Back In The Game?

[rams80]

The thing that is somewhat confusing though is that you are (judging from your previous posts as well as this one) essentially arguing that Phoenix should have an NHL team and that Edmonton shouldn't. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

That makes some sense in theory, but when you look at it on paper, it's completely irrational.

Bottom line? It seems apparent that a majority of the NHL's owners and executives believe that if they can secure a financially-sound, business-savvy new owner for the Phoenix Coyotes, who - in turn - can renegotiate the team's rather onerous lease at Jobing.com Arena (a source of a significant amount of the team's financial problems), than the upside of the Phoenix market far outweighs the pluses of the other cities I've mentioned. Which, given the Coyotes' travails to date,

It's not about the upside anymore...for comparison's sake, you're making it seem like you're talking about Phoenix as if its a high pick in the NBA draft that has a lot of upside. However, what you should actually be looking at it as is that Phoenix is now a 13 veteran who is officially a bust from that draft.

And yet, if you are trying to build a market over the course of two plus generations, 13 years is too short a time period to evaluate the success or failure of a market, especially from "traditional" market performance metrics.

[Brian in Boston]

Furthermore you never really address the main point. That being why didn't Mr. Bettman fight tooth and nail to keep the Jets and Nords where they were.

As I recall the situation in Quebec, team president Marcel Aubut engaged in several discussions with Quebec provincial officials - including the province's Premier, Jacques Parizeau - regarding the possibility of the government financing a new facility for the Nordiques. At one point, said discussions revolved around paying for the facility with the proceeds from a new provincial lottery or casino. Bettman, aware that the world of Quebecois politics does not take kindly to outsiders sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, made it known to the Nordiques that he would personally get involved in negotiations only if Aubut felt it was necessary and expressly asked him to do so. Mr. Aubut never did so. Soon, the franchise was being sold to Ascent and moved to Colorado.

Further, I have addressed "the main point". Mr. Bettman, as well as the majority of NHL owners who employ him, didn't ultimately "fight tooth and nail to keep the Jets and Nords where they were" because they didn't believe that the relative strengths of the Winnipeg and Quebec City markets outnumbered those in so-called "non-traditional", American cities. That's not to say that they didn't make some effort to preserve the teams as Canadian entities. Rather, they were only going to put in so much effort before turning their attention to what they consider to be more potentially lucrative markets.

He claimed he didn't want to see those teams move, which it has been shown is an outright lie.

No such thing has been "shown"... "outright", or otherwise. You have simply chosen to surmise that this is the case because Bettman has said that he didn't want to see the Jets and Nordiques move, but both teams ultimately relocated.

That doesn't prove that Bettman "lied" about wanting to avoid moving the teams. It simply means that although Bettman and the majority of owners who employ him may have initially wanted to maintain the Jets and Nordiques in Winnipeg and Quebec City respectively, they eventually came to the conclusion that the franchises - indeed, the league as a whole - would benefit more by relocating said teams. In other words, they wanted to see the teams stay in Canada, they gave it the best shot they felt they were capable of, but they were only prepared to go so far before considering - and, ultimately, approving - relocation.

In fact, barring your being able to produce some concrete evidence of Bettman telling a "lie" about this issue - a piece of private correspondence detailing plans to move one or both of the teams at the same time he was publicly pronouncing that he wanted to keep them in Canada... a tape-recording of him speaking to the same issue... the sworn testimony of someone close to the issue accusing Bettman of telling outright "lies" about the issue - you have proof of nothing. I could just as easily say that Bettman's public pronouncements about wanting to maintain the Jets and Nords as Canadian-based franchises, followed by the league's owners voting to allow both teams to relocate, is "proof" of the fact that it is the owners who wield the true power in the NHL - on this issue and all others.

And you yourself have admitted that many of the new NHL markets since barley beat out Winnipeg and QC when it comes to being "big league" markets.

No, what I said was that if the NHL powers-that-be chose to contract the league to just 24 franchises, and - because they determined that Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver were the only Canadian markets that could be considered true, modern major-pro markets - three so-called "non-traditional" Amewrican market teams had to be cut, markets such as Hartford, Quebec City, Winnipeg and Hamilton still wouldn't make the cut. I don't believe I commented on "the new NHL markets" barely being able to beat-out Winnipeg and Quebec City. I simply conceded that some of these non-traditional American markets might be cut so as to make way for the inclusion of the likes of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. That leaves room for said "new NHL markets" to rank behind Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, but well ahead of Winnipeg and Quebec City.

So what's your answer? Just that Winnipeg and QC were never major markets to begin with, so Bettman letting them move was ok?

I don't claim to have any "answer". Nor do I presume that Mr. Bettman or the NHL's owners require me to "answer" for them. I'm simply dispassionately commenting on the issues surrounding the relocation of NHL franchises from markets like Winnipeg, Quebec City and Hartford to cities like Phoenix, Denver and Raleigh. This dispassionate assessment of these issues is something you have proven yourself incapable of engaging in.

And, yes... given that Winnipeg and Quebec City didn't truly measure-up as modern North American major-pro sports markets, there was ultimately no pressing reason to preserve them as NHL member-cities. Tough, but true. Major-pro sports is a business... not a charity.

If that's the case then why not move the Buffalo Sabres?

If the Sabres ultimately can't survive as a major-pro sports business entity in Buffalo, than so be it. Move them.

Heck, lets force the Green Bay Packers to Milwaukee.

Who "forced" municipal governments in Winnipeg and Quebec City, provincial governments in Manitoba and Quebec, or - better yet - private investors in either locale to not invest in construction of modern arenas to house the Jets and Nordiques? It was a market decision that led to the relocation of the franchises in question. No one "forced" them to move.

Yes, QC and Winnipeg aren't "major league" when it comes to some other potential markets, but so what? If this is just about the NHL preserving teams where they are, why didn't Mr. Bettman do all he could to keep the Jets and Nords where they were, like he did with the Penguins?

Obviously, because the majority of NHL owners and Mr. Bettman didn't feel that the worth of Winnipeg and Quebec City as modern major-pro sports markets - or, in point of fact, the lack thereof - warranted preserving an NHL presence in Winnipeg and Quebec City. In the case of Pittsburgh, said owners and Mr. Bettman did feel that the strengths of the market in question warranted saving.

That's right, he didn't because he wanted to see those teams leave...

I simply think that he and the majority of NHL owners wanted to see the teams located in the markets that they believed would give the franchises the best chance of flourishing. Initially, they hoped that such a scenario could play-out in Winnipeg and Quebec City. When it became apparent to them that such scenarios weren't in the offing, Bettman and the NHL's owners went to "Plan B": relocating the teams to markets they felt offered a better chance at success.

The notion that Gary Bettman - either unilaterally, or in cooperation with a majority of the NHL's owners - simply wanted to see the Jets and Nordiques move from the get-go, is nothing more than an assumption on your part.

... and any claim he's made since that he didn't is a lie.

That's nothing more than unfounded speculation on your part. You are incapable of analyzing this topic with anything approaching an unbiased opinion.

[Brian in Boston]

It's not about the upside anymore...

Apparently, to the people whose opinion matters - namely, a majority of the NHL's owners and the league commissioner they employ - it still is about the "upside" of Phoenix as an NHL market. Our thoughts, opinions and feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

[The_Admiral]

Man, I haven't seen so much fisking since that time I watched an old Red Sox highlight reel.

[Sodboy13]

It's fascinating to watch a dispassionate clinician with a full arsenal of facts summarily dissect the flawed argument of someone with a strong bias. I think the kids call this "pwnage."

However, if cable news television of the past ten years has shown us anything, it's that the loudmouthed opinion eventually wins out over factual presentation, by sheer virtue of volume. People are apparently more trusting of ideas shouted at them. That's why Billy Mays owns a Bentley.

[twi]

It's fascinating to watch a dispassionate clinician with a full arsenal of facts summarily dissect the flawed argument of someone with a strong bias. I think the kids call this "pwnage."

However, if cable news television of the past ten years has shown us anything, it's that the loudmouthed opinion eventually wins out over factual presentation, by sheer virtue of volume. People are apparently more trusting of ideas shouted at them. That's why Billy Mays owns a Bentley.

Don't forget the Rarrr! (Or whatever onomonopiea will inevitably be used.)

[BBTV]

....does Bettman really have the power to tell the new owner "No, you can't move that team!"?

Yes, the owners can decide where franchises should be located, and can restrict movement - that's why potential moves always have to come up for votes. The teams are merely franchises in the league, not really independent entities. Since there are things like revenue sharing and a salary cap (at least now), the financial performance of each team directly impacts each other team, so all of the other owners have a vested interest in the operation of each team.

That's not to say that they always make the right decisions though.

[IceCap]

This should be fun.

As I recall the situation in Quebec, team president Marcel Aubut engaged in several discussions with Quebec provincial officials - including the province's Premier, Jacques Parizeau - regarding the possibility of the government financing a new facility for the Nordiques. At one point, said discussions revolved around paying for the facility with the proceeds from a new provincial lottery or casino. Bettman, aware that the world of Quebecois politics does not take kindly to outsiders sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, made it known to the Nordiques that he would personally get involved in negotiations only if Aubut felt it was necessary and expressly asked him to do so. Mr. Aubut never did so. Soon, the franchise was being sold to Ascent and moved to Colorado.

So now Mr. Bettman is the export diplomat? Via Mr. Creamer, earlier in the tread....

Just doing some searching for old articles

Nords to Colorado:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../26/SP26102.DTL

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/26/sports/1...llion-deal.html

I've also learnt that if the sale didn't end up getting approved the league was planning on expanding to Denver and Atlanta in July '95 (according to various articles)

It would seem that Mr. Bettman and the NHL owners already has Denver in their sights. QC was on the brink of moving, just like Pitt was a year and a half ago. Unlike the latest situation, however, the owners made no effort to save the Nords.

Further, I have addressed "the main point". Mr. Bettman, as well as the majority of NHL owners who employ him, didn't ultimately "fight tooth and nail to keep the Jets and Nords where they were" because they didn't believe that the relative strengths of the Winnipeg and Quebec City markets outnumbered those in so-called "non-traditional", American cities. That's not to say that they didn't make some effort to preserve the teams as Canadian entities. Rather, they were only going to put in so much effort before turning their attention to what they consider to be more potentially lucrative markets.

A couple of flaws here. One, we're over a decade into the "expand the NHL footprint" experiment, and it's been far from a complete success. Were they following dollar signs? Yes. Turns out, in many cases those dollar signs were mirages (pardon the desert pun).

So what does the NHL do now?

And, yes... given that Winnipeg and Quebec City didn't truly measure-up as modern North American major-pro sports markets, there was ultimately no pressing reason to preserve them as NHL member-cities. Tough, but true. Major-pro sports is a business... not a charity.

Yes, the NHL is a business. What type though? Part of being a successful business is knowing who your costumer is. There are some markets where the NHL just isn't taking. You're talking from the perspective that the NHL is in the same league as the NBA, NFL, and MLB in the United States. It isn't. Hockey will never be truly "mainstream" in the US. It'll always be a niche sport, like soccer. Yes, the size of that niche is larger then the niche of soccer, but ultimately it's just a niche. Marketing hockey just hasn't worked in some places.

I would expect that someone like yourself, so adamantly proclaiming that the NHL is a business, not a charity, would realize that the Coyotes need to leave Arizona. 'Cause keeping them in Glendale is a bad business decision any way you cut it.

And the rest of the NHL playing Montreal Expos with them isn't going to make it any better.

Bottom line, the NHL needs to realize they aren't in the same league as the NFL, NBA, and MLB. They need to market hockey to hockey fans, wherever they are, be they in Dallas, Toronto, or St. Louis. 13 years in, $400 million gone. Yeah, there's not enough hockey fans in Phoenix to justify keeping the team there. Like you said, business not charity. So the NHL needs to make the right business move and leave Phoenix. The potential benifits that helped it land a team in '96 Just. Haven't. Panned. Out.

He claimed he didn't want to see those teams move, which it has been shown is an outright lie.

No such thing has been "shown"... "outright", or otherwise. You have simply chosen to surmise that this is the case because Bettman has said that he didn't want to see the Jets and Nordiques move, but both teams ultimately relocated.

That doesn't prove that Bettman "lied" about wanting to avoid moving the teams. It simply means that although Bettman and the majority of owners who employ him may have initially wanted to maintain the Jets and Nordiques in Winnipeg and Quebec City respectively, they eventually came to the conclusion that the franchises - indeed, the league as a whole - would benefit more by relocating said teams. In other words, they wanted to see the teams stay in Canada, they gave it the best shot they felt they were capable of, but they were only prepared to go so far before considering - and, ultimately, approving - relocation.

In fact, barring your being able to produce some concrete evidence of Bettman telling a "lie" about this issue - a piece of private correspondence detailing plans to move one or both of the teams at the same time he was publicly pronouncing that he wanted to keep them in Canada... a tape-recording of him speaking to the same issue... the sworn testimony of someone close to the issue accusing Bettman of telling outright "lies" about the issue - you have proof of nothing. I could just as easily say that Bettman's public pronouncements about wanting to maintain the Jets and Nords as Canadian-based franchises, followed by the league's owners voting to allow both teams to relocate, is "proof" of the fact that it is the owners who wield the true power in the NHL - on this issue and all others.

That's nothing more than unfounded speculation on your part. You are incapable of analyzing this topic with anything approaching an unbiased opinion.

The notion that Gary Bettman - either unilaterally, or in cooperation with a majority of the NHL's owners - simply wanted to see the Jets and Nordiques move from the get-go, is nothing more than an assumption on your part.

I don't claim to have any "answer". Nor do I presume that Mr. Bettman or the NHL's owners require me to "answer" for them. I'm simply dispassionately commenting on the issues surrounding the relocation of NHL franchises from markets like Winnipeg, Quebec City and Hartford to cities like Phoenix, Denver and Raleigh.

I present to you, again, via Mr. Creamer.....

Jets to Phoenix:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/05/sports/h...to-phoenix.html

"The relocation must be approved by the N.H.L.'s board of governors, which meets Dec. 14-16 in West Palm Beach, Fla. It may be a formality since Colangelo and N.H.L. Commissioner Gary Bettman are friends, and Bettman wants to see a franchise in Phoenix."

Seems pretty clear cut that he wanted the Jets out of Winnipeg and in Phoenix. Unlike in Pittsburgh where he fought 'til the last hour to keep the team there, he was more then willing to sit by and that the formalities that would have moved the Jets to Phoenix take place. He himself wanted to see a team in Phoenix, and he saw the Jets moving as the possibility to make that happen.

Thus when he comes out today, like he did in that HNiC interview and said "I didn't want to see Winnipeg and Quebec City go" he's lying. He already had a plan for a team in Denver, and he wanted a team in Phoenix, and stepped aside when two teams were having arena troubles, allowing them to sink and then be forced to make the move. Like I said, when he claims he didn't want to see the Jets and Nords move, he's lying. He made it very clear in '96 that he preferred the team in Phoenix and Winnipeg.

Now like I said, in 1996 Phoenix had a lot of attractive qualities. If he felt, at the time, the Jets would be better off there, fair enough, at the time it was a logical conclusion to come to. Don't lie about your intentions 13 years later when that decision's bitting you in the ass though.

And you yourself have admitted that many of the new NHL markets since barley beat out Winnipeg and QC when it comes to being "big league" markets.

No, what I said was that if the NHL powers-that-be chose to contract the league to just 24 franchises, and - because they determined that Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver were the only Canadian markets that could be considered true, modern major-pro markets - three so-called "non-traditional" Amewrican market teams had to be cut, markets such as Hartford, Quebec City, Winnipeg and Hamilton still wouldn't make the cut. I don't believe I commented on "the new NHL markets" barely being able to beat-out Winnipeg and Quebec City. I simply conceded that some of these non-traditional American markets might be cut so as to make way for the inclusion of the likes of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. That leaves room for said "new NHL markets" to rank behind Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, but well ahead of Winnipeg and Quebec City.

From your own post....

Truth be told, on the Canadian front only Montreal, Toronto and - to some extent - Vancouver really qualify as modern, "big market" cities that are capable of weathering the financial storms of competition at the North American major-pro level. Sure, the likes of Raleigh, Nashville and Anaheim may well raise eyebrows as "big market" cities. Fair enough. If the NHL were to contract from such cities tomorrow, and three more to get the league down to a manageable 24-team league, I've got news for you: Hartford, Quebec and Winnipeg still wouldn't be worthy of playing host to franchises.

Now suppose the NHL were to cut down to 24 teams? Where would these magical markets be? Again, you're working on the assumption that the NHL can operate like the NBA, NFL, and MLB. They cannot. They tried to get through to the casual American sports fan, and even in "non-traditional" markets where the game has taken off they have still failed to get through the causal fans, by and large. The NHL is a business, but a smaller business that's foolish to think that they can go toe-to-toe with the truly major pro sports leagues in the US.

Marshall's is never going to beat out Macy's at Macy's game. They can survive just as well being Marshall's.

Anyway no, not much PWNAGE really Sody.

Oh, a couple more things....

This dispassionate assessment of these issues is something you have proven yourself incapable of engaging in.

1) And yourself? Like me you seem pretty committed to one camp. No very dispassionate is it?

2)I'm passionate about my country and a sport I've played and enjoyed since I was little. Sue me.

[HedleyLamarr]

Why do you continually compare Bettman's decision-making in the mid-90's to today? Back in the mid-90's, Bettman and the NHL were in love with the quick-fix, quick-money solutions to their financial problems. As a result of this, the NHL lost a season of playing, and a ton of respect in the sports world. Would you prefer they go back to their money-chasing ways and force more teams into bankruptcy and/or lose more seasons over labor and financial disputes?

Let's be realistic about things: The NHL won't be contracting teams. Now that there's a salary cap and a "one for all and all for one" financial mentality, now the NHL and Bettman will be doing everything they can to keep all 30 teams in their current locations. Winnipeg and Quebec City played in an era where no salary cap was in place. Sucks, but the old "wrong place at the wrong time" adage applies here. The Jets and Nordiques aren't coming back any time soon. The quicker folks realize that, the smarter they become.

Furthermore, at least from what I've read, Brian hasn't taken any side about what should happen to the Coyotes. Personally, I'd rather they stay in Phoenix, but only if their financial situation can improve. You can repeat the "13 years, $400 million lost" all day long, but that has nothing to do with their future financial status. If Ottawa and Buffalo and Pittsburgh can go from bankruptcy to prosperity, the same thing can happen in Phoenix. Economics is a funny, unpredictable thing. You can harp on the "Hamilton will be a bigger success than Phoenix" thought all you want, but there is no guarentee of that, and you know it.

[STL FANATIC]

Brian in Boston has pretty clearly shown an effort to understand and explain the intentions of the owners, he's in no way painted himself into any "camp". But because the owners clearly oppose your "camp", and he's merely explaining their actions, you see him as the enemy. Not so however.

Me, I had a camp. BiB has shown he does not.

Similarly jaded, BiB took me to school when I was upset about the MLS not choosing St. Louis. Regardless of anything else, one thing was clear, and that was that he didn't really care whether they were in St. Louis or not, he was simply trying to present the logistics of the situation. I'm with you in that it didn't make me feel any better and only made me more upset, and I didn't necessarily buy into everything he was saying. Still, he had legitimate points and wasn't in anyway biased. Same goes here.

Further, I think all he needs to do is copy and past a few paragraphs from his previous post and he could pretty aptly refute your latest post again. You're saying the same things and offering nothing more than speculation. Just because you have an old article doesn't mean you have proof. You're still drawing conclusion that are far, far from proven.

[Brian in Boston]

So now Mr. Bettman is the export diplomat?

I don't think anyone involved - Mr. Aubut, Mr. Bettman or any other parties - regarded Mr. Bettman as a "diplomat". Rather, as commissioner of the NHL, Mr. Bettman made it known to the Nordiques that he would be willing to get involved in discussions with Quebec provincial authorities. However, given the intricacies of dealing with elected officials in a province that - given its cultural history - can be quite insular to the point of being suspicious of outsiders, Mr. Bettman also let it be known to the Nordiques that he would only enter such discussions at the invitation of the hockey team itself. In that way he hoped to avoid the appearance of a U.S.-based, Anglo-dominated business concern coming in and strong-arming a Franco-phile government.

Via Mr. Creamer, earlier in the tread.... It would seem that Mr. Bettman and the NHL owners already has Denver in their sights.

"We understand that every alternative was explored to keep the Nordiques in Quebec City but that the club had no choice... (but sell to out-of-market owners)

Accepted at face value, how is this "proof" of any grand, unilateral plan on Gary Bettman's part to move the Nordiques from Quebec? Granted, if someone such as yourself, is hell-bent on seeing an anti-Canadian conspiracy theory behind the relocation of the Nordiques and Winnipeg Jets, than Bettman's statement is interpreted as a lie and a part of a cover-up of illicit actions. However, that does not make such a conspiracy so.

As for Denver being in the NHL's sights... that doesn't mean that Mr. Bettman and the NHL's owners were necessarily plotting to bring a franchise to Denver via relocation. They could have been contemplating placing a team in the market via expansion just as easily. In fact, such a move would have benefitted the league more, as all owners would have shared in the splitting of what would have undoubtedly been a rather hefty expansion fee, rather than a single owner selling-out to local Denver-based interests and pocketing the sales fee.

QC was on the brink of moving, just like Pitt was a year and a half ago. Unlike the latest situation, however, the owners made no effort to save the Nords.

Based upon Mr. Bettman's statement in the articles that Chris linked to, and you quoted, that isn't true. According to the quote, "every alternative was explored to keep the Nordiques in Quebec City". Simply because you have personally chosen to dismiss this statement as an "outright lie" doesn't make it one. Nor does your choice make it true that the NHL's owners made no effort to save the Nordiques as a Quebec City-based franchise. You're hell-bent on concocting an elaborate conspiracy theory surrounding the relocation of the Nordiques and the Jets. So be it. That doesn't mean that Mr. Bettman and the NHL's owners are actually guilty of having engaged in such a conspiracy.

A couple of flaws here. One, we're over a decade into the "expand the NHL footprint" experiment, and it's been far from a complete success. Were they following the dollar signs? Yes.

I said that "Mr. Bettman, as well as the majority of NHL owners who employ him... didn't believe that the relative strengths of the Winnipeg and Quebec City markets outnumbered those in so-called 'non-traditional' American cities. [T]hey were only going to put in so much effort before turning their attention to what they consider to be more potentially lucrative markets."

So, while Phoenix hasn't turned out to be the slam-dunk that the Bettman and the NHL's owners thought it would be, they obviously believe that the potential is still there or they would be rushing to rubber-stamp relocation of the team to a more lucrative market, Canadian or otherwise. Even given the Coyotes' woes in Phoenix, it doesn't mean that Bettman and a majority of the NHL's owners believe the franchise would have been any better off in the long-run in Winnipeg. They ultimately came to the conclusion that Winnipeg was not a legitimate modern, major-pro sports market. Whether the NHL's "expanded footprint" policy strikes you, me or any other member of this community as a "complete success" is irrelevant. The NHL's owners are the businessmen who must ultimately be satisfied with the course that they have taken.

As for following the dollar signs... No! Really? You mean the multimillionaire and multibillionaire businessmen who own the NHL's member-franchises were making business decisions that revolved around treating their franchises as for-profit businesses? Go figure.

So what does the NHL do now?

It would seem that the league's immediate plan is to find a well-financed, business-savvy owner to purchase the Coyotes, commit to operating the team in Greater Phoenix, renegotiate the team's onerous arena lease and realize the potential that they believe the market represents.

Yes, the NHL is a business. What type though? Part of being a successful business is knowing who your costumer is. There are some markets where the NHL just isn't taking. You're talking from the perspective that the NHL is in the same league as the NBA, NFL, and MLB in the United States. It isn't. Hockey will never be truly "mainstream" in the US. It'll always be a niche sport, like soccer. Yes, the size of that niche is larger then the niche of soccer, but ultimately it's just a niche. Marketing hockey just hasn't worked in some places.

You'll get no argument from me that ice hockey is a "niche" sport. I don't think you'd get an argument from the NHL's owners on that point if you were to sit down with them for a private, candid, one-on-one conversation. That said, I also don't believe for a moment - and this is based on interviews I conducted as a sports journalist - that NHL owners and league executives are willing to concede that they are an entity quite as low on the "niche" totem-pole as soccer. Do they believe that their league ranks with the NFL or MLB in the hearts and minds of the overall American sports marketplace? No. But, do they think that they're that far behind the NBA? Also, no. Do they see themselves as legitimately being part of the so-called "Big Four". Yes.

Are they kidding themselves? Who is to say? However, at this point in the league's history - and at this stage of the game - there is no way that the NHL's owners are contemplating scaling-back to a configuration of largely Canadian and American Northern-tier markets. Come Hell or hot water, they are committed to making the sport work in the so-called "non-traditional" markets. To do otherwise strikes them as admitting defeat... showing a sign of weakness. Such behavior strikes them as suicidal in a highly-competitive sports marketplace. They truly believe in the quality, excitement and entertainment value of the sport of ice hockey and are hell-bent on pitching it to the masses... "converting" non-fans in every corner of the country. Along the way, they know that there will be stumbles, but they ultimately believe that they'll "grow the game"

Bottom line? It is their money... it is their decision.

I would expect that someone like yourself, so adamantly proclaiming that the NHL is a business, not a charity, would realize that the Coyotes need to leave Arizona. 'Cause keeping them in Glendale is a bad business decision any way you cut it.

And the rest of the NHL playing Montreal Expos with them isn't going to make it any better. Yeah, there's not enough hockey fans in Phoenix to justify keeping the team there.

I'm torn on the issue. I recognize that the franchise has, to date, hemorrhaged money. I recognize that Phoenix is - "GASP!" - a "non-traditional" market. I recognize that the snowbird ice-hockey fans who live in the market already have pre-existing allegiances to other NHL teams. All of that said, I also wouldn't rule-out a truly savvy business-person with a renegotiated lease being able to turn the franchise around financially. It is going to take more than simply selling Wayne Gretzky a piece of the team and handing him the coaching duties to truly establish the franchise in the market. Would it have been better for the market's potential - and the NHL - if one of the previous owners had realized that sooner? Sure. That's not to say the situation can't be salvaged. It is just going to take a lot of heavy lifting.

As for the number of potential hockey fans in Phoenix, the powers-that-be at NHL headquarters simply don't agree with you. If they did, they'd be willing to pull-up stakes in a nano-second and head to a so-called "more lucrative" market. They believe in the potential of Phoenix.

"The relocation must be approved by the N.H.L.'s board of governors, which meets Dec. 14-16 in West Palm Beach, Fla. It may be a formality since Colangelo and N.H.L. Commissioner Gary Bettman are friends, and Bettman wants to see a franchise in Phoenix."

Weak sauce.

As a former sports journalist myself, I can tell you that this doesn't constitute "proof" that Gary Bettman "lied" about the relocation of the Winnipeg Jets. The relocation vote "may be a formality since Colangelo and N.H.L. Commissioner Gary Bettman are friends, and Bettman wants to see a franchise in Phoenix."? That is a classic example of a lazy reporter attempting to pass-off hearsay ("may be a formality"), coincidence ("Colangelo and N.H.L. Commissioner Gary Bettman are friends") and unsubstantiated information ("Bettman wants to see a franchise in Phoenix") as facts. Where is the attribution for the source of the "formality" comment?

1) And yourself? Like me you seem pretty committed to one camp. No very dispassionate is it?

2) I'm passionate about my country and a sport I've played and enjoyed since I was little. Sue me.

I'm not "committed" to any "camp". I'm committed to assessing this issue dispassionately based upon the facts at our disposal. I could care less where the NHL places its member-franchises. That's the NHL owners' choice and, given the money they've invested in the league, their right.

I'm not looking to sue you. I just think you should admit that you have an axe to grind when it comes to this subject... and that it colors your every discussion of it.

[IceCap]

Why do you continually compare Bettman's decision-making in the mid-90's to today? Back in the mid-90's, Bettman and the NHL were in love with the quick-fix, quick-money solutions to their financial problems. As a result of this, the NHL lost a season of playing, and a ton of respect in the sports world. Would you prefer they go back to their money-chasing ways and force more teams into bankruptcy and/or lose more seasons over labor and financial disputes?

Um, by your own admission, the "bankruptcy and/or lose of more seasons over labour and financial disputes" thing was a result of Mr. Bettman and the owners' affinity to quick-fixes and quick-money solutions. What I'm arguing, aside from the fact that the Coyotes should leave Phoenix, is that this behaviour Bettman and the owners exhibited in the mid-90's was, gasp, not completley successful, and in many cases it bit the league in the ass.

What would I prefer? For the NHL to move its teams in troubled non-traditional markets to more secure markets, be they in the United States or Canada.

Keep the non-traditional teams that have taken root and keep them in place to maintain a presence in the "non-traditional" markets, but recognize a mistake when you see it and do what's necessary to fix it. In short, market hockey to hockey fans. They can bang the "we're growing the game" drum all they want, but hockey WILL NEVER be as big as they believe it will be in mainstream American sports. If you, or anyone else, honestly thinks that can be achieved then you're just being naive.

The Jets and Nordiques aren't coming back any time soon. The quicker folks realize that, the smarter they become.

I know they aren't, and I never said they should. Though just like it's a shame Hartford lost teams, I think it's equally a shame that the Jets and Nords moved. My point is simply that the NHL, owners and commissioners, showed no interest in saving those teams, whereas today they're fighting tooth and nail to keep every team where it is, even if it's an idiotic decision to do so.

Furthermore, at least from what I've read, Brian hasn't taken any side about what should happen to the Coyotes. Personally, I'd rather they stay in Phoenix, but only if their financial situation can improve.

So you're in favour of the Coyotes remaining in Phoenix except if they can't? At least I'm picking a side in this fight.

You can repeat the "13 years, $400 million lost" all day long, but that has nothing to do with their future financial status.

My deepest apologies. How could I ever think that $400 million lost was a significant number? Petty cash I tell you!

If Ottawa and Buffalo and Pittsburgh can go from bankruptcy to prosperity, the same thing can happen in Phoenix. Economics is a funny, unpredictable thing.

The difference? Ottawa, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh may have had money problems, but they also had core fanbases that made recovery possible. It's easier to get potential investors when you show them a packed, or near packed, house every night.

With Phoenix not only are there severe money problems, there's also a lack of a fanbase for the team to fall back on while the, as Brian said, "heavy lifting" takes place.

Which is why I think the NHL's foolish for putting the concerns of their little collective above that of business. Jim Balsillie's willing to pay $200+ million for a team bleeding millions and drawing a low volume of fans, in this economy. If the NHL's collective ownership had any sense they should be doing backflips at this prospect.

You can harp on the "Hamilton will be a bigger success than Phoenix" thought all you want, but there is no guarentee of that, and you know it.

Um, no. I can guarantee you, Hamilton will be a bigger success than Phoenix. The fanbase is essentially built in. Will it "grow the game"? No.

But if the NHL thinks they can grow the game any further then it has they're kidding themselves. Hockey's a niche sport. Niche sports survive by catering to the fans they have. When they try to change the game to bring in casual fans it just doesn't work. Ask MLS.

Granted hockey's niche is larger then soccer's, but that's more of an academic point then anything else. They're still a long way off from even the NBA, let alone the NFL or MLB.

[Roger Clemente]

I'm just gonna throw my two cents in here again, as I have in the past.

A lot of people seem to accuse me of being anti-Canadian for not wanting to see another Canadian team. Not really. I wouldn't mind another Canadian team, preferably in Winnipeg or Quebec City again first over Hamilton. But I just think Jim Balsillie is just being an absolute dick about it because he just wants a team there, no matter what the conditions, as soon as possible, no matter how much it costs, without any regard to who's toes he steps on or who's fanbases he breaks up. The thing with the relocations of the Jets and Nordiques is that those were situations that developed over the course a year or two before the NHL realized they had no more options. Balsillie just keeps his ears open, hears a team might be in a financial problem, no matter how severe it is, and is always right there like a vulture to try and yank it to Hamilton immediately. It's rather annoying.

The one main reason why I want to see American franchises (even ones that were originally Canadian franchises) in America is because, if you move the team to Canada, you will be making more money, sure, but making practically ZERO more fans. (And at the same time, having no effect on TV ratings in Canada because we're always watching hockey anyways, and thus have no positive effect towards whatever ad revenues are generated by those numbers.) When you have a team in an American market, you open up the opportunity, no matter how slow the process or the pains it takes to get there, to create many more fans for a sport you love. Consider how frustrating it is when a die-hard soccer fan living in North America wants so hard for his friends to share his passion, but they don't because, well, there is no local product to even try and make an effort to see. Yet that fan doesn't want to move to England to watch the sport, so we welcomes the MLS or other leagues to come and share. Considering how much Canada loves the sport of hockey and enjoys bragging about the successes of Team Canada and our NHL teams, what's the point of bragging about them if you're trying to deny more people from being able to see or experience the game? That's why I prefer to have more American fans.

Thank you and goodnight.

[STL FANATIC]

So hockey has never grown from it's original fanbase? Teams that are working out well in Dallas, Raleigh, Anaheim, etc. all already had built-in fanbases when teams were put there? The game wasn't grown their and fanbases developed.

See, now you're going above and beyond to make your point here by saying it's impossible for the game of hockey to grow it's fanbase in the face of huge amounts of evidence to the contrary.

It's one thing to make the statement that hockey will never be on the level of the MLB and NFL and maybe NBA. It's asinine to suggest the sport cannot grow in the future.

[IceCap]

So hockey has never grown from it's original fanbase? Teams that are working out well in Dallas, Raleigh, Anaheim, etc. all already had built-in fanbases when teams were put there? The game wasn't grown their and fanbases developed.

See, now you're going above and beyond to make your point here by saying it's impossible for the game of hockey to grow it's fanbase in the face of huge amounts of evidence to the contrary.

It's one thing to make the statement that hockey will never be on the level of the MLB and NFL and maybe NBA. It's asinine to suggest the sport cannot grow in the future.

Never once did I claim that hockey hasn't grown from it's original fanbase. Of course it has. My point is simply that it will never be as big as the NBA, NFL, and MLB. So why try to be? Take the teams in southern markets that work and keep them.

Take the ones that haven't worked and move them to more secure locations, be they in Canada or the States. Simple.

Hockey's a niche sport, treat it as a niche sport. Sure, that niche may grow, and it has grown, but it will never really become a true "major" league like the NBA, NFL, or MLB.

BiB said they think they're not that far behind the NBA and that they consider themselves part of a legitimate "Big Four" in the US.

Well these NHL playoffs, which produced some of the best hockey in decades and saw the game's next big star win it all, only did half of what the NBA did, where their next big star got shalacked in the Conference Finals by a novelty team from Disney World.

And as for being part of a "Big Four"? I've always seen the NHL's inclusion in the "Big Four" like the way people considered Italy a great power just prior to WWI. It's a courtesy, not much else.

[tBBP]

This thread--or should I say, this debate going on up in here--would make one hell of a TV or radio talk show, wouldn't it?

(And...it's almost starting to rival the 2008 Presidential Election thread in terms of intensity and sheer entertainment--soon, even length, if things keep up at this pace...)

[IceCap]

Well BiB, for the sake of not having a quote box strewn post I'll just list my points here.

You're not selling me on "Gary Bettman, culturally sensitive friend of the French Canadian people."

The Jets and Nords. Was there a grand conspiracy? No. What I do think happened, however, was that the NHL, in the "LETS GROW THE GAME" euphoria they were in, wanted teams in Denver and Phoenix (Denver was a slam dunk, it was already a hockey market) and saw the Jets and Nords having arena troubles as an opportunity to make those teams a reality. So they quietly did nothing, or much less anyway, then they normally would have if a market was facing potential relocation.

The NHL obviously still has faith in Phoenix as a market. Just like I'm sure that there's one guy out there who still believes that Ryan Leaf can be the next great NFL QB.

Yes, the NHL is a business. What type though? Part of being a successful business is knowing who your costumer is. There are some markets where the NHL just isn't taking. You're talking from the perspective that the NHL is in the same league as the NBA, NFL, and MLB in the United States. It isn't. Hockey will never be truly "mainstream" in the US. It'll always be a niche sport, like soccer. Yes, the size of that niche is larger then the niche of soccer, but ultimately it's just a niche. Marketing hockey just hasn't worked in some places.

You'll get no argument from me that ice hockey is a "niche" sport. I don't think you'd get an argument from the NHL's owners on that point if you were to sit down with them for a private, candid, one-on-one conversation. That said, I also don't believe for a moment - and this is based on interviews I conducted as a sports journalist - that NHL owners and league executives are willing to concede that they are an entity quite as low on the "niche" totem-pole as soccer. Do they believe that their league ranks with the NFL or MLB in the hearts and minds of the overall American sports marketplace? No. But, do they think that they're that far behind the NBA? Also, no. Do they see themselves as legitimately being part of the so-called "Big Four". Yes.

Are they kidding themselves? Who is to say? However, at this point in the league's history - and at this stage of the game - there is no way that the NHL's owners are contemplating scaling-back to a configuration of largely Canadian and American Northern-tier markets. Come Hell or hot water, they are committed to making the sport work in the so-called "non-traditional" markets. To do otherwise strikes them as admitting defeat... showing a sign of weakness. Such behavior strikes them as suicidal in a highly-competitive sports marketplace. They truly believe in the quality, excitement and entertainment value of the sport of ice hockey and are hell-bent on pitching it to the masses... "converting" non-fans in every corner of the country. Along the way, they know that there will be stumbles, but they ultimately believe that they'll "grow the game"

Ok, I lied. One quote.

If you don't think I don't recognize the "quality, excitement and entertainment value of the sport of ice hockey" you're sadly mistaken.

Ultimately though, you can't force the horse to drink the water you've lead it to. Sports is highly subjective, and if someone doesn't like something, they don't like it. Plenty of people here think hockey's great, Greg thinks otherwise. On the flip side I can't, for the life of me, figure out the appeal behind basketball.

And if the NHL ownership is so insecure about their positions in the sporting world that they can't collectively see that hockey is indeed a niche sport it's their own fault if they continue to bleed millions in markets that just don't care.

So are they kidding themselves about hockey's place and future in the greater American sports landscape? Yes, yes they are. The only question is "how much longer can they pretend to be a big boy league before it falls apart?"

The reason I claim you're in a "camp" is because of your seemingly hypocritical stance here. On one hand you're claiming that the NHL is a business not a charity, and that tough luck to Winnipeg, Quebec City, and Hartford. On the other hand you're still trying to sell Phoenix like it's 1996 and has all of this untapped potential.

If you're going to fly the "The NHL is a business not a charity" flag then the Coyotes pretty much have to get out of Dodge.

I'm not looking to sue you. I just think you should admit that you have an axe to grind when it comes to this subject... and that it colors your every discussion of it.

Ok, two quotes. But I figure this one's needed.

Onto the point, I don't exactly see what's wrong with being passionate about a sport that I've enjoyed my entire life, and wanting to see a local team within driving distance to me that I can afford to see at least one game a year.

And yes I do have an axe to grind. Is it with Gary Bettman or the NHL ownership? Not sure. In the end it doesn't matter though. I have an axe to grind because I don't want to see the NHL in severe financial trouble. I love hockey and truth be told I love the league (why else would I be arguing?). It does indeed "grind my gears" when they take a course of action that seems detrimental. Like insisting a franchise can work in a location where it bleeds millions and no one shows up for the games.

Ultimately though I have an axe to grind with the NHL's continued instance that it can be as big as the NBA, NFL, and MLB. It just can't be, and by continually trying to be they're setting themselves up for severe financial losses. By refusing to recognize what they really are they're putting the future of their league at risk, which is what's enraging from my perspective as a hockey fan.

So that's why I have an axe to grind with the NHL in its current state.

This thread--or should I say, this debate going on up in here--would make one hell of a TV or radio talk show, wouldn't it?

(And...it's almost starting to rival the 2008 Presidential Election thread in terms of intensity and sheer entertainment--soon, even length, if things keep up at this pace...)

Well I'll try my best.....

Gary Bettman is secretly a Muslim who hates America

[Brian in Boston]

The reason I claim you're in a "camp" is because of your seemingly hypocritical stance here.

You can "claim" what you like about me for whatever reasons you care to create from the whole-cloth of your imagination. That said, so long as you can't back your claims up with anything approaching incontrovertible truth, they'll continue to be just that... claims.

On one hand you're claiming that the NHL is a business not a charity...

That's not a "claim... it's a fact. The National Hockey League is a business comprised of 30 constituent businesses... the individual franchises.

On the other hand you're still trying to sell Phoenix like it's 1996 and has all this untapped potential.

I am not trying to "sell" anything.

I've simply pointed out that it seems obvious that a majority of the NHL's owners believe that Phoenix still has potential as an NHL market, as they don't seem inclined to relocate the franchise to another city. Given the Coyotes' struggles, you'd think that the NHL's owners would be falling all over themselves to move the team. Yet, they appear focused on finding a well-heeled, business-savvy owner to purchase the franchise, keep it in Greater Phoenix, renegotiate the team's onerous lease and finally realize what they believe to be the market's potential as a home to professional ice hockey.

If you're going to fly the "The NHL is a business not a charity" flag then the Coyotes pretty much have to get out of Dodge.

Apparently the NHL's owners - you know... the businessmen who, unlike you or me, are actually calling the shots - disagree.

Onto the point, I don't exactly see what's wrong with being passionate about a sport that I've enjoyed my entire life, and wanting to see a local team within driving distance to me that I can afford to see at least one game a year.

There's nothing wrong with it, so long as you don't allow said passion to become an obsession that blinds you to being capable of separating truth and facts from conjecture and supposition.

And yes I do have an axe to grind. Is it with Gary Bettman or the NHL ownership? Not sure. In the end it doesn't matter though.

Well, for the longest time it did matter. Because, while our recent exchange seems to have brought out some of your wrath towards those NHL owners who continue to support the notion of keeping the Coyotes in Phoenix, for the longest time you simply chose to pillory Gary Bettman as the evil mastermind who you would have us believe unilaterally chose to undermine the viability of the Jets and Nordiques as Canadian-based franchises. Frankly, you undermined your own credibility by coming off as a Bettman-obsessed conspiracy theorist. You may want to work on that.

I have an axe to grind because I don't want to see the NHL in severe financial trouble. I love hockey and truth be told I love the league (why else would I be arguing?). It does indeed "grind my gears" when they take a course of action that seems detrimental. Like insisting a franchise can work in a location where it bleeds millions and no one shows up for the games.

Ultimately though I have an axe to grind with the NHL's continued instance that it can be as big as the NBA, NFL, and MLB. It just can't be, and by continually trying to be they're setting themselves up for severe financial losses. By refusing to recognize what they really are they're putting the future of their league at risk, which is what's enraging from my perspective as a hockey fan.

So that's why I have an axe to grind with the NHL in its current state.

I feel for you... I really do. You clearly have a great deal of emotion tied-up in the NHL. That said, while you may feel that your take on these matters is spot-on, I'm going to say that, for the most part, the NHL's owners are all successful businessmen with numerous accomplishments both in and outside the world of pro sports and, as a result, I'm going to err on the side of trusting their instincts regarding what is best for the league. They clearly believe that the NHL - and professional ice hockey as a whole - are better served by having the league aspire to operate at a level akin to that of MLB, the NBA and the NFL. Will they make it to the point where they are truly the equal of those leagues? Who knows? Will the entire NHL be irreparably harmed in the attempt to do so? That seems a bit extreme, but who can say for sure? Still, the NHL's owners seem to be of a mind that a business entity like the NHL is better served by aspiring to greatness than by settling for second-tier, "niche" status. Frankly, given that they're footing the bill, that's their call.

[IceCap]

The reason I claim you're in a "camp" is because of your seemingly hypocritical stance here.

You can "claim" what you like about me for whatever reasons you care to create from the whole-cloth of your imagination. That said, so long as you can't back your claims up with anything approaching incontrovertible truth, they'll continue to be just that... claims.

On one hand you're claiming that the NHL is a business not a charity...

That's not a "claim... it's a fact. The National Hockey League is a business comprised of 30 constituent businesses... the individual franchises.

On the other hand you're still trying to sell Phoenix like it's 1996 and has all this untapped potential.

I am not trying to "sell" anything.

I've simply pointed out that it seems obvious that a majority of the NHL's owners believe that Phoenix still has potential as an NHL market, as they don't seem inclined to relocate the franchise to another city. Given the Coyotes' struggles, you'd think that the NHL's owners would be falling all over themselves to move the team. Yet, they appear focused on finding a well-heeled, business-savvy owner to purchase the franchise, keep it in Greater Phoenix, renegotiate the team's onerous lease and finally realize what they believe to be the market's potential as a home to professional ice hockey.

And here I thought that you were tooting the NHL's party line because you happened to agree with them. Though IIRC you yourself said you were turn. Which is fine and all, except you keep waving the "The NHL is a business" flag, which would seem to put you in the "get the Coyotes out of there" camp, but you're not. Hence my claim at hypocrisy.

Onto the point, I don't exactly see what's wrong with being passionate about a sport that I've enjoyed my entire life, and wanting to see a local team within driving distance to me that I can afford to see at least one game a year.

There's nothing wrong with it, so long as you don't allow said passion to become an obsession that blinds you to being capable of separating truth and facts from conjecture and supposition.

Trust me, it's not as RAGE BLINDING as you may think. I see a Commissioner who's brushing aside million dollar losses and downsizing the only sizable, substantial bid placed on what is by almost all definitions a dying team, the same commissioner who TSN reported got visibly angry at Mr. Leopold when he offered to sell the Predators to Mr. Balsillie, and an ownership group who seems more concerned with the status quo of their little collective then the fact that a financially stable, passionate businessman with more money then the Almighty is willing to put down millions on a dying hockey team and I have to come to the conclusion that something stinks. Why are these people so against the sale of a team to a well off stable businessman who wants to move the team to a location where they won't nose dive financially? Especially considering the team in question's current financial state and the world economy. Again, something's not adding up.

And I'm inclined to believe that it's Hamilton. What if Jim Balsillie pledged to keep the team in Phoenix? I'm pretty sure all of the owner's concerns for their ownership group would fade away.

Which is the sticking point because they're insisting that a market that will be that team's grave gets to keep the franchise over not only a city where I personally would benefit, but a city that can pretty much guarantee a sellout for every home game. Dang it Jethro, it just don't make any sense.

I mean RC's post about bringing in more hockey fans is nice, but if fans were showing up to Coyotes games things probably wouldn't be as bad as they are for them.

And yes I do have an axe to grind. Is it with Gary Bettman or the NHL ownership? Not sure. In the end it doesn't matter though.

Well, for the longest time it did matter. Because, while our recent exchange seems to have brought out some of your wrath towards those NHL owners who continue to support the notion of keeping the Coyotes in Phoenix, for the longest time you simply chose to pillory Gary Bettman as the evil mastermind who you would have us believe unilaterally chose to undermine the viability of the Jets and Nordiques as Canadian-based franchises. Frankly, you undermined your own credibility by coming off as a Bettman-obsessed conspiracy theorist. You may want to work on that.

Does it matter though? Be it Mr. Bettman's initiative or that of the collective ownership, the decisions coming out of NHL HQ aren't any different.

And really, I'm not yet convinced that Gary Bettman is the hapless puppet the owners dangle to deflect blame. From my vantage point I'm still convinced that the man holds a fair deal of influence among the NHL ownership.

I have an axe to grind because I don't want to see the NHL in severe financial trouble. I love hockey and truth be told I love the league (why else would I be arguing?). It does indeed "grind my gears" when they take a course of action that seems detrimental. Like insisting a franchise can work in a location where it bleeds millions and no one shows up for the games.

Ultimately though I have an axe to grind with the NHL's continued instance that it can be as big as the NBA, NFL, and MLB. It just can't be, and by continually trying to be they're setting themselves up for severe financial losses. By refusing to recognize what they really are they're putting the future of their league at risk, which is what's enraging from my perspective as a hockey fan.

So that's why I have an axe to grind with the NHL in its current state.

I feel for you... I really do. You clearly have a great deal of emotion tied-up in the NHL. That said, while you may feel that your take on these matters is spot-on, I'm going to say that, for the most part, the NHL's owners are all successful businessmen with numerous accomplishments both in and outside the world of pro sports and, as a result, I'm going to err on the side of trusting their instincts regarding what is best for the league. They clearly believe that the NHL - and professional ice hockey as a whole - are better served by having the league aspire to operate at a level akin to that of MLB, the NBA and the NFL. Will they make it to the point where they are truly the equal of those leagues? Who knows? Will the entire NHL be irreparably harmed in the attempt to do so? That seems a bit extreme, but who can say for sure? Still, the NHL's owners seem to be of a mind that a business entity like the NHL is better served by aspiring to greatness than by settling for second-tier, "niche" status. Frankly, given that they're footing the bill, that's their call.

Please. Don't patronize me.

I have a good deal of emotion tied up in hockey. It's a sport that's allowed me to forge closer relationships with my friends and family, if not through actual playing then through the events that are gathering around the tv to watch a game. Hockey's always been part of the fabric that is my life, and it is for many others as well. The NHL represents hockey at its highest level, so of course it's going to matter a good deal to me. That said, you don't have to worry about me going "Tank Suicide Watch" if the league goes belly up. I'll just chock it up as one of the tragedies of pro sports history and watch more OHL.

Not that I think the NHL will go under. You're right, these are successful businessmen (for the most part. See MLSE, Majority share holders, for an exception), and the survival instinct will kick in if the current path they're taking proves to be be getting too bad.

Still, I'm of the opinion of why let it get that bad? And I am of the opinion that the NHL, in its current state, will never reach the heights it's aiming for. They're a niche sport on a niche network that has no immediate strategy for broadening their viewing base. In a year which had some of the best hockey played in its post season in ten years they still did half of what their closest competition, the NBA, did. Even in American cities where crowds are good and teams are stable coverage is confined to the back of the sports section.

This is a niche sport. There's no denying that. Trying to go toe-to-toe with the big boys will not end well.

[The_Admiral]

The NHL always should've been a Canadian/midwestern/northeastern circuit--with minor exceptions like Los Angeles and San Francisco--that knew its place in the grand scheme of things and could prosper with outposts in Canadian markets and one-team towns because it kept itself in scale and didn't try to be something it wasn't. Needless to say, that's ancient history now, and there's no turning back from national footprints and bloated salaries. I don't care how much money the league owners have made in their lives, I think it's bad business to keep propping up failures. But hey, now more than ever, it's their dime. We'll see how long these guys want to spend money on their opponents instead of themselves.