AHL President/CEO David Andrews to Retire?

[TonyAndrock]

My latest for The Hockey Writers features AHL President/CEO David Andrews, who had some very interesting things to say about his future as the league's president.
In the last 23 years as the league's figurehead, Andrews has been instrumental in a number of expansions and bringing back the AHL All-Star Classic event to name a few.
To say he's grown the AHL, and the game of hockey itself, is an understatement.

STORY LINK ---> http://thehockeywriters.com/ahl-president-ceo-david-andrews-to-retire/

Click to read more...

 

[axecrew]

Wrong link

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Good riddance if true. He's been parr of the destruction of minor league hockey.

 

[CrazyEddie20]

Good riddance if true. He's been parr of the destruction of minor league hockey.

He's continually increased franchise value for owners and expanded the league to 30 teams.

Believe what you want, but the business of AHL hockey is better because of David Andrews.

 

[TonyAndrock]

Wrong link

Fixed the link, my apologies!

 

[Tommy Hawk]

He's continually increased franchise value for owners and expanded the league to 30 teams.

Believe what you want, but the business of AHL hockey is better because of David Andrews.

He is just a puppet for Gary Bettman. The only true statement is that the franchise values went up, but not because of him, but because more NHL teams decided they wanted to won their affiliate.

 

[CrazyEddie20]

He is just a puppet for Gary Bettman. The only true statement is that the franchise values went up, but not because of him, but because more NHL teams decided they wanted to won their affiliate.

Maybe you've forgotten: When Andrews took over the league, it was a 16-team circuit with the teams in Atlantic Canada severely hamstrung by a weak Canadian dollar and several other weak markets in the league. Andrews' guidance through the first five years strengthened the league immensely, and guided it to the merger with the (real) IHL. The NHL didn't really start exerting influence on the AHL until 10 years ago, when Andrews had been on the job for 12 years.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

He's continually increased franchise value for owners and expanded the league to 30 teams.

Believe what you want, but the business of AHL hockey is better because of David Andrews.

That doesn't mean the product is better.I know all about the its a business thing. Watch enough of the top leagues and you'll begin to loathe pro sports. Its entertainment with a score. Entertainment need ratings. Ratings are why the funny money in sports is out of control and these pampered milennials are making stupid money to play a game. No different then anything else in the business world though. This is the same reason why I say the government and big businesses don't care about anything as long as they are getting money. Its something that does turn smart people off though.

Only reason the league has 30 teams is because the NHL does. They would not be at that number if the NHL didn't have that. By the way until the mid 90's the NHL only had like what? 22 or so teams? Then they started going South and a couple of places in Cal-i-forn-i-a. So the expansion was to a degree hand in hand.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Maybe you've forgotten: When Andrews took over the league, it was a 16-team circuit with the teams in Atlantic Canada severely hamstrung by a weak Canadian dollar and several other weak markets in the league. Andrews' guidance through the first five years strengthened the league immensely, and guided it to the merger with the (real) IHL. The NHL didn't really start exerting influence on the AHL until 10 years ago, when Andrews had been on the job for 12 years.

Bigger is not better, you see this in all the top pro leagues. Not enough talent to go around. This is the illusion of american pro sports. The bigger leagued have actually hurt sports. It dilutes the product. I don't give a **** about millionaires and their business of making more funny money. None of them were hurting before they got these ahl teams.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Maybe you've forgotten: When Andrews took over the league, it was a 16-team circuit with the teams in Atlantic Canada severely hamstrung by a weak Canadian dollar and several other weak markets in the league. Andrews' guidance through the first five years strengthened the league immensely, and guided it to the merger with the (real) IHL. The NHL didn't really start exerting influence on the AHL until 10 years ago, when Andrews had been on the job for 12 years.

The NHL is who wanted the veteran rule dating back forever. The reason the merger occurred was the (real) IHL folded was financial. There was no merger, the league folded and the remaining teams were the financially stronger teams. The only reason Orlando didn't join was due to AHL rules concerning ownership and GR was chosen to enter. The other teams were primary affiliates of NHL teams and if the entire league folded, they wouldn't have had places for their prospects.

And you cannot just look at part of his career. Half the time, using your, example, he has done nothing but been Bettman's puppet.

Even before that he was the puppet.

The AHL over the past 3 years has been more stable overall but under his "guidance", look how many team moves have occurred. He has been against teams traveling, he touts "rivalry" games and pushes them to the extent of teams playing each other 14 times a season and sees nothing wring with that.

But he has been an excellent puppet of Bettman and the NHL and the owners of the teams in the east.

 

[Ralph Slate]

I don't get why people are so cheesed about "playing the same team 14 times" while at the same time longing for the AHL of old.

In 1992-93 - the pre-Andrews "sixteen team era" - the Springfield Indians played the New Haven Nighthawks 17 times. They played the Providence Bruins 14 times. They played the Adirondack Red Wings and Capital District Islanders 12 times. They played Hershey and a couple of other teams 4 times. They played Utica, Rochester, Moncton, Hamilton, Halifax, Fredericton, Cape Breton, and Binghamton just twice.

How about the "good old days" of the 70s? It was more balanced, but in 1975-76 the Indians played each team either 10 or 12 times simply because there weren't that many teams.

The old IHL proved that it is just not possible to have an cross-continent minor hockey league. Travel costs are prohibitive. There was an era in the late 90s when the AHL was more geographically compact. Guess what: Springfield still played Hartford, Worcester, and Providence 10 times. Why? Because nearby rivals are a good thing - good for the bottom line, good for the atmosphere, and good for the fans.

 

[axecrew]

I don't get why people are so cheesed about "playing the same team 14 times" while at the same time longing for the AHL of old.

In 1992-93 - the pre-Andrews "sixteen team era" - the Springfield Indians played the New Haven Nighthawks 17 times. They played the Providence Bruins 14 times. They played the Adirondack Red Wings and Capital District Islanders 12 times. They played Hershey and a couple of other teams 4 times. They played Utica, Rochester, Moncton, Hamilton, Halifax, Fredericton, Cape Breton, and Binghamton just twice.

How about the "good old days" of the 70s? It was more balanced, but in 1975-76 the Indians played each team either 10 or 12 times simply because there weren't that many teams.

The old IHL proved that it is just not possible to have an cross-continent minor hockey league. Travel costs are prohibitive. There was an era in the late 90s when the AHL was more geographically compact. Guess what: Springfield still played Hartford, Worcester, and Providence 10 times. Why? Because nearby rivals are a good thing - good for the bottom line, good for the atmosphere, and good for the fans.

These are the same fans who have flooded the AHL offices with complaints about the lack of imagination in the schedule for years right??? Guess they must really love the old schedule then... Face it the fans that you speak of complained for years to the point that the teams were told they would need to be more flexible in their travel and also if these rivalry game are so great then why has average attendance dropped year after year? Not risen? I would think that with all of these rivalry games you speak of being so popular that fans would go to games in droves....they aren't.
Play a team too many times and fan empathy sets in...they look at the schedule and say...Oh Chicago is playing Milwaukee tonight...well....they play them again 5 more times ....I'll go to one of those.

 

[RowdyFan42]

But at least you played everyone, right? Or almost everyone? That's what the fans are used to. They didn't mind facing their rivals umpteen times a year because the rivalries used to mean something, and you still managed to play everyone. It didn't feel like "the same teams over and over again" (or if it did, it wasn't as pronounced) because those were the only teams you had.

Today's AHL may be better off as a business than it was when Andrews took over, but it's too damn bloated for its own good. It was in danger of getting too big when the IHL folded, and taking on their refugees put it over the top. Like Ralph said, a cross-continent minor hockey league just isn't viable. The ECHL gets away with it by essentially functioning as two regional leagues under one banner, and even then they have problems. The AHL's been doing the same thing post-IHL, and the Pacific Division has made it even more pronounced.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like hockey as a whole and the AHL specifically would be better off if the league split into two or three separate regional leagues. It works in baseball, I don't see why it wouldn't work in hockey.

 

[axecrew]

But at least you played everyone, right? Or almost everyone? That's what the fans are used to. They didn't mind facing their rivals umpteen times a year because the rivalries used to mean something, and you still managed to play everyone. It didn't feel like "the same teams over and over again" (or if it did, it wasn't as pronounced) because those were the only teams you had.

Today's AHL may be better off as a business than it was when Andrews took over, but it's too damn bloated for its own good. It was in danger of getting too big when the IHL folded, and taking on their refugees put it over the top. Like Ralph said, a cross-continent minor hockey league just isn't viable. The ECHL gets away with it by essentially functioning as two regional leagues under one banner, and even then they have problems. The AHL's been doing the same thing post-IHL, and the Pacific Division has made it even more pronounced.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like hockey as a whole and the AHL specifically would be better off if the league split into two or three separate regional leagues. It works in baseball, I don't see why it wouldn't work in hockey.

Not exactly sure which side you agree with here...in the first part you basically say you agree with the fans who want to see different teams etc...in the second part you basically say it would be better if the there were a group of regional leagues all under the AHL moniker...kinda playing both sides here arent you? And YES the AHL is a business....always has been or it wouldnt still be around.

 

[RowdyFan42]

Not exactly sure which side you agree with here...in the first part you basically say you agree with the fans who want to see different teams etc...in the second part you basically say it would be better if the there were a group of regional leagues all under the AHL moniker...kinda playing both sides here arent you? And YES the AHL is a business....always has been or it wouldnt still be around.

Not really, though I can see where you'd get the idea. I wasn't necessarily agreeing with the fans who want to see all the teams, I was just saying I get why they want that. Most of these fans were around when it was possible to play every other team in the league. If you're only going to face off against 12 or so of a possible 29 opponents, it feels like you're missing out on something. What I didn't say, though I thought it would be inferred from the second part, is that it's no longer feasible to stop in every port, at least not in the minor leagues. And, IMO, that's a sign that you're too big for your own good.

 

[210]

You want your team to play every team? Be prepared to pay a whole lot more for your tickets.

 

[Nightsquad]

But at least you played everyone, right? Or almost everyone? That's what the fans are used to. They didn't mind facing their rivals umpteen times a year because the rivalries used to mean something, and you still managed to play everyone. It didn't feel like "the same teams over and over again" (or if it did, it wasn't as pronounced) because those were the only teams you had.

Today's AHL may be better off as a business than it was when Andrews took over, but it's too damn bloated for its own good. It was in danger of getting too big when the IHL folded, and taking on their refugees put it over the top. Like Ralph said, a cross-continent minor hockey league just isn't viable. The ECHL gets away with it by essentially functioning as two regional leagues under one banner, and even then they have problems. The AHL's been doing the same thing post-IHL, and the Pacific Division has made it even more pronounced.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like hockey as a whole and the AHL specifically would be better off if the league split into two or three separate regional leagues. It works in baseball, I don't see why it wouldn't work in hockey.

I think the AHL growth is fine, it was about time the league moved into newer markets to grow itself along with the NHL's growth and geographic footprint. The teams it absorbed from the IHL were well established, and healthy hockey markets. The AHL didn't take on refugees, it absorbed good IHL markets. The IHL was also a good product but some poor decisions doomed itself. The IHL moving to your hometown of Albany was the dumbest decision ever, especially with an AHL team 15 minutes away in Troy and less then an hour north of Albany in Adirondack. The Pacific teams are doing amazing in terms of revenue and community support. Like hockey itself things are changing, and the game is growing elsewhere. Hockey is no longer a game owned by just Canada, New England, Northeast, and Midwest as the game is doing well in Dixie and west coast. My only dislike of Andrew's moves where the schedule. One division should not be allowed fewer games. I am okay with not seeing certain teams but you should at least get to see a few more teams outside your divisions, at least get an opportunity to play most in your conference. There is also no reason for the ECHL not to operate in the same manner. The ECHL attendance was for the most part not far off from AHL attendance. That changed only a couple years ago after the absorbing healthy ECHL markets. I am sure the ECHL is regretting having to locate in places like Manchester, and Adirondack which so far have been major disappointments. If the fans there are thumbing their nose at the ECHL in hopes the AHL returns they are doing themselves a disservice.

 

[axecrew]

Not really, though I can see where you'd get the idea. I wasn't necessarily agreeing with the fans who want to see all the teams, I was just saying I get why they want that. Most of these fans were around when it was possible to play every other team in the league. If you're only going to face off against 12 or so of a possible 29 opponents, it feels like you're missing out on something. What I didn't say, though I thought it would be inferred from the second part, is that it's no longer feasible to stop in every port, at least not in the minor leagues. And, IMO, that's a sign that you're too big for your own good.

While Ive long given up hope of playing teams in the other conference...I find it a total and complete abomination that you don't at least play all of the teams in your conference. Yet at some point you might have to play them in a playoff series...That would be like the NHL playing the KHL champion team for the Stanley Cup.

 

[Avsrule2022]

I think the AHL growth is fine, it was about time the league moved into newer markets to grow itself along with the NHL's growth and geographic footprint. The teams it absorbed from the IHL were well established, and healthy hockey markets. The AHL didn't take on refugees, it absorbed good IHL markets. The IHL was also a good product but some poor decisions doomed itself. The IHL moving to your hometown of Albany was the dumbest decision ever, especially with an AHL team 15 minutes away in Troy and less then an hour north of Albany in Adirondack. The Pacific teams are doing amazing in terms of revenue and community support. Like hockey itself things are changing, and the game is growing elsewhere. Hockey is no longer a game owned by just Canada, New England, Northeast, and Midwest as the game is doing well in Dixie and west coast. My only dislike of Andrew's moves where the schedule. One division should not be allowed fewer games. I am okay with not seeing certain teams but you should at least get to see a few more teams outside your divisions, at least get an opportunity to play most in your conference. There is also no reason for the ECHL not to operate in the same manner. The ECHL attendance was for the most part not far off from AHL attendance. That changed only a couple years ago after the absorbing healthy ECHL markets. I am sure the ECHL is regretting having to locate in places like Manchester, and Adirondack which so far have been major disappointments. If the fans there are thumbing their nose at the ECHL in hopes the AHL returns they are doing themselves a disservice.

From what I've seen, the ECHL actually has more out of conference matchups than the AHL. This years Finals participants, Colorado and South Carolina, played each other 6 times in the regular season. Next season Norfolk, Worcester and Greenville travel to Colorado. Colorado makes a trip or 2 to the east coast almost every year. Pretty rare to see that in the AHL.

 

[210]

From what I've seen, the ECHL actually has more out of conference matchups than the AHL. This years Finals participants, Colorado and South Carolina, played each other 6 times in the regular season. Next season Norfolk, Worcester and Greenville travel to Colorado. Colorado makes a trip or 2 to the east coast almost every year. Pretty rare to see that in the AHL.

Worcester also travels to Utah...and there are a few western teams coming to Worcester.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

From what I've seen, the ECHL actually has more out of conference matchups than the AHL. This years Finals participants, Colorado and South Carolina, played each other 6 times in the regular season. Next season Norfolk, Worcester and Greenville travel to Colorado. Colorado makes a trip or 2 to the east coast almost every year. Pretty rare to see that in the AHL.

I think like 3 teams a year from each conference play out of conference. Some have home and homes. It fluctuates or has. A few years ago there was no out of conference play.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

I don't get why people are so cheesed about "playing the same team 14 times" while at the same time longing for the AHL of old.

In 1992-93 - the pre-Andrews "sixteen team era" - the Springfield Indians played the New Haven Nighthawks 17 times. They played the Providence Bruins 14 times. They played the Adirondack Red Wings and Capital District Islanders 12 times. They played Hershey and a couple of other teams 4 times. They played Utica, Rochester, Moncton, Hamilton, Halifax, Fredericton, Cape Breton, and Binghamton just twice.

How about the "good old days" of the 70s? It was more balanced, but in 1975-76 the Indians played each team either 10 or 12 times simply because there weren't that many teams.

The old IHL proved that it is just not possible to have an cross-continent minor hockey league. Travel costs are prohibitive. There was an era in the late 90s when the AHL was more geographically compact. Guess what: Springfield still played Hartford, Worcester, and Providence 10 times. Why? Because nearby rivals are a good thing - good for the bottom line, good for the atmosphere, and good for the fans.

But we have 2 cross continental leagues now, two of them(well barely in the E I suppose)

Teams playing a lot is fine but there's no more rivalries anymore. Teams are too focused on grooming for the NHL instead of aiming to win. Too much roster changing in the summer and so on. A 16 team league is good. Unfortunately these good days are long gone.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

But at least you played everyone, right? Or almost everyone? That's what the fans are used to. They didn't mind facing their rivals umpteen times a year because the rivalries used to mean something, and you still managed to play everyone. It didn't feel like "the same teams over and over again" (or if it did, it wasn't as pronounced) because those were the only teams you had.

Today's AHL may be better off as a business than it was when Andrews took over, but it's too damn bloated for its own good. It was in danger of getting too big when the IHL folded, and taking on their refugees put it over the top. Like Ralph said, a cross-continent minor hockey league just isn't viable. The ECHL gets away with it by essentially functioning as two regional leagues under one banner, and even then they have problems. The AHL's been doing the same thing post-IHL, and the Pacific Division has made it even more pronounced.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like hockey as a whole and the AHL specifically would be better off if the league split into two or three separate regional leagues. It works in baseball, I don't see why it wouldn't work in hockey.

And to think the affiliation game has wayyyyyyy more importance in baseball. I have long been an advocate for this idea. **** I think all the pro leagues at the top should do this. They do have conferences but they play out of conference at times. I think the NBA and NHL do home series with both trams hosting? But I'd be for the NBA and ABA for example existing again. Only this time the ABA would be on par theoretically. Would make competition more interesting. Then no playing in season to make it even more interesting.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Andrews has done not a lot to really help the league grow. Team values went up, stability went down and attendance dropped even more. The only reason the gross attendance numbers are higher now than they were back in 2000 are because there are more teams.

And the schedule is an abomination that Andrews supports. Axe is right, you should at least play everyone in your conference and I wouldn't mind something like you play one division in one year and the other conference the next.

 

[mmazz22]

Im ok not playing every team. I do expect to play every team in my teams conference though. But if you are an east coast team you have more vested interest in probably the Atlantic or Metro division than you do in the NHL West conference, so seeing the players on the NHL east conference makes more sense. Just as the opposite is true for the western ahl teams. Im sure a Baracudda fan would enjoy watching the Kings prospects more than he or she would a Binghamton Devil on the rise. The league should just split in half and East meets West for the All Star game and the Calder Cup finals.