Post by Jazz on Jun 18, 2004 4:56:36 GMT -5
Another in a long line of scathing articles regarding the general preception of hockey in the US. While I don't agree with everything here, this writer is the USA Today's writer about sports in the culture of the country.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHL needs off-ice changes to fix on-ice product [/u][/color]
By Ted Montgomery
source: USA TODAY
With a looming lockout, television ratings as low as they've ever been and the continuing general perception that hockey is nothing more than sanctioned goonery on ice, the NHL needs to fix its product. Fast.
Not many of us are fooled by Gary Bettman's "our on-ice product is in good shape," pie-in-the-sky rhetoric. The game is in trouble, and unless the NHL works with its players to make some drastic changes, the litany of woes afflicting this great game will grow exponentially.
That's why this week I am offering for your consideration a dramatic reworking of the NHL schedule, divisional configuration and playoff format. These suggestions alone will not solve all of the NHL's problems, but they might put the league back on track. After I'm done rocking your hockey world, I'll tell you why the powers that be will never even consider such a plan.
First things first: The NHL has too many teams and desperately needs to contract a few. I'd love to see 10 teams go away, but for now, I suggest that the league folds four franchises: Florida, Atlanta, Carolina and Pittsburgh.
The first three teams are in non-traditional locations that will probably never cotton to hockey; nor is it realistic to expect them to. Hockey already failed once in Atlanta, Carolina is a college basketball state (and always will be) and the Panthers rely too heavily on transplanted northern retirees who are quickly being priced out of the action. As for Pittsburgh, the franchise is in such a financial morass — exacerbated by its need for a new arena — that they are by default a logical contraction victim.
Here is how I would realign the divisions:
Mid-central Division
•Calgary
•Colorado
•Columbus
•Edmonton
•Minnesota
•Nashville
•St. Louis
Pacific Division
•Anaheim
•Dallas
•Los Angeles
•Phoenix
•San Jose
•Vancouver
Original-six Division
•Boston
•Chicago
•Detroit
•Montreal
•New York Rangers
•Toronto
Eastern Division
•Buffalo
•New Jersey
•New York Islanders
•Ottawa
•Philadelphia
•Tampa Bay
•Washington
As you'll notice, I've done away with the conferences. I've also created an Original-six division, which will trade on the great traditional rivalries that existed in hockey for decades before the infusion of too many teams and slapdash divisional realignments.
It makes no sense to have Detroit and Columbus play each other seven times per season, when the Wings might not see two of its original-six rivals. I don't care how hopeful you are about hockey's future, a Red Wings-Blue Jackets rivalry is just not going to happen. But a Red Wings-Maple Leafs rivalry does exist, and it's been laying dormant as the NHL tries to create these synthetic rivalries.
Under my plan, each team will play 72 regular-season games.
One of the biggest complaints I hear about the NHL from my non-hockey-loving friends is that too many teams make the playoffs, thereby rendering the regular season essentially meaningless. I'm proposing that only 12 teams, not 16, qualify for the postseason, the top three point-getters in each division.
Furthermore, I propose that the top four divisional winners receive a bye in the first round of the playoffs. If we're going to pay lip service to making the regular season count for something and rewarding the most successful teams, let's institute a bye system so the eighth-seeded team isn't eliminating the first-seeded team.
The first round will consist of five games, not seven, and will be seeded by overall points. The top point-getter (after the four division winners) will play the team with the fewest points. All subsequent rounds will consist of seven games, and each round will be re-seeded according to point totals.
In each series, the home team will get to make the choice as to how they want to implement their home-ice advantage. They could choose to start on the road for two games, then play four out of the next five at home, or they could choose to play it out in the 2-2-1-1-1 format that currently exists.
As rudimentary as the plan I've laid out might be, it would deal with several of the NHL's key issues in this labor mess:
It would put some teeth into the regular season, making it mean something for a change. By eliminating 10 games and putting into place the reward of a possible bye round, the games would automatically have more import and would thus be played at a higher, more exciting pace. Also, the reduced schedule might actually cut down on some of the chronic injuries that are so endemic in today's NHL. It would also shorten the season so that Game 7 of the Cup Finals is not played in June, when most people are planning summer vacations or spending their time at the ballpark.
The elimination of four teams would automatically make the on-ice talent better. Fewer teams means fewer players and less diluted talent.
The regular season games would produce more fan interest which should boost TV ratings and could eventually lead to more lucrative network TV contracts in future years.
The playoffs would be more likely to produce better matchups and a final round with the two best teams competing. Nothing against Calgary and Tampa Bay, but by the end, hardly anyone outside of those two cities was watching. That would change if we had a Colorado-Philadelphia or Detroit-Toronto final. It's difficult to make the argument that a better on-ice product wouldn't result in more fan interest.
As you can imagine, NHL owners would be apoplectic if this plan was put into place. Not only would each lose the revenue from five regular-season home dates, but with a shorter invitation list to the postseason party, four teams that would have made the playoffs under the current system would be out of luck. Also, the four division winners would potentially play only three playoff rounds, meaning significant revenue would be lost from playoff gates that never were.
The NHLPA would be up in arms because of the loss of four teams and approximately 100 players' jobs.
Okay, so it's only a start. But I haven't yet heard a radical suggestion for changing the game and getting a move on fixing its problems. All I hear about is a tweak here and a tweak there. Or about the "economic realities" of the league and its teams and players. Fans are sick of that kind of discussion. They want an exciting game to watch, a sense that the money they plopped down for tickets was worth it and not much more than that.
But where is the meaningful discourse about making the game more exciting to a wider cross section of fans? Where are the dramatic suggestions for improving the on-ice product?
Hockey is at a crossroads and may need something more than just a no-touch icing rule to survive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHL needs off-ice changes to fix on-ice product [/u][/color]
By Ted Montgomery
source: USA TODAY
With a looming lockout, television ratings as low as they've ever been and the continuing general perception that hockey is nothing more than sanctioned goonery on ice, the NHL needs to fix its product. Fast.
Not many of us are fooled by Gary Bettman's "our on-ice product is in good shape," pie-in-the-sky rhetoric. The game is in trouble, and unless the NHL works with its players to make some drastic changes, the litany of woes afflicting this great game will grow exponentially.
That's why this week I am offering for your consideration a dramatic reworking of the NHL schedule, divisional configuration and playoff format. These suggestions alone will not solve all of the NHL's problems, but they might put the league back on track. After I'm done rocking your hockey world, I'll tell you why the powers that be will never even consider such a plan.
First things first: The NHL has too many teams and desperately needs to contract a few. I'd love to see 10 teams go away, but for now, I suggest that the league folds four franchises: Florida, Atlanta, Carolina and Pittsburgh.
The first three teams are in non-traditional locations that will probably never cotton to hockey; nor is it realistic to expect them to. Hockey already failed once in Atlanta, Carolina is a college basketball state (and always will be) and the Panthers rely too heavily on transplanted northern retirees who are quickly being priced out of the action. As for Pittsburgh, the franchise is in such a financial morass — exacerbated by its need for a new arena — that they are by default a logical contraction victim.
Here is how I would realign the divisions:
Mid-central Division
•Calgary
•Colorado
•Columbus
•Edmonton
•Minnesota
•Nashville
•St. Louis
Pacific Division
•Anaheim
•Dallas
•Los Angeles
•Phoenix
•San Jose
•Vancouver
Original-six Division
•Boston
•Chicago
•Detroit
•Montreal
•New York Rangers
•Toronto
Eastern Division
•Buffalo
•New Jersey
•New York Islanders
•Ottawa
•Philadelphia
•Tampa Bay
•Washington
As you'll notice, I've done away with the conferences. I've also created an Original-six division, which will trade on the great traditional rivalries that existed in hockey for decades before the infusion of too many teams and slapdash divisional realignments.
It makes no sense to have Detroit and Columbus play each other seven times per season, when the Wings might not see two of its original-six rivals. I don't care how hopeful you are about hockey's future, a Red Wings-Blue Jackets rivalry is just not going to happen. But a Red Wings-Maple Leafs rivalry does exist, and it's been laying dormant as the NHL tries to create these synthetic rivalries.
Under my plan, each team will play 72 regular-season games.
One of the biggest complaints I hear about the NHL from my non-hockey-loving friends is that too many teams make the playoffs, thereby rendering the regular season essentially meaningless. I'm proposing that only 12 teams, not 16, qualify for the postseason, the top three point-getters in each division.
Furthermore, I propose that the top four divisional winners receive a bye in the first round of the playoffs. If we're going to pay lip service to making the regular season count for something and rewarding the most successful teams, let's institute a bye system so the eighth-seeded team isn't eliminating the first-seeded team.
The first round will consist of five games, not seven, and will be seeded by overall points. The top point-getter (after the four division winners) will play the team with the fewest points. All subsequent rounds will consist of seven games, and each round will be re-seeded according to point totals.
In each series, the home team will get to make the choice as to how they want to implement their home-ice advantage. They could choose to start on the road for two games, then play four out of the next five at home, or they could choose to play it out in the 2-2-1-1-1 format that currently exists.
As rudimentary as the plan I've laid out might be, it would deal with several of the NHL's key issues in this labor mess:
It would put some teeth into the regular season, making it mean something for a change. By eliminating 10 games and putting into place the reward of a possible bye round, the games would automatically have more import and would thus be played at a higher, more exciting pace. Also, the reduced schedule might actually cut down on some of the chronic injuries that are so endemic in today's NHL. It would also shorten the season so that Game 7 of the Cup Finals is not played in June, when most people are planning summer vacations or spending their time at the ballpark.
The elimination of four teams would automatically make the on-ice talent better. Fewer teams means fewer players and less diluted talent.
The regular season games would produce more fan interest which should boost TV ratings and could eventually lead to more lucrative network TV contracts in future years.
The playoffs would be more likely to produce better matchups and a final round with the two best teams competing. Nothing against Calgary and Tampa Bay, but by the end, hardly anyone outside of those two cities was watching. That would change if we had a Colorado-Philadelphia or Detroit-Toronto final. It's difficult to make the argument that a better on-ice product wouldn't result in more fan interest.
As you can imagine, NHL owners would be apoplectic if this plan was put into place. Not only would each lose the revenue from five regular-season home dates, but with a shorter invitation list to the postseason party, four teams that would have made the playoffs under the current system would be out of luck. Also, the four division winners would potentially play only three playoff rounds, meaning significant revenue would be lost from playoff gates that never were.
The NHLPA would be up in arms because of the loss of four teams and approximately 100 players' jobs.
Okay, so it's only a start. But I haven't yet heard a radical suggestion for changing the game and getting a move on fixing its problems. All I hear about is a tweak here and a tweak there. Or about the "economic realities" of the league and its teams and players. Fans are sick of that kind of discussion. They want an exciting game to watch, a sense that the money they plopped down for tickets was worth it and not much more than that.
But where is the meaningful discourse about making the game more exciting to a wider cross section of fans? Where are the dramatic suggestions for improving the on-ice product?
Hockey is at a crossroads and may need something more than just a no-touch icing rule to survive.
anyone who has ever tried to co ordinate the effort to skate and carry the puck knows how close to reality that statement is..i give him points for not using 'goonery' anywhere but quickly deduct them for bringing up the Moore/Bertuzzi incident...i am confused 