Goodfella25 Posted February 2, 2007 Report Posted February 2, 2007 Unhappy Anniversary: 15 Years of Bettman I think the columnist goes a little to the extreme in placing blame on Bettman, nonetheless he is implicated in many of the problems the league has today. And can anyone tell me WHO is behind this "make the nets bigger" fiasco. That is the worst idea I've ever heard.
Kristian Posted February 2, 2007 Report Posted February 2, 2007 Bigger nets? Err.... Didn't somebody check the goals per game avg. lately!?? If you want to increase scoring, throw The Devils out of the league!
wjag Posted February 2, 2007 Report Posted February 2, 2007 That's a pretty tough indictment; but true, except for the Stern/NBA part. It's been said many time before, hockey is not a southern thing. Yet there are teams in Florida (2), Georgia, Tennessee, Carolina, Arizona, Texas, and SoCal. The league expansion was ill advised. The Canadian cities like Quebec and Winnipeg should have teams but don't. Pittsburgh may lose their team to Kansas City or Oklahoma. This just gets more absurd by the year. Blame should rest squarely on the Commisioner. You want fans? Then figure out how to cover the game so you NEVER lose sight of the puck!! Work on that rather than expanding into the south, changing the goal size or changing the jerseys. Go to where your fan base IS not where you hope to create one.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 2, 2007 Report Posted February 2, 2007 This is Bettman's NHL. Fourteen years, four bankruptcies, three franchise moves, two lockouts, one lost season and no effective leadership.Looks like I might have a new signature... :worthy:
nfreeman Posted February 3, 2007 Report Posted February 3, 2007 Here's another pretty good article on bettman: http://garejoycesgames.blogspot.com/2007/0...rk-nhl-for.html I thought Dan Wetzel's article was a bit too harsh. He also skirted some inconvenient facts -- namely that (i) the new southern US teams are generally all doing well above average in terms of attendance and profitability, (ii) Winnipeg, Quebec and Hartford were losing buckets of money and had no choice but to move and (iii) no one really knows how much power Bettman has to implement his agenda as opposed to just being a flunky of the owners. The NHL certainly has backslid significantly under Bettman. But it wasn't his fault Gretzky, Messier and Lemieux got old and retired. I also don't think it was his fault that the game got boring -- I think most of the old-school owners needed a major meltdown to slap them in the face before they agreed to crack down on holding and hooking and to get rid of ties. Holding the all-star game against American Idol was a bonehead move, but they did it once, learned from their mistake and are fixing the problem next year -- and all-star games are pretty meaningless anyway. The biggest question, and one that I'm undecided on, is whether going to OLN/Vs was a mistake. Gare Joyce asks the question: if NASCAR can morph into a huge nationwide sport, why can't the NHL? And if you need ESPN to get there, then was Vs a big mistake? These are valid questions. ESPN clearly wasn't going to pay anything for the NHL, so the question for Bettman was whether to strike some kind of deal with ESPN where ESPN pays the NHL zero but the NHL keeps the advertising revenue. It also seemed like the NHL wasn't happy with the amount of promotion it was getting out of ESPN. Vs, OTOH, is writing a big guaranteed check to the NHL (which I'm sure the owners like) and is making the NHL their centerpiece. I think ultimately the NHL is a great game and, with the new rules and more exciting play, it can recapture much more national interest. I don't think the NHL should just focus on its core Canadian/Northern US markets. It can be at least as big as the NBA. The game is more exciting than the NBA and the players are so much more likable. Ultimately it's Bettman's job to get the NHL to that level. My suggestions would include: 1. continuing to call the hooking/holding/delay penalties tightly. 2. shrinking the goalie pads (I too hate the idea of growing the nets, but the goalie pads seem like they're twice as big as they used to be) 3. working with cable and satellite providers of center ice to provide more HD telecasts -- b/c hockey is amazing in HD, and studies show that owners of HD TVs will watch more of anything if it's in HD 4. figuring out how to get more national TV exposure 5. working with local media outlets in the cities that have teams to increase team and league coverage. It may be impossible, but Bettman is well paid and it's reasonable to hold him accountable for what happens from here on. The game is much better than it used to be. He needs to figure out how to sell it.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 3, 2007 Report Posted February 3, 2007 The NHL certainly has backslid significantly under Bettman. But it wasn't his fault Gretzky, Messier and Lemieux got old and retired. I also don't think it was his fault that the game got boring -- I think most of the old-school owners needed a major meltdown to slap them in the face before they agreed to crack down on holding and hooking and to get rid of ties. Holding the all-star game against American Idol was a bonehead move, but they did it once, learned from their mistake and are fixing the problem next year -- and all-star games are pretty meaningless anyway. I don't know, nfreeman. I agree that we certainly can't dump all the league's problems on him, but he has been the captain of the ship for the last 14 years, and during his tenure, some really damaging things have happened to the NHL. While there may have been circumstances out of his control, he is still responsible for two lockouts, a lost season, TV ratings that have slid backwards, and the league sliding out of being a top-4 league to being a regional sport. that I don't know how much longer you continue to pay him as NHL commissioner. I cannot argue with this: I could write a book about Bettman's insulting and imbecilic moves through the years (Chapter 9: "The Glowing Puck") but the main problem has always been the same. He has shown no respect for the game, for its history, for its fans, for its unique qualities. Bettman might consider himself an astute sports marketer, but in practice he is arguably the worst of all time. He has never figured out how to change his marketing plans to fit the product of hockey. Instead, he changed the product to fit his marketing plans. The league is now overexpanded and overpriced, misplaced and misdirected. It is less exciting, less interesting, less traditional and more difficult to follow for the non-obsessive fan. Yes, hockey fans remain. I'm one of them. But even we can't believe what has happened here. It is bad enough a desperate, ill-advised grab of supposed "new, emerging markets" have come at the expense of the old fan base. It's dispiriting that the league chased the fickle corporate dollar and priced out families. But what's worse is it just keeps going and going, Bettman on the job for life.
Goodfella25 Posted February 3, 2007 Author Report Posted February 3, 2007 Here's my opinion... :beer: :worthy: Deftones, 7 Words, nice. I think the VS question is very valid. ESPN, although I can't stand it, is the premier source for sports television, and hockey should be on there. Speaking of the television presentation, I think it's about time the league looks into different camera angles; and NOT the stupid "rail cam" which is an abomination. I know it's going to be difficult to change the camera angle because of the designated places for cameras in the areanas, but come on SOMETHING needs to be done. As we all know, watching hockey on TV doesn't do the game justice, and it never will. But the presentation can be improved. Also, either spice up or give up on the "mic'ed up" garbage. One out of 20 times does the player with the mic actually say something interesting. The rest is like you watch and listen to it, and then you say "what the hell." If the player says something vulgar just bleep it out, but I'd rather hear that then "I'll pass it to you next time you're there, and then you can score" and things of that nature.
jerryg Posted February 3, 2007 Report Posted February 3, 2007 I'll lay the current state of the NHL squarely on Bettman. A famous politician once asked: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Well, is the NHL better off now than it was fourteen years ago? Fourteen years is a long time. Most corporate CEO's don't get 14 years to turn around a business-and aren't still around when they fail. Fourteen years is more then enough time to study a situation, decide on your goals, devise a plan to reach them and implement it. Several times. Bettman screwed the league by accepting bad collective bargaining deals so he could have labor peace in order to have NHL participation in the Olympics (a negative in and of itself) then ultimately had to shut the league down for a year to recify that. We've seen expansion to non-NHL markets, not because demand was there, but because new owners were willing to pay the struggling league big $ to gain entrance (ie: Disney) and relocation of franchises in traditional markets that could have been saved with league intervention (ie: salary cap, revenue sharing) but were sacrifices for Bettmans desire for a "National footprint" for the league. I mean, who gives a crap about Quebec or Hartford...or really, Montreal, for that matter when Phoenix and Miami have new arenas that desperately need tenants 40 nights a year? Diluting the talent pool via expansion brought about the innovation of the trap and the left wing lock by which marginally talented teams could compete, thus hastening the league's downward spiral. Although fighting was mostly regulated out of the game under some misguided notion that fans though it was not acceptable and would turn off prospective new fans, plodding, boring hockey was considered just fine. Instead of regulating the game 8-10 years ago to remove obstruction, holding and interference to bring excitement to the game, we got the glow-puck.
Taro T Posted February 4, 2007 Report Posted February 4, 2007 I'll lay the current state of the NHL squarely on Bettman. A famous politician once asked: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Well, is the NHL better off now than it was fourteen years ago? Fourteen years is a long time. Most corporate CEO's don't get 14 years to turn around a business-and aren't still around when they fail. Fourteen years is more then enough time to study a situation, decide on your goals, devise a plan to reach them and implement it. Several times. Bettman screwed the league by accepting bad collective bargaining deals so he could have labor peace in order to have NHL participation in the Olympics (a negative in and of itself) then ultimately had to shut the league down for a year to recify that. We've seen expansion to non-NHL markets, not because demand was there, but because new owners were willing to pay the struggling league big $ to gain entrance (ie: Disney) and relocation of franchises in traditional markets that could have been saved with league intervention (ie: salary cap, revenue sharing) but were sacrifices for Bettmans desire for a "National footprint" for the league. I mean, who gives a crap about Quebec or Hartford...or really, Montreal, for that matter when Phoenix and Miami have new arenas that desperately need tenants 40 nights a year? Diluting the talent pool via expansion brought about the innovation of the trap and the left wing lock by which marginally talented teams could compete, thus hastening the league's downward spiral. Although fighting was mostly regulated out of the game under some misguided notion that fans though it was not acceptable and would turn off prospective new fans, plodding, boring hockey was considered just fine. Instead of regulating the game 8-10 years ago to remove obstruction, holding and interference to bring excitement to the game, we got the glow-puck. It's easy to criticize Bettman for the 1st lockout and the hastening of "the trap" that ensued, but is it really HIS fault that the 1st half of '94-'95 disappeared? Remember, in '92 the players struck for the 1st time ever and pretty well cleaned the owners clocks. Ziegler retired at the end of the season and Gil Stein took over for, what, 4 months? (He was President long enough to get himself elected to the Hall of Fame, but not long enough to do anything else notable.) Bettman came on board in February of '93. Bettman had ~1-1/2 years on the job when the decision was made (by the owners) to hold the 1st lockout. There was no way the owners were going to start the season and let the players strike at the end of the season again. (They had at least learned that much from the last labor imbroglio.) While the owners did agree on that much, there was very little else that they agreed about and were their own worst enemies during the negotiations (gee, that's never been the case prior or since /sarcasm); several owners were desperate to not see the season scuttled even if it meant taking a bad deal. The season was saved, but the foundation of what would cause the next lockout was laid at that time. Goodenow kicked the owners bippies for the 2nd time in 3 years and that cemented his negotiating strategy - delay on a deal until the owners eat their own and then feast on what's left of the carcass. Additionally, due to the mechanics of HOW the CBA caused the players to kick the owners' butts - arbitration caused salaries to sky rocket and the handful of loose cannons (such as St. Louis or the Strangers) drove up the costs of staying competitive for everyone. I've always believed that because arbitration would cause goal scorers to become very rich, the owners put things such as larger goalie equipment, and lessened enforcement which helped to cause the trap to thrive, etc. into the game to attempt to rein in player costs. Unfortunately, those measures also lessened the entertainment value of the product on the ice. Were those things Bettman's fault? If you believe an outsider to a very exclusive, squabbling fraternity could tell his bosses what to do after less than 18 months on the job, then yes, it was his fault. I don't agree. I do think that he shares in the blame, but to me the 2 who share the most blame are the owners and Goodenow. The owners for being humongous idiots and Goodenow for fleecing them so bad that the whole product went downhill. (When negotiating in a relationship where both parties must exist in order for the whole to survive, you want to win but you can't KILL the other guy; Goodenow killed the other guy.) Yes, 14 years is a long enough time to decide if someone will succeed or fail, but the '95 CBA didn't expire until '04 (it was extended once, IIRC to keep from scuttling the Salt Lake City participation). When did Bettman have the opportunity to adjust or impact the single biggest item effecting HIS effectiveness? Not until ~8 years later. By the time the CBA expired, Goodenow was convinced the players would win again simply by delaying until December / January. The owners would cave, he was convinced. He never negotiated, because in the past he never had to. The owners had steeled their resolve in the preceding years and bought into Bettman's plan. Bettman convinced them of 3 things: 1 they needed a salary cap to survive, 2 they would be hurt less in the long run by losing a season if it meant getting a salary cap than they would be if they didn't get 1, and 3 that he could get a salary cap. 3 is definitely true. Considering the leaguewide revenue post-lockout was what it had been pre-lockout, 2 appears to be true. And I believe 1 is true. (Much harder to prove, and it is a point that people do debate on.) As for Bettman accepting bad CBA's, he's only accepted 2 CBA's. The 1st one, he got crushed, but if you honestly believe he had a way around that, given the circumstances, short of scuttling the '95 season (which Boston, Filly, NY, and a few others would NOT allow to happen), please explain to me what he should have done and how he should have done it. The 2nd deal, he got a fair one. League and player revenues will increase throughout the life of the agreement. The league is in partnership with its players again. Something that hasn't occurred in league history, with the exception of the Alan Eagleson era, and HE totally sold out the players for his own personal gain. So, since the league and the Eagle were shafting the players, I'd say they didn't have a partnership then either. As for a problem with bringing in Disney and Blockbuster, there was a method to the madness. It wasn't JUST for the expansion fees. They were brought in because they were huge MEDIA companies (one in product and distribution, the other in distribution). When one is attempting to expand his customer base, it makes sense to have the marketing power of companies like these on board. Did it pan out as well as hoped, no. But, was that due to watered down product, expanding to non-traditional markets, or due to boring hockey due to the '95 CBA? I think you know my answer to that. ;) You do realize that TB, SJ, and Ottawa were added to the league before Bettman ever entered the picture and the league had already planned to add 2 more teams (at least) within a few more years? Considering this expansion took place at the same time that Eastern Europeans became available to the NHL in significant #'s, the watering down of talent argument is specious at best. Talent was watered down significantly going from 6 to 12 and 12 to 18. It wasn't watered down nearly to the same level when they went from 21/24 to 30. (Guys like Jagr, Federov, and Hasek definitely wouldn't have made it in the league in the '70's. :doh: ) You do also realize that of the last 4 expansion teams: 1 went to Minnesota (that's not a traditional market / sarcasm); 1 went to a city that had had NHL hockey before, NEVER won a playoff series, and NEVER drew less than 10,000 fans/game (to a mediocre at best team) and only drew less than 12,000 fans/game in its final season (when people expected the mediocre team to move) and is currently, arguably, the 3rd most important media city in the US; 1 went to a state that has a rich hockey history; and 1 went to a non-traditional market. (1 out of 4, not bad IMHO.) When would revenue sharing been on the table between owners except at CBA negotiation time? I don't disagree with you that the NHL shouldn't be in the Olympics, but after the basketball "dream team" was formed, it was just a matter of time till the NHL decided to get in on the act. Also, please do not confuse me for someone who loves everything Bettman does/did. I don't. But I don't agree with bashing him for things that were, to large extent, beyond his control. Thanks for making me defend Bettman. <_< I don't know, nfreeman. I agree that we certainly can't dump all the league's problems on him, but he has been the captain of the ship for the last 14 years, and during his tenure, some really damaging things have happened to the NHL. While there may have been circumstances out of his control, he is still responsible for two lockouts, a lost season, TV ratings that have slid backwards, and the league sliding out of being a top-4 league to being a regional sport. that I don't know how much longer you continue to pay him as NHL commissioner. I cannot argue with this: Considering the event that caused all that IMHO (the signing of the '95 CBA) was something he was a part of but not nearly in control of, I don't know what he could have done to avert all that AFTER the '95 CBA went into effect. If you have suggestions, I'd be very interested to listen to, er, read them. Just remember to consider how any move he'd have made would have affected / effected player compensation within the framework in existance at that time.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 4, 2007 Report Posted February 4, 2007 I can give him a pass (somewhat) on the expansion into non-traditional markets, since Tampa & Ottawa were done before he got there, and other expansions were already in the works. And I don't dispute that there were probably some circumstances that Bettman had little, if no, control over. But IMO, a lockout 18 months into his tenure is not something from which he can be can absolved of blame. Had the lockout happened at the start of the 94 season, where he had been on the job for 7, 8 months, maybe I could understand. But 18 months, knowing that a potential labor dispute is looming, is more than enough time to gauge the owners' demands, figure out who wants what, and find a balance to promote a unified front in CBA talks. No one said being commissioner is an easy job, but it is his job to be the voice of all the owners in CBA talks. Had he stood firm with the owners and forced some of the mavericks to get in line with the rest of the league, he may have been fired. At least he could have walked away with a clear conscience and image, and the media and sports world would have known what a dysfunctional mess the NHL was/is. Ineffective is the best word for Gary's tenure. Poor rules changes, poor TV contract choices, lockouts, an entire season lost, ineffective marketing, and above all else, Gary's favorite word - spin, spin, spin. Coming off a disastrous All-Star week, TV ratings- and national exposure-wise, the NHL starts crowing about the highest monthly NHL attendance in history. What gets lost in the shuffle? The fact that the league is now counting tickets distributed, which includes ticket giveaways, instead of butts in seats. St Louis is averaging 11,000 per game; Boston, 14,000; Chicago 12,000. And that's with the inflated "tickets distributed" number. IMO, no matter what measuring stick you choose to use, Bettman's leadership of the league has been disappointing at best. Is the league better off now than it was 14 years ago? I say no, because the "cost certainty" cost the league too much.
mrjsbu96 Posted February 4, 2007 Report Posted February 4, 2007 to me, one of hockey's bigger problems is the majority of kids don't grow up with it - at some point, every kid throws a football, shoots hoops, and plays catch. not as many kids throw the nets in the street though and play hockey ( I was definitely one of those kids!) they need a marketing group out there that gets kids involed - even if these same kids never play ice hockey, at least they get some sticks in their hands and get a chance to score a goal...or at a minimum take his stick and clobber little johnny and declare himself dave 'killer' carlson...
Taro T Posted February 4, 2007 Report Posted February 4, 2007 I can give him a pass (somewhat) on the expansion into non-traditional markets, since Tampa & Ottawa were done before he got there, and other expansions were already in the works. And I don't dispute that there were probably some circumstances that Bettman had little, if no, control over. But IMO, a lockout 18 months into his tenure is not something from which he can be can absolved of blame. Had the lockout happened at the start of the 94 season, where he had been on the job for 7, 8 months, maybe I could understand. But 18 months, knowing that a potential labor dispute is looming, is more than enough time to gauge the owners' demands, figure out who wants what, and find a balance to promote a unified front in CBA talks. No one said being commissioner is an easy job, but it is his job to be the voice of all the owners in CBA talks. Had he stood firm with the owners and forced some of the mavericks to get in line with the rest of the league, he may have been fired. At least he could have walked away with a clear conscience and image, and the media and sports world would have known what a dysfunctional mess the NHL was/is. Ineffective is the best word for Gary's tenure. Poor rules changes, poor TV contract choices, lockouts, an entire season lost, ineffective marketing, and above all else, Gary's favorite word - spin, spin, spin. Coming off a disastrous All-Star week, TV ratings- and national exposure-wise, the NHL starts crowing about the highest monthly NHL attendance in history. What gets lost in the shuffle? The fact that the league is now counting tickets distributed, which includes ticket giveaways, instead of butts in seats. St Louis is averaging 11,000 per game; Boston, 14,000; Chicago 12,000. And that's with the inflated "tickets distributed" number. IMO, no matter what measuring stick you choose to use, Bettman's leadership of the league has been disappointing at best. Is the league better off now than it was 14 years ago? I say no, because the "cost certainty" cost the league too much. They DID promote a unified front, for the 1 year prior to the lockout and the 1st 2 months of the lockout. Then the owners cracked. Some were willing to lose a season, some wanted a deal at all costs, and others were on the fence. The fact that he couldn't hold them together is testiment to his not having full buy in by 24 bosses. While a team losing money, like Buffalo supposedly was, was probably willing to forego a full season and Bill Wirtz supposedly was willing to lose a season, would a team like Toronto that makes bazillions of $'s (albeit Canadian $'s) be willing to call it a year? Would a team like Ottawa, that just came into the league and had loans to repay be willing to call it a year? Too many of them had short term concerns that kept them from being willing and/or able to lose an entire season. Goodenow knew this. He knew the threat to cancel a season was never truly viable. He KNEW they would crack and he was correct. In hindsight, the league should have taken the hit back in '94-'95 and forced the union to lose a year back then. Had the owners been WILLING to do that at the time, they may not have had to lose a full year then or 2 years ago. Although a few were willing, several weren't, and others weren't able to do it. You CAN NOT get that many people, with SERIOUS money at stake on the same page when you have NO good will / history with these people and many of them have positions that are 180 degrees opposite of each other. If you have an example of someone stepping into a situation like that and the person was successful, I would be very interested in knowing about it. I'm sure it has happened, but I'd also be very surprised if there weren't some truly extraordinary circumstances involved. Don't get me wrong, there are several things that I take issue with Bettman over. BUT his inability to get the owners on 1 page when he had NO history or trust built with them isn't 1 I take issue with (no matter how much I wish he could have pulled it off). The decision to go to a lockout came well before it actually happened. Probably at least 6 months before it happened is my guess. With that as the time frame, Bettman had less than 1 year to try to build the trust (and some cohesion) with HIS BOSSES (not his employees, his bosses). And, considering the owners had more leverage at the beginning of the season than at the end, they would have been killed even worse if they had waited for the players to strike and cancel the playoffs. The players make their money between October and March. The owners make theirs in April - June. From that vantage point, it could almost be said that Bettman DID get a good deal for the owners (because they were in a position where there were almost no GOOD deals available to them). Look at football. The owners just signed a sucker CBA over there under a lame duck. Why, because Tagliabue didn't have the personal capital left to keep all the egos in check, not on his way out the door. Heck, they still haven't worked out all the details of how that one will work. What revenues are the owners going to share, I'm pretty certain that Jerry Jones and Ralph Wilson don't see eye to eye on that one.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 4, 2007 Report Posted February 4, 2007 They DID promote a unified front, for the 1 year prior to the lockout and the 1st 2 months of the lockout. Then the owners cracked. Some were willing to lose a season, some wanted a deal at all costs, and others were on the fence. The fact that he couldn't hold them together is testiment to his not having full buy in by 24 bosses. While a team losing money, like Buffalo supposedly was, was probably willing to forego a full season and Bill Wirtz supposedly was willing to lose a season, would a team like Toronto that makes bazillions of $'s (albeit Canadian $'s) be willing to call it a year? Would a team like Ottawa, that just came into the league and had loans to repay be willing to call it a year? Too many of them had short term concerns that kept them from being willing and/or able to lose an entire season. Goodenow knew this. He knew the threat to cancel a season was never truly viable. He KNEW they would crack and he was correct. In hindsight, the league should have taken the hit back in '94-'95 and forced the union to lose a year back then. Had the owners been WILLING to do that at the time, they may not have had to lose a full year then or 2 years ago. Although a few were willing, several weren't, and others weren't able to do it. You CAN NOT get that many people, with SERIOUS money at stake on the same page when you have NO good will / history with these people and many of them have positions that are 180 degrees opposite of each other. If you have an example of someone stepping into a situation like that and the person was successful, I would be very interested in knowing about it. I'm sure it has happened, but I'd also be very surprised if there weren't some truly extraordinary circumstances involved. Don't get me wrong, there are several things that I take issue with Bettman over. BUT his inability to get the owners on 1 page when he had NO history or trust built with them isn't 1 I take issue with (no matter how much I wish he could have pulled it off). The decision to go to a lockout came well before it actually happened. Probably at least 6 months before it happened is my guess. With that as the time frame, Bettman had less than 1 year to try to build the trust (and some cohesion) with HIS BOSSES (not his employees, his bosses). And, considering the owners had more leverage at the beginning of the season than at the end, they would have been killed even worse if they had waited for the players to strike and cancel the playoffs. The players make their money between October and March. The owners make theirs in April - June. From that vantage point, it could almost be said that Bettman DID get a good deal for the owners (because they were in a position where there were almost no GOOD deals available to them). I can see your point on that, but I don't agree about Bettman's relationship with the owners. Since Bettman is an employee of the owners, he had to hired by them - that is, a majority of the owners had to agree that he was the guy. The owners either trusted him enough to come in and help guide the league through the potentially disastrous labor period ahead, or enough of a majority felt he was spineless/naive enough that they could control him and he would hold little real power over the CBA negotiations. I think the latter is more likely, especially considering he wasn't "one of them" - i.e., a "hockey guy." If the owners were as hellbent on a lockout as you say, even before he was hired, his job when he came on board should have been to do everything in his power to get the NHLPA and the owners together on some sort of deal. And if he couldn't and the lockout was unavoidable, then fine. Do it, get the deal fixed, and get on with it. You certainly don't have a second lockout and lose an entire season. And while the labor issues are a big part of his "legacy" they certainly aren't the only problem. Rule changes, discarding traditions that were important to the fan base, poor marketing, poor TV exposure, poor TV rights, a near mass exodus from the country that invented the sport and now sagging attendance and are all blemishes on his record. Two questions still stand - do you think Bettman/the owners would have won the latest dispute had the NHLPA leadership not been a bigger mess than the owners? And do you think the NHL is better off after Bettman's tenure?
Taro T Posted February 4, 2007 Report Posted February 4, 2007 I can see your point on that, but I don't agree about Bettman's relationship with the owners. Since Bettman is an employee of the owners, he had to hired by them - that is, a majority of the owners had to agree that he was the guy. The owners either trusted him enough to come in and help guide the league through the potentially disastrous labor period ahead, or enough of a majority felt he was spineless/naive enough that they could control him and he would hold little real power over the CBA negotiations. I think the latter is more likely, especially considering he wasn't "one of them" - i.e., a "hockey guy." If the owners were as hellbent on a lockout as you say, even before he was hired, his job when he came on board should have been to do everything in his power to get the NHLPA and the owners together on some sort of deal. And if he couldn't and the lockout was unavoidable, then fine. Do it, get the deal fixed, and get on with it. You certainly don't have a second lockout and lose an entire season. And while the labor issues are a big part of his "legacy" they certainly aren't the only problem. Rule changes, discarding traditions that were important to the fan base, poor marketing, poor TV exposure, poor TV rights, a near mass exodus from the country that invented the sport and now sagging attendance and are all blemishes on his record. Two questions still stand - do you think Bettman/the owners would have won the latest dispute had the NHLPA leadership not been a bigger mess than the owners? And do you think the NHL is better off after Bettman's tenure? I don't think they were "hellbent" on a lockout, but I do believe they felt that if they couldn't get the deal they wanted/ believed they needed that they would lock the players out before the players had a chance to earn a season's worth of money and then go on strike. There was no way the players were going to negotiate amicably with the owners at that point in time. Emotions were still raw about Alan Eagleson's collaboration with management that had only recently come to light and the full extent of which wasn't known completely at that time. He DID get the owners and players together on "some sort of deal". That is why the 2nd lockout was necessary. Given the reality of where management - player relations and trust were at the time AND management's apparent unwillingness to truly be willing to lose a season in '95, Bettman MAY have gotten the best deal that was available. That's not saying much (and is neither a slam nor an endorsement, it's simply an acceptance of reality). The '95 deal was horrible and necessitated the lost season in '04. In '94, several teams claimed to lose money. In '04, many teams were documented to be losing money. Of course, the player union refused to even look at that report until the season was basically lost. Again, Goodenow "knew" the owners would fold when it got close to the time when a season would be lost. Unfortunately, he horribly miscalculated. He didn't believe Bettman could get the owners on 1 page, because he and Ziegler before him, couldn't do it in the '90's. Had Goodenow been willing to listen to those around him, such as Saskin, he'd have negotiated in good faith and gotten a deal for the same percentage (at least) as the union got and perhaps could have gotten other concessions as well. The league would not have lost an entire year's worth of revenue and would still be on ESPN. (Of course, it would probably still be the proverbial red-headed step child as it was prior to the lockout, but at least it wouldn't be the uncle that has been blackballed from the family.) It also may not have had the courage to implement the changes that were brought in after the lockout ended. The reasons for that being several and may be worth a discussion of their own. To me, the changes (not all of which I approve of, BTW) are the silver lining on this horribly black cloud. I think the owners were probably in both camps on your assessment of Bettman in '93. I agree that scrapping traditions such as division / conference names were very bad ideas. While the marketing has been poor, how much of that is the NHL and how much of it is no one with any power at ESPN gives a rats rear end about hockey? How often did you see a commercial for an upcoming hockey game during a hoops game, football game, or baseball game? How often were those other sports advertised during hockey games? When Lemieux was about to come out of retirement his last time, did ESPN show it's normal Wednesday night hockey game the night before Thanksgiving or did they preempt it for a hoops game? Did the league have the rights to use the players' images in non game advertising or did the NHLPA have those rights? When did ESPN ever lead Sportscenter with a non-hockey disparaging hockey story? ESPN set up NHL 2night on the Deuce, and showed a ton of games (at least at 1st) on ESPN and the Deuce. But they rarely, if ever, promoted the games outside of other hockey games. Again, the NHL got itself shown a LOT on ESPN but rarely if ever was it cross-promoted. Heck, why was Baseball tonight on ESPN and NHL 2night on the Deuce? Who's fault was all that? I don't know if it was Bettman's, the league's, or ESPN's. What "mass exodus" from Canadian cities are you referring to? There were 8 Canadian franchises when Bettman took over (and just prior to his take over there were only 7). There are currently 6 Canadian franchises. The last franchise to move was Hartford back in '97. The league has had the same 30 teams since 2000. Bettman has worked hard to keep teams in several cities since that time. To answer your questions. I don't think the owners "won" the lockout. I think the league (players and owners and fans) all won in the long run but took it HARD in the short term. There appears to be a genuine partnership between ownership and players. Depending on how you view Eagleson, that may never have happened before. While the TV situation is totally screwed right now, that won't always be the case and I can't think of a single sport that stands to gain more from HDTV than hockey. The common complaints of the non-hockey following crowd regarding TV are: it's too hard to follow the puck and you can't really see the play develop because too much is going on off screen (of course that 2nd complaint is never used when you watch a long pass play in a football game, even though you have no idea what's going on downfield until the QB heaves it down the field). HD cures both of these issues. The puck is clear, and the camera can show a wide enough swath of ice to see the play develop even when you don't fully understand the flow of the game IMHO. I do think the players could have come out with a better deal if the season wasn't scuttled, but I think that MIGHT have spelled the end of teams like the Sabres. I also really hope in 2011 when the league reworks the CBA that the teams go to an even more generous revenue sharing system. I don't know if the league is better off post Bettman or not. The reason for that answer is: there are some things that are better and some that are worse. The better is the league is on a national over the air broadcast and that started under Bettman's watch with Fox in '94. (ABC's broadcasts prior to that were preempted often in places that weren't hockey hotbeds, so I don't really consider 9 games/year that could be skipped whenever a local had a 40 year old movie that someone selling siding wanted to sponsor to be a national contract.) There is what appears to be a true partnership between the owners and players. The players seem to be even bigger and quicker than they were when Bettman started. The worse are: the lockout (obvious on the surface, given the situation it may not be so obvious a negative in 5-10 years), the boring play that increased throughout the late '90's / early '00's. Again, I blame a lot of the negatives on the '95 CBA. Could someone else have stewarded a better deal? Perhaps, but not a given by a long shot. Hell, people (not your's truly, of course ;) ) believed the OWNERS won the '95 CBA battle back in '95.
mrjsbu96 Posted February 4, 2007 Report Posted February 4, 2007 no offense, but these posts are too long - save those in-depth points for talking over multple labatt's while tailgating in june for the SC finals!!! :) did i mention i have ADD ....
inkman Posted February 4, 2007 Report Posted February 4, 2007 word...where are the dick jokes and boobies?
Knightrider Posted February 5, 2007 Report Posted February 5, 2007 no offense, but these posts are too long - save those in-depth points for talking over multple labatt's while tailgating in june for the SC finals!!! :) did i mention i have ADD .... I respectfully disagree. This stuff is great...
inkman Posted February 5, 2007 Report Posted February 5, 2007 :worthy: Deftones, 7 Words, nice. I just wish I had a little button I could push to make that blast into peoples ears who deserve it...
BuffalOhio Posted February 5, 2007 Report Posted February 5, 2007 word...where are the dick jokes and boobies? Mmmmmm....boooooobies.....
Goodfella25 Posted February 5, 2007 Author Report Posted February 5, 2007 Hahah this thread has de-railed
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.