March-April: NCAA Basketball Tournament, MLB Season Openers
October: NCAA Football mid-season, NHL season begins, no NBA until end of the month
Late December-Early January: compelling NFL games, NCAA Football bowl games (hopefully future playoff games), more NHL games including the Winter Classic
Since I don't want to talk about football anymore, the NHL is the topic for the day.
Ice Hockey is the most under-rated sport in America. It's fast, physical, entertaining and the athletes are, for the most part, not overpaid children like those littering the other major sports. Unfortunately, the NHL is a sick business. League revenues have been declining for years, labor disputes have ended multiple season over the past 20 years and the only place to watch a hockey game on TV is the Versus channel or local sports channels if you live in the right place. Fortunately, the source of these problems is easy to point out.
Gary Bettman is the current commissioner of the NHL. He has presided over the decline of one of North America's great professional sports leagues. I won't even go into the heretical rule changes that he has allowed to pass (most meant to compensate for his biggest blunders). His first big blunder was failing to completely resolve the labor dispute during the 1995 lockout half-season. Nine years later, the NHL lost an entire season because management and the NHLPA could not agree upon a salary cap. The two parties were within $10 million of each other, but they decided to lose a season instead. The NHLPA ended up being the biggest losers in the deal since the post-lockout deal was the worst deal offered.
After the 2004-05 lockout season, the sport lost sponsors, TV coverage (yes, ESPN used to cover the NHL and even had a dedicated analysis show), and fans.
However, before the Lost Season, Mr. Bettman decided to expand the league into untested southern markets through awarding franchises and relocating franchises out of traditional hockey markets. Minnesota, Quebec City and Winnipeg all lost franchises. New franchises were given or moved to Dallas, Phoenix, Raleigh, Tampa Bay, Anaheim (stupid Disney), Ft. Lauderdale, Nashville, and Atlanta.
Currently, most of these southern teams are in financial trouble. 30 teams seems like a good number for a professional sports league, but, in the current state of affairs, all of these teams are hurting league revenues and diluting the talent on the ice. The best solution for this problem is a league contraction and franchise relocation. It just so happens that I have a plan.
Franchises to fold or move:
Tampa Bay Lightning
Florida Panthers
Nashville Predators
Carolina Hurricanes
Atlanta Thrashers
Phoenix Coyotes
Columbus Blue Jackets
New Franchises:
To be honest, I'm not sure where to put new franchises. They should be in Canada at the very least. For the sake of argument, we'll put a franchise in Winnipeg and another in Quebec City.
7 comments:
You know, whenever I used to think about baseball realignment I had a rule for contracting teams - no original league members, no one who's won a championship. By that criteria Tampa Bay gets to stay which would at least give you balanced conferences. On the other hand, we could just hold off on Winnipeg or Quebec.
Otherwise, I'd say kill one LA team (preferably the Ducks since Gretzky played for the Kings, earning them a reprieve regardless of my afore-mentioned championship principle.)
I have a similar ruleset for restructuring and believe me, I don't like the idea of killing franchises that have won championships. I just feel bad for some of these southern teams that have break-out seasons, but then the fans stop showing up two years later. Plus, if Tampa Bay gets a pardon, then I would feel obliged to give one to Carolina as well ('06 Stanley Cup + they used to be the Hartford Whalers). I also agree that Quebec and Winnipeg would probably have trouble supporting teams.
Maybe instead of contracting them, the NHL could just move the franchises. There has been some talk about putting a team in Hamilton, Ontario. I just doubt that another team in the Toronto area would be good. I just shudder when I hear talk about possible expansion into Kansas City or Las Vegas.
I'm glad Jackson pointed out the Tampa Bay (and subsequently) Carolina exemptions. If you remember in particular, those Carolina fans were great in the finals.
I do however need to point out my extreme disappointment in you Dan (and to some extent, you, Jackson, as the first commenter) for missing the most important sporting convergence that occurs in October. Maybe I will let you consider on your own what this grievous oversight might be.
Anyways, I'm sorry but I just can't be on board with your contraction plan.
Let's begin with what I do like about it. I love your conference realignment. Getting Detroit out of the West is a huge plus. Also, the very natural geographical distribution of divisional teams will allow for the development and escalation of natural rivalries which are healthiest when backed by geographical proximity. Particularly in the great lakes division with a detroit-pittsburgh being brewed at a very high level of hockey.
Additionally, pushing the Detroit-Colorado possible playoff match-up out of the conference finals and into the stanley cup finals could be something very special.
With these wonderful advantages mentioned, I simply cannot endorse the Yankee routing of Southern hockey.
I think that you are treating our fair expansion teams unjustly. Some of your teams you are cutting have been successful and could legitimately be successful again in the near future. Notably, the Lightning, the Hurricanes, and the Thrashers.
I think you are so gung-ho about cutting these teams because you persoanlly lack an emotional investment in these teams, not because it is the empirically "right" thing to do.
For example, do you really think that the entire state of Florida cannot even support a single NHL squad? Especially, Tampa Bay which has its struggles but has nurtured two expansion squads to championships in major sports and narrowly missed another after having been run down after a long season and disproportionately difficult post-season.
If you were offering a more realistic treatment of past and predictable future futility you might consider axing a certain original team from Chicago. Or another which plays in Boston.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sure I've offended your historical sensitivity and obsession with this great and woefully underappreciated sport.
I don't think the real answer is to axe the teams you personally don't care about, and resurrect the teams of old. In fact, some of your teams might be legitimately considered as contraction targets. But watch out for the coyotes for example, and their fans who may be punished too early before proving themselves as another tampa bay, with a championship for the diamondbacks, and competitive franchises with the cardinals and the suns.
I actually enjoy the southern hockey which usually comprises of younger players who play fast and hard and forces other squads to stay strong and dynamic.
Maybe instead of contraction of so many teams, maybe a contraction of the season might be in order. (I assume that lowering ticket costs is realistically impossible). Fewer games would increase the value of each game to each fan and might allow for fewer fans to more effectively support each team. Another benefit would be to reignite the importance of every game of what is now one of the worlds longest and most demanding schedules.
I've been neglecting my blog lately, but your comment, Benn, begs a response.
I don't see it so much as a Yankee routing as a Canadian and, in my case, Canadian sympathizer forced relocation. I'll admit that my plan is drastic and could easily pared down for the southern hockey aficionados. The NHL expanded into the south too quickly without enough foresight and some form of league contraction will speed the recovery of popularity.
The northern markets, especially in Original Six cities, are crucial to the success of the NHL. If the franchises with the most history and most available fanbases cannot find success, then how can the Phoenix Coyotes, Florida Panthers, or Atlanta Thrashers hope to succeed?
I'm all for shortening the season and renegotiating a TV contract with ESPN (at any cost at this point). AND, I am a closet Predators fan as much as I hate it when they blow those stupid whistles when Tootoo gets on the ice.
However, a more pressing matter has come to my attention: Los Angeles needs an NFL team. I am sick and tired of watching USC, its players, and its coaches acting as an NFL team. What makes it worse is the sickening USC love-fest forced upon the rest of America. If Notre Dame and Michigan didn't exist, USC would easily be the most hated team in college football. The Rose Bowl performance of USC and all associated parties could easily be mistaken for the self-serving and ungracious antics of an NFL franchise.
Sometimes I don't know what's more embarrassing, not being bowl-eligible or getting your ass handed to you by a team of prima donnas (likely accompanied by a fanbase of prima donnas). I'm just grateful that Utah stomped Alabama; the look of Nick Saban's face was priceless. Sweet, sweet justice.
This is way too late but maybe I'll email Benn and let him know we are still posting in the thread...
Anyway first off I didn't really even pay attention to the teams Dan suggested cutting, skipping straight to the alignment he had posted. On principle, I certainly don't have anything against southern hockey teams, and in fact as a hockey fan I can only hope for the sport to gain truly national acceptance and popularity.
I think you make some good points Benn. Specifically, I don't see any reason we need three New York teams, and a team like Minnesota or Vancouver honestly isn't any more "valuable" than a team like Phoenix or Carolina. Looking back over it that is an awfully large number of contracted teams, so for the sake of argument what if it was something like this:
Original contracted/moved list:
Tampa Bay Lightning
Florida Panthers
Nashville Predators
Carolina Hurricanes
Atlanta Thrashers
Phoenix Coyotes
Columbus Blue Jackets
New Franchises:
Winnipeg
Quebec
Ok, here's my modification...
Fold outright:
Florida Panthers
Columbus Blue Jackets (I'll admit to bias against Columbus)
New or Moved Franchises:
Houston (4th largest US city doesn't have a team?! And a natural rival for the Stars and Avalanche)
Most viable "Canadian" market - Hamilton or Quebec if Eastern team needed, Winnipeg or Seattle if Western needed.
List of teams that I'd be open to moving would include Atlanta, NY Islanders, Nashville, Minnesota, either LA team, Phoenix.
Ok, so what I have to take issue with Benn is this one:
"If you were offering a more realistic treatment of past and predictable future futility you might consider axing a certain original team from Chicago. Or another which plays in Boston."
First off, I'd take a look at the standings. Second, part of the NHL's problem with southern markets is that, while they certainly can be successful, the lack of hockey knowledge, tradition and fanbase means that those teams are the first thing to be sacrificed if they aren't any good or the economy sucks. On top of that, some of these teams are simply small markets: Boston, Chicago and the Northeast corridor are just a hell of a lot bigger in population than Raleigh, Atlanta or the Tampa Bay/Miami area. Now if we go purely on a city's size then yes, San Diego and Houston and even San Antonio should all have teams - but the point is that we compromise where hockey has natural advantages and existing proven fans (up north) and where there are growing and untapped markets (down south). I think Dan's overall point, that the NHL expanded too quickly into too many small, untested Southern markets, is pretty much rock solid. On the other hand, like I said, I support that expansion in principle and would hate to see teams that have been successful like Tampa Bay and Carolina get booted. And, in fact, I think markets like Houston should get new teams. But I'm not sure that Atlanta, Nashville etc. are really the NHL's future.
A lot of the Canadian team chatter around the NHL has circled around adding a franchise to Hamilton. As much as I would like to see teams in Winnipeg and Quebec, a lot of people think that viable franchises couldn't take root.
One of the big issues I know one of the old Quebec and Winnipeg franchises (Hartford too for sure) was lack of good facilities. Right now the NY Islanders are facing some serious problems because they can't get the money to update their arena, which, from what I hear, is an absolute dump.
I think a Houston franchise would be intriguing. Dallas has enjoyed a great deal of popularity, which can be attributed to a consistently competitive team with good management.
The real problem behind all of this is that Gary Bettman and his cronies are unwilling to admit that their expansion has contributed to the current state of the NHL. Things are only made worse when they refuse to consider even a small contraction.
I agree that the NHL has clearly expanded too quickly (largely all at once) into these untested southern markets. However, what's done is done. In hindsight, I wouldn't have put nhl squad's there. But we can't take it back. Therefore, axing them is hardly fair.
In my opinion, this disallows a worthy city like houston from acquiring a team in the near future.
As far as playing to natural strengths is an argument I can really get on board with as I am currently reading Guns, Germs, and Steel. Also, while in texas I went to a San Antonio rampage game which was pathetic. They won, defeating the defending champions, and I was literally the loudest individual there. In the entire AT&T center... the problem is that I was in the ABSOLUTE highest row. Directly under the luxury boxes. So it's true, southern fans just don't have the knack for it right out of the gate.
My final thought is nothing new, nor even really worth repeating. But the simple fact is that they need to work out a tv deal, as dan pointed out, and lose the skirts and guarantee that they will not strike for the next DECADE (at an absolute minimum).
Post a Comment