TMC
2013-01-07 07:18:36 UTC
http://nhl-red-light.si.com/2013/01/06/tentative-deal-reached-to-end-...
Tentative deal reached to end lockout
by Stu Hackel
At 5 AM on Sunday morning, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and NHLPA
Executive Director Don Fehr stepped before reporters’ microphones at a
midtown Manhattan hotel to announce they had reached an agreement on
the framework of a deal to end the owners 113-day lockout of the
players. The agreement came after a marathon bargaining session of 16
hours, and a typically stormy week of talks in which the distrust
between the sides — something that was a near-constant for the length
of this process — made some wonder if the season could be saved.
Details of the agreement have not been officially announced, nor has a
start date for the season. That is expected later on Sunday. It could
be a 50-game schedule, which would begin on Jan. 15 or a 48-game slate
that was start on Jan. 19. That determination will be made based on
how quickly teams believe they can reassemble their players to get
training camp under way and at what point in the next few days lawyers
can finalize the language of the CBA so both the owners and players
can ratify the agreement.
It seems that on many of the final issues, both sides gave in on
previously intractable stances.
The players agreed to the owners’ desire for a 10-year deal, with an
opt-out after eight years, and the owners agreed to move off their $60
million salary cap for 2013-14. It was set at 64.3 million, closer to
the players’ desired $65 million figure, while the floor remained at
$44 million at the suggestion of the players.
In an effort to prevent backdiving contracts designed to circumvent
the cap, salaries cannot vary more than 35 per cent year to year and
the final year cannot vary more than 50 per cent of the highest year
(the owners had initially asked for a five percent variance).
Individual player contracts can be as long as seven years, eight years
for a team signing its own player (the owners had sought a five-year
limit, then raised it to six, with the re-signing player limited to
seven; there had previously been no limits).
The players’ share of revenue, which varied from 54 to 57 percent of
Hockey Related Revenue in the last CBA will be set at 50 percent for
the entire length of this deal.
TSN.ca has some additional details on the agreement here.
Prior to this week’s meetings, there had already been agreement on
some significant issues. Revenue sharing among the clubs will be
increased to $200 million annually, an increase from the league’s
previous level which was around $150 million. The players had proposed
a $250 million pool of revenue sharing, including the creation of what
they called an “Industry Growth Fund,” a $100 million fund to be
administered by the commissioner’s office to assist the less wealthy
clubs. That fund will be part of the new agreement, although it is
unclear at the moment how large it will be.
Other CBA matters that are less economically related include a new
appeals process on player suspensions. The appeal of any suspension
longer than five games will now be heard by a third-party rather than
by the NHL commissioner. The players had objected to the previous
appeal process because the person hearing the appeal appoints the
person making the original ruling and they sought a neutral
perspective on that.
Additionally, the NHL Entry Draft will see a change so that every team
missing the playoffs will have an opportunity to win the weighted
lottery and get the first pick. Previously the winning team could only
move up four spots in the draft order, which excluded most of the
non-playoff clubs from drafting first overall.
The agreement is still subject to some important hurdles, the actual
legal writing of the document (and that is not insignificant,
considering that late last week the players accused the owners of
altering written versions of the document from what had earlier been
agreed upon), and the ratification by both the players and the NHL
Board of Governors.
Reaching this deal was due to a few factors.
First, the work of Federal Mediator Scot Beckenbaugh. He rejoined the
talks last Monday and, even following the most contentious moments,
was able to get the sides to find the commonality that was so elusive
during the course of these negotiations. Even this past week, when
things might have derailed, Beckenbaugh worked diligently to get
things back on track.
Second, the threat by the players of disclaiming interest in their
union — essentially dissolving it as their bargaining agent in these
negotiations. Had they actually done so, it would have removed the
legal obstacles preventing them from pursing anti-trust litigation
against the owners. Had lawsuits of that nature proceeded, and if a
judge ruled in favor of the players, the owners would have been liable
for triple the monetary damages being sought. This was a tactic to get
the league to bargain more actively when it showed little willingness
to compromise on key issues and was only put before the players
reluctantly by the NHLPA leadership and rather late in the process;
some labor law experts and observers believed the union should have
gone this route weeks, if not months, ago. The players first voted to
give their executive committee the authority to disclaim interest in
late December, with an expiration of Jan. 2, and as that date came
closer, progress began to be made. When it expired and there was no
agreement, the players detected that the owners changed their approach
to bargaining, so they voted again to give the executive that
authority and an agreement followed in short order.
On Canada’s Sportnet, Phoenix Coyotes Captain Shane Doan told that
network’s correspondents covering the lockout that the players not
using that weapon had more to do with the deal being concluded,
presumably because it indicated to the owners that the players were
A third factor was the removal of owners from the process. At many of
the major bargaining sessions, a group of hardline owners sat across
the table from the union representatives and players. Those sessions
were generally unproductive and, at times, fractious. More progress
was made in early December when some less militant owners joined the
talks and Bettman and Fehr temporarily excluded themselves. But the
hardest of the hardliners, Boston’s Jeremey Jacobs and Calgary’s
Murray Edwards, remained involved and those sessions couldn’t finish
off the agreement. Talks came crashing to a halt when the players said
they wanted Fehr back in the process, that they were not trained in
the art of closing the deal, and having their leader present was
something they were certainly entitled to do. Edwards reportedly told
them that Fehr’s return would be a deal-killer and things ground to a
halt. Following that episode, the league wisely decided against active
ownership participation.
And the fourth factor was the calendar and the concern that not coming
to an agreement by January 11 might mean a season would not be played.
Bettman had said that he didn’t think less than 48 games made any
sense and his time frame included a schedule starting no later than
Jan. 19. Some even believed that negotiations would extend beyond this
weekend as the sides attempted to wring every last point from the
other side. But as momentum built during the last couple of days,
progress continued until the players and owners were able to announce
this framework, which has tentatively brought to a close one of the
most belligerent chapters in NHL history.
http://fangsbites.com/2013/01/the-nhl-is-back-what-next/Tentative deal reached to end lockout
by Stu Hackel
At 5 AM on Sunday morning, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and NHLPA
Executive Director Don Fehr stepped before reporters’ microphones at a
midtown Manhattan hotel to announce they had reached an agreement on
the framework of a deal to end the owners 113-day lockout of the
players. The agreement came after a marathon bargaining session of 16
hours, and a typically stormy week of talks in which the distrust
between the sides — something that was a near-constant for the length
of this process — made some wonder if the season could be saved.
Details of the agreement have not been officially announced, nor has a
start date for the season. That is expected later on Sunday. It could
be a 50-game schedule, which would begin on Jan. 15 or a 48-game slate
that was start on Jan. 19. That determination will be made based on
how quickly teams believe they can reassemble their players to get
training camp under way and at what point in the next few days lawyers
can finalize the language of the CBA so both the owners and players
can ratify the agreement.
It seems that on many of the final issues, both sides gave in on
previously intractable stances.
The players agreed to the owners’ desire for a 10-year deal, with an
opt-out after eight years, and the owners agreed to move off their $60
million salary cap for 2013-14. It was set at 64.3 million, closer to
the players’ desired $65 million figure, while the floor remained at
$44 million at the suggestion of the players.
In an effort to prevent backdiving contracts designed to circumvent
the cap, salaries cannot vary more than 35 per cent year to year and
the final year cannot vary more than 50 per cent of the highest year
(the owners had initially asked for a five percent variance).
Individual player contracts can be as long as seven years, eight years
for a team signing its own player (the owners had sought a five-year
limit, then raised it to six, with the re-signing player limited to
seven; there had previously been no limits).
The players’ share of revenue, which varied from 54 to 57 percent of
Hockey Related Revenue in the last CBA will be set at 50 percent for
the entire length of this deal.
TSN.ca has some additional details on the agreement here.
Prior to this week’s meetings, there had already been agreement on
some significant issues. Revenue sharing among the clubs will be
increased to $200 million annually, an increase from the league’s
previous level which was around $150 million. The players had proposed
a $250 million pool of revenue sharing, including the creation of what
they called an “Industry Growth Fund,” a $100 million fund to be
administered by the commissioner’s office to assist the less wealthy
clubs. That fund will be part of the new agreement, although it is
unclear at the moment how large it will be.
Other CBA matters that are less economically related include a new
appeals process on player suspensions. The appeal of any suspension
longer than five games will now be heard by a third-party rather than
by the NHL commissioner. The players had objected to the previous
appeal process because the person hearing the appeal appoints the
person making the original ruling and they sought a neutral
perspective on that.
Additionally, the NHL Entry Draft will see a change so that every team
missing the playoffs will have an opportunity to win the weighted
lottery and get the first pick. Previously the winning team could only
move up four spots in the draft order, which excluded most of the
non-playoff clubs from drafting first overall.
The agreement is still subject to some important hurdles, the actual
legal writing of the document (and that is not insignificant,
considering that late last week the players accused the owners of
altering written versions of the document from what had earlier been
agreed upon), and the ratification by both the players and the NHL
Board of Governors.
Reaching this deal was due to a few factors.
First, the work of Federal Mediator Scot Beckenbaugh. He rejoined the
talks last Monday and, even following the most contentious moments,
was able to get the sides to find the commonality that was so elusive
during the course of these negotiations. Even this past week, when
things might have derailed, Beckenbaugh worked diligently to get
things back on track.
Second, the threat by the players of disclaiming interest in their
union — essentially dissolving it as their bargaining agent in these
negotiations. Had they actually done so, it would have removed the
legal obstacles preventing them from pursing anti-trust litigation
against the owners. Had lawsuits of that nature proceeded, and if a
judge ruled in favor of the players, the owners would have been liable
for triple the monetary damages being sought. This was a tactic to get
the league to bargain more actively when it showed little willingness
to compromise on key issues and was only put before the players
reluctantly by the NHLPA leadership and rather late in the process;
some labor law experts and observers believed the union should have
gone this route weeks, if not months, ago. The players first voted to
give their executive committee the authority to disclaim interest in
late December, with an expiration of Jan. 2, and as that date came
closer, progress began to be made. When it expired and there was no
agreement, the players detected that the owners changed their approach
to bargaining, so they voted again to give the executive that
authority and an agreement followed in short order.
On Canada’s Sportnet, Phoenix Coyotes Captain Shane Doan told that
network’s correspondents covering the lockout that the players not
using that weapon had more to do with the deal being concluded,
presumably because it indicated to the owners that the players were
A third factor was the removal of owners from the process. At many of
the major bargaining sessions, a group of hardline owners sat across
the table from the union representatives and players. Those sessions
were generally unproductive and, at times, fractious. More progress
was made in early December when some less militant owners joined the
talks and Bettman and Fehr temporarily excluded themselves. But the
hardest of the hardliners, Boston’s Jeremey Jacobs and Calgary’s
Murray Edwards, remained involved and those sessions couldn’t finish
off the agreement. Talks came crashing to a halt when the players said
they wanted Fehr back in the process, that they were not trained in
the art of closing the deal, and having their leader present was
something they were certainly entitled to do. Edwards reportedly told
them that Fehr’s return would be a deal-killer and things ground to a
halt. Following that episode, the league wisely decided against active
ownership participation.
And the fourth factor was the calendar and the concern that not coming
to an agreement by January 11 might mean a season would not be played.
Bettman had said that he didn’t think less than 48 games made any
sense and his time frame included a schedule starting no later than
Jan. 19. Some even believed that negotiations would extend beyond this
weekend as the sides attempted to wring every last point from the
other side. But as momentum built during the last couple of days,
progress continued until the players and owners were able to announce
this framework, which has tentatively brought to a close one of the
most belligerent chapters in NHL history.
Nobody won. Really, nobody. The fans lost because they were left
hanging and lost a half-season including the Winter Classic at the Big
House in Michigan. NBC Sports Network whose ratings fell into abyss
with no NHL games from October through now has been “The Biggest
Loser” through all this.
Regional sports networks across the country, dependent on NHL games
for live programming, have been stuck trying to fill large holes with
repeats of past sporting events or in some extreme cases, movies.
So now that the NHL is coming back as early as January 15 and no later
than January 19, let’s go over the winners and losers from the NHL
Lockout.
WINNERS
No one. Nobody won. Fans. Players. Owners. Sponsors. TV partners. The
League. All lost.
LOSERS
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman: The NHL has lost 10% of the games in
his disastrous tenure due to lockout. No league has lost more games
due to labor disputes during the time he’s been in office. And the NHL
is the lone league of the major four leagues to have canceled an
entire season.
NBC Sports Network: It didn’t have live NHL games for four months and
its ratings suffered. With Michelle Beadle’s new show premiering this
month and a new NFL documentary about to begin, the network needs that
consistent live programming to promote them. The NHL will help in that
process.
Regional Sports Networks: Local rightsholders such as NESN, Sun
Sports, Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net all depend on the NHL for
as many as 80 live games per season. Without live games, they had to
scramble for other programming. NESN kept airing the Boston Bruins
2011 Stanley Cup run, but that only goes so far. The RSN’s are happy
to see the NHL returning.
Sponsors: Based on the momentum the NHL had built over the last few
years including a new long-term TV contract with NBC that began last
season, sponsors had begun to drift to the league. As the lockout
progressed, sponsors put pressure on the league to get back on the
ice.
Local businesses and Employees:Restaurants, bars and shops that depend
on hockey crowds for business at night lost four months to the lockout
and that’s money that they’ll never get back. Buffalo, Nashville and
other hockey-only markets are happy to see the NHL knowing that
they’ll have 24-25 dates. But will the fans be back? And if you want
to see how losing hockey can affect local businesses, here’s a
flashback from WFSB’s Dennis House on how the Hartford Whalers’
departure affected Connecticut and one particular restaurant.
NHL Network: Bad job by the NHL Network for not even bringing back its
studio shows to update fans on the lockout. As the news of the lockout
was being settled, NHL Network remained in taped programming. They
didn’t even simulcast TSN from Canada. Disservice to the fans. NFL
Network and NBA TV both covered the ends of their lockouts in 2011,
yet NHL Network can’t even provide lip service other than a crawl?
C’mon, man! C’mon, NHL Network!
So where do we go from here? There are several things the NHL can do
to get back in the fans’ good graces. One, make the Center Ice pay out-
of-market package free for the entire season. Also, GameCenter which
is the online version of Center Ice should be greatly discounted or
made free for the season as well.
When the season opens, whether it’s on January 15 or January 19, NBC
Sports Group should be given an opening night doubleheader which
should include the banner raising ceremony for the defending Stanley
Cup Champion Los Angeles Kings.
If the NHL opens on January 19 which falls on a Saturday, NBC should
be given an afternoon doubleheader at noon and 3 p.m. ET while NBC
Sports Network should be given games at night.
As far as the Canadian TV partners, expect CBC to given the Opening
Night doubleheader no matter what day the NHL will open the season.
TSN should get plenty of games for opening week as well.
And we’ll keep an eye on the ratings for any residual effects from the
lockout. Both the NFL and NBA did not suffer any collateral damage
from the lockout seeing record ratings. We’ll see if the NHL is warmly
welcomed back or given the cold shoulder by fans.
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=462204&page=1
« Reply #11 on Jan 5, 2013, 5:24pm »
It wouldn't fix all that ails the NHL, I think Hockey in the states
would benefit greatly from an American version of Hockey Night In
Canada. Just have one (or two in cases of double headers) game a week
that unlike the rest of the regionally televised games, is nationally
televised. Have lots of pre and post-game hype and analysis as well as
news from around the league. Profile pieces on players, coaches, etc.
There are a lot of reasons why The NFL and MLB are very popular sports
in America just inherent in the sport itself, but I'm pretty sure the
NFL having two big showcase games on NBC in the form of Football Night
In America/ NBC Sunday Night Football and ESPN's Monday Night Football
(which before that was on ABC) and ESPN has Sunday Night Baseball.
These broadcast gives these games (and by extension their sport as a
whole) a nationally televised showcase and all of the hype and analsis
gives the entire nation a chance to learn what's going on around the
league. To appreciate a sport, one must learn about it first...Well
that and the sport must have actual games instead of lockouts.
« Reply #13 on Jan 5, 2013, 5:36pm »
- Having a league with some stability that doesn't lock out its
players and kill fan interest every 5 years or so would do wonders.
- COMPETENT expansion would help, too. The problem with a lot of the
recent expansion teams is that they were handled poorly, with bad
ownership and management groups that had no idea what they were doing.
The Columbus Blue Jackets had a ton of potential to be a great hockey
franchise in Ohio's most populated city with a great sports fanbase
built in with the Ohio State Buckeyes in town. But the owners and
management are woefully incompetent, trading away any talent they get
for peanuts instead of building a solid team around them.
- Less Canadian influence. I hate to say this because I don't think
it's really right. And I'm not saying that they should contract the
Flames or move the Maple Leafs to say, Houston. But a lot of Americans
don't take Canadians too seriously. No one's going to take the NHL
seriously in the US if they put an expansion team or move a team to
Hamilton, Ontario. The Atlanta Thrashers becoming the Winnipeg Jets is
great for hockey history nerds like us and Canadian sports fans. But
it was a terrible idea for bringing any potential new American fans
into the sport.
« Reply #15 on Jan 5, 2013, 5:51pm »
I think if the NHL were to continue to expand they need to go to
markets without professional sports teams already. San Jose fully
embraced the Sharks because they were the only major league team in
town and now that city has an identity as a hockey town.
Atlanta never worked because of the Braves, Falcons and to a lesser
extent the Hawks already gave the city their sports identity.
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=462204&page=2
« Reply #20 on Jan 5, 2013, 11:39pm »
The single biggest issue: outside of the Northern states, hockey is
not a "natural" sport to play down here. Pond hockey is huge in Canada
because of the abundance of skating surfaces that just pop up all over
the place in winter, but it's not very common in great swarths of the
US. Add to that how expensive a sport it is to play for many kids
here, and it hurts the chance to develop a hockey "culture" that would
give the game popularity beyond the NHL.
That's not to say hockey can't be cultivated in "non-traditional
markets", but it takes a ton of time and effort.
Secondary reason: the Habs and Leafs dominated the Original Six years
of the NHL, which might've turned off some potential fans way back in
the day who might've just figured "meh, this is just for Canadians,
I'm going to watch basketball/football/baseball/etc." That's just a
pet theory of mine, but it wouldn't shock me.
« Reply #28 Yesterday at 12:53am »
Jan 5, 2013, 7:15pm, triplethreatmark wrote:
Sorry for the double post here, but as M.O.P. brought up the whole
"Hockey is too Canadian" excuse is so lame. Are we as Americans that
arrogant that we need to dominate a sport (in terms of participants)
to respect it?
I don't think it was meant as an arrogance kind of thing. It was just
his opinion to the questioned that you proposed. More American's would
probably pay attention to hockey if the NHL expanded to big US markets
without teams (Seattle, KC, Houston etc.) And if done right (AKA not
like it was done with the sunbelt expansion) it could work. However
for the sake of the league the NHL needs to keep it's Canadian market.
The 7 Canadian teams bring in ridiculous amounts of cash and adding a
team in Quebec City and/or Southern Ontario would be a license to
print money.
« Reply #30 Yesterday at 1:22am »
Again, double posting here but another reason I feel this sport isn't
big enough here is that ESPN is still butthurt that the league decided
to turn elsewhere when they were re-negotiating broadcasting rights
coming out of the 04-05 lockout. Because the network has such an
influence on the likes and dislikes of the average American sports
fan, I feel like if they hate it and don't care about it, then Joe
Schmo won't care about it either. Do you guys agree or disagree with
this theory? I know this viewpoint is popular within hockey circles
but I'm very curious to see what the casual and non-hockey people have
to say about this.
« Reply #32 Yesterday at 1:24am »
I don't mean to stir up anything here but how can hockey be seen as
having "bad" pacing when sports like Baseball and Football exist? I'm
a total ignoramus when it comes to those sports I admit but in the
times I've actually tried watching them, I find them way too slow and
stilted - Football especially. But all sports are usually much better
live than on TV. When I watch a Habs game on tv I enjoy it, but it
pales in comparison to seeing them live (too bad it costs a damn
fortune every time).
I think to get more Yanks into the game they'd have to be introduced
to it much earlier. If there were schools available (say youth camps,
etc) we'd probably see more minorities in Hockey.
The other problem is the expense and the need to find places where ice
time is available. With Baseball and Football and Soccer and
Basketball you can pretty much just grab a ball and play on the spot.
With Hockey you can't do that (and street hockey isn't the same) - you
need the gear, you need to learn how skate, you need to find a rink to
play on, etc.
« Reply #35 Yesterday at 1:42am »
I do think the genpop of the country need either an American to get
behind since most cannot play it or a huge personality. That is the
key with most sports in this country, IMO. You need people to think
they can play it easily (or have played it) or someone they can get
behind and root for/against and in most cases it needs to be an
American (it can be really anyone as long as they have an amazing
personality though).
It's the same reason F1 hasn't taken off and Indy Racing has gone to
hell, mismanagement, no easy way to watch and lack of someone to root
for/against because of it. Danica, for as much as the average race fan
cannot stand the attention she gets, draws people in because she's
American, decent and hot (yeah that is the most important but the rest
makes the hot matter). That combined with the 500 being on ABC brought
renewed interest to the 500. It was easily accessible to the common
sports fan and gave them someone to root for/against. If NHL could
find a person like that (somewhat talented but charismatic), would
market the hell out them and most importantly get NBC's help by
putting more games on TV channels people can watch the NHL would be a
lot more popular I think.
I will say, even with all that, Hockey will never reach the levels of
popularity that baseball, football, basketball and even soccer enjoy
because it's not a pick up and pay thing. There just is no easy way
for most of the country to casually play hockey
« Reply #43 Yesterday at 2:30am »
Hockey will always be a fourth tier sport in the US. Probably for a
few reasons:
1) It's low scoring, much like soccer, though admittedly it's a much
faster paced sport than soccer. On one hand though football is low
scoring if you accounted for the fact that TDs are worth 6 points
instead of 1, but even if a football team is down 3 scores it feels to
me (again, just a personal view here) that there is a path a team can
come back from. A 3 goal lead in hockey feels almost insurmountable
(though not like soccer where it feels like it's just totally
impossible to come back from).
2) It's hard to tell who the players are, especially with all the line
changes. Honestly I have no clue who is on the ice half the time I'm
watching a hockey game. Interestingly enough I did like playing NHL
video games back in the day because the player's name would float
about their body in the game. I'd honestly like hockey more if I could
figure out how to watch a game like that, though I'll admit I'm
probably in the minority.
To expand on that while I haven't really followed hockey much in the
past 6 years or so, especially because the Avs haven't been that good,
I do know Ryan O'Rielly and Matt Duchane (and the Swedish kid they got
last season whose name is not only escaping me but I have no chance in
hell of spelling...Landerskog I think) are the star players for the
team, but I don't know their numbers and have no idea what lines they
are on and when that line is on the ice. The fact they all wear
helmets and look the same really hurts, though for safety reasons they
should. It doesn't hurt that much in the NFL because the QB is usually
the major star and you know where he is at all times.
3) It's just not culturally ingrained in the US other than the
northeast. Hell I live in Colorado where we have an NHL team that has
won two Stanley Cups since they've moved here and has two pretty damn
good college hockey teams and nobody really cares (not that there
isn't a good hockey fanbase here, but I hardly hear about hockey being
talked in the office unless maybe the Avs are in the Stanley Cup
Finals). Let alone places like California and most of the south.
Related to this problem is that it's really expensive to play. I
wanted to play hockey as a kid but the cost and the fact the only rink
was a half hour away from our house made it nearly impossible.
« Reply #49 Yesterday at 3:19am »
Quote:
I don't think it was meant as an arrogance kind of thing. It was just
his opinion to the questioned that you proposed. More American's would
probably pay attention to hockey if the NHL expanded to big US markets
without teams (Seattle, KC, Houston etc.) And if done right (AKA not
like it was done with the sunbelt expansion) it could work. However
for the sake of the league the NHL needs to keep it's Canadian market.
The 7 Canadian teams bring in ridiculous amounts of cash and adding a
team in Quebec City and/or Southern Ontario would be a license to
print money.
But that's also a problem as well- a big way for hockey in the USA
needs to succeed is to embrace that it's a smaller sport and actively
pick smaller markets that have no cities. This was a problem with the
Sun Belt expansion as well- while teams like Seattle, KC, and Houston
have no teams [and Seattle/KC have no basketball team- which, at least
with the Sounders in MLS, has proven can really help a lesser team
thrive)- the last expansion had picked poorly for its own sake. If
it's Sun Belt elitism, it's one thing- but it's worse when they're
picking cities like Atlanta, which has failed twice in 40 years- and
because Atlanta's a big US city, we all know the NHL is going to try
to expand there AGAIN. Even the cities named have problems- Seattle
and Houston never got tested, but Kansas City is a choice because of
their arena (and not the fact that the last time Kansas City got an
NHL team, they failed so miserably they had to move two years later.)
Indeed, if hockey will succeed in the US, the step shouldn't be
"expand to the Sun Belt" or "Expand to the Northern markets", but
rather "expand to cities where they won't be competing with basketball
in the winter". When that happens, there'll be more of a chance the
city takes to hockey- which leads to more rabid, loyal fanbases- which
leads to it taking.
« Reply #53 Yesterday at 5:42am »
I think a big problem is the hockey season happens at a bad time. When
there is a season it starts during the period of the year where there
is a log jam of sports happening. You have college football, NFL, NBA,
and college basketball in addition to hockey. That's too much sports
to keep track of at the start of the season. And at the end of the
season it is going against end of the season NBA and early season MLB.
Basically hockey is flat out the last sport, next to soccer, on the
minds of most Americans.
I myself don't follow the NHL all that much but I do follow the
Oklahoma City Barons (and the Blazers before them).
« Reply #55 Yesterday at 11:41am »
Here's my view on why hockey is treated as a second-class sport, and
this from somebody who lives in the shadow of Chicago, which actually
treats its Blackhawks hockey somewhat well...when they play.
-Basketball, football and baseball have multi-camera angles and
excellent views of each game. You feel like a part of the action. The
camera is able to be right there with a close-up of Derrick Rose
slamming one down, or Matt Forte being pushed out of bounds and right
into your living room.
-In hockey, you have Plexiglas separating the fans from the game. The
view you get from cameras behind the glass aren't all that good. The
action is almost too much for the fans to take in; it's almost like
watching tennis with the constant back-and-forth with the puck. (Plus,
the image of hockey mainly being two brutes beating each other up...I
won't get into that.)
-Your local station's broadcast of anything sports-related also plays
a part in it. If the news station treats it as a big deal, then it
will most likely BE a big deal.
If you mention it as an aside..."Oh, by the way, in other sports news,
the Chicago Wolves (AHL team) lost to Milwaukee...", then fans will
mostly not pay any attention to it.
-Local broadcasting of games makes a big difference. For years, people
didn't really care about the Blackhawks - or hockey in general - (save
for their "12,000 fans") because you never saw the games on regular
TV. It was all on cable. It usually aired on tape delay or was bumped
from the schedule for something a little more "exciting" (the Bulls or
a local college team doing well, for instance). The old ownership
(Dollar Bill Wirtz) refused to put home games on TV, standing by the
old adage "If they can watch home games for free on TV, they won't
come out to the games."
The new blood (flag-bearer Rocky Wirtz) understood that to create a
fan, you have to make things more fan-friendly. Show the darn things
on free (WGN) TV! Push your young stars as building blocks for the
future! Bring back the old stars (Stan Mikita, Bobby Hull, etc.) and
welcome them back to the family! Bridge the gap!
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=462204&page=4
« Reply #60 Yesterday at 3:27pm »
I am a huge hockey fan. The biggest issue that hockey has is that the
product does not televise nearly as well as it is in person.
Personally, I feel the opposite is true for football. You really
notice all of the breaks in play at an NFL game. On TV, not as much
since they are showing states and replaying everything.
Personally, there is no point for hockey to try and be a top 3 sport.
With the availability of getting games easier than ever, they can
market easier to their already fans. It is a niche sport, however,
they need to realize that there is nothing wrong with that.
« Reply #61 Yesterday at 3:38pm »
Quote:
I think a big problem is the hockey season happens at a bad time. When
there is a season it starts during the period of the year where there
is a log jam of sports happening. You have college football, NFL, NBA,
and college basketball in addition to hockey. That's too much sports
to keep track of at the start of the season. And at the end of the
season it is going against end of the season NBA and early season MLB.
Basically hockey is flat out the last sport, next to soccer, on the
minds of most Americans.
That's also a big reason that the biggest point [and the reason
Bettman is failing as an NHL commissioner...or one of them] is that
the NHL needs to go to cities that don't have NBA teams
(unfortunately, since Bettman went to the NHL from the NBA, he's going
to the wrong markets.) The Sun Belt expansion is the good example
here: If you look at the Southern/Western teams, the point becomes
clear: The Sun Belt has nine teams right now. The teams that are
failing tend to be teams competing with an NBA team (Panthers/Heat,
Thrashers/Hawks, and Coyotes/Suns- only Stars-Mavericks has managed to
thrive well enough), and the teams that are doing well enough for
themselves are in cities that don't have an NBA team (Nashville
[instead of Memphis], San Jose [instead of Oakland/San Francisco],
St.Louis, Tampa Bay [instead of Orlando], Anaheim, and Raleigh-Durham
[instead of Charlotte.])