Post by selannejets on Mar 5, 2009 19:01:44 GMT -5
VANCOUVER -- Gary Bettman, it seems, isn't a proponent of contraction.
We know this because every time the concept is raised, he reacts the way a five-year-old reacts when liver is served. He stiffens. He makes a face. Then he says something like: "I believe in every market we have, that every franchise can be fully competitive."
That's, at least, what Bettman said earlier this month and, say this for the man, he stays on message.
He's stayed on message, in fact, for five years. In February 2004, before a lockout wiped out a year in the life of the NHL, he said: "There's no need for contraction. We have enough fan support, we have enough revenues that with the right system all franchises will be properly and amply supported."
That makes you wonder how bad things would be in Phoenix and Nashville right now if he didn't get that new system.
But let's, just for a lark, consider what the NHL would look like if four franchises were contracted and, maybe, two others were relocated. Let's also consider what a 26-team NHL would look like, where the three best players from, say, Phoenix, Florida, the Islanders and Nashville replaced the three-worst players from the other teams.
But a couple of years from now, when the full impact of the current economic downturn is being felt, Bettman might have to consider an NHL without his precious non-traditional markets. That, in turn, raises all kinds of questions about the future of the league, but here's the thing.
From a fan's point of view, not one of those questions is particularly troubling.
This issue has been kicking around the NHL in varying forms for about 15 years and, while the only tangible result has been the movement of the Winnipeg Jets and Quebec Nordiques, the league now appears to be facing the very real possibility of further franchise dislocations.
Bettman, of course, would rather lose one of his limbs than one of his franchises and, considering everything he has invested in the league as it's constructed, you can understand his feelings.
But let's try looking at this beyond his narrow self-interests. Let's look at what the NHL would be if it was freed from the burden of its dead-weight franchises.
Maybe it's all a pipe-dream, but you sense the NHL could be something great if it could resolve this matter. And, somehow, that seems more important than preserving the game in markets that are indifferent to hockey.
There have, after all, been a rash of positive developments in the NHL since the lockout. The game isn't quite where it was in the 1980s, but it's light-years ahead of where it was 10 years ago. The league has been blessed with a new generation of stars and it doesn't hurt that two of them - Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin - seem to despise each other. The new economic order has also created an egalitarianism that promotes parity for virtually all the league's franchises, and if that isn't always great for the game, it's good for business.
Still, for all that, the league expends a disproportionate amount of energy propping up its weakest franchises. Why? The Coyotes have now been in the desert for 13 years, they've gone through owners the way some people go through cellphones and the situation has never been worse than it is now.
A similar story exists in Florida, Tampa Bay, Long Island and Atlanta. Those stories have also become one of the league's talking points, which is why you see Bettman giving the same implausible answers to the same tired questions every time he holds a news conference.
And to what end? If the NHL has proven anything over the last decade, it's proven it doesn't work as a 30-team entity.
But think of what a 26-team league would look like. Think of the concentration of talent. Think of the product on the ice. Now think of the game being played in markets that cared about hockey and, while you're at it, think of the revenues that league would generate.
Maybe Bettman doesn't have to think about those things now. But it would be great if he had to start.
Vancouver Province
www.nationalpost.com/sports/story.html?id=1331943
We know this because every time the concept is raised, he reacts the way a five-year-old reacts when liver is served. He stiffens. He makes a face. Then he says something like: "I believe in every market we have, that every franchise can be fully competitive."
That's, at least, what Bettman said earlier this month and, say this for the man, he stays on message.
He's stayed on message, in fact, for five years. In February 2004, before a lockout wiped out a year in the life of the NHL, he said: "There's no need for contraction. We have enough fan support, we have enough revenues that with the right system all franchises will be properly and amply supported."
That makes you wonder how bad things would be in Phoenix and Nashville right now if he didn't get that new system.
But let's, just for a lark, consider what the NHL would look like if four franchises were contracted and, maybe, two others were relocated. Let's also consider what a 26-team NHL would look like, where the three best players from, say, Phoenix, Florida, the Islanders and Nashville replaced the three-worst players from the other teams.
But a couple of years from now, when the full impact of the current economic downturn is being felt, Bettman might have to consider an NHL without his precious non-traditional markets. That, in turn, raises all kinds of questions about the future of the league, but here's the thing.
From a fan's point of view, not one of those questions is particularly troubling.
This issue has been kicking around the NHL in varying forms for about 15 years and, while the only tangible result has been the movement of the Winnipeg Jets and Quebec Nordiques, the league now appears to be facing the very real possibility of further franchise dislocations.
Bettman, of course, would rather lose one of his limbs than one of his franchises and, considering everything he has invested in the league as it's constructed, you can understand his feelings.
But let's try looking at this beyond his narrow self-interests. Let's look at what the NHL would be if it was freed from the burden of its dead-weight franchises.
Maybe it's all a pipe-dream, but you sense the NHL could be something great if it could resolve this matter. And, somehow, that seems more important than preserving the game in markets that are indifferent to hockey.
There have, after all, been a rash of positive developments in the NHL since the lockout. The game isn't quite where it was in the 1980s, but it's light-years ahead of where it was 10 years ago. The league has been blessed with a new generation of stars and it doesn't hurt that two of them - Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin - seem to despise each other. The new economic order has also created an egalitarianism that promotes parity for virtually all the league's franchises, and if that isn't always great for the game, it's good for business.
Still, for all that, the league expends a disproportionate amount of energy propping up its weakest franchises. Why? The Coyotes have now been in the desert for 13 years, they've gone through owners the way some people go through cellphones and the situation has never been worse than it is now.
A similar story exists in Florida, Tampa Bay, Long Island and Atlanta. Those stories have also become one of the league's talking points, which is why you see Bettman giving the same implausible answers to the same tired questions every time he holds a news conference.
And to what end? If the NHL has proven anything over the last decade, it's proven it doesn't work as a 30-team entity.
But think of what a 26-team league would look like. Think of the concentration of talent. Think of the product on the ice. Now think of the game being played in markets that cared about hockey and, while you're at it, think of the revenues that league would generate.
Maybe Bettman doesn't have to think about those things now. But it would be great if he had to start.
Vancouver Province
www.nationalpost.com/sports/story.html?id=1331943