What's wrong with the NHL?

[whalersjets]

Crosby needs some protection.

He does. Ruutu and Thorburn are the tough guys of the team. They did have Colby Armstong until he got jumped and injured after making a legal hit.

But I understand what you mean, we do need a real enforcer.

He'll only fight Europeans like Sergei Zholtok

How would he fight a dead guy?

[officeglenn]

Ovechkin gets runs on him by other players he a young star how come we never hear anything like this about him. it wouldn't bother me if it was a once in a while occurance, but it seems like everyday he's complaining about something else.

You don't hear about Ovechkin because he has Donald Brashear there to protect him. Anyone runs Alex, Donny's there to take of 'em. Crosby doesn't have an enforcer to protect him. So he feels he has to tell the refs and the media about his troubles. Trust me, if the Pens had an enforcer, you wouldn't hear about it nearly as much.

Wayne Gretzky had Dave Semenko. Pavel Bure had Gino Odjick. Steve Yzerman had Bob Probert. Ilya Kovalchuk had Jeff Odgers. Crosby needs some protection.

Something tells me that even without Brashear, AO wouldn't be whining as much as Sid does.

AO's a tough dude. And he can back it up. Sid just takes it.

I dunno ... I've got to disagree with you on the Crosby part there. As Bob McKenzie pointed out on Sportscentre this morning, Crosby does initiate a lot of physical play, and sometimes, that's when he's at his best. He had an enforcer in junior, and we didn't hear anything about this sort of thing then. I think it's more that he's been forced to fend for himself more out there, which maybe has been spun negaitvely by the media due to his superstar status.

If Alex didn't have an enforcer, we might be seeing the same thing happen to him. Tough to say, though, because he does have one.

You can check out McKenzie's bit on TSN Broadband. Also, if you can find it on there (it's pretty temperamental for Macs), Ryan Rishaug had a good piece this morning about the prevalence of enforcers across the league.

[zer0dotcom]

I think that Crosby doesn't do himself many favours at times. Like the Blake spear, and some other hits, he looks like he's shot sometimes.

But remember, he's 19 years old...once upon a time, a couple of 19 years olds bitched about the calls they did or didn't get too.

Their names where Wayne and Mario. Maybe you heard of them. Maturity comes with age and experience.

[spyboy1]

I'll tell you what's wrong with the NHL, Brett Hull is not in charge.

He was interviewed yesterday on the Wild radio broadcast and there is someone who gets it.

[Fred T. Jane]

How do you geniuses suppose they get a better TV deal. Those things don't just grow on trees. The NHL does not pull high enough ratings to justify a better TV package...it's a cycle. Networks don't put leagues on because they "like" them, networks put leagues on because they can make money off of them.

Do you understand this or does it just sound better to say that all the NHL needs is a better TV deal without knowing why the hell their current deal is even in place?

In addition, most people don't realize that pre-ESPN, they were on SportsChannel America, a deal even worse than OLN/Versus could ever hope to be. Circulation even less than OLN/Versus, poor matchups, poor commentary, stagnant financial model, etc.

Of course, most folks here weren't even born then, so anything that happened then is dead to them...

Part of the reason they can't get a decent deal is that fans don't watch. Fans don't watch because tehre are too many teams they don't give a crap about and the talent pool is diluted by expansion.

Expansion was the beginning of the problem.

Just ask the NFL!

[jkrdevil]

How do you geniuses suppose they get a better TV deal. Those things don't just grow on trees. The NHL does not pull high enough ratings to justify a better TV package...it's a cycle. Networks don't put leagues on because they "like" them, networks put leagues on because they can make money off of them.

Do you understand this or does it just sound better to say that all the NHL needs is a better TV deal without knowing why the hell their current deal is even in place?

Uh, ESPN gave them the option of continuing the deal, but at little payout. Essentially, they'd televise the games for free, NHL would get nothing from ESPN. Bettman blinked and went with the fledgling netlet.

The ESPN exposure was/is monumentally important. That should have been maintained at ALL COSTS.

Do you even remember what ESPN's coverage was like before the lockout when they had the contract. Games were not on regular night and they were never promoted when there was a game on outside of the coming up next after Sportscenter. Hell on the talking head shows whenever hockey was mentioned they would hold newspapers in front of faces. I know it's not ESPN's job to promote hockey but it is there job to promote their own programming and they didn't do that with the NHL when they had it. So which deal are you going to take the one where they are offering you 72 million and will treat the sport with more respect or sign a deal with a network offering zero money and has trashed the sport. That's hard decision. The extra exposure that ESPN doesn't mean anything if they are essentially telling viewers not to watch before hand.

I'm not happy with Versus but the league needed to get off of ESPN.

[Milo Meningocele]

Garry Bettman.

Everything.

Needs stripes.

[zer0dotcom]

Needs stripes.

If this world was nothing but Tigers and Zebras, this world would be a much better place.

[-Helix-]

Part of the reason they can't get a decent deal is that fans don't watch. Fans don't watch because tehre are too many teams they don't give a crap about and the talent pool is diluted by expansion.

Expansion was the beginning of the problem.

Yes, because adding more markets and growing the fanbase is the reason the league is doing so poorly?

How about some common sense for once.

If it wasn't for expansion, we might not even be talking about the NHL right now. Because that's thousands of less fans the NHL would not have right now.

Not sure how LESS fans = better ratings. Maybe my math doesn't add up.

As for the TV contract. Versus was actually offering the NHL money. ESPN offered crap. It's a Capitalistic society. The NHL went after the money like they're supposed to. Not to mention the product on Versus is FAR superior to the crap ESPN gave us. Win-win. Get over it.

I'll quote myself again: "How about some common sense for once."

[Jigga]

Hmm?

1990

Less teams: Ratings high

over 17 year

More teams: Ratings low

Also this could viewed as

1990

less southern teams: rating high

over 17 years

more southern teams: rating low

Simplistic view. Correlation is not causation.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

How do you geniuses suppose they get a better TV deal. Those things don't just grow on trees. The NHL does not pull high enough ratings to justify a better TV package...it's a cycle. Networks don't put leagues on because they "like" them, networks put leagues on because they can make money off of them.

Do you understand this or does it just sound better to say that all the NHL needs is a better TV deal without knowing why the hell their current deal is even in place?

Uh, ESPN gave them the option of continuing the deal, but at little payout. Essentially, they'd televise the games for free, NHL would get nothing from ESPN. Bettman blinked and went with the fledgling netlet.

The ESPN exposure was/is monumentally important. That should have been maintained at ALL COSTS.

Do you even remember what ESPN's coverage was like before the lockout when they had the contract. Games were not on regular night and they were never promoted when there was a game on outside of the coming up next after Sportscenter. Hell on the talking head shows whenever hockey was mentioned they would hold newspapers in front of faces. I know it's not ESPN's job to promote hockey but it is there job to promote their own programming and they didn't do that with the NHL when they had it. So which deal are you going to take the one where they are offering you 72 million and will treat the sport with more respect or sign a deal with a network offering zero money and has trashed the sport. That's hard decision. The extra exposure that ESPN doesn't mean anything if they are essentially telling viewers not to watch before hand.

I'm not happy with Versus but the league needed to get off of ESPN.

basically its

A: ESPN - big name, major outlet, crap deal

B: VS - small name, no name outlet, better deal

and thats the problem. ESPN is to a great deal is a monopoly. They can screw the NHL because they know there isn't another major outlet to go to for sports and ESPN is the only MAJOR outlet for sports especially here in america. this essentially creates the problem of either do it espn's way or go to a ma and pa channel. What needs to happen is VS to become a serious competitor to ESPN. But the station can only do so much, the league has to blitz market. With enough interest the NHL can easily build up VS as a serious network. Again the operative word being INTEREST can't build up interest if nobody knows or cares about the sport/league/players.

I have no problem getting the NHL off ESPN, i just wish there could be a serious rival network they could go to that would make ESPN think twice about putting the screws to the NHL.

[jkrdevil]

Hmm?

1990

Less teams: Ratings high

over 17 year

More teams: Ratings low

Also this could viewed as

1990

less southern teams: rating high

over 17 years

more southern teams: rating low

You might want to get your facts straight before making an argument. Ratings in 1990 weren't high at all. There were no games on network tv, and the games on cable (which was in fewer homes then) were on Sportschannel America, which was in about 3 million homes (compared to Versus today which is in about 72 million). I don't know the exact ratings but my guess would be they would make today's ratings look like the Super Bowl.

[CC97]

I'm assuming here everyone is just focusing on the american ratings... according to the toronto star, while canadian teams only make up 20% of the league they are responsible for 33% of the total league revenue.

[IronChefShark]

whats wrong with the NHL is fans that insist on blaming the presence of sunbelt teams for the league's problems

[griffelh]

Part of the reason they can't get a decent deal is that fans don't watch. Fans don't watch because tehre are too many teams they don't give a crap about and the talent pool is diluted by expansion.

Expansion was the beginning of the problem.

Yes, because adding more markets and growing the fanbase is the reason the league is doing so poorly?

How about some common sense for once.

If it wasn't for expansion, we might not even be talking about the NHL right now. Because that's thousands of less fans the NHL would not have right now.

Not sure how LESS fans = better ratings. Maybe my math doesn't add up.

As for the TV contract. Versus was actually offering the NHL money. ESPN offered crap. It's a Capitalistic society. The NHL went after the money like they're supposed to. Not to mention the product on Versus is FAR superior to the crap ESPN gave us. Win-win. Get over it.

I'll quote myself again: "How about some common sense for once."

Who said more team=more fans? If that were the case let's add 20 more teams! The fact is, a lot of the fans that were, like myself, have no interest in the "new" teams. If you ruin the base, you can't grow the sport either. I do not think fans in Atlanta and Nashville can make up for lost fans in the Northeast.

And, ticket prices are just ridiculous.

[Fred T. Jane]

You might want to get your facts straight before making an argument. Ratings in 1990 weren't high at all. There were no games on network tv, and the games on cable (which was in fewer homes then) were on Sportschannel America, which was in about 3 million homes (compared to Versus today which is in about 72 million). I don't know the exact ratings but my guess would be they would make today's ratings look like the Super Bowl.

The only game on network TV in the US was the All-Star Game on, of all places, NBC!

In addition, in the South, the only place you could catch the NHL standings was, at least here in Louisiana, the Dallas Morning News and Houston Chronicle, which usually had the standings and scores in the box scores section. Other than that, good luck.

[Fred T. Jane]

Who said more team=more fans? If that were the case let's add 20 more teams! The fact is, a lot of the fans that were, like myself, have no interest in the "new" teams. If you ruin the base, you can't grow the sport either. I do not think fans in Atlanta and Nashville can make up for lost fans in the Northeast.

And, ticket prices are just ridiculous.

Who says fans from the Northeast wouldn't stop following the NHL regardless of the Expansion in the 1990s. You're dealing with what-ifs that you can't provide data to back up.

Besides, perhaps these teams in the Northeast (*cough* Boston *cough*) would stop sucking so badly for so long, perhaps those people would go there instead of their local Hockey East side? I mean, whom would you ranter watch, Boston, the folks who brought to you the Joe Thornton Trade and Marty Lapointe signing, or a Beanpot team that actually wins?

Regardless, I find the folks who decry Bettman's expansion policy amusing, as once upon a time there was an even wilder era of expansion, coupled with a rival league around for almost a decade. We all know how that turned out...

[rmackman]

I hear a lot of complaints from a lot of people around here (New Yorkers, Floridians, Europeans, etc.) that the NHL game is just not a good television product as a whole. A lot of people have a hard time following the puck on TV. In baseball, basketball, football, and golf, the cameras really show a play open up and you see the points being made as it happens. People complain that on TV they don't know what happened in hockey until they see the instant replay. To remedy this situation, I would propose that the NHL expand the ice rink to international size. That would then provide more wide open games, and due to the open space, better television puck visibility. I would also recommend bringing fighting back to where it was in the mid 90's. Casual fans love to watch the fights, and the NHL has abandoned the casual fans.

The warm weather states really have not embraced hockey as well as people would have thought. Unfortunately a lot of that has to do with the fan base in those areas not playing hockey as kids. The NHL and USA Hockey need to do more to promote youth hockey. That way they can build a fan base over time. There is no quick fix for the NHL. Expansion teams really need about 20 years to get their act together so the kids who grow up with those teams begin playing the sport, then become season ticket holders. It doesn't help that the United States national team is terrible, which really just goes back to what I said about youth hockey. Teams also need to get out in the community with a grass roots effort to reach people. Do more autograph singings and appearances. Get your name out there. Everything is so corporate and that's a turn off to people when you're just trying to recuperate. At the rate the NHL is going, MLS will become vastly more popular if they don't do something soon.

Speaking of MLS, getting David Beckham gives them a marketable player. The NHL needs to do more with Crosby and AO. They need more than two marketable players. Back when the NHL was more popular you had Gretzky, Lemieux, Hull, Fedorov, Messier, Roy, Bourque, Nolan, Hasek, and on and on. The NHL marketed a lot of good players so that every time a road team came into town it was like "COME WATCH THIS GUY!" They don't really do that anymore. The NFL is great at marketing multiple players at once. The NBA does it. Major League baseball does it. The NHL focuses on only 2 players! The NHL needs to locally get the papers more involved, get Sports Illustrated more involved, hell get Athlon to put a bunch fo stuff out. People love league previews before a season, and the NHL should be no different.

I think if you can combine all of that, it should go a long way to beginning the healing process for the league. Obviously television is an issue, and I don't think they need ESPN. What they need is FOX Sports because more people have access to that. Between baseball and football season FOX should be able to carry a bunch of NHL games and make them HD compatible. One other thing, is that the NHL and EA Sports should combine to make a deal where if you buy a new Playstation or XBox console, you get a free copy of NHL whatever year it is. When you bought consoles in the old days you got Mario Brothers or Sonic right off the bat. If that happens with the NHL video games, more people would be exposed who wouldn't otherwise seek it out. Anyways, that's my two cents...or more like a dollar.

[HedleyLamarr]

Part of the reason they can't get a decent deal is that fans don't watch. Fans don't watch because tehre are too many teams they don't give a crap about and the talent pool is diluted by expansion.

Expansion was the beginning of the problem.

Yes, because adding more markets and growing the fanbase is the reason the league is doing so poorly?

How about some common sense for once.

If it wasn't for expansion, we might not even be talking about the NHL right now. Because that's thousands of less fans the NHL would not have right now.

Not sure how LESS fans = better ratings. Maybe my math doesn't add up.

As for the TV contract. Versus was actually offering the NHL money. ESPN offered crap. It's a Capitalistic society. The NHL went after the money like they're supposed to. Not to mention the product on Versus is FAR superior to the crap ESPN gave us. Win-win. Get over it.

I'll quote myself again: "How about some common sense for once."

One theory of TV ratings going down despite more teams is the point that the hockey fans in Atlanta, Nashville, Columbus, Minnesota, Florida, Dallas, etc. can now get their NHL fix by attending games instead of watching them on TV.

I turned into a hockey fan in the mid-90s, and would watch any hockey game I could, whether it be on ESPN or Fox. Now that the Thrashers are here, I try to schedule my work schedule and other things around the Thrashers schedule. There are few times where I'm home on a Monday or Tuesday night to watch games on Versus or the NBC games on the weekends.

I guess a better way of determining hockey viewership is by looking at the ratings of the individual markets' local TV numbers instead of the National TV numbers.

[Roger Clemente]

To remedy this situation, I would propose that the NHL expand the ice rink to international size.

I would like you and only you to tell me how they are going to do that.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.