Options
What we learned from Olympic hockey
Boopotts
Posts: 6,784 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
Putting aside the Crosby issues, etc., I think it's fun to look back on this hockey tournament and see what we've learned about hockey-- or, perhaps to be more specific, what facts about hockey this tournament brought into relief-- in the last two weeks.
1) It remains one of, if not the, finest spectator sports when both teams really, really want to win. The problem with the NHL season is that too many games are mailed in, and hockey that's played at 3/4 speed with lackluster hitting just isn't very watchable. Sadly, this is the case for about 1/2 of all regular season games.
2) Border rivalries sell. If Bettman wasn't such an incorrigible idiot he would contract to 25-26 teams, move seven teams that made the cut into Canada, and have an American and a Canadian conference. The Stanley Cup would be played by the winners of those two conferences.
Off the top of my head, here are the teams I would leave in the States:
Wings
Bruins
Hawks
Rangers
Devils
Flyers
Pens
Avalanche
Wild
Either the Ducks or Sharks
Sabres
Caps
Blues
Everyone else either gets contracted or goes to the Great White North. The Canadian cities that would have teams would be:
Toronto
Montreal
Calgary
Edmonton
Vancouver
Ottawa
Halifax
Hamilton
Winnipeg
Quebec City
Kitchener or London
St. Catharines (this would make for an epic rivalry with the Sabs)
This system isn't perfect, and some otherwise decent fan bases would be abandoned, but overall I think the sport would be much better served if it accepted its destiny as a niche sport and gave up on this ridiculous notion of drawing the entire US into its thrall.
1) It remains one of, if not the, finest spectator sports when both teams really, really want to win. The problem with the NHL season is that too many games are mailed in, and hockey that's played at 3/4 speed with lackluster hitting just isn't very watchable. Sadly, this is the case for about 1/2 of all regular season games.
2) Border rivalries sell. If Bettman wasn't such an incorrigible idiot he would contract to 25-26 teams, move seven teams that made the cut into Canada, and have an American and a Canadian conference. The Stanley Cup would be played by the winners of those two conferences.
Off the top of my head, here are the teams I would leave in the States:
Wings
Bruins
Hawks
Rangers
Devils
Flyers
Pens
Avalanche
Wild
Either the Ducks or Sharks
Sabres
Caps
Blues
Everyone else either gets contracted or goes to the Great White North. The Canadian cities that would have teams would be:
Toronto
Montreal
Calgary
Edmonton
Vancouver
Ottawa
Halifax
Hamilton
Winnipeg
Quebec City
Kitchener or London
St. Catharines (this would make for an epic rivalry with the Sabs)
This system isn't perfect, and some otherwise decent fan bases would be abandoned, but overall I think the sport would be much better served if it accepted its destiny as a niche sport and gave up on this ridiculous notion of drawing the entire US into its thrall.
0
Comments
<< <i>Putting aside the Crosby issues, etc., I think it's fun to look back on this hockey tournament and see what we've learned about hockey-- or, perhaps to be more specific, what facts about hockey this tournament brought into relief-- in the last two weeks.
1) It remains one of, if not the, finest spectator sports when both teams really, really want to win. The problem with the NHL season is that too many games are mailed in, and hockey that's played at 3/4 speed with lackluster hitting just isn't very watchable. Sadly, this is the case for about 1/2 of all regular season games.
2) Border rivalries sell. If Bettman wasn't such an incorrigible idiot he would contract to 25-26 teams, move seven teams that made the cut into Canada, and have an American and a Canadian conference. The Stanley Cup would be played by the winners of those two conferences.
Off the top of my head, here are the teams I would leave in the States:
Wings
Bruins
Hawks
Rangers
Devils
Flyers
Pens
Avalanche
Wild
Either the Ducks or Sharks
Sabres
Caps
Blues
Everyone else either gets contracted or goes to the Great White North. The Canadian cities that would have teams would be:
Toronto
Montreal
Calgary
Edmonton
Vancouver
Ottawa
Halifax
Hamilton
Winnipeg
Quebec City
Kitchener or London
St. Catharines (this would make for an epic rivalry with the Sabs)
This system isn't perfect, and some otherwise decent fan bases would be abandoned, but overall I think the sport would be much better served if it accepted its destiny as a niche sport and gave up on this ridiculous notion of drawing the entire US into its thrall. >>
You've got my vote for Bettman's job.
Great ideas!
But regarding point 1)...if they played the way they did in the Gold game, with all that hitting, their bodies just wouldn't survive the whole season. I think that's why there are so many 3/4 speed games.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>
<< <i>Putting aside the Crosby issues, etc., I think it's fun to look back on this hockey tournament and see what we've learned about hockey-- or, perhaps to be more specific, what facts about hockey this tournament brought into relief-- in the last two weeks.
1) It remains one of, if not the, finest spectator sports when both teams really, really want to win. The problem with the NHL season is that too many games are mailed in, and hockey that's played at 3/4 speed with lackluster hitting just isn't very watchable. Sadly, this is the case for about 1/2 of all regular season games.
2) Border rivalries sell. If Bettman wasn't such an incorrigible idiot he would contract to 25-26 teams, move seven teams that made the cut into Canada, and have an American and a Canadian conference. The Stanley Cup would be played by the winners of those two conferences.
Off the top of my head, here are the teams I would leave in the States:
Wings
Bruins
Hawks
Rangers
Devils
Flyers
Pens
Avalanche
Wild
Either the Ducks or Sharks
Sabres
Caps
Blues
Everyone else either gets contracted or goes to the Great White North. The Canadian cities that would have teams would be:
Toronto
Montreal
Calgary
Edmonton
Vancouver
Ottawa
Halifax
Hamilton
Winnipeg
Quebec City
Kitchener or London
St. Catharines (this would make for an epic rivalry with the Sabs)
This system isn't perfect, and some otherwise decent fan bases would be abandoned, but overall I think the sport would be much better served if it accepted its destiny as a niche sport and gave up on this ridiculous notion of drawing the entire US into its thrall. >>
You've got my vote for Bettman's job.
Great ideas!
But regarding point 1)...if they played the way they did in the Gold game, with all that hitting, their bodies just wouldn't survive the whole season. I think that's why there are so many 3/4 speed games. >>
I agree completely. In an 82 game season, it just isn't feasible. Something needs to be done- either the regular season or the playoffs need to be shortened-- because you cannot expect these guys to play the game the way it's supposed to be played for 100+ games.
I think most sport fans/leagues have long been hung up on the idea that a sport cannot gain traction in a geographical region if there isn't a team in place. But I wonder if this still holds true, or if it still does whether it will going forward. With the Internet, satellite TV, etc., it's become much easier for, say, a kid in Wichita to become a fan of AC Milan than it ever has been in the past. And I think there's reason to think that this will continue, and we will start seeing more fragmented fan bases as we march through the 21st century. Hockey is a fantastic sport, and if you could put games on TV all through the winter and spring that featured rabid fan bases, packed houses, and players going at full speed it wouldn't surprise me to see the NHL gaining fans in areas which have historically shown at best a tepid interest in the sport.
<< <i> a kid in Wichita to become a fan of AC Milan than it ever has been in the past. >>
Bad example. Not only is soccer played EVERYWHERE and by EVERYONE at a young age, but there is an MLS team 3 hours away in Kansas City. Not close, but still in the same region. How many AC Milan fans do you think there are in Montana, despite having satellite TV?
It's much easier to expose a kid in FL or other similar states to hockey by putting on youth clinics and promoting in youth organizations and schools, than to hope that their dad will go to channel 1034 and watch a team from Kitchener play Halifax. Canadians will breed hockey fans no matter where the sport is played professionally, I don't think that theory holds in Atlanta, Georgia.
Also, at the end of the day you'd still have American people playing for Canadian teams and Swedes playing in America. Just because it would be played by a Canadian and American club does not mean that the average person would watch since there is not that sense of patriotism when there's a guy from French Quebec lining up for New Jersey.
Playing Hockey for your Country's honor, instead of some City back home, even sounds important!
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
<< <i>
<< <i> a kid in Wichita to become a fan of AC Milan than it ever has been in the past. >>
Bad example. Not only is soccer played EVERYWHERE and by EVERYONE at a young age, but there is an MLS team 3 hours away in Kansas City. Not close, but still in the same region. How many AC Milan fans do you think there are in Montana, despite having satellite TV?
It's much easier to expose a kid in FL or other similar states to hockey by putting on youth clinics and promoting in youth organizations and schools, than to hope that their dad will go to channel 1034 and watch a team from Kitchener play Halifax. Canadians will breed hockey fans no matter where the sport is played professionally, I don't think that theory holds in Atlanta, Georgia.
Also, at the end of the day you'd still have American people playing for Canadian teams and Swedes playing in America. Just because it would be played by a Canadian and American club does not mean that the average person would watch since there is not that sense of patriotism when there's a guy from French Quebec lining up for New Jersey. >>
OK, then 'AC Milan fans' in Lubbock, if that's more appropriate. My point is that the idea that having a geographical presence is a step one requirement to building a fan base may not be nearly as important as it once was. What's important is putting a good product on TV, and that's going to become increasingly important as the years wear on. I don't have any problem with you disagreeing with me, and I could definitely be wrong, but let's make sure we're talking about the same thing.
WRT to the Americans playing for Canadian teams, and Swedes playing for America, well yes-- that is an issue, and that means these games would likely not be as intense as Olympic matches. My point is that they would be MORE intense than the 2 1/2 hr. snooze fests that the NHL currently pipes into our living rooms for seven months a year. Also, while the issue of Americans playing for Canadian teams is significant, it wouldn't be a dealbreaker. Just watch a Leafs-Sabs or Habs-Bruins game that means something, and you'll see that from the fans' perspective (or at least the Canadian fans' perspectives) they are straight-out rooting for the jerseys, not the names on the players' backs.
Edit to add: Like a lot of Internet posts, this one of mine sounds unnecessarily dismissive. I'm not trying to minimize what you're saying, only trying to make sure we are discussing the same things.
<< <i>I'm all for moving or contracting all the teams out of the bible/sun belt, but I'm guessing if Halifax, Winnipeg, London/Kitchener, St. Catherines, and even possibly Hamilton could support a pro club financially the NHL would be working on it. I'm all for Winnipeg getting the Coyotes back if they can support them, and a team back in Quebec City is probably the best scenario because they only moved due to arena issues from what I recall...but I don't need the US vs Canada angle, the Ducks/Kings/Sharks are all sustainable franchises. >>
Fair enough, but whether we need that angle or not, it's an angle that builds intensity, and intensity is something that the regular season in the NHL is sorely lacking. Hockey is a fantastic TV product when the building is loud and the players care. By emphasizing a Canada v U.S. angle you are at least attending to one of those factors.
WRT to the Halifax, Kitchener, etc. issue, you may be right. But I'm very skeptical of the idea that Columbus or Nashville can support an NHL city while cities of 300000+ in Canada cannot.
I guess it may be different for other franchises, but as a Hawks fan, the rivalries within the division are pretty heated no matter what position the corresponding teams are in. Even when the Blues suck, it's still a punishing game between the two. Same with the Wings and often with Columbus as well...we always seem to play them around a holiday so every one is up for it and waiting to see who gets the opportunity to punch Jared Boll. Nashville's style of play is so boring it doesn't matter. Granted Hawks vs Oilers isn't getting anyone worked up, but you're going to have those let down type games whether the conferences are setup to US & Canada or not.
WRT to the Halifax, Kitchener, etc. issue, you may be right. But I'm very skeptical of the idea that Columbus or Nashville can support an NHL city while cities of 300000+ in Canada cannot.
I don't think the issue is necessarily population size, it's the dollar. Looking past the recession, the question is whether the Canadian dollar can withstand the advancement they've made over the last few years closing the gap...but if those markets can sustain a franchise I'm all for Canada getting as many franchises as they can support so long as they aren't expansion. The talent pool is diluted enough as it is.
six. Let's say Canada, USA, Russia, Czeck, and Sweden were the original six teams. The rest of Slovakia, Finland, and every other non-
Olympian would not be in the league. We would never see goons in the NHL, or guys like Bob Probert, guys who could fight, but also had some hockey skill. I know the hockey population has grown since the original six, and I know there are thousands of more rinks around, but I still had that thought.
But to the point, I know of many canuck hockey players who don't want to play in Canada. A lot of french kids don't want montreal,
and kids are looking to get out of edmonton and calgary to find more sun and dollars in the USA. A canuck franchise is not all it seems to be for everyone who thinks canada deserves more teams. There are more opportunities in the USA (a la Gretzky and his wife), and good canuck hockey players want to come here just like the europeans do.
I think the NHL could hold its own 2 week international tournament every year, allow those players who score points to let it count towards their regular season tally, and then have those players take a mandatory two week rest from their club teams (spread out over the entire season). So lets say Ryan Miller plays 5 extra games during the international tournament, then he has to sit five extra games during the
regular season.
East conference would consist of 8 American teams and 8 European teams in their own divisions.
West conference 8 American and 8 Canadian.
I guarantee this would create rivalries.
I'd also be ok with getting rid of sun belt hockey, but if so, lets have the season end in march. June hockey is like December baseball.
away from their market share. The reason most of these teams are surviving is because of the lack of teams in Canada.
If there are more jerseys in the stores from four or five new teams, then their bottom line is effected. If these new teams take
away from their fans, then forget it. Plus, look what happened to putting the successful New Jersey Devils next to hockey hungry
New York city. The arena is half full even though the Devils are a great club.
If you were to take one player that could win you hockey games, Ryan Miller is the clear choice.
<< <i>One other thing I learned from the Olympics is that Ryan Miller is clearly the best player in the NHL right now.
If you were to take one player that could win you hockey games, Ryan Miller is the clear choice. >>
Yes, I agree with this, only if you are trying to 'build' a good hockey team.
If you already have a very good hockey team (with good scorers, good defense and a good goalie), I may take an Ovechkin or a Crosby instead of Miller.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Every sport is a niche sport, hockey actually has a strong base of highly dedicated fans, but the league has struggled too much and too long trying to sell itself to people who never tune in. They would be much better off maximizing the profits however they can from most loyal fans
I don't know if overall interest and total consumption would increase if the league cut the current 1 300 game schedule and spread out geography in half
<< <i>Hockey was a success in the Olympics because it attracted casual fans, something the NHL will never attract >>
Agreed. I watched the final game, and really enjoyed it, but I doubt I'll be able to sit through an NHL game.
Seriously, they need to make the goal about 3 times bigger to increase scoring. That would make it more interesting in my opinion. It's kind of boring to watch them try and score into a net that the goalie can cover with one leg. It's harder to defend an air hockey goal at the arcade.
I thought it was fun to watch.
<< <i>and you'll see that from the fans' perspective (or at least the Canadian fans' perspectives) they are straight-out rooting for the jerseys, not the names on the players' backs.
>>
Maybe it's different in Canada, but I don't remember seeing the nation rally around the Tampa Bay Lightning when we played Calgary for the Cup about 6 years ago. I won't root for some team like Boston to win a game against Toronto just because they're the "American team", and I would bet that most people would feel similarly.
<< <i>
<< <i>and you'll see that from the fans' perspective (or at least the Canadian fans' perspectives) they are straight-out rooting for the jerseys, not the names on the players' backs.
>>
Maybe it's different in Canada, but I don't remember seeing the nation rally around the Tampa Bay Lightning when we played Calgary for the Cup about 6 years ago. I won't root for some team like Boston to win a game against Toronto just because they're the "American team", and I would bet that most people would feel similarly. >>
I think that if you already had a fair number of people at least casually tuning into hockey, and suddenly 2 million Americans saw the fans in a Canadian arena booing the Star Spangled Banner (which happens), that interest in the outcome of the series would reach a new pitch. With respect to your point, you're 100% right- the nation did not rally around the Lightning (or the 'Canes, for that matter). And who knows? Maybe they wouldn't even with a league change. But the problem the league has now is that nobody is watching.
Many of the posts on this topic so far has focused on the fact that Canada might not be able to support more teams- and that's probably true IF the current revenue streams remain unchanged. But right now there is essentially NO TV revenue for NHL teams. For instance, the Islanders averaged 7,000 households per game in 06-07, and the Devils a mere 14,000. Even the Rangers only get 34000 or so households to tune in, and that's for an Original 6 team in the largest TV market in the country. The goal for Bettman, et. all should be to find a way to get more fannies in front of televisions- not more fannies into seats. By putting teams into markets that adore hockey you are going to have louder arenas, fiercer rivalries, and (I would think) that should translate into a superior TV experience for the folks at home.
<< <i>I think making the ice rinks bigger is one step to making the games more watchable. It would make it more exciting to watch and yes hitting would be more scarce but it would make the players able to survive the long season. >>
I could not agree more, Jason. The NHL is waayyy to focused on in-arena revenue, which is why we have this insistence on keeping the small ice. The bigger ice would make the game more watchable (as would going to 4 on 4 for all three periods), and this, I think, should be the primary goal of the NHL.
But, if one were to try to save it, Boo's contraction/relocation plan would be a huge first step in the right direction.
The next step is to get back on ESPN (if ESPN would even want the NHL?), even if it means taking in smaller revenues from the TV contract. And then force ESPN to hire Doc Emrick, Gary Thorne, and Sean McDonough to announce every game. Those guys on Versus are terrible. Right now, the NHL season is played out on a channel that most people can't even find on their dial, and when they stumble upon it, they are put to sleep either by the game itself or the announcing crew.
Next, they need to figure out a way to get more goals per game. It's too low scoring, they either need to make the nets 8-10 inches wider, or they need to further limit the size of goalie equipment. It was almost comical looking at the goalie equipment in the 1980 Olympic games compared to the battle armor the guys wear today. Presumably, contraction will eliminate most of non-skilled players, leaving a larger percentage of players on each team that can actually put the puck in the net, but something needs to be done with the goalie/goal size relationship.
Tuna, I'm from Detroit, and have been a Wings fan since the Jacques Demers years.
mostly in Canada. In 1967 the NHL decided to add more teams. Half of the teams added in 1967 are doing well, half are not, or are
not even in existence anymore.
So it took the NHL 50 years to expand, and not with the greatest success.
The WHA combined with the NHL in 1979 and gave us Edmonton and Winnipeg. Winnipeg moved, as did Hartford and many other
WHA clubs folded. So "expansion" did not really work in 1979 either.
Twenty years later expansion was tried once again, and it is deemed a failure. Hey, let those teams fail. That's part of our great
supply and demand system.
The bottom line is that you can not create a hockey fan. You can not market a player or team in a certain way to make the sport grow.
You are either born a hockey fan, or you are not. There are way too many sports in America to try and make hockey attractable to the masses. It's also a rich mans game here in the states. You go to the rinks and you feel like you're in a Lexus parking lot.
Once you watch a lot of hockey on the big ice, you start to dislike it.
<< <i>Great points IMO by jdip9. I totally agree on all counts. >>
Me too. The NHL is dead to me. The cumulative number of NHL minutes I've watched this season is probably less than the number of English Premier League TV minutes I log by 9 a.m. on any given Saturday.
TomG's point is a good one, too: the league failed miserably and really sold its soul when it tried to shake its cult status in favor of a wider U.S. audience.