Great Article on Bettman's incompetance

[griffelh]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=dw-b...o&type=lgns

Unhappy anniversary

By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports

January 29, 2007

Everyone has a favorite conspiracy theory about the NBA. Some like the idea that David Stern fixed the 1984 draft lottery. Others favor his supposed secret suspension of a star player for gambling problems.

Mine dates back to the early 1990s, when the NHL was white hot with fans and never better on the ice. Wayne Gretzky was in Los Angeles. Mark Messier was with the New York Rangers, who were on the verge of ending their Stanley Cup drought. Mario Lemieux, Steve Yzerman, Ray Bourque, Patrick Roy and many others were hitting their prime.

Anyone who doesn't think hockey can work in America is forgetting this era. All of a sudden, hockey was challenging, if not beating, the NBA in a number of major U.S. markets ? including New York. It's almost impossible to imagine now, but it happened.

As the conspiracy theory goes, Stern sensed the potential trouble in 1993 while the NHL was in search of a new commissioner. So he looked around his own office for someone so incompetent that if they got the job, the NHL would be marginalized by their mismanagement and never again be a threat to the NBA.

Naturally, Stern recommended one of his assistants, Gary Bettman, for the job.

True story or not, it worked.

Bettman is set to begin his 15th year as commissioner Thursday, and like most hockey fans I feel the need to mark the occasion by popping a bottle of champagne, chugging the entire thing in an effort to drown my misery and then smashing the empty bottle over my temple to black out the memories.

There has never been a commissioner of a major North American sports league this inept, yet the league's board of governors keeps employing him, keeps giving him another chance to sink this once-proud, once-vibrant league to new depths.

Bettman is on a 14-year run of bad ideas. His latest was a classic, moving the league's all-star game, which featured attention-grabbing young megastars, to midweek on the Versus Network ? as opposed to NBC on a weekend. He claimed it would allow Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin to own the sports landscape, unlike some crowded weekend.

The result was a catastrophic 0.7 rating. That's a meager 474,298 households in the States that bothered to watch, down 76 percent from the last all-star game.

It is par for a season which has seen TV numbers plummet in both the U.S. and Canada (down 20 percent by some reports), attendance drop and media coverage dwindle.

Hockey fans would laugh if we weren't crying. We'd figure it would be the last straw that would lead to his dismissal, but at this stage, we know he's never going away. For those of us who grew up loving and living this sport and this league, all of us who cared about the NHL long before Bettman's slow, steady suicidal stewardship of it, it's just the latest in a recurring nightmare.

The Bettman era has been an unmitigated disaster for the league in virtually every possible way, one outrageously terrible initiative after another.

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.

Under Bettman's watch, the NHL's improvements are few. Certainly new technologies such as the "Center Ice" package and the Internet have been great. And there are far more highly skilled players than in 1993, thanks to the influx of talent from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Of course, Bettman had nothing to do with these things occurring.

The elimination of the red line and the crackdown on obstruction are positives. Some will argue that shootouts to decide regular-season games and the severe curbing of fighting are positives, but that's a matter of personal preference.

While some hail the salary cap that allows across-the-board competitiveness, I think it suppresses the kind of elite play that makes the game great. Hockey is the ultimate team pursuit ? the need for timing and teamwork is paramount. The individual star is utterly worthless without strong teammates.

The great player needs other great players to be great. In the mid-1980s Gretzky needed Messier, Paul Coffey, Glenn Anderson, Jari Kurri and others to maximize his abilities and thrill fans. A salary cap prevents talent from flocking together like that, so we get economic viability of the Atlanta Thrashers in exchange for breathtaking teams such as the Edmonton Oilers of 1980s or the Detroit Red Wings of the late 1990s.

The negatives are too numerous to list, but consider the league's current uneven schedule which serves no purpose other than cutting travel costs for a few cheapskate owners. Teams play eight games per season against division foes, or 32 a year against just four teams.

Bettman claimed it would spawn "new" rivalries. Of course, old rivalries such as Detroit-Toronto ? two hockey-mad towns separated by a single highway that actually has an exit for Wayne Gretzky Blvd. ? no longer play a home-and-home series each season. It's like killing Red Sox-Yankees so Blue Jays-Diamondbacks might catch on.

And, since fighting has been curbed, the "new" rivalries haven't really taken because a hockey rivalry without fighting is like non-alcoholic beer.

Plus, not everyone gets to see young superstars such as Pittsburgh's Crosby or Washington's Ovechkin.

Last week, 22 franchises tried to bring the old schedule back, but eight blocked the move in a vote while Bettman, predictably, did little lobbying on behalf of the majority opinion.

This is Bettman's NHL. Fourteen years, four bankruptcies, three franchise moves, two lockouts, one lost season and no effective leadership. The business is so sick that the Pittsburgh Penguins, despite a loyal fan base and the most promising talent since Gretzky, are 50-50 to move to that noted hockey hotbed of Kansas City.

Bettman has his apologists who point out that he beat former NHLPA head Bob Goodenow during the last lockout and got a salary cap installed.

Which is true, except it cost the NHL an entire season and an incalculable number of fans. And the proposed cap for next season is already creeping close to the average pre-lockout team salary. Wasn't the new deal only needed because the old deal was so bad? And who negotiated that one for the NHL in 1994? Oh yes, Gary Bettman, who locked the players out and killed all momentum from the Rangers' Stanley Cup championship to get that ill-fated deal done.

Lord knows what is next. Lord knows how he can make it worse. Lord knows what prior screwups he'll try to solve now with fresh screwups.

You'd think a 0.7 was rock bottom, but then again, this is someone who surveyed the burning wreckage of the NHL and decided that what would really turn things around this time were sleek new uniforms from Reebok, which were trotted out last week.

"This is an evolution of our uniform," Bettman proudly crowed.

Of course, already fans who are carrying even a few extra pounds report that they look ridiculous in the new form fitting jerseys, which has led to predictions of plummeting apparel sales and jokes about how Bettman hatched the idea after watching George Costanza comically change the New York Yankees' uniforms to cotton.

"This is a Seinfeld episode, isn't it?" wrote one fan on the San Jose Mercury News' hockey blog.

Yes, David Stern's bizarro world, now entering its 15th year and counting.

Dan Wetzel is Yahoo! Sports' national columnist. Send Dan a question or comment for potential use in a future column or webcast.

[yh]

Gee, sure wish I'd have thought about that conspiracy.

Coincidence? Yeah, probably. Still, it's nice to know I'm not the only one thinking of these things.

[OnWis97]

It's a good article (partly because I agree with most of what he says regarding the scheduling).

I am sure this board has beaten it to death, but putting the All-Star game on a Wednesday (Tuesday?) is just silly. Put it on the weekend. As Mike and Mike pointed out, the first football-free weekend since August. Yeah, you are not going to beat college hoops, but that is played every night of the week anyway. I'd think NBC would have been able to find a way to cover it.

Is this a fireable offense for Bettman? May not if he had not had such a history of bungling.

[griffelh]

I agree about the All-Star game scheduling. Absolutely mind boggling. What was he thinking? "Hmm, sure, let's go up against American Idol, which all the major networks are now ducking, because the NHL is so popular, we'll blow them away"

There was nothing worth watching on Sunday, they would have gotten at least halfway respectable ratings.

I bet there was something in the contract with Vs. that gave the NHL more money if they showed the game as opposed to the ad deal with NBC. But whatever the reason, again, it was completely irresponsible.

[HedleyLamarr]

Keep in mind that the NHL wasn't getting any ratings when the All-Star Game was played on Sundays. You can't fault them for wanting to try a night were people are going to be home. They got such terrible ratings because the game was played on a cable channel that all carriers don't have instead of basic TV.

[NoHoJoe]

Time to get rid of the Carpetbagging Commissioner!!!

NO MORE BETTMAN CUP!!!!!!

BRING BACK LORD STANLEY TO CANADA!!!

[Fred T. Jane]

Time to get rid of the Carpetbagging Commissioner!!!

NO MORE BETTMAN CUP!!!!!!

BRING BACK LORD STANLEY TO CANADA!!!

from Orangeburg, New York?

[STL FANATIC]

I'm actually not a Gary Bettman hater.

I think it's far too easy to rag on commissioners and happens far too often.

There's been some good and a lot of bad, but I don't think that's all on Bettman.

And since the lockout, I think he's pulling the right moves to get this game back to where it needs to be.

Versus hasn't worked real great, but there weren't many alternatives. If NBC would show more than a handful of games, that might be worthwhile, but they don't. ESPN's not gonna give the NHL worthwhile coverage.

The NHL Network IS coming to the States this year. That will be a plus.

I personally don't like the shootout or it's precursor of a guranteed point for getting to overtime, but I think it's easy to make a case that those moves helped to attract more fans.

The major mistake is the lack of fighting. But I think it will comeback.

And I still don't understand the hate with the current schedule. I LOVE it. First off, if the division winners are going to get the top three seeds in the conference, then you HAVE to have a schedule heavily weighted towards division matchups. And also, while more fighting would be nice, I do see the rivalries happening. The Blues and Predators rivalry (despite being currently one-sided in record over the last couple years, it produces extradinarily close games, Saturday not included) has finally taken off. The Blues-Wings remains strong. Blackhawks-Blues is regaining it's luster as the teams climb back up. I LOVE facing those teams all the time. (And no, it has nothing to do with the Hawks and Blue Jackets being an "easy" opponent).

Furthermore, I don't really care to see the Eastern teams. I don't like playing them. It does nothing for me. And I'm not the type to get overly enamoured by one players skill. Don't get me wrong, great players are...great...and I'd love to have them on my team...but I don't know. They don't make the Eastern teams anymore exciting for me.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the NHL followed old style MLB and didn't match the East against the West until the finals. I'm sure that doesn't work because some teams have interconference rivalries (the Blues have never had any that have held up over decades...I think Philly used to be one, but I don't feel like there's any now), but I'm just saying.

I dunno. I almost always see the good in what's there though--in people and in situations.

Same goes for Bud Selig. Same goes for George W. Bush. They make mistakes. Sometimes big stupid mistakes. And in some cases I await the day they no longer hold their office. But I don't hate the person, I see the good things they have done, I don't blame every bad thing entirely on them, and truly believe that whether they execute or not, they have good intentions.

[rams80]

Nice job with them trying to pin Pittsburgh on him as well. Like its his fault they can't get an arena.

[griffelh]

OK, can't blame him for everything, but he is significantly responsible for:

Over-expansion

poor marketing

the uniform fiasco

and, despite the salary cap, NHL games are the most over-priced of any major sport.

[jkrdevil]

I think this article and thread points out the problem with Gary Bettman, and that is he is Gary Bettman. I think some of the stuff he did might have gone over better had a guy who came up through the league offices been in charge and not someone who worked for the NBA. I don't think it was a David Stern Conspiracy as much as the NHL has a history of hiring incompetent people to run the league (see Bettman's predecessor).

That said Bettman has made serious mistakes that made him seem like an outsider trying to change the game that alienated some hardcore fans. I think his big mistake was listening to people that just didn't like hockey because they didn't understand the game but instead of just saying that they made up reasons why they didn't like it. Let's look at a few of his early mistakes which alienated some fans.

-The Divison Names and playoff format: On the surface it seems like no big deal and if a hockey person had done it probably wouldn't be a big of a deal that it turned out to be. But because Bettman was an outsider it seemed he was trying to strip the league of it's history. While not as controversial I think changing the playoff format was also a mistake because it help kill some rivalries. Hockey is a sport that thrives on rivalries. Unlike Basketball your stars aren't on the ice long enough, they play maybe 1/3 of the game and are out on the ice 45 seconds to a minute at a time.

-Second big mistake was the Instigator rule. This goes back to my point above that hockey thrives on rivalries and hatred. This came about as the league listened to those outside the sport that said fighting was the reason they didn't watch hockey when in reality it was probably because it is played on ice and didn't grow up with it. While I like that they got rid of bench clearing brawls fight does have a place in hockey strategically and entertainment wise. It's much like knocking down a batter in baseball if your team falls behind, it sends a message for next time. Also it helps keep people interested in a blowout game because at least their might be a fight. The instigator penalty has pretty much taken fighting out of the game which has taken some passion out of the game along with the extreme enforcement now of the rules that has taken physical play out of the game.

If you ask me what's wrong with hockey now it is not physical enough. Sure there is lots of goals but people like hockey not only because of the goals but also the saves, hitting, and physical play.

That said a lot of the sports marketing problems and such predate Bettman. Part of the viewership problem comes from the fact the league had zero network TV presence through the 80's and into the mid-90's. That's a good 15 years of being absent on network TV in a time where not everyone had cable like today. Then of course was that whole Sportschannel America debacle that was far worse than Versus today. Had the league been on network TV then during the Gretzky-Mario era I think expansion would have gone a lot more smoothly. Say what you want about NBC now (I personally think they do a good job) but regular season and playoffs combined they are giving the league the most network coverage it has ever gotten.

As for the All-Star Game it should be noted that up until the about 1990 the game was on a weekday like this year. They moved the game to the weekday for the same reason baseball has their All-Star Game during the week, they don't want to give up a weekends worth of game. Personally I rather have a full slate of weekend games than the All-Star Game which is a horrible way to promote this sport because it doesn't resemble an actual game.

As for expansion it was the right thing to do in order to grow the game. I still don't understand why anyone has a problem with it outside of Jets, Nordiques, and Whalers fans who lost their teams. And even then I don't understand their resentment to the expansion teams that didn't take away a team from another city. What do you care if Tampa Bay has a team? If your a true fan you will watch a team play no matter where they are from.

Finally, the ratings drops are way overblown by those who don't like the sport and want to mock it. If you look at the ratings of the Cup Finals over the last 5 years they have dropped off at the same rate the ratings for the NBA Finals and World Series have dropped (about 30%). The ratings are lower because hockey never was as popular to begin with as those sports not because hockey is lees popular than it once was. In fact it might be more popular now than it ever was.

Sure Bettman has made mistakes but he isn't entirely to blame for the game today. That said he probably needs to go because of who he is and the league needs to turn the page.

[STL FANATIC]

OK, can't blame him for everything, but he is significantly responsible for:

Over-expansion

poor marketing

the uniform fiasco

and, despite the salary cap, NHL games are the most over-priced of any major sport.

Over-expansion. Sure.

Poor marketing. Sure.

The uniform fiasco...err...there IS NO UNIFORM fiasco. The people responsible for that might be any of us who flipped out (and a lot of people come here and find stuff out). If any team has a uniform fiasco, we know it'll be there own fault, not Bettmans. Though, if you wanna blame him for the prices, maybe.

As for over-priced games, I think that depends on the market. Despite prices going up last year, in St. Louis, we have very reasonable prices, and did so even before the lockout. Baseball and Football tend to leave a big dent in the wallet though.

[jkrdevil]

To add a few things about ratings, this past weeks NBC ratings were up a bit from the same week last year and the past week the NHL Games on NBC beat College Basketball on CBS. Also Versus Ratings are up a bit this year from last probably due to being in more homes.

Mark Cuban has a nice line in his blog on this week's hockey ratings:

The NHL Beats College Basketball in the Ratings

The NHL on NBC beat College Basketball on CBS, 1.1 to .70 Is College Basketball doomed ? Does no one care anymore about college basketball ? Is the NHL on a resurgent climb ? (This just in, NHL was up again to 1.3 on NBC) Is NBC just really good ? Are both great sports in a crowded market ? Stay tuned

http://www.blogmaverick.com/

[Luigi74]

Nice job with them trying to pin Pittsburgh on him as well. Like its his fault they can't get an arena.

Well he did allow Roger Marino to buy 50% of the team who helped drive the team into bankruptcy, he also allowed Howard Baldwin(who came in under John Ziegler's watch) to sell off all of the revenue streams at the Civic Arena so Baldwin could get cash to fund his movies.

[griffelh]

I forgot all about the Division and Conference name deal. I liked that better the old way as well.

As for over-expansion, the problem is talent dilution, and the difficulty in some markets supporting their teams. They needed to do more to help keep teams in Canada. Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, etc have no business having teams, sorry.

[jkrdevil]

I forgot all about the Division and Conference name deal. I liked that better the old way as well.

As for over-expansion, the problem is talent dilution, and the difficulty in some markets supporting their teams. They needed to do more to help keep teams in Canada. Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, etc have no business having teams, sorry.

First off Columbus has done nothing but support the team since they got in the league. Second what do you care if Nashville and Atlanta got expansion teams? Unless you have invested in the league or a team it doesn't really effect you as a fan accept give you more hockey to watch (and is that really a bad thing). The game can't grow by putting teams in places where the league has already maxed out. They have to go where there is growth potential, that's the southern cities. Especially the ones the size of Atlanta.

As for dilution of talent you can make an argument that talent wasn't diluted at all because of the number of Europeans that have come over. If you look at the goal numbers through out the history of the league you would notice that in times of thinning talent such as expansion or World War that goals go up. Goals per game stayed about the same throughout the Original 6 era (about 5.6 gpg, about the same as it is currently). As the league expanded through the 70's and into the 80's with the WHA merger goals went up. They fell off that pace in the 90's even though the league expanded. That tells me that the influx of talent from Europe to offset expansion. Thus talent wasn't diluted, remember diluted talent also means diluted goaltending which means more goals.

[NJTank]

Gee, sure wish I'd have thought about that conspiracy.

Coincidence? Yeah, probably. Still, it's nice to know I'm not the only one thinking of these things.

I agree 100% the NHL needs to get rid of this guy Post haste.

I used to think Selig was the worst Comish EVER in any sport, but he has nothing on Bettman.

[VitaminD]

First off Columbus has done nothing but support the team since they got in the league. Second what do you care if Nashville and Atlanta got expansion teams? Unless you have invested in the league or a team it doesn't really effect you as a fan accept give you more hockey to watch (and is that really a bad thing). The game can't grow by putting teams in places where the league has already maxed out. They have to go where there is growth potential, that's the southern cities. Especially the ones the size of Atlanta.

As for dilution of talent you can make an argument that talent wasn't diluted at all because of the number of Europeans that have come over. If you look at the goal numbers through out the history of the league you would notice that in times of thinning talent such as expansion or World War that goals go up. Goals per game stayed about the same throughout the Original 6 era (about 5.6 gpg, about the same as it is currently). As the league expanded through the 70's and into the 80's with the WHA merger goals went up. They fell off that pace in the 90's even though the league expanded. That tells me that the influx of talent from Europe to offset expansion. Thus talent wasn't diluted, remember diluted talent also means diluted goaltending which means more goals.

1. Rather than arguing over individual cities' fan bases, I think the bigger problem is that Bettman overplayed the hand he was dealt and overexpanded. It makes sense to court the markets where there is potential, save for a couple of things.

For one, hockey is not basketball, the other major indoor game. Basketball is played all over the country, so when the NBA expands to City X, there is a large subset of people who grew up with the game. I can't think of a high school that doesn't have boys' and girls' basketball at the varsity level, and colleges all over the country have been playing for decades. You can even play by yourself if there isn't anyone around. So even if there isn't a pro team within a couple of hours of where you live, there's been ball to follow your whole life if you avail yourself to it.

On the other hand, hundreds of millions of Americans live outside the Northeast and Great Lakes areas, the traditional hockey hotbeds. Major portions of the country don't have natural ice to play on during the winter, which limits the chances a lot of kids get to play the game on ice, unless they have the cash to buy ice time at a local indoor rink. And no, rollerhockey is similar, but not the same as playing on ice. Outside of New England and Minnesota, a lot of high schools - even in the wintry regions of the US - don't have teams. Mine didn't; we had to play on club teams on our dime.

For two, basketball requires nothing more than footwear (buy what you can afford), a court (wood, blacktop, gravel, dirt, whatever), a hoop (provided by your hometown or in anyone's driveway on your street) and a ball ($10-$20). Hockey is inaccessible for large portions of the populations that live in the cold parts of the country, as many people can't afford equipment (skates, pads, gear PLUS ice time, league fees, lessons cost way more than a basketball and pair of sneakers). And how do you play hockey by yourself? At the very least, you need a goalie, or you're just skating around in circles, chasing your own misses and passes.

The NHL has tried to promote itself in its inner cities, though it may be years before we see if it led to any of those kids they targeted reaching the NHL. But the game is largely cultural, and the best way to get into the game is to see it live or to play it. Millions and millions of people can't afford to, or are afraid they wouldn't understand what they were watching, or would feel they can't relate to some Eastern European guy with no vowels in his name.

Simply put, hockey can't be marketed like any other sport, when it is most reliant on factors that don't affect other sports - chiefly, climate, costs and skill sets (i.e. skating) that are difficult to acquire without equipment and training.

My point is this: just because there are untapped markets, that does not mean there was necessarily a demand for hockey. Fan bases take decades to cultivate, even in favorable markets. One thing the NHL has working for it is the demographic changes taking place. Northerners are leaving their homes for sunnier climates; some are spreading the gospel of hockey as they go. But it won't be the guy from Boston rooting for the Hurricanes; it'll be his kids, who won't be able to afford season tickets for 20 years still. People may follow hockey in the south, but they're more likely to root for their old teams they grew up with than the new teams in their area. I know I followed the 'Canes when I lived in North Carolina, but when the Flyers came to town, I was dressed in orange and black.

As for your second point - about dilution - you are overlooking one crucial fact that tears apart your argument. The position of goalie used to be the position nobody wanted. It was the kid who couldn't skate, or the kid was overweight or slow. But in the last couple of decades, the position has been transformed to the point where some of the best athletes in the game play goal. Add to that butterfly technique, the rise of goaltending coaches, bigger pads, and stifling trapping defenses, and you'll see why we didn't see the increase in scoring you allege should have happened due to so-called "diluted goaltending". Goaltending got better around the world. Thank God that Eastern Europeans infiltrated the league, or they'd be in even worse shape due to their overexpansion. The influx of talent made it possible to add more teams, but just because there is enough talent to fill the rosters does not mean fans in non-traditional markets - or of demographics that the league tended to ignore in the past - will fork over tons of money, no questions asked.

[griffelh]

This country is crazy about football and baseball and we only have 32 NFL and 30 MLB teams. 30 NHL teams is just too much. The owners got greedy, as usual wanting expansion fees and they are or will eventually pay the price.

I could care less if Columbus has a team, but that is the problem. I have no desire to watch them on TV or pay good money to see them in person. Same goes for Nashville, Atlanta, Phoenix, and Tampa (and I really don't care that they won a cup). I want to see Boston, Philly, Montreal, Toronto, Detroit, Edmonton, etc...

Instead of concentrating on the core fan, the league tried for exponential growth and they are suffering.

[rmackman]

I didn't watch the All Star game b/c I don't have Versus. I can't stand the NHL being on Versus. I'm not going to upgrade my satellite programming just for one channel.

I'm not buying any of the new jerseys. I might try to snap up some old style ones when they go on sale.

I think the NHL is doing too much too fast. The NBA and NFL have evolved but not nearly as fast as the NHL did. I think his ideas would have worked at a slower pace.

Getting rid of fighting was the worst idea ever. I know people who loved hockey because of fights. I wonder how much market research Bettman uses before he makes decisions. Good businesses do a lot of research, so I'd like to see his data.