Back In The Game?

[Brian in Boston]

THOSE R SUM PRETTTY BIG WORDS THEIR BIB, BUT IT REALLY JUST MEANS YOU HATE CANADAZ [/What Brian in Boston thinks Icecap79 sounds like]

I can assure you that I haven't given one thought to what I think you sound like. It would be presumptuous on my part, and... well, frankly, I don't care.

So rather then shatter your pre-conceived notions...

You're assuming that I'd put the time and effort into forming pre-conceived notions about your thoughts on this topic. I can assure you, that hasn't been the case.

I thought I'd ease you into things with just a taste of what you expect.

I expect nothing from you.

The question I'm asking is this, what do YOU think? What's your position? Not a summary of the league's position, we know that. I would like Brian in Boston's position.

You on the other hand seem to be quite fixated on what I think... on my "position".

Why am I pushing you to reveal your point of view? Well aside from the fact that HL already opened the floodgates on that type of questioning by demanding I clarify my own stance, you yourself accused me of falsely summarizing your position. So I would like to know what your position actually is, if I was so wrong.

My position? Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. It is the NHL's decision to make and of no importance to me. As I stated, I can understand the reasoning that led them to make the decisions they did, as well as why they continue down the path that they have for the past couple of decades. Whether that will ultimately work out for the league or not, I haven't a clue, nor do I care. So long as the Boston Bruins exist, that's really all I care about with regard to the NHL.

I was, and in a way still am, convinced that you supported the NHL's course of action you so nicely summarized for us.

You'd be unequivocally wrong. In fact, if truly pressed, I'd argue that the league might be better off with a reduction to 16 franchises, which would be a non-starter as far as the league's owners are concerned.

You've said I was erroneous in doing so. So what are your own, actual thoughts on the situation the NHL finds itself in?

You've just read them... so far as they go.

Oh, there's also the whole thing about Gary Bettman telling everyone that every NHL team was financially stable only a few months ago. If the CEO of a corporation or an elected head of government made a lie as big as this and was caught with their pants down like Mr. Bettman was they'd get booted out as soon as possible.

But, Mr. Bettman isn't the CEO of a corporation or an elected head of government. That being the case, this entire discussion is a "tempest in a teapot"... "much ado about nothing"... a frivolity. And, given that Mr. Bettman serves the purposes of the NHL owners who hired him, he isn't going anywhere.

[IceCap]

THOSE R SUM PRETTTY BIG WORDS THEIR BIB, BUT IT REALLY JUST MEANS YOU HATE CANADAZ [/What Brian in Boston thinks Icecap79 sounds like]

I can assure you that I haven't given one thought to what I think you sound like. It would be presumptuous on my part, and... well, frankly, I don't care.

So rather then shatter your pre-conceived notions...

You're assuming that I'd put the time and effort into forming pre-conceived notions about your thoughts on this topic. I can assure you, that hasn't been the case.

I thought I'd ease you into things with just a taste of what you expect.

I expect nothing from you.

See Brian, the thing about me is that I don't look ill on anyone for simply holding an opinion, even if it's in contradiction to my own. If you start to get snippy, short, condescending, rude, or are just flat out disrespectful to me and my position, however, then I will return the favour. Which is what you've seen of me in varying degrees in my last few posts. Me simply returning the favour. Even then, though, I don't particularly think ill of you personally, in fact I have as much respect as I think I'm capable of having for someone I only "met" through an internet message board due to your stances in more important topics then this one.

Why am I pushing you to reveal your point of view? Well aside from the fact that HL already opened the floodgates on that type of questioning by demanding I clarify my own stance, you yourself accused me of falsely summarizing your position. So I would like to know what your position actually is, if I was so wrong.

My position? Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. It is the NHL's decision to make and of no importance to me. As I stated, I can understand the reasoning that led them to make the decisions they did, as well as why they continue down the path that they have for the past couple of decades. Whether that will ultimately work out for the league or not, I haven't a clue, nor do I care. So long as the Boston Bruins exist, that's really all I care about with regard to the NHL.

Fair enough. So to summarize a NHL with Jim Balsillie owning a Hamilton team would mean as much to you as a NHL withiout Jim Balsillie and the Coyotes in Phoenix?

See, that's all I wanted.

I was, and in a way still am, convinced that you supported the NHL's course of action you so nicely summarized for us.

You'd be unequivocally wrong. In fact, if truly pressed, I'd argue that the league might be better off with a reduction to 16 franchises, which would be a non-starter as far as the league's owners are concerned.

If you would have bothered to read what I said after that (selective quoting, the fine art), I wasn't outright labelling you, rather I was simply re-stating my own opinion, which you already shot down, and asking you to provide information in correcting that error. Actually you butchered my last post quite a bit unnecessarily.

Onto the fun stuff though.

I wouldn't say retraction to 16 teams is the way to go, but rather a re-alignment of league priorities. The NHL thinks of itself as a major player in the United States pro sports landscape, or at the very least thinks of itself as being within reach of that goal. The sad truth is, however, that this is not the case. In terms of merchandise sales and ratings they're far, far, far behind their closest competition, the NBA.

In actuality the NHL is a large niche league, a larger take on MLS if you will. By overextending itself in a desperate and futile attempt to "expand their footprint" and make it a real "Big Four" with MLB, the NFL, and the NBA, they've flushed more money then any of us would dream of ever having down the toilet, over-saturated the market, diluted the talent base by expanding to quickly, and continue to incur even more financial loses on teams in markets where the numbers just aren't there to justify the continued existence of a NHL presence.

What the league needs to is not so much scale back the number of teams, contraction in this day and age is a death sentence, but reshuffle the placement of a few teams and rearrange the priorities of the league. Florida (Miami) and Phoenix have to go. Hamilton, Kansas City, even Winnipeg, the NHL needs to move those two teams to two of those markets. Atlanta, Nashville, and Tampa Bay are in a holding period. They need a little more time before a decision can be made, but if the numbers don't pan out, then they need to move to more "traditional" markets. And yes rams80, Kansas City, and by extension St. Louis, is (are) a traditional market(s). Carolina, Dallas, San Jose, LA, and Anaheim provide a strong league "footprint" in the Sunbelt. Also Washington if you count DC as being in the Sunbelt, I've heard it both ways.

As for the league's priorities, well they need to come to terms with the fact that the NHL isn't on the same level as the NBA, NFL, and MLB. MLS almost went under trying in vain to be a "mainstream" league to US sports fans. Only since they've accepted their status as a niche league and marketed themselves to soccer fans in the US and Canada have they seen a level of financial security and stability. The NHL, essentially, needs to follow suit. Move the teams that need to be moved to more secure, traditional markets where a decent at least level of fan support is guaranteed. With solid fanbases established in 5(6?) Sunbelt markets, the "growing the game" mentality needs to be done away with. The NHL needs to shift their focus back to hockey fans, the fans that are already there. Not the "potential" fans that the league has failed to convert for the better part of twenty years.

Hockey, being a more popular game in the US then soccer, means that the overall fanbase, merchandise sales, and television ratings will be larger then that of MLS, but if you really look at it, the two aren't that much different in relation to the mainstream American sports public, objectively speaking. The major difference is that the NHL still thinks it can become a "mainstream" league in the US. MLS almost went under doing that, and I fear a similar fate awaits the NHL if they don't cut their loses soon enough.

Besides, as you said pro sports is a business, not a charity. Keeping a NHL team in a locale where they've lost $400 million already and will lose more, and draw under 10,000 to a game while the team is playing the best hockey they've played in years, just because the prospect to "grow the game" is there is both pretty charitable and a bad business move.

Oh, there's also the whole thing about Gary Bettman telling everyone that every NHL team was financially stable only a few months ago. If the CEO of a corporation or an elected head of government made a lie as big as this and was caught with their pants down like Mr. Bettman was they'd get booted out as soon as possible. And, given that Mr. Bettman serves the purposes of the NHL owners who hired him, he isn't going anywhere.

But, Mr. Bettman isn't the CEO of a corporation or an elected head of government. That being the case, this entire discussion is a "tempest in a teapot"... "much ado about nothing"... a frivolity.

He is the guy in charge. The head executive of the league, and he reported something he knew to be untrue. Not only that, but things began, and have continued, to fall apart under his watch. As the guy at the top of the hierarchy it's his responsibility when things go wrong.

That's how it works, be you the manager of a McDonald's or the President of the United States. When you're the top guy and things go wrong, you're responsible. Though as I've said before I do feel Commissioner Bettman should be allowed an opportunity to fix things, as I feel he's capable of it. If he can't though, then it's time the NHL realize that their present course of action is broken and remove Mr. Bettman from the Commissioner's office.

[STL FANATIC]

To jump into just one small point of the discussion,

I still wonder what there is for Mr. Bettman to fix. Not that there's not things he can fix, but what is it that he has to fix in order to not be fired? The league is without a doubt trending upwards right now. Some franchises aren't as healthy as he would like (or yes, said), but many, even most, are. Ratings are as high as they've ever been. And rumors have ESPN considering jumping back into televising NHL hockey.

What needs to go significantly different from the way things are currently progress to make you believe that the NHL is being run in a healthy manner?

[IceCap]

I still wonder what there is for Mr. Bettman to fix. Not that there's not things he can fix, but what is it that he has to fix in order to not be fired? The league is without a doubt trending upwards right now. Some franchises aren't as healthy as he would like (or yes, said), but many, even most, are. Ratings are as high as they've ever been. And rumors have ESPN considering jumping back into televising NHL hockey.

Treading upwards? To repeat what Goth said earlier, ratings are improving only because they were flat out awful last season. They had no place to go but up. A 25% improvement in this case is still terrible. Despite the ratings increase, overall the numbers are still God awful. You may be onto something if they continue to improve at this rate consistently, but as of now ratings are still in the toilet, and a far, far, cry from the nearest competition, the NBA. The games are still on a channel most people can't watch, and the games that are on a real network are still drawing terribly.

Yes, getting back on ESPN would be a step in the right direction, but I haven't heard anything to the effect that ESPN is interested. You mentioning it is literally the first I'm hearing of it. Do you have a link/source? Until I see something that proves otherwise, I'm just going to assume that ESPN's attitude toward the NHL is the same as it's been since they parted ways with the NHL; that being that they don't need the NHL. Objectively speaking they don't. Even with the "upswing in ratings" the NHL numbers are very poor. If I were in charge at ESPN I wouldn't see why the NHL would be worth my network's time, to be perfectly honest. They're drawing poor ratings on a third rate imitator. Again, you're welcome to provide a link or source to back up your claim that ESPN is interested, but I seriously doubt that's the case.

As for "Some franchises aren't as healthy as he [Mr. Bettman] would like" that's an understatement. In terms of what NHL arenas can hold and what we think of as "average" for a major pro sports team to draw, almost no one is showing up for Coyotes games. Not only that, but the team had to be paid under the table by the league last season just to meet payroll. Now they're actually owned by the league. When it comes to indicators that a team is at death's door "having to be funded by the league" followed by "are now owned by the league" are at the top of the list. Lets look at other examples of this. The Tampa Bat Mutiny of MLS went under after a period of league ownership, and the Montréal Expos of MLB, a much stronger league then the NHL, relocated.

Not to mention the Panthers who are just treading water financially, the Blue Jackets who are facing financial problems despite being heralded as one of the more successful expansion teams and actually do draw fans, and the Lightning who despite winning a Cup in the last decade are now looking so dubious that their new owners are looking to jump ship only one year after buying the team. Not to mention the fact that no one's really sure who owns the Thrashers. That's way to long a list for any league, even if most of the teams are in a stable financial situation.

What needs to go significantly different from the way things are currently progress to make you believe that the NHL is being run in a healthy manner?

I just outlined what I would like to see the NHL do in my last post. I'll summarize it again though.

In effect, scale back. Again, I'll use MLS as an example. They tried to market themselves to the average American sports fan and failed, almost going under. Once they realized they were a niche league they found a place in the American sports landscape and have arrived on solid financial ground. True, they aren't drawing the big ratings and cash that they thought they could if they had pulled off the "lets try to be a truly major American sports league" plan, but they are financially stable now and have a solid fanbase since they've refocused their efforts to actually marketing themselves to soccer fans.

That's what I would like to see the NHL do.

1) Relocate Phoenix and Florida to more traditional markets to get them on better financial ground. Hamilton, Kansas City, Winnipeg (I don't agree with that one, but the NHL has been talking about it a lot recently), even Seattle and Québec City if they solve their respective arena problems.

2) Put Tampa Bay, Atlanta, and Nashville on notice. If they make it, great, if not, move them as soon as possible to cut losses. With strong teams in San Jose, LA, Anaheim, Dallas, Carolina, and Washington you've established dedicated followings in Sunbelt markets. You've "grown the game." Congratulations all around.

3) With the failing teams out of Dodge, the "on notice" teams either following their example or stabilizing, the league needs to refocus their efforts. The game's been grown, congrats. Lets now begin to cater to hockey fans, wherever they exist rather then trying to grow "potential" fans where they haven't manifested in twenty years.

4) Do what you have to in order to get on ESPN, or any other major channel. Lick boot, beg, bribe, whatever it takes. In order for the NHL to achieve it's highest potential ratings it needs to be on a network where they majority of hockey fans can find it. Not enough people have VS, and I would guess a problem with the low ratings on that channel are due to the lack of hockey fans (already a small number) having the network.

Essentially the NHL needs to stop thinking of itself as on the same level as the NFL, NBA, and MLB. They aren't, and to be perfectly honest, never will be. Their attempts to achieve this impossible goal have resulted in money being wasted and more teams in financial trouble then is healthy for any professional league. They need to start thinking of themselves as a larger version of MLS. Get the teams in markets where it just isn't working out of dodge and start marketing themselves to hockey fans, not potential fans as they try to "grow the game."

[BigMac12]

Could Phoenix get an expansion team, Icecap79?

[Brian in Boston]

Onto the fun stuff though.

"Fun"? For you perhaps. You seem to find reiterating your own personally held opinions on this topic the very height of "fun", while simultaneously seeing fit to summarily dismiss the opinions of anyone else who chimes-in.

I wouldn't say retraction to 16 teams is the way to go... because the prospect to "grow the game" is there is both pretty charitable and a bad business move.

We are all, by now, well aware of your opinions on the state of the NHL, just as you have been made privy of the opinions of others. The back and forth has, quite frankly, grown tedious and has ceased to produce any new arguments of substance.

Let us know when the NHL's owners tap you to head-up efforts to replace Bettman and solve the league's ills.

[IceCap]

Could Phoenix get an expansion team, Icecap79?

Maybe. Denver, Minnesota, and San Fransisco Bay Area all received NHL teams after the first go-around didn't work out (you can probably add Kansas City to that list soon enough). Should Phoenix lose the Coyotes their best bet would be to establish themselves as a solid minor league (AHL preferably)and look to getting a new rink within Phoenix itself.

Two of the reported problems with the Coyotes seem be to linked to the area in Glendale. The lease, from what I've heard is horrible, and it's so out of the way from the heart of the potential fanbase that fans that might otherwise go have decided they don't want to make the drive (this last part is what I like to call Florida Panthers Syndrome). As beautiful as the new Coyotes rink in Glendale is, it's a casket. If Phoenix shows that can indeed support some level of minor league hockey successfully with a viable downtown arena then yes, they probably could get a new team down the road.

Onto the fun stuff though.

"Fun"? For you perhaps. You seem to find reiterating your own personally held opinions on this topic the very height of "fun", while simultaneously seeing fit to summarily dismiss the opinions of anyone else who chimes-in.

Last I checked, this was a message board where people "discuss" things. I'm not sure how I've violated that concept by chiming in with my own opinion. As for the term "fun" I used it in a whimsical manner. I know you could have figured that out.

I wouldn't say retraction to 16 teams is the way to go... because the prospect to "grow the game" is there is both pretty charitable and a bad business move.

We are all, by now, well aware of your opinions on the state of the NHL, just as you have been made privy of the opinions of others. The back and forth has, quite frankly, grown tedious and has ceased to produce any new arguments of substance.

Exactly. The topic came up, I made my opinions known, you and others have made your opinions known. That's what I thought the point of a message board was. Yet you seem to be vilifying me for stating my opinion on the discussion at hand. Did I miss the board wide "Don't post your opinion of BiB doesn't like it" memo?

Let us know when the NHL's owners tap you to head-up efforts to replace Bettman and solve the league's ills.

Ah, come on man. This is what I'm talking about. Why the condescending attitude? I know you're better then that. During George Bush's term you made a few posts criticizing his administration's policies in the politics forum. Did anyone say anything to the effect of "Let us know when you're elected President to solve the country's ills"? I don't think so. So again, why the hate for me simply voicing my opinion on a topic on a message board?

[BigMac12]

Could Phoenix get an expansion team, Icecap79?

Maybe. Denver, Minnesota, and San Fransisco Bay Area all received NHL teams after the first go-around didn't work out (you can probably add Kansas City to that list soon enough). Should Phoenix lose the Coyotes their best bet would be to establish themselves as a solid minor league (AHL preferably)and look to getting a new rink within Phoenix itself.

Two of the reported problems with the Coyotes seem be to linked to the area in Glendale. The lease, from what I've heard is horrible, and it's so out of the way from the heart of the potential fanbase that fans that might otherwise go have decided not to, not wanting to make the drive (this last part is what I like to call Florida Panthers Syndrome). As beautiful as the new Coyotes rink in Glendale is, it's a casket. If Phoenix shows that can indeed support some level of minor league hockey successfully with a viable downtown arena then yes, they probably could get a new team down the road.

Don't count on a new downtown arena. There's no room in Downtown Phoenix. And I don't think the US Airways Center can be altered to fit hockey without obstructive seating.

[IceCap]

Worst case scenario they need a new lease with the arena they have.

Best case scenario, they need a new rink closer to the city itself. I'm not familiar with the geography of greater Phoenix, but there has to be somewhere they could stick a rink that's more fan-accessible then Glendale.

[Brian in Boston]

Last I checked, this was a message board where people "discuss" things. I'm not sure how I've violated that concept by chiming in with my own opinion.

To truly "discuss" things requires more than just stating your own opinion. It requires the ability and willingness to consider the opinions of others. You have shown a propensity to simply belittle and/or summarily dismiss the opinions of others. That isn't a discussion.

Yet you seem to be vilifying me for stating my opinion on the discussion at hand.

Not at all. I take umbrage with your claims to be engaged in a "discussion" of a topic when, in point of fact, you've simply made your opinion known while repeatedly dismissing the opinions of others out of hand.

This is what I'm talking about. Why the condescending attitude?

You have no room to accuse others of a possessing a condescending attitude on this topic. You've been talking down your nose to anyone and everyone who has expressed an opinion counter to your own.

I know you're better then that.

Frankly, you know next to nothing about me. Your feigned interest in/knowledge of/familiarity with me is nothing more than faux-polite posturing. On this topic you have proven yourself remarkably unaccepting of any opinion that diverges from your own, mine included. In other words, save us the polite posturing.

So again, why the hate for me simply voicing my opinion on a topic on a message board?

Hate? You give yourself far too much credit. I can barely summon-up the interest to respond to your self-involved postings. As for your opinions, you are more than welcome to them, just as you are more than welcome to post them in this community. As previously stated, what I find off-putting is your proclivity for feigning that you're interested in engaging in a "discussion" of this topic, when - in point of fact - you've proven yourself remarkably indifferent to any position on it save your own.

As we have now gone from dealing with the issues surrounding the Phoenix Coyotes situation and Mr. Balsillie's quest to land an NHL franchise for Hamilton to simply pointing-out differences we have with each other's personal debate styles, I feel it is best to end our exchange. Further sniping at one another will only serve to distract from those individuals who wish to engage in a true discusion of the topics at hand.

[IceCap]

Last I checked, this was a message board where people "discuss" things. I'm not sure how I've violated that concept by chiming in with my own opinion.

To truly "discuss" things requires more than just stating your own opinion. It requires the ability and willingness to consider the opinions of others. You have shown a propensity to simply belittle and/or summarily dismiss the opinions of others. That isn't a discussion.

Yet you seem to be vilifying me for stating my opinion on the discussion at hand.

Not at all. I take umbrage with your claims to be engaged in a "discussion" of a topic when, in point of fact, you've simply made your opinion known while repeatedly dismissing the opinions of others out of hand.

This is what I'm talking about. Why the condescending attitude?

You have no room to accuse others of a possessing a condescending attitude on this topic. You've been talking down your nose to anyone and everyone who has expressed an opinion counter to your own.

I have considered the opinions of others, and I understand exactly where they are coming from. In analyzing the other side I have come to the conclusion that they've just failed to convince me. There's a key difference between understanding a point of view and where it's coming from, and accepting it as "correct." I've listened to what you and others from your position have said, I understand your points, and I understand where you're coming from. The thing is, that while I've read them and thought them over they have failed to persuade me from my own opinions. Sometimes in a discussion neither side can be swayed. That doesn't make it any less of a discussion. Unless of course your definition of a discussion is that I just cave into your position.

As for "talking down my nose," please. If you want to talk about people dismissing the opinions and positions of others out of hand, look in the mirror. Where have you ever afforded me the courtesy that you accuse me of denying you and others?

I know you're better then that.

Frankly, you know next to nothing about me. Your feigned interest in/knowledge of/familiarity with me is nothing more than faux-polite posturing. On this topic you have proven yourself remarkably unaccepting of any opinion that diverges from your own, mine included. In other words, save us the polite posturing.

Feigned interest in? Knowledge of? Familiarity with you? I think it's you who give yourself way to much credit.

If you must know why I've singled you out here it's because, to be perfectly frank, I see you as pretty much what you accuse me of being. Pig headed, condescending, and unable to at the very least try and understand where I'm coming from with my points.

It doesn't hurt that it took you a while to actually post your own personal opinion on the matter at hand. The fact of the matter is that after posting so much in this thread without an actual hint of your own thoughts on the subject it (you just went on and on summarizing the NHL's position and arguing against points no one was making) I figured I might as well ask.

If you think I have some kind of affinity for you, well you're either looking into things way to deeply or you're giving yourself to much credit. By and by, outside of this thread, I think of you as just that guy who likes the Jaguars logo and makes a good post in the political section now and then.

So again, why the hate for me simply voicing my opinion on a topic on a message board?

Hate? You give yourself far too much credit. I can barely summon-up the interest to respond to your self-involved postings. As for your opinions, you are more than welcome to them, just as you are more than welcome to post them in this community. As previously stated, what I find off-putting is your proclivity for feigning that you're interested in engaging in a "discussion" of this topic, when - in point of fact - you've proven yourself remarkably indifferent to any position on it save your own.

Again, for redundancy's sake, I have heard what you and other have to say, I've considered them, I know where you're coming from, and I understand the points your making. The thing is that your arguments have simply failed to persuade me. I've muled them over, they just haven't convinced me that my position is the wrong one. Not every discussion can end with one side conceding. Sometimes both sides are unable to convince the other, and when that happens I suspect the best thing to do is agree to disagree. Which I am usually very open to doing, except here you've felt the need to riddle your posts with pot shots, and then criticize me when I respond in kind.

[-kj]

This would be a good time to steer this thread away from the posturing of Brian and IceCap and back towards the posturing of Balsille.

[IceCap]

I'm all for moving on.

So....Bettman vs Balsillie, Steel Cage Match anyone?

[HedleyLamarr]

Not to mention the fact that no one's really sure who owns the Thrashers.

This is the second you've mentioned this.

Care to expand on it?

[The_Admiral]

I thought the Atlanta Spirit LLC confusion had since been cleared up.

[IceCap]

Not to mention the fact that no one's really sure who owns the Thrashers.

This is the second you've mentioned this.

Care to expand on it?

Ah, ok. I was under the impression that the confusion regarding Thrashers ownership the admiral mentioned had yet to have been resolved. I stand corrected.

[Eye]

I beleaf.

[Gothamite]

ESPN will be airing a lot of basketball, both pro and college, just about every night of the week. They have Monday Night Football now. They have the NBA now. They simply have no room, and no willingness, to air NHL games.

Even if true, that wasn't always the case. ESPN was interested in keeping NHL games on their network when the last contract expired, but they weren't willing to overpay for a mediocre product (and as television programming, that's exactly what it is).

The Outdoor Life Network was willing to overpay just to gain some national attention, and Bettman and the other Brahmin men were willing to send themselves to television Siberia for a few extra ducats. Bad move. Even on NBC, the most-viewed NHL games are getting lower ratings than the poorest-drawing baseball and basketball games.

I don't think hockey is a bad television sport. On the contrary, HD now makes it easier to follow the game than ever before. And the fast, agile pace makes it ideal for watching at a bar, or in a group.

[Your Name Here]

ESPN was the one who overpayed for the NHL back in August 1998, just to muscle out FOX/FX. When the rights came up for renewal, ESPN offered $60 million per year, 40 games on ESPN2, and nothing on ABC. ABC flatly refused to televise the NHL in primetime. Bettman made the deal with NBC to keep the league on broadcast television. And after the lockout, OLN was offering money. ESPN was offering quite literally nothing - just the same revenue-sharing deal as NBC. I know the NHL isn't that valuable as a television property, but if they have any respect for themselves they've got to take something over nothing. The whole thing was just a matter of inconvenient timing. The league and the PA announced the end of the lockout and ESPN says that they're interested in retaining the cable rights. Then, Turner says that they're also interested in the NHL. And out of the clear, blue sky, USA says that they're also interested in the NHL. And then, the NHL announces the deal with Comcast. Ah, crap.

I don't know, but I don't think anyone else has mentioned one issue. Say what you will about Phoenix; I agree it's counterintuitive as a hockey market. But with all deference to the good people there, Hamilton is an armpit. It would be far and away the bleakest, most unappealing road trip in the league.

[The_Admiral]

Hamilton may well be an armpit, and that's one of my concerns as well, but if the residents of said armpit are willing to pay good money to watch hockey, then there might be something to be said for that armpit. I'm sorry that millionaires will have to get drunk and cheat on their wives in Hamilton instead of Phoenix, but you can't structure a circuit to fit those sorts of whims.