL has been letting me down. Honestly, it is a lot more interesting to me.

[-TSS-]

No sympathy for the millionaires' squabbles.

[Mr.Canada]

I stopped following the NHL once Bettman was named the head of it. He has destroyed the game.

[bleeding heart]

No sympathy for the millionaires' squabbles.

I'm inclined to agree.

[guyser]

I stopped following the NHL once Bettman was named the head of it. He has destroyed the game.

Like him, or not, your choice, but at least post a credible reason why.

Bettman has while head of the NHL......

-increased revenue

-increased TV ratings

-increased NHL exposure

-instituted the Winter Classic (not his idea tho) and its a resounding success

-agreed with the HBO idea

-amended the rules to better the game.

-has the forethought to get the best people to work for the NHL.

-the league was a mess when he took over, and absolute mess and some think it could have dwindled to almost nothing if not for his guidance,

Sure sucks this is his 3rd lockout, and I am not a fan of his on a personal level(too prickly and little man syndrome -IMHO) but if I were an owner I would be happy.

But destroyed the game? Not a chance.

[segnosaur]

Like him, or not, your choice, but at least post a credible reason why.

Bettman has while head of the NHL......

-increased revenue

Keep in mind that much of that is just from increased ticket prices.

A lot of people might not consider getting fans to pay more at the gate to be the sign of someone with brilliant ideas.

-increased TV ratings

He did finally get the game on a major network in the U.S. (although we did have to live through the Fox puck debacle.) But the league still doesn't get the respect that other sports do.

-increased NHL exposure

Exposure how? By having teams in places like Phoenix and Anaheim? Those same teams don't exactly fill their stadiums on a regular basis.

-amended the rules to better the game.

Debatable. Some things were probably beneficial (the automatic icing rule), although some may have complained about efforts to curtail fighting.

Sure sucks this is his 3rd lockout...

To some people, 3 lockouts in under 2 decades would be enough to consider him a "failure".

A few other problems: As mentioned earlier, many of the teams are in trouble financially and are loosing money. The league expanded far to fast (with teams in markets that aren't really supportive), and he failed to bring in decent revenue sharing.

Oh, and he let the Anaheim team be named after a cheezy kids movie.

Of course, there are some that believe he's more or less a figurehead/puppet for the owners.

[guyser]

Keep in mind that much of that is just from increased ticket prices.

A lot of people might not consider getting fans to pay more at the gate to be the sign of someone with brilliant ideas.

True or not , revenue is up and that is under his watch.

He did finally get the game on a major network in the U.S. (although we did have to live through the Fox puck debacle.) But the league still doesn't get the respect that other sports do.

Exposure how? By having teams in places like Phoenix and Anaheim? Those same teams don't exactly fill their stadiums on a regular basis.

The league will have to earn its respect but likely a long way from ever being on par with anything other than basketball.

Football is a bettors paradise, baseball is a summer passion. Cant beat those ones.

Exposure by having teams in the south, exposure by having the winter classic being the go to game of the day when the rest of the folks are hungover.

A few other problems: As mentioned earlier, many of the teams are in trouble financially and are loosing money. The league expanded far to fast (with teams in markets that aren't really supportive), and he failed to bring in decent revenue sharing.

Oh, and he let the Anaheim team be named after a cheezy kids movie.

Of course, there are some that believe he's more or less a figurehead/puppet for the owners.

Some are in trouble, but that may be more creative accounting than actual losses.

The league expanded but most of those teams are ok. He made a mistake with Minnesota, and corrected itlater. Atlanta was a bust, Nashville (money woes)but turning the corner,Minnesota and columbus are on track to do fairly well.

His revenue sharing agreement helped the small market CDN teams when the dollar was way down. Ottawa and Calgary would hev been in trouble way back when.

Anaheim wasnt his baby, he inherited that location when he assumed office, the deal was already done.

Like I said, he has his faults , but for mr.c to assert he has destroyed the game was hyperbole

[Deuce]

Of course, there are some that believe he's more or less a figurehead/puppet for the owners.

There's nothing to believe about him being a figurehead for the owners. That is by definition his job. He is the collective voice of 30 franchises. Anybody who believes he comes up with decisions and implements them based on his own accord is out to lunch.

I'm not a Bettman fan by any stretch but he has done some good for the NHL and I can admit it despite being sour over numerous lockouts.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Deuce

[segnosaur]

There's nothing to believe about him being a figurehead for the owners. That is by definition his job. He is the collective voice of 30 franchises. Anybody who believes he comes up with decisions and implements them based on his own accord is out to lunch.

I'm not a Bettman fan by any stretch but he has done some good for the NHL and I can admit it despite being sour over numerous lockouts.

But if he's just a figurehead, then how can he "do good"?

[segnosaur]

Re: Revenue going up under Bettman's tenure...

Keep in mind that much of that is just from increased ticket prices.

A lot of people might not consider getting fans to pay more at the gate to be the sign of someone with brilliant ideas

True or not , revenue is up and that is under his watch.

The original post claimed that Bettman "Increased revenue". To me, the way it was worded implied that he was active in doing that and/or that he should be credited with having a hand in it, not just being around when it happened.

And if the increased revenue is due to ticket price increases, that's doesn't automatically make it a good thing. After all, higher ticket prices make the game less affordable to the average ticket-paying customer.

The league will have to earn its respect but likely a long way from ever being on par with anything other than basketball.

The league already had respect among the people who mattered... its fans.

The question is, whether it will ever get the same respect as the other sports. How long do we have to wait before we won't see playoff hockey preempted by a horse racing preshow? A year? A decade? A century?

Exposure by having teams in the south, exposure by having the winter classic being the go to game of the day when the rest of the folks are hungover.

Yet as I pointed out, those southern teams are not exactly drawing in a lot of fans. Of the 5 teams with the lowest attendance, 3 of them were in the southern U.S. (Anaheim, Dallas and Phoenix). Another was an expansion team (Columbus).

A few other problems: As mentioned earlier, many of the teams are in trouble financially and are loosing money. The league expanded far to fast (with teams in markets that aren't really supportive), and he failed to bring in decent revenue sharing.

Some are in trouble, but that may be more creative accounting than actual losses.

While it is true that many NHL teams have been less than honest about their finances, I think there are serious problems. According to Forbes, over half the teams lost money last year. At least 9 of the teams have been long-term money losers.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/

http://spectorshockey.net/blog/an-overview-of-the-nhls-money-losing-teams-conclusion/

I think the issue is the way the salary cap works... teams like Toronto and Montreal have huge revenues. This drives up the salaries in the league, but because they don't have a good revenue sharing plan, other teams end up loosing money.

The league expanded but most of those teams are ok. He made a mistake with Minnesota, and corrected itlater. Atlanta was a bust, Nashville (money woes)but turning the corner

Nashville lost 7 million last year.

Minnesota and columbus are on track to do fairly well.

Minnesota lost 6 million. Columbus lost 14 million.

Anaheim wasnt his baby, he inherited that location when he assumed office, the deal was already done.

The name of the team still sucked.

[guyser]

The original post claimed that Bettman "Increased revenue". To me, the way it was worded implied that he was active in doing that and/or that he should be credited with having a hand in it, not just being around when it happened.

The prior TV contract was the NHL paying Versus to carry games.

Now they get paid for the games.

Thats an increase Gray can point to.

All you other points are valid, but all in all, the game was in serious ptrouble prior to his taking over. Recall NHL Pres Stein? Yikes!

Revenue conditions in the US are part and parcel with the economy. As it goes, the NHL goes , except in Canada

[segnosaur]

The prior TV contract was the NHL paying Versus to carry games.

Now they get paid for the games.

Thats an increase Gray can point to.

But overall, its a very small part of total revenue.

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/christinasettimi/2012/09/19/owners-and-bettman-to-blame-for-nhl-lockout-not-the-fans/

During the 2010-11 season the typical NHL team only generated 18% of its revenue from television. Last year the average team in the NFL...earned 54% of its revenue from TV. The...NBA and MLB are 38% and 32%, respectively.

...

So why last year did the league settle on a 10-year national television deal with Comcast’s NBC worth only $2 billion...Ozanian even bashed it in his story calling it “…such a small piece of the overall revenue pie that it is virtually inconsequential.” The NBA’s current national deals are worth $7.4 billion over 8 years

...

Again we have reported what is going on with regards to television rights fees defying ratings. Nielsen reports that ad spending on sports jumped 33% in the past three years...

So, there's more money being thrown around for sports in general, yet even though the NHL signed a 'big' TV contract, its tiny compared to what other sports can and do get.

I should add that when I was discussing increased revenue, I suggested much of the increase might have been from higher ticket prices. (I never claimed it all was.)

All you other points are valid, but all in all, the game was in serious ptrouble prior to his taking over. Recall NHL Pres Stein? Yikes!

Stein was president for only 1 year, not really enough to do anything significant.

Revenue conditions in the US are part and parcel with the economy. As it goes, the NHL goes , except in Canada

If I remember correctly, NFL revenues were relatively unaffected by the recession. (Furthermore, they managed to sign a new deal with the players for the next decade or so, no strike or lockout.)

[blueblood]

The prior TV contract was the NHL paying Versus to carry games.

Now they get paid for the games.

Thats an increase Gray can point to.

All you other points are valid, but all in all, the game was in serious ptrouble prior to his taking over. Recall NHL Pres Stein? Yikes!

Revenue conditions in the US are part and parcel with the economy. As it goes, the NHL goes , except in Canada

I agree, it's been night and day for the NHL since Bettman came in. Revenues are not only up, they're up huge. Any other CEO that had a track record like his would be praised.

The NHL right now is neck and neck with the NBA. They play in the same arenas and the NHL recently has been filling a greater percentage of the stadiums than most NBA teams in the same cities, if I had a guy like Bettman running things, I'd be keeping him around as long as possible.

The winter classic has been competing quite successfully with college football during the early part of bowl season!

As for all the negativity with going to the USA, they need to go somewhere to grow, the game can't be grown in Canada because we are all ready hockey fans.

The only league that's in trouble IMO is he NBA.

As for the lockout, the players need to get their heads out of their ass. 50-50 revenue sharing is a very very sweet deal. Also the thing with NHL players is that there are scores and scores of little tykes coming through the ranks and the current guys aren't getting younger... It's why labour disputes in sports don't go too well for the players

[segnosaur]

I agree, it's been night and day for the NHL since Bettman came in. Revenues are not only up, they're up huge. Any other CEO that had a track record like his would be praised.

Ummm... I already pointed out why A: That may not necessarily be due to Bettman, and B: it may not necessarily be a "good thing" if its due to increasing ticket prices that make games unaffordable.

The NHL right now is neck and neck with the NBA. They play in the same arenas and the NHL recently has been filling a greater percentage of the stadiums than most NBA teams in the same cities

Yes, there are some cities where the NHL draws better than the NBA. But, the NBA also has a much more beneficial TV deal.

The winter classic has been competing quite successfully with college football during the early part of bowl season!

While the ratings have been good for it, they've also been fairly stable (fluxuating between 3.7-4.6 million viewers.) Perhaps it may grow in popularity, but it hasn't been around long enough to know for sure.

And keep in mind that while Bettman might have supported it, it may not have been Bettman who thought of the idea. (According to Wikipedia, if you trust it, it was an NBC executive who came up with the idea.)

As for all the negativity with going to the USA, they need to go somewhere to grow, the game can't be grown in Canada because we are all ready hockey fans.

Just out of curiosity, why exactly does it need to grow at all?

How does putting a team in (for example) Florida or California make the game better for me, a current fan? In my opinion, there was already enough money (through gate receipts and tv contracts) for the league to remain viable if they handled their finances better, so its not like the league was going to go away. All it seems to do is dilute the talent pool (i.e. make the hockey I see less enjoyable) while making the league less stable. And yes, its possible that we may eventually see some additional kids start to play the game in the U.S. following the expansion, but in places where winters don't get very cold, I can't see enough new kids starting to play the game in the southern U.S. to make up for talent dilution.

The only league that's in trouble IMO is he NBA.

And why is that?

They have a better TV contract, have implemented a salary cap, have a collective bargaining agreement that's relatively recent , and they're bringing in a new revenue sharing deal that looks much better than anything the NHL does.

[dre]

Like him, or not, your choice, but at least post a credible reason why.

Bettman has while head of the NHL......

-increased revenue

-increased TV ratings

-increased NHL exposure

-instituted the Winter Classic (not his idea tho) and its a resounding success

-agreed with the HBO idea

-amended the rules to better the game.

-has the forethought to get the best people to work for the NHL.

-the league was a mess when he took over, and absolute mess and some think it could have dwindled to almost nothing if not for his guidance,

Sure sucks this is his 3rd lockout, and I am not a fan of his on a personal level(too prickly and little man syndrome -IMHO) but if I were an owner I would be happy.

But destroyed the game? Not a chance.

From a business standpoint I agree Bettman grew the game. But from a quality standpoint its pretty much wrecked. Iv been a hockey fan for 30 years, and Iv never seen such apathy and emotionlessness in the game. It looks like they are all best friends out there.

I like rockem sockem hockey, now we have the instigator rule, suspensions for clean hits, guys skating into the corners without looking over their shoulders because they think the refs will protect them.

Almost unwatchable. I dont even care if they have the season or not.

[carepov]

From a business standpoint I agree Bettman grew the game. But from a quality standpoint its pretty much wrecked. Iv been a hockey fan for 30 years, and Iv never seen such apathy and emotionlessness in the game. It looks like they are all best friends out there.

I like rockem sockem hockey, now we have the instigator rule, suspensions for clean hits, guys skating into the corners without looking over their shoulders because they think the refs will protect them.

Almost unwatchable. I dont even care if they have the season or not.

No way!

First of all, the game is way faster now, just try watching a game from "the good ole days", soooo slow (less skill too).

Second, players not only got faster but bigger so the NHL has to choose: rockem sockem or speed/skill. The human body can no longer take the force of impacts (F=ma). They definitely made the right choice, if they stuck to rockem sockem you would see way more injuries.

Getting rid of the "clutch and grab" was also a major improvement in the game.

Next the NHL should try to eliminate fighting.

Edited October 7, 2012 by carepov

[dre]

Second, players not only got faster but bigger so the NHL has to choose: rockem sockem or speed/skill. The human body can no longer take the force of impacts (F=ma). They definitely made the right choice, if they stuck to rockem sockem you would see way more injuries.

No just about everything the NHL has done has caused MORE injuries. Its not making the game safer at all, because players stop looking out for themselves. When they cracked down on hitting from behind we immediately saw a rash of neck and head injuries caused from hitting from behind, because players stopped protected against that by making sure they knew who was coming. When they cracked down on hits to the head we immediately saw a spike in concussions, for the same reason.

Iv played hockey for thirty years and theres only one safe way to play it, and that is to be totally aware at all times. New rules have dulled players senses... guys are skating into their own end with their heads down towards the boards because they think they cant be hit, and when they eventually DO get hit they get hurt bad.

And the emphasis on safety is one of the biggest reasons for the rash of injuries over the last decade.

Most of the head injuries are the result of the league endorsing hard plastic caps on elbow and knee pads. Not only do these protect the hitter from the impact which makes them less carefull, but the the collision is like getting hit with a baseball bat.

Within 10 years of the league making helmets mandatory head injuries were up more than 400%.

Pretty much everything they do backfires.

Next the NHL should try to eliminate fighting.

THat would be a huge mistake that would cause even more injuries and cheapshots.

[carepov]

dre, unlike any thread I've seen you post in- I strongly disagree with almost everything you say.

First of all have injuries increased, I will need look into it?

1. There is no doubt that player size has increased.

2. I do not think anyone would argue that game is way faster now than ever before, do you agree?

3. The rewards of making the pros has escalated (salaries) and therefore the risks that players take to make it increase.

It seems logical that if nothing was done injuries would increase due to the above three factors.

About fighting, have you seen:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/the_code/

What do you think? This show tipped me over the edge and convinced me that the NHL should try to eliminate fighting. It is simply barbaric (I stil love a good fight though!).

[segnosaur]

First of all, the game is way faster now, just try watching a game from "the good ole days", soooo slow (less skill too).

Which "good old days" are you referring to? From back in the 50s/60s? Then yes, you have a point.

But what about from the 80s (e.g. when Gretzky was heading the Oiler's dynasty)? Be hard to argue that there was "less skill" back then.

Secondly, even if the game is faster, a lot of that is due to things like better conditioning, better equipment, etc. i.e. not something that Bettman would have had a direct hand in.

Getting rid of the "clutch and grab" was also a major improvement in the game.

Well, Bettman was the commisioner since 1993. The New Jersey Devils won stanley cups between 1995-2003, largely based on a clutch-and-grab style. Why exactly did he let that style of play go on within his tenure for so long?

And keep in mind that not everyone is convinced that clutch-and-grab is gone...

From: http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/article/1151225--feschuk-bad-old-days-of-clutch-and-grab-hockey-returning-nhlers-fear

Joffrey Lupul has been getting a different view of the NHL....He’s among a rising crescendo of voices who’ll argue that obstruction is alive and well in the NHL. ...“At the beginning of the year, you put a stick on a guy, you were in the box. Now when I watch games, they’re letting a lot more go,” Lupul was saying this week.

...

Brian Burke, the Leafs GM, has been heard to privately complain that an unwelcome renaissance of hook-and-hold hockey has been a detriment to his relatively small-statured team and its reliance on speed.

...

Numbers provided by Randy Robles of the Elias Sports Bureau bear out Lupul’s anecdotal observations. In October, a typical NHL tilt saw both teams combine for 2.3 obstruction penalties per game. In March, not including Friday’s games, there had been 1.3 obstruction penalties called per game.

...

The members of another skating team of note, the Pittsburgh Penguins, have recently sounded off on the issue.

(Now, I do recognize that part of this could simply be 'sour grapes'. And its possible that the decrease in penalties has been due to players being more careful.)

Next the NHL should try to eliminate fighting.

Why?

I've seen a lot of hockey in leagues that don't allow fighting. I have no specific desire to see a fight. But what would be the purpose of eliminating them? Just to "make the league look good"? Why should a regular hockey fan particularly care what some idiot in (for example) Florida or California thinks when he claims that "All people like is the fights"? They were never going to be fans anyways.

[carepov]

Hey segnosaur,

Similarly to dre, I have admired your logic on every post – until I came to this tread!

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. Like guyser I am not a cheerleader for Bettman, we are just saying that the claim that "Bettman ruined NHL hockey" is false. IMO the NHL is as successful as ever in terms of both business and the “quality” of the game. Important aspecs of “quality” to me means: individual speed, skill, creativity, emotion and also teamwork and “flow” of the game.

Which "good old days" are you referring to? From back in the 50s/60s? Then yes, you have a point.

But what about from the 80s (e.g. when Gretzky was heading the Oiler's dynasty)? Be hard to argue that there was "less skill" back then.

Secondly, even if the game is faster, a lot of that is due to things like better conditioning, better equipment, etc. i.e. not something that Bettman would have had a direct hand in.

I will argue that speed/skill is faster now than at anytime. Of course 99 was awesome but the average player now is more skilled than the average player from the 80’s. Here’s a thought, take the best Oiler’s team from 1980-1984 and put them in today’s league – where would they stand?

Well, Bettman was the commisioner since 1993. The New Jersey Devils won stanley cups between 1995-2003, largely based on a clutch-and-grab style. Why exactly did he let that style of play go on within his tenure for so long?

Yes, Bettman and the league took too long to respond to clutch-and-grab and there is perhaps still too much of it. Still today’s is game is best ever.

The league deserves credit for other improvements s to game “quality”:

1998-98 - Blue lines, moved two feet closer to center cutting the neutral zone from 58 to 54 feet.

1999-2000 – 4-on 4 OT

2000-2001 - two- referee system.

2005-06 - Blue line moved to 75 feet from end boards resulting in shortening of the neutral zone from 54 to 50 feet. Center line eliminated for 2 line passes and the tag up offside rule re-instated. Restrictions on the goaltender playing the puck outside a designated area are introduced. The team icing the puck is not allowed substitution for the next faceoff. A shootout is introduced if the game remains tied after the 5 minute overtime. Goaltenders equipment is downsized.

Why?

I've seen a lot of hockey in leagues that don't allow fighting. I have no specific desire to see a fight. But what would be the purpose of eliminating them? Just to "make the league look good"? Why should a regular hockey fan particularly care what some idiot in (for example) Florida or California thinks when he claims that "All people like is the fights"? They were never going to be fans anyways.

Have you seen The Code (link above)? What do you think about it?

My view is that bare-knuckle punches to the head are barbaric and as a fan I do want it in the NHL.

[segnosaur]

Hey segnosaur,

Similarly to dre, I have admired your logic on every post – until I came to this tread!

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. Like guyser I am not a cheerleader for Bettman, we are just saying that the claim that "Bettman ruined NHL hockey" is false.

My appogies. But this thread had turned into a discussion about Bettman and his successes/failures. I assume that was still the topic-of-the-day.

And I wasn't the one who said hockey was "ruined".. however, I'd suggest the poster who said that was engaging in hyperbole.

IMO the NHL is as successful as ever in terms of both business...

That's debatable. Yes, there is more revenue, but there are also a substantial number of teams in financial trouble. Does it count as 'business success' if many of your franchises continue to struggle?

...and the “quality” of the game. Important aspecs of “quality” to me means: individual speed, skill, creativity, emotion and also teamwork and “flow” of the game.

I will argue that speed/skill is faster now than at anytime. Of course 99 was awesome but the average player now is more skilled than the average player from the 80’s.

Ah, but here's the thing...

You yourself pointed to several rule changes that had improved the flow of the game (blue line moved, 2 line passes, etc.) I myself have pointed to other changes (e.g. better equipment and conditioning.) How do you know that what you see as better speed/skill isn't just the result of those rule changes?

The league added around 7 teams to the league in the past couple of decades or so. So, they expanded roughly 30% in that time. The population of Canada/The U.S. only grew by around 20-22% in that time. Assuming the league takes the 'best' players, and that the number of hockey players is in rough proportion to their population, then the NHL would have had to select players that would have been considered less desirable 20 years ago just to fill their roster.

Here’s a thought, take the best Oiler’s team from 1980-1984 and put them in today’s league – where would they stand?

Good question. Do they function under today's rules and conditions or the 1980s rules?

And what woudl happen if you took the current cup champions (or, more appropriately, the late 90s New Jersey Devils, who were known for 'clutch and grab') and put them up against teams like the Flames/Oilers under the rules they used back then?

Yes, Bettman and the league took too long to respond to clutch-and-grab and there is perhaps still too much of it. Still today’s is game is best ever.

But, if your measure of hockey quality is by the amount of "cluch and grab", then a person might not necessarily consider it the "best ever".

The league deserves credit for other improvements s to game “quality”:

1998-98 - Blue lines, moved two feet closer to center cutting the neutral zone from 58 to 54 feet.

1999-2000 – 4-on 4 OT

2000-2001 - two- referee system.

2005-06 - Blue line moved to 75 feet from end boards resulting in shortening of the neutral zone from 54 to 50 feet. Center line eliminated for 2 line passes and the tag up offside rule re-instated. Restrictions on the goaltender playing the puck outside a designated area are introduced. The team icing the puck is not allowed substitution for the next faceoff. A shootout is introduced if the game remains tied after the 5 minute overtime.

I agree that most of these have been rule improvements. Except for maybe the shootout rule.

It is just a personal opinion, but while some people may see the shootout as 'exciting', I see nothing wrong with a game ending in a tie... a recognition that both teams were equally matched. (Not to mention the fact that a shootout artifically changes the nature of a victory by reducing the importance of a defense.)

Have you seen The Code (link above)? What do you think about it?

Haven't seen it, and unfortuately I'm not on my home computer so I can't view it right now.

My view is that bare-knuckle punches to the head are barbaric and as a fan I do want it in the NHL.

Thing is, there are a lot of things that are barbaric in hockey... some of it is penalized, some of it is considered just "part of the game". (I rather suspect that if I bodychecked people at random on the street, I'd probably end up in jail.)

[carepov]

That's debatable. Yes, there is more revenue, but there are also a substantial number of teams in financial trouble. Does it count as 'business success' if many of your franchises continue to struggle?

Yes – more revenues, more teams, more fans = business success. Struggling franchises have always been a problem.

You yourself pointed to several rule changes that had improved the flow of the game (blue line moved, 2 line passes, etc.) I myself have pointed to other changes (e.g. better equipment and conditioning.) How do you know that what you see as better speed/skill isn't just the result of those rule changes?

I can only guess at the reasons for increased speed/skill and overall quality

1. Training starting from a young age. Strength, conditioning, nutrition, skills training, hockey strategy, increased bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, discipline.

2. Better equipment

3. Better coaching at all levels

I think that some rule changes improved the flow of the game and others were needed in order to adapt to the increased speed and size of the players.

The league added around 7 teams to the league in the past couple of decades or so. So, they expanded roughly 30% in that time. The population of Canada/The U.S. only grew by around 20-22% in that time. Assuming the league takes the 'best' players, and that the number of hockey players is in rough proportion to their population, then the NHL would have had to select players that would have been considered less desirable 20 years ago just to fill their roster.

I’ve heard the claim before about a “watered down“ league. This is bad analysis. You cannot look at overall Canada/US population growth – what you need to look at are:

-What is the total number of youngsters worldwide that are striving to play in the NHL?

-How much effort are these youngsters putting into their training?

-How effective is the training?

IMO, all three factors are increasing and this is leading to increased speed/skill in the NHL.

Good question. Do they function under today's rules and conditions or the 1980s rules?

And what woudl happen if you took the current cup champions (or, more appropriately, the late 90s New Jersey Devils, who were known for 'clutch and grab') and put them up against teams like the Flames/Oilers under the rules they used back then?

Good points/questions: OK let set the rules to 1980’s rules.

-2012 Kings would without a doubt kick everyone’s ass.

-Late 1990’s Devils would beat 1984-88 Oilers, mainly due to defensive play and trap. Don’t forget how much better the goalies are these days.

-Average team of 2012 vs. 1984-88 Oilers? Debatable but I would say 2012 Team would win

-2012 Leafs vs. 1984-88 Oilers? This would be a great game.

What do you think?

It is just a personal opinion, but while some people may see the shootout as 'exciting', I see nothing wrong with a game ending in a tie... a recognition that both teams were equally matched. (Not to mention the fact that a shootout artifically changes the nature of a victory by reducing the importance of a defense.)

Yes most of this is personal opinion, however most of your personal opinions are wrong . IMO, the shootout takes nothing away from the game and just adds some excitement.

Haven't seen it, and unfortuately I'm not on my home computer so I can't view it right now.

Thing is, there are a lot of things that are barbaric in hockey... some of it is penalized, some of it is considered just "part of the game". (I rather suspect that if I bodychecked people at random on the street, I'd probably end up in jail.)

http://www.cbc.ca/fi...-2009/the_code/

I just watched it again and it still pertinent after 3 years. I was torn on fighting before seeing it and now I am 100% certain – the NHL should take fighting out of the game. I would be interested in hearing about other people’s opinion about the show.

Yes there are many things barbaric about hockey they should all be banned. Fighting is the only one that I can think of that isn’t. Legal body checks are not barbaric, just like legal tackles and blocks in football.

Edited October 10, 2012 by carepov

[segnosaur]

Yes, there is more revenue, but there are also a substantial number of teams in financial trouble. Does it count as 'business success' if many of your franchises continue to struggle?

Yes – more revenues, more teams, more fans = business success.

But having more revenues/etc. doesn't help much if your costs have also increased, and by more than what your revenue increased.

If my revenue doubles, but my costs tripple I end up worse off since I end up with a lower profit margin.

Struggling franchises have always been a problem.

Maybe, but I do think the problem is worse now that it was before.

A few decades ago, there were a few struggling teams (the Nordiques, Jets, Whalers, Stars... am I missing any?) According to forbes, they estimate 18 of the teams are money loosers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2012/09/18/nhl-lockout-is-all-about-the-benjamins-and-who-doesnt-have-them/

The league added around 7 teams to the league in the past couple of decades or so. So, they expanded roughly 30% in that time. The population of Canada/The U.S. only grew by around 20-22% in that time. Assuming the league takes the 'best' players, and that the number of hockey players is in rough proportion to their population, then the NHL would have had to select players that would have been considered less desirable 20 years ago just to fill their roster.

I’ve heard the claim before about a “watered down“ league. This is bad analysis. You cannot look at overall Canada/US population growth – what you need to look at are:

-What is the total number of youngsters worldwide that are striving to play in the NHL?

-How much effort are these youngsters putting into their training?

-How effective is the training?

I did explicitly say that I made the assumption that the number of hockey players is roughly proportional to the population (and I assume the number 'striving' to be in the NHL is likewise decreasing). However, I might have actually been incorrect... at least in Canada, the number of players in minor hockey has actually decreased over the past few years. Fewer minor players means a smaller pool to select players from in the future.

http://www.lfpress.com/sports/hockey/2011/10/31/18902646.html

Now, maybe better training, etc. might have an effect in a few years, but that's not much consolation to those who want to watch good hockey now.

Re: top teams from today playing top 1980s teams...

Good question. Do they function under today's rules and conditions or the 1980s rules?

And what woudl happen if you took the current cup champions (or, more appropriately, the late 90s New Jersey Devils, who were known for 'clutch and grab') and put them up against teams like the Flames/Oilers under the rules they used back then

Good points/questions: OK let set the rules to 1980’s rules.

-2012 Kings would without a doubt kick everyone’s ass.

-Late 1990’s Devils would beat 1984-88 Oilers, mainly due to defensive play and trap. Don’t forget how much better the goalies are these days.

-Average team of 2012 vs. 1984-88 Oilers? Debatable but I would say 2012 Team would win

-2012 Leafs vs. 1984-88 Oilers? This would be a great game.

What do you think?

Lets see:

- Not sure how the Kings would do. Yeah, they did win the cup this year, but their regular season wasn't that great. Would we be seeing the team that did well in the playoffs, or the one that only did OK to make the playoffs?

- The devils? As I pointed out, much of their success was due to 'clutch and grab' that was allowed at the time. Put them in a scenario where the refs crack down on that, and you'll see a lot of their 'strong defense' disappear. As for "goalies being better", that depends significantly on the style of play of the team and of the league in general (a fire hydrant could probably have a decent goals against average if a team was defensive enough.)

It is just a personal opinion, but while some people may see the shootout as 'exciting', I see nothing wrong with a game ending in a tie... a recognition that both teams were equally matched. (Not to mention the fact that a shootout artifically changes the nature of a victory by reducing the importance of a defense.)

Yes most of this is personal opinion, however most of your personal opinions are wrong . IMO, the shootout takes nothing away from the game...

Except for the possibility of a tie.

And the 'honor' of having 2 teams fight to an equal finish, with honor.

[carepov]

But having more revenues/etc. doesn't help much if your costs have also increased, and by more than what your revenue increased.

If my revenue doubles, but my costs tripple I end up worse off since I end up with a lower profit margin.

Maybe, but I do think the problem is worse now that it was before.

A few decades ago, there were a few struggling teams (the Nordiques, Jets, Whalers, Stars... am I missing any?) According to forbes, they estimate 18 of the teams are money loosers.

http://www.forbes.co...esnt-have-them/

Business wise, you are right, it’s not all rosy for the NHL. But overall in the last 20 years it has definitely improved. I suggest that the best metric is the combined net worth (adjusted for inflation) of the entire league:

“The average NHL team is worth 47% more than it was before the lockout that cancelled the 2004-05 season”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2011/11/30/the-business-of-hockey/

Remember, this is despite the Great Recession.

I did explicitly say that I made the assumption that the number of hockey players is roughly proportional to the population (and I assume the number 'striving' to be in the NHL is likewise decreasing). However, I might have actually been incorrect... at least in Canada, the number of players in minor hockey has actually decreased over the past few years. Fewer minor players means a smaller pool to select players from in the future.

http://www.lfpress.c...1/18902646.html

Now, maybe better training, etc. might have an effect in a few years, but that's not much consolation to those who want to watch good hockey now.

Yes, IMO your assumption “that the number of hockey players is roughly proportional to the population” is a bad assumption. You didn’t even include the expanding pool of players outside of NA.

Your own article seems to contradict your point. Yes, ten years from now there may be a dip in the pool of available Canadian hockey players – but notice that “Hockey Canada membership peaked in 2008-09”, to me this means that the current pool of potential Canadian NHL players is at/near its peak.

Training has been getting better every year so today’s group of NHL players have been through better training than those of the 80’s and 90’s. My friends and colleagues that played competitive hockey as youngsters and now have kids in the game are amazed at what today’s kids do! I maintain that NHL Hockey in 2011-2012 is at its highest “quality” ever.