nyrmessier011 said:
Why would a man who "demonstrates substantial hockey knowledge" put teams in the locations that demonstrate no ability in supporting hockey teams. I just dont understand how a guy who has been in office for 12 years and was ring leader in initiating two lockouts that costed 1.5 seasons, is still supported. Is it because now teams like Carolina, Florida and Phoenix can support teams? Maybe I'm a bit old school, but what in the world are teams doing there? I honestly believe that the 03-04 mess never occurs if there is no expansion into the south. Bettman supported this growth and looked at the financial benefits in the short run, turning a blind eye on what it would actually do to the sport.
So what happens... talent thins, teams in the south struggle on and off to fill their arenas, and teams like Toronto and New York can afford salaries 3 times as much as these franchises in non hockey markets. In a league without these teams, these problems never occur. So the league needs a change form the ordinary. Do fans in New York or Detroit or Canada think the game became boring in 2002? No, most people think it was fine the way it was for 100 years. So why impose the changes? because NATIONAL TV ratings are down and Florida and Carolina can't fill their arenas. I don't want to see something that has been great for so long, get transformed into something ridiculous to try and draw in fans that won't come to the arenas in markets that Bettman and his people misjudged.
I did a regression analysis for a college project and i regressed the statistics on attendance capacity, point totals for that season, and location. For location i did "warm" and "cold" climates, cold being those teams located in climates where the average low temperature in January is below 0 celcius. My analysis shows that location matters significantly in drawing fans to games. In fact, regardless of performance, out of the top 12 teams teams with the highest capacity, 11 were from the North. Aside from New Jersey, NY Islander and the shipwreck in Chicago, none of these colder climate teams were at the bottom of the list. When Tampa Bay and San Jose showed up in the early 90's, and I will concede it was before Bettman came in, why didn't Bettmans guys do this type of research when deciding to place teams in Nashville or Atlanta? I do not want to turn this into a contraction type thread, but im just stating facts about the location of some teams. Did the NHL think about what might happen when placing expansion teams in Atlanta? Or were they just thinking about the multi-million dollar franchise fees they would profit in the short run? They misjudged, he misjudged, and why shouldn't he take the brunt of the blame. If there was no salary cap, this guy would be out of a job no doubt about it. Too bad it's only the owners that decide this guys job.
If no cap, teams in these locations fold, and Bettmans job is lost. So now that we're back, we're going to make it more "exciting" by putting in an individual skills contest to decide the end of the "team game" as Bettman prides the NHL on. 4 on 4 overtimes etc, we don't need that stuff up here, but without something special, southern teams continue to sell 10,000 tickets a game. I sincerely apologize to fans of southern teams who are reading this.
I can't believe people still support the people running the NHL. They made catostrophic mistakes, and now try to cover them by embarassing people who have been real NHL fans for decades. Shootouts, myNHL ads and commercials, the Outdoor Lifetime Network... it's all a slap in the face to real hockey fans. It's almost as if Bettman says to his guys "don't worry about pleasing the vintage fan, because they will always be there, worry about selling this to ordinary Joe's who dont watch hockey right now." By the way, back to OLN. Somebody please tell me that ESPN wouldn't have accepted a revenue sharing or inexpensive type deal with the NHL. You better believe that the NHL took the contract with OLN because of the money, again, thinking of the short run benefits and the need to wet a red bottom line because of the lost season. ESPN would have been a million times better for the NHL right now, but the owners and Bettman choose the money over the exposure. It's all a slap in the face, and you guys continue to take it, and worst of all, you all actually defend this kind of behavior. It's unbelievable to me.
Based on your alleged regression analysis as described in this post and your reply to Bucky's post about Edmonton, your position appears to be "my analysis supports my position ... except where it doesn't ... but that other stuff isn't important".
As for your little theory about the lockout being caused by expansion, that is demonstrably ridiculous. The lockout was caused by one thing and one thing only - out-of-control salaries, brought on by a drastic imbalance in bargaining power between the parties, which itself was primarily caused by the ability of one side (the players) to collude and the corresponding inability of the other side to counteract that collusion. Expansion is and always was a complete red herring. Salary escalation to an out-of-control level would have occurred with or without expansion.
Why are the teams where they are? They are there because the areas have demonstrated an ability to support professional sports, which support is, in the modern world, driven almost entirely by corporate support - a point that many on this board blissfully ignore. There seems to be a perception that hockey is supported by the family of four going to the games. What baloney. Businesses buy the majority of tickets - not ALL, mind you, but the majority. Such has been the case for quite some time, with the exception of the crappier seats.
As for them "misjudging", since those markets are supporting their teams solidly, apparently there was no misjudging. What those markets could not do, however, was compete with northern cities with several times their population and corporate base, like Detroit or New York.
As for talent getting thin, you are again clueless beyond measure. With the influx of european players, the talent level has never been higher.
As for fans in Detroit and NY and Canada thinking the game became boring? Uh, yeah, they did. I don't know anyone who didn't think pre-lockout that the game had become boring, adn these are people who - like me - were lifelong fans. But no, according to you "most people think it was fine the way it was for 100 years". Grab a clue - PLEASE. You mean like when hockey actually had seven skaters instead of the current complement of six? Or when the average size of an NHLer was 5 foot ten and 180 pounds? Unfortunately, even ignoring your paucity of hockey knowledge, the game was
not "the way it was for the past 100 years". Not even close. It was a bastardization of hockey.
Oh - as for your alleged regression analysis, you might want to check out the possibility that "warm" climate franchises also correlate to size of market and - far more importantly - the length of franchise history. Even with that gaping hole in your analysis, I do wonder how it is holding up with 21,000 fans showing up in Tampa Bay every game ...
Southern teams "
continuing to sell 10,000 tickets a game"? Well, first off, the lowest NHL team in attendance sells 20% more than that, and that team is that reknowned southern hotspot in Long Island. Next? THe blistering hotspot that is Chicago. Nashville is the lowest southern expansion city with over 14,000 per game. I do understand that it is a better fairy tale when you say 10,000, but if you are going to make up numbers, don't settle for half measures, man. Say 6,000 tickets!!! Or better yet, say the southern teams "sell" ZERO tickets and the numbers are either giveaways, player friends and family, or mannequins. It would be no less valid.
So much for you stating "facts" about the location of some teams. You are confusing the word "facts" with "my own reasoning based on what I have already made up my mind about despite it being unsupported by anything other than what I think". An easy mistake.
Now, as for a "slap in the face" to "real hockey fans", I do wonder what you mean by "real hockey fans". That kind of thought really belongs over in the hockey/hiphop thread. You get my meaning?
As for OLN versus ESPN, I imagine you were also one of the guys slagging on Bettman for putting hockey on ESPN where it gets buried behind a million otehr sports in priority. Get real. Hockey was doing nothing on ESPN. It was the proverbial redheaded stepchild. Why would hockey be "a million times better off"? Can you articulate one reason? Even one? Here is a clue for you, my business-knowledge-challenged friend: the NHL wanted to maintain the value of their TV property. Without at least one fixed-price deal, their property has no value. It is as simple as that. It not a matter of choosing money over exposure. THere was NO exposure on ESPN. None. So it was either continue to be buried and marginalized by the ESPN doofuses or be a big fish in someone's small but growing pond.
As for the 4 on 4, shootouts, etc., that was not pushed by Bettman. As is the case with any manager worth his salt, he delegated it to a committee of people who have played in or managed the game. That is what they came up with.
Talk about people being unbelievable ...
Had enough yet, or shall I deconstruct you some more?
