Gary Bettman talks an Olympics dis, expansion rumors and whether we're going to see another lockout

[edog37]

The recent NBA contract is where the NHL should be by now.

Based on what exactly? The league has never had this kind of US contract before, so what you consider peanuts is actually ground breaking...

 

[Melrose Munch]

It's amazing when you think about it. The Players may well force a lockout for no actual reason at all.

Like they did last time.

What is the players' big grievance these days anyway? Escrow still? Because they don't understand math very well? Or is this all noise from Fehr the limousine marxist spoiling for a fight to justify his pay?

Nobody who actually understands marketing will ever tell you this is a good product right now. That's the poverty cap in a nutshell.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Based on what exactly? The league has never had this kind of US contract before, so what you consider peanuts is actually ground breaking...

Excuses.

The NHL was very popular in the early 90's when your team won twice and now they have nothing to show for it. The largest TV contract is in a country with 37 million people. Not an accomplishment.

 

[Albatros]

Yes, the best of the dead puck era. We aren't talking the 80s Oilers here...

At least defensively much better than the 1980s Oilers.

 

[zeke]

Nobody who actually understands marketing will ever tell you this is a good product right now. That's the poverty cap in a nutshell.

Chris Johnston @reporterchris
25s
Gary Bettman says NHL revenues in 2017-18 will be between $4.5-billion and $5-billion.

 

[edog37]

Excuses.

The NHL was very popular in the early 90's when your team won twice and now they have nothing to show for it. The largest TV contract is in a country with 37 million people. Not an accomplishment.

A salary cap, revenues in the billions & a solid US TV deal means nothing to show for it..... Do you honestly believe someone like John Ziegler could pull that off? And "popularity" is a transitional word. What does it even mean? Butts in seats? Eyeballs watching on TV? Merchandise sales?

 

[edog37]

At least defensively much better than the 1980s Oilers.

Yes, but so was New Jersey when they were winning Cups. Again, no one will confuse the 90s Wings with a dynasty....

 

[Albatros]

Which is not a weakness, but rather made the league more interesting than it was in the 1980s.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Chris Johnston @reporterchris
25s
Gary Bettman says NHL revenues in 2017-18 will be between $4.5-billion and $5-billion.

Not good enough. Because of the canadian TV contract, like I said. Not completely marketable in the us where every player is close in skill and the suffocating defensive systems. And what are the TV ratings again?

A salary cap, revenues in the billions & a solid US TV deal means nothing to show for it..... Do you honestly believe someone like John Ziegler could pull that off? And "popularity" is a transitional word. What does it even mean? Butts in seats? Eyeballs watching on TV? Merchandise sales?

Gary bettman is a guard dog for the owners, so I yes I believe Ziegler could have. He started the expansion strategy after all. Don't make his job seem hard.

 

[edog37]

Not good enough. Because of the canadian TV contract, like I said. Not completely marketable in the us where every player is close in skill and the suffocating defensive systems. And what are the TV ratings again?
Gary bettman is a guard dog for the owners, so I yes I believe Ziegler could have. He started the expansion strategy after all. Don't make his job seem hard.

Ziegler had neither the drive or vision to pull off what Bettman has accomplished. He was a stabilizer after the bloody NHL-WHA war, nothing more. Henceforth, why the owners mandated Bettman's tasks. They did not have the confidence in Ziegler to pull it off which is why he was replaced.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Ziegler had neither the drive or vision to pull off what Bettman has accomplished. He was a stabilizer after the bloody NHL-WHA war, nothing more. Henceforth, why the owners mandated Bettman's tasks. They did not have the confidence in Ziegler to pull it off which is why he was replaced.

Well he retired ans was replaced with someone worse, so yeah he was replaced. Why are you always defending the league? They deserve the scorn of Canadians, Coyotes fans and others.

 

[edog37]

Well he retired ans was replaced with someone worse, so yeah he was replaced. Why are you always defending the league? They deserve the scorn of Canadians, Coyotes fans and others.

According to your opinion only. When Ziegler retired, if you would have said to any hockey fan, would you like to have a league with multi-billion dollar revenues, teams in 31 cities & a semi-decent national TV deal, 10 out of 10 fans would have said yes. Back then, the league was so backwater, it wasn't even funny.

If you think the NHL will ever challenge the NFL, that's delusional. Bettman has been commissioner for over 24 years now, third longest in league history. He clearly has the support of his bosses, the BoG. He has presided over the greatest expansion in terms of league revenues in league history. The reach of hockey into the U.S. has never been greater. These are things which were never possible under Ziegler.

Can the league do more? Of course it can. There is still too much old boy network in the league, but it is light years ahead of where it was. But here's another reason to defend the league....what other viable alternative is there?

But let's go further, we'll put you in charge of the league....what are some of your moves?

 

[Melrose Munch]

According to your opinion only. When Ziegler retired, if you would have said to any hockey fan, would you like to have a league with multi-billion dollar revenues, teams in 31 cities & a semi-decent national TV deal, 10 out of 10 fans would have said yes. Back then, the league was so backwater, it wasn't even funny.

If you think the NHL will ever challenge the NFL, that's delusional. Bettman has been commissioner for over 24 years now, third longest in league history. He clearly has the support of his bosses, the BoG. He has presided over the greatest expansion in terms of league revenues in league history. The reach of hockey into the U.S. has never been greater. These are things which were never possible under Ziegler.

Can the league do more? Of course it can. There is still too much old boy network in the league, but it is light years ahead of where it was. But here's another reason to defend the league....what other viable alternative is there?

But let's go further, we'll put you in charge of the league....what are some of your moves?

I would have done a proper southern expansion. I would have came to a much better TV deal with Disney for ABC and ESPN. TV deal would be about double what it is now so we can have a soft cap. Not going to force players to live in places they don't want to live in for more money. I would limit the trap and 131 system. I would make the nets bigger, if not double the size. People want goals and fights, not systems. Part of the reason Crosby hasn't had the 130 point we all know he should have had is because he can't. The nets are too small. People want goals and fights, not systems.

 

[Bucky_Hoyt]

Don't think we need to double the size of the nets. I do have a thought, though on how to increase goals sustainably...

What might create some more regulation goals would be to reduce goalie padding down in size. Now before you roll your eyes and say "that again," I would add conditions...

Issue 1 - reducing padding is just dangerous.

Of course goalies will cry foul saying smaller equipment puts their safety at risk. If they played the same workloads as they currently do, I would agree. Especially now with composite sticks resulting in harder shots.

So, maybe it's time to start capping the number of games a goalie plays each season to lower injury risk.

Why this is worth noting...

Many starting goalies are playing 60+ a season with one last year playing 73 (Cam Talbot), 3 playing over 70 in 2014-15 and 6 playing over 70 in 2009-10. Vegas this year being an unfortunate exception, how often do you see teams play a 3rd-string or even a 4th-string goalie?

My subjective view (as I do not have scientific data on hand to prove) is that the correlation of games played for starting goalies combined with the rarity of 3rd-stringers getting games is due to the padding as well as the risk aversion of coaches.

If a games cap were put in place, I would set it at somewhere between 45-51 a season. This should also apply to games goalies are dressed meaning you would have to play a 3rd stringer for a significant portion of the season and possibly a 4th stringer for a few games a year.

Issue 2 - I don't want to see some damned rookies in net.

People may cry foul again and say that playing multiple goalies in a season debases the game - "I want best on best." My counter is then "how do you develop your younger defence and forward corps.?" The simple answer is you give 'em damned games to play. Why should it be no different for goalies.

Why this could matter...

One thing I have noticed is that many of the current crop of goalies playing this season are over 30. There's actually a decent bunch over 35.

Like it or not, there is going to be a goaltending skills shortage very soon (if not already happening) because teams have gotten so comfortable with their 60-games-a-season goalies and the next gen are still in development.

Lesser numbers of players becoming goalies over these last 20 years is about to come at a price. It will eventually lead to goals going up sharply due to mediocrity. But then it goes right back down again.

By having a "pen" of goalies playing significant games a season, you are creating a succession plan. Yes you will get more goals due to learning curve but you are less likely to get an abundance of goals for only a few seasons then followed by more dead puck once that crop becomes experienced.

Issue 3 - but that's too many goalies on a roster.

Well, maybe it's time to increase the roster sizes to something like 28 or 30 instead of 25 players.

4 goalies, 10 defence 16 forwards or some kind of variant. Baseball's 25-player rosters fluctuate the number of pitchers from team to team, can't see why it would be different for hockey.

A larger roster could save a lot of travel drain for guys currently going back and forth between NHL and AHL.

It makes a coache's life harder but you then hire more people to manage rosters.

Another benefit could be that goalies start getting matched up like pitchers. And can start getting press when two "Aces" go head-to-head.

Issue 4 - this is just some gimmick.

Well, so is 3-on-3 OT which has artificially inflated offensive stats. I'd be curious to see how regulation-time scoring has fared these last few years.

I doubt my suggestions lead to 80s level scoring but would like to see teams actually average 3+ goals per game in regulation. From 1957 - 1995 no season dropped below 2.8 goals per team per game.

 

[The Shrike]

A hard cap is optimal for competitiveness on the ice, and sub optimal for generating the most revenue league wide. In a luxury tax system, large market teams are more competitive, which generates larger tv audiences, and larger tv contracts. The luxury tax money, which goes into a pool aimed at small market teams, plus the extra tv contract revenues, which are shared equally, add up to make small market teams more viable financially.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Don't think we need to double the size of the nets. I do have a thought, though on how to increase goals sustainably...

What might create some more regulation goals would be to reduce goalie padding down in size. Now before you roll your eyes and say "that again," I would add conditions...

Issue 1 - reducing padding is just dangerous.

Of course goalies will cry foul saying smaller equipment puts their safety at risk. If they played the same workloads as they currently do, I would agree. Especially now with composite sticks resulting in harder shots.

So, maybe it's time to start capping the number of games a goalie plays each season to lower injury risk.

Why this is worth noting...

Many starting goalies are playing 60+ a season with one last year playing 73 (Cam Talbot), 3 playing over 70 in 2014-15 and 6 playing over 70 in 2009-10. Vegas this year being an unfortunate exception, how often do you see teams play a 3rd-string or even a 4th-string goalie?

My subjective view (as I do not have scientific data on hand to prove) is that the correlation of games played for starting goalies combined with the rarity of 3rd-stringers getting games is due to the padding as well as the risk aversion of coaches.

If a games cap were put in place, I would set it at somewhere between 45-51 a season. This should also apply to games goalies are dressed meaning you would have to play a 3rd stringer for a significant portion of the season and possibly a 4th stringer for a few games a year.

Issue 2 - I don't want to see some damned rookies in net.

People may cry foul again and say that playing multiple goalies in a season debases the game - "I want best on best." My counter is then "how do you develop your younger defence and forward corps.?" The simple answer is you give 'em damned games to play. Why should it be no different for goalies.

Why this could matter...

One thing I have noticed is that many of the current crop of goalies playing this season are over 30. There's actually a decent bunch over 35.

Like it or not, there is going to be a goaltending skills shortage very soon (if not already happening) because teams have gotten so comfortable with their 60-games-a-season goalies and the next gen are still in development.

Lesser numbers of players becoming goalies over these last 20 years is about to come at a price. It will eventually lead to goals going up sharply due to mediocrity. But then it goes right back down again.

By having a "pen" of goalies playing significant games a season, you are creating a succession plan. Yes you will get more goals due to learning curve but you are less likely to get an abundance of goals for only a few seasons then followed by more dead puck once that crop becomes experienced.

Issue 3 - but that's too many goalies on a roster.

Well, maybe it's time to increase the roster sizes to something like 28 or 30 instead of 25 players.

4 goalies, 10 defence 16 forwards or some kind of variant. Baseball's 25-player rosters fluctuate the number of pitchers from team to team, can't see why it would be different for hockey.

A larger roster could save a lot of travel drain for guys currently going back and forth between NHL and AHL.

It makes a coache's life harder but you then hire more people to manage rosters.

Another benefit could be that goalies start getting matched up like pitchers. And can start getting press when two "Aces" go head-to-head.

Issue 4 - this is just some gimmick.

Well, so is 3-on-3 OT which has artificially inflated offensive stats. I'd be curious to see how regulation-time scoring has fared these last few years.

I doubt my suggestions lead to 80s level scoring but would like to see teams actually average 3+ goals per game in regulation. From 1957 - 1995 no season dropped below 2.8 goals per team per game.

I like this post, but I disagree. The nets have to be double in size. We need 130, 140, 145 points scorers. I have no problem with 6-8 goals per game. There should be 10-13 100 point scorers and 3-4 above 120 points every year.

A hard cap is optimal for competitiveness on the ice, and sub optimal for generating the most revenue league wide. In a luxury tax system, large market teams are more competitive, which generates larger tv audiences, and larger tv contracts. The luxury tax money, which goes into a pool aimed at small market teams, plus the extra tv contract revenues, which are shared equally, add up to make small market teams more viable financially.

Yup.

 

[edog37]

I would have done a proper southern expansion. I would have came to a much better TV deal with Disney for ABC and ESPN. TV deal would be about double what it is now so we can have a soft cap. Not going to force players to live in places they don't want to live in for more money. I would limit the trap and 131 system. I would make the nets bigger, if not double the size. People want goals and fights, not systems. Part of the reason Crosby hasn't had the 130 point we all know he should have had is because he can't. The nets are too small. People want goals and fights, not systems.

ok, now we are getting someplace. What constitutes a "proper southern expansion"? I'm curious what you mean by this....Carolina & Arizona were relocations (& in the case of Carolina, by the existing owner). Regarding the TV deal, there wasn't a better deal to be had. ESPN was offering peanuts to be on ESPN2 with only limited playoff games. The platform nor the demand signal was there. Now, we get every playoff game & a national game every week. It has taken time, but the NHL made the right choice, especially given ESPN's problems. So I'll ask further, how would do better regarding the TV deal?

Soft cap would not have worked in the NHL, though I am in complete agreement with you regarding the trap & systems play. People do want goals & fights. Give the people what they want. I can get behind making the nets a little bigger as long as we shrink goalie equipment even more.

 

[edog37]

A hard cap is optimal for competitiveness on the ice, and sub optimal for generating the most revenue league wide. In a luxury tax system, large market teams are more competitive, which generates larger tv audiences, and larger tv contracts. The luxury tax money, which goes into a pool aimed at small market teams, plus the extra tv contract revenues, which are shared equally, add up to make small market teams more viable financially.

And completely turns off the fans in those smaller markets, leading to smaller demand signal overall....

 

[Bucky_Hoyt]

I like this post, but I disagree. The nets have to be double in size. We need 130, 140, 145 points scorers. I have no problem with 6-8 goals per game. There should be 10-13 100 point scorers and 3-4 above 120 points every year.

I think the reduction of padding back to 70's - early 90's sizes and capping games for goalies could get you close to those stats you are looking for.

3 goals a game = 246 / year and that of course is the median. You could get higher offensive teams hitting 300+ / year and some of the lower performing ones maybe in the low 200s.

And I am hoping that is the case without any gimmicky 3-on-3 OT or shootouts to artificially inflate stats.

The years I quoted (57 - 95) there was either no OT, 10min OT or 5min OT all with 5-on-5 play. The aggregate average from all those years combined is 3.39. If we could get to something near that average, you're easily looking at 6 and 7 goal games.

A side note is that I made a slight error with average goals from 1957 - 1995. There were 2 seasons under 2.8. 1963-64 (2.78) and 1966-67 (2.79) according to hockey-reference.com, but still pretty close. ;-)

 

[cbcwpg]

I like this post, but I disagree. The nets have to be double in size. We need 130, 140, 145 points scorers. I have no problem with 6-8 goals per game. There should be 10-13 100 point scorers and 3-4 above 120 points every year.

Yup.

Well, the nets are not going to double in size, so don't wait for that to happen.

One reason that scoring is down, and is overlooked for some reason, is specifically the guys who play in the nets. Goaltenders today are just more athletic, in better shape, train better, physically bigger, and just plain better than goalies in the past ever were. Watch videos of the goalies back in the 80s. Goalies back then who we thought were great, actually were pretty bad at stopping the puck.
You can try reducing the size of the equipment and as a result the weight, and that will just allow an already good athlete to move faster.

I for one have always said having a bigger ice surface is one easy way to increasing goals.

 

[BattleBorn]

Scoring is up so far this season.

Turns out all they had to do was enforce the rules.

 

[Bucky_Hoyt]

Scoring is up so far this season.

Turns out all they had to do was enforce the rules.

I'd argue that 3-on-3 OT is inflating most of those stats. Would bet little has changed in regulation time. I agree that calling the game helps.

 

[joelef]

off course there will another lock out

 

[Melrose Munch]

ok, now we are getting someplace. What constitutes a "proper southern expansion"? I'm curious what you mean by this....Carolina & Arizona were relocations (& in the case of Carolina, by the existing owner). Regarding the TV deal, there wasn't a better deal to be had. ESPN was offering peanuts to be on ESPN2 with only limited playoff games. The platform nor the demand signal was there. Now, we get every playoff game & a national game every week. It has taken time, but the NHL made the right choice, especially given ESPN's problems. So I'll ask further, how would do better regarding the TV deal?

Soft cap would not have worked in the NHL, though I am in complete agreement with you regarding the trap & systems play. People do want goals & fights. Give the people what they want. I can get behind making the nets a little bigger as long as we shrink goalie equipment even more.

There should have been 4 teams down south: Houston, Atlanta, dallas, Miami. The NHL went to college towns rather then focus on Atlanta and Houston. Carolina is nice but they will never have the same impact a good Atlanta or Houston team would, or when Dallas won the cup. With ESPN, I would point to the hole on their winter schedule. If they had the NHL right now it would be way more content for them, and the game on ABC on Sunday. Wednesday and Saturday would help the NHL expand quickly. ESPN was the weak sister, especially with the problems they have. And with that larger TV contract, I would have a soft cap. As long as revenue sharing works properly, a soft cap works. Because of a mediocre TV contract and lack of revenue sharing, we need a had cap. Its bad business for promotion of talent and the sport with all that roster turnover.

I think the reduction of padding back to 70's - early 90's sizes and capping games for goalies could get you close to those stats you are looking for.

3 goals a game = 246 / year and that of course is the median. You could get higher offensive teams hitting 300+ / year and some of the lower performing ones maybe in the low 200s.

And I am hoping that is the case without any gimmicky 3-on-3 OT or shootouts to artificially inflate stats.

The years I quoted (57 - 95) there was either no OT, 10min OT or 5min OT all with 5-on-5 play. The aggregate average from all those years combined is 3.39. If we could get to something near that average, you're easily looking at 6 and 7 goal games.

A side note is that I made a slight error with average goals from 1957 - 1995. There were 2 seasons under 2.8. 1963-64 (2.78) and 1966-67 (2.79) according to hockey-reference.com, but still pretty close. ;-)

I think it could happen, but I feel the goalies would fight a shrinkage of pads, citing safety. It would be a battle for sure.

Well, the nets are not going to double in size, so don't wait for that to happen.

One reason that scoring is down, and is overlooked for some reason, is specifically the guys who play in the nets. Goaltenders today are just more athletic, in better shape, train better, physically bigger, and just plain better than goalies in the past ever were. Watch videos of the goalies back in the 80s. Goalies back then who we thought were great, actually were pretty bad at stopping the puck.
You can try reducing the size of the equipment and as a result the weight, and that will just allow an already good athlete to move faster.

I for one have always said having a bigger ice surface is one easy way to increasing goals.

People said there would never be shootouts either, look where we are. The nets will be made bigger, just by how much is the question.

 

[MNNumbers]

^^^^^
Melrose,
I'm not sure the TV situation would actually work that way. The main problem, as I see it, is that not enough people care. And, you can try to say, "Well, the problem is not enough exposure in the right places." But, I'm not sure about that. As for markets....

Hindsight is perfect. I'm sure Bettman and BOG didn't want to lose Atlanta. But, there was no choice. And, tbh, the Thrashers never really captured much attention. Miami is only viable now because Broward County is subsidizing them.

etc.

Sports marketing is not as easy as it looks. NASCAR has a real problem right now. NFL is losing viewership.

It's just a nasty thing to try to encourage and/or coerce eyeballs.