Is it time for Gary Bettman to leave?

[CapitalsCupReality]

Bettman is the devil, want a recap of his incompetence;

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_y...LYF?slug=dw-bettman012907&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

This from the world renowned, Yahoo sports writer....eesh.

 

[J-Zilla]

Bettman has done more damage single-handedly to the NHL than anyone else, and that includes Alan Eagleson.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Bettman has done more damage single-handedly to the NHL than anyone else, and that includes Alan Eagleson.

Oh, stop it. Just stop it.

 

[FlyerFan]

Why not ESPN?

How about this - ESPN has no interest in hockey.

Tough for a lot of the hockey pucks around here to fathom, but EPSN places no priority.

Utter BS. ESPN began airing NHL games from 1979 through 1988, and then from 1992 through 2004. With the TV ratings history and the lockout and canellation of the 2004-05 season, ESPN simply found other programming.

I know people think that somehow Bettman & Co should have been able to put a gun to ESPN's head and get them to make an offer, but ...

Or perhaps PUT YOUR PRODUCT ON THE ICE rather than canceling an entire season.

And, by the way? Virtually every thing that people have alleged in this thread that Bettman has done "wrong" has been refuted.

While the lockout and canceled season was a collective failure, Gary Bettman was the master of ceremonies.

 

[WheatiesHockey]

Gary Bettman for all his faults was big step up from both John Ziegler and Gil Stein. Bettman had achieved some success in making the NBA a marketing dream so the NHL could not resist the temptation.
Big time pro sports is really all about shuffling the deck and tapping into a market that is already there. The fact that Bettman didnt make hockey a stunning success in Phoenix or Atlanta should not be held against him.
John Ziegler presided over an NHL with two or the best generational super stars in the form of Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux. This was during a period when the NBA had Michael Jordan and the NFL had Dan Marino.
Whatever problems the NHL might have are bigger than replacing Gary Bettman.

 

[Drewr15]

Unfortunately that SI article (Why the NHL's Hot, The NBA's Not - June 20, 1994) was long on hype and short on any facts to back it up. It was as much a lamentation on the state of the NBA in the post-Bird/post-Magic/post-Jordan(retirement #1) era as it was an NHL puff piece in the wake of Messier carrying the Cup. There was no hard facts - attendance, ratigs, revenues - to really back up their assertions.

Unfortunately, my copy of that SI issue is long gone. I've actually tried a few times to pick up a copy on Ebay - including once about a week or so ago - with no luck.

And, yes I remember the way hockey was (in the US) when Bettman took over - which might be a bit different to the state of the game as viewed from up north.

Thank you

Would you be interested in knowing that, in the four years prior to Bettman assuming office, the NHL's attendance had been on a steady decline from 14,975, to 14,695, to 14,510 to 14, 045? Then, in the first year of Bettman's reign, 1993-94, attendance increased to 14,748, when NYR won the Cup. Mind you, that attendance figure, supposedly when the NHL is at a "peak" (per your vague recollection of a 12 year old SI article), merely reversed most - though not all - of the NHL's losses over the preceding four years.

The lesson? The first sensible business analysis that I read from a sports reporter will be the first. Generally sports writers or sports media in general have an idea what they want to write/broadcast and will do what they want whether or not the facts fit.

and thank you. That article was BS fluff with no real analysis other than, the Rangers won the cup, hockey must be more popular.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Or perhaps PUT YOUR PRODUCT ON THE ICE rather than canceling an entire season.

If you understand why the salary cap is important to the NHL, then you'll also understand why the 2004-05 season was canceled.

 

[FlyerFan]

If you understand why the salary cap is important to the NHL, then you'll also understand why the 2004-05 season was canceled.

Irrelevant.

The bottom line is the lockout and canceled season marginalized the NHL in the eyes of ESPN and they moved on.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Irrelevant.

The bottom line is the lockout and canceled season marginalized the NHL in the eyes of ESPN and they moved on.

Hardly irrelevant. ESPN's not going to be able to show the NHL if enough teams are in enough trouble that the league dissolves.

 

[J-Zilla]

Hardly irrelevant. ESPN's not going to be able to show the NHL if enough teams are in enough trouble that the league dissolves.

The league is not in any kind of trouble. If the NHL really was in dire straits, we would see owners selling off leams left and right. These billionaires are not stupid. If the don't make money off their investment, they sell. Why do you think that there are so many people lined up to buy NHL clubs?

 

[J-Zilla]

Oh, stop it. Just stop it.

What are you, Bettman's mother?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

The league is not in any kind of trouble. If the NHL really was in dire straits, we would see owners selling off leams left and right. These billionaires are not stupid. If the don't make money off their investment, they sell. Why do you think that there are so many people lined up to buy NHL clubs?

Of course not - we've got salary controls now.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

What are you, Bettman's mother?

 

[mr gib]

ok - now that's just hilarious - ( you can't even see gary under that dress )

 

[GSC2k2*]

Irrelevant.

The bottom line is the lockout and canceled season marginalized the NHL in the eyes of ESPN and they moved on.

Hardly. The NHL earned a 0.24 on ESPN2 and promoted it precisely zip. ESPN already made up its mind that it was marginalized.

The lockout marginalized the NHL in ESPN's eyes. That is a good one.

As to your post above, the lockout was an unqualified triumph. Anyone with even an ounce of business judgment can see that. It changed the economics fo the game for the foreseeable future and had no attendance cost or material revenue hit, unlike MLB, the NBA and the NFL when they each went through theirs. Yes, let's not forget that each league has had serious labour dustups, costing half a season. But nope, the NHL's was different, cause it's the NHL (and no, it matters not that the NHL's lockout lasted a season). It made no difference at all to the key business parameters.


By the way, ESPN2 = 0.24, Vs = 0.20. Yep, quite a hit there too.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Fire Bettman!

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app?articleid=288319&page=NewsPage&service=page

He's setting all-time attendance records and doing it at a fraction of what it used to cost the owners!

 

[Lil' Jimmy Norton*]

If he was a CEO of any reputable company he would of been canned a long long time ago. He has no sense of how important the game is to the hockey fan. They lost their ESPN spot and for them to pull an .07 for the all-star game is an absolute disgrace.

He has no respect for the legends and history of the game and he has no desire to learn it. He is not a leader just a puppet for the 8 heavy handed owners. The schedule is atrocious....rivalries are created during playoff series...not during the season.

He can't be fired soon enough....the wake of his carnage will be felt for many years to come.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

If he was a CEO of any reputable company he would of been canned a long long time ago. He has no sense of how important the game is to the hockey fan. They lost their ESPN spot and for them to pull an .07 for the all-star game is an absolute disgrace.

He has no respect for the legends and history of the game and he has no desire to learn it. He is not a leader just a puppet for the 8 heavy handed owners. The schedule is atrocious....rivalries are created during playoff series...not during the season.

He can't be fired soon enough....the wake of his carnage will be felt for many years to come.

Wow. Do you have some sort of newsletter which people can subscribe to?

 

[Timmy]

If he was a CEO of any reputable company he would of been canned a long long time ago. He has no sense of how important the game is to the hockey fan. They lost their ESPN spot and for them to pull an .07 for the all-star game is an absolute disgrace.

He has no respect for the legends and history of the game and he has no desire to learn it. He is not a leader just a puppet for the 8 heavy handed owners. The schedule is atrocious....rivalries are created during playoff series...not during the season.

He can't be fired soon enough....the wake of his carnage will be felt for many years to come.

Actually, and unfortunately for many, your argument works in reverse.

If the CEO of Ford Motor Co. insisted on living in the past, putting out Crown Victorias and variants thereof with inefficient push rod engines with lousy gas mileage that only a cop or cabbie could love, and insisted on honouring the the traditions of the company while Toyota leaves him in the dust, he'll be fired.

Had Bettman tried to get the league to withdraw into itself, to appeal to only the converted hockey zealot like some indie music label, then he'd have been fired long ago as owners watched their expenses skyrocket disproportionate to their revenues. Their employees would be commanding big-four salaries even though hockey wasn't a big-four sport any more, as some owners were able to subsidize their teams through the sales of pizzas and skew the labour market.

Had he not at least attempted to speed up the game by insisting that rules that were already in the book be called, players and coaches would continue to devolve the game into sixty minutes of water skiing and stick sharing. The importance of a skating star would be diminished to the point where skill took a back seat to size, and fans continued to turn off a game in which stars were forced to play like linebackers.

During his tenure, he has struck national television deals in the US which rewarded the owners, but which did not reward the networks, given the localized nature of the sport. Networks, not being complete idiots, decided to stop losing money on the NHL.

Bettman has made mistakes, and he's had some successes, like any CEO. The bottom line is, however, that he has increased revenues for his shareholders, and his product hasn't stood still. If you think CEOs are fired for such transgressions, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[nedved93]

The league is not in any kind of trouble. If the NHL really was in dire straits, we would see owners selling off leams left and right. These billionaires are not stupid. If the don't make money off their investment, they sell. Why do you think that there are so many people lined up to buy NHL clubs?

had to respond to this.

why aren't owners in a rush to sell? because of bettman's artificial imposition of mediocrity, better known as the salary cap. this splendor of financial wizardry results in absolute cost containment, or seen from a different perspective - profit certainty. revenue sources - tickets, concessions, apparel - the price of these conveniently continue to stay at exorbitant levels as labor costs are capped. so, in essence, we as fans subsidize gary's embrace of the league's lowest common denominator.

to hell with the large markets that support this league! screw clubs like LA or anaheim, who'll eventually have to dismantle the excellent young clubs they're building for fear of being too good. let economic populism reign supreme!

but hey, so long as we continue to have hockey in carolina, nashville, and atlanta i'm satisfied. so long as teams are implicitly penalized for building their clubs patiently from within i'm in bettman's corner. so long as we see a decrease in passion, intensity, fighting, and physical play i'll remain a loyal "core" fan. so long as we appeal to the "non-traditional" fan, our sport will be much better off.

yes indeed, let's make gary commissioner for life.

 

[GSC2k2*]

If he was a CEO of any reputable company he would of been canned a long long time ago. He has no sense of how important the game is to the hockey fan. They lost their ESPN spot and for them to pull an .07 for the all-star game is an absolute disgrace.

He has no respect for the legends and history of the game and he has no desire to learn it. He is not a leader just a puppet for the 8 heavy handed owners. The schedule is atrocious....rivalries are created during playoff series...not during the season.

He can't be fired soon enough....the wake of his carnage will be felt for many years to come.

Based on the level of business knowledge and insight your post indicates, I would be willing to bet that you haven't come within a mile of an actual CEO, much less know what one would or would not be fired for.

Do you not realize that everyone and anyone recognizes what a silly little cliche your CEO statement is? Do you think we will believe that you came up with that observation? It is spouted by hockey fans who can't spell CEO, much less assess the performance of one.

How about instead you come with an original thought, or at least an original way of expressing one?

 

[FlyerFan]

Hardly. The NHL earned a 0.24 on ESPN2 and promoted it precisely zip. ESPN already made up its mind that it was marginalized.

The lockout marginalized the NHL in ESPN's eyes. That is a good one.

As to your post above, the lockout was an unqualified triumph. Anyone with even an ounce of business judgment can see that. It changed the economics fo the game for the foreseeable future and had no attendance cost or material revenue hit, unlike MLB, the NBA and the NFL when they each went through theirs. Yes, let's not forget that each league has had serious labour dustups, costing half a season. But nope, the NHL's was different, cause it's the NHL (and no, it matters not that the NHL's lockout lasted a season). It made no difference at all to the key business parameters.


By the way, ESPN2 = 0.24, Vs = 0.20. Yep, quite a hit there too.

This entire post is nothing but digression.

If you had followed my posts, you would see that my point is that the lockout and canceled 2004-05 season was a big reason for ESPN's decision to no longer televise the NHL.

 

[GSC2k2*]

This entire post is nothing but digression.

If you had followed my posts, you would see that my point is that the lockout and canceled 2004-05 season was a big reason for ESPN's decision to no longer televise the NHL.

Sorry that you cannot see that my post is a direct response (and thorough refutation) of your point in that post, as well as the one before it (about the lockout being a "collective failure"). In the future, I will try to parcel out my responses to yours in bite-sized portions with which you can better cope.

My point was that the NHL was marginalized in ESPN's eyes long before the lockout. With its low ESPN ratings, EPSN had no intention of doing anything other than lowballing the NHL - which they did.

Incidentally, ESPN did not make a "decision to no longer televise the NHL". They made a decision to not match a price that OLN was willing to pay and not to raise their lowball offer. For the right price, they were prepared to televise the NHL. That kind of shoots your theory down in flames. See, the difference between my post and yours is that I have the actual ratings and the fact that ESPN did in fact make an offer for hockey as support for my view, whereas you have - well, nothing.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

sometimes I think Bettman is an inside man still taking orders from his real boss David Stern.

 

[GSC2k2*]

sometimes I think Bettman is an inside man still taking orders from his real boss David Stern.

If he were an inside man, THEN he would be doing a poor, poor job of it.