Bettman Story...can anyone confirm if it's true?

[Bear of Bad News]

But as K goes to infinity, does it really matter?

Not for any practical purposes. I just dread trying to explain the concept of "infinity" to this guy.

 

[FlyerFan]

To be frank, I have always thought that the old saw "it's BOTH sides' fault" was never anything more than the standard blather of people speaking on a subject matter in respect of which they have neither the training or experience to provide thoughtful comment.

Further down in your post, you're going to lay some blame on the owners for their poor execution in the '94 lockout endgame.

I would certainly lay some blame on the owners for their poor execution in the ,94 lockout endgame.

Likewise.

Just for laughs, please share with us - beyond the blame that I assigned above to the '94 owners - where you assign blame to owners, and, since this has evolved into the topic of this thread, to Bettman himself.

Well now let's see, on June 25, 1997 (even though the League is losing money) the owners extend the '94 deal up until September 15, 2004, so they can lose more money!

Around July/August 1997 the New York Rangers sign Colorado Avalanche restricted free-agent center Joe Sakic to a three-year, $21 million offer sheet that included a $15 million signing bonus. The Avalanche match, and the contract establishes $7 million a year as the going price for elite players.

On February 19, 1998 the Carolina Hurricanes sign Sergei Fedorov to a six-year, $38 million offer sheet that includes a $14 million signing bonus and a $12 million bonus for reaching the conference final. The Red Wings match and pay Fedorov $28 million that season.

So where does that leave Bettman? While it certainly isn't all his fault, he IS the commissioner. If things have to get so bad that he has to lockout the players for a second time and cancel a season just to show the union he means business, what kind of management is that?

 

[Crazy_Ike]

You understand that the league is NOT ALLOWED, legally, to centrally manage contracts, right?

People who quote owners overpaying players never seem to know that, and that ignorance is at the core of why they are wrong about Bettman.

About extending the old CBA, the thinking at the time must have been that it was still possible to address it internally while allowing the newer expansion teams time to establish themselves enough to survive a lockout. The second part succeeded, the first part failed. It may also be that the situation had not gone downhill enough for Bettman to risk gambling the league on being able to fix it properly yet; he might have faced another submarine job from the Leafs and co.

Hindsight is dangerous without knowing what *would* have happened.

 

[lemieux32*]

Speaking of the '94 lockout most people and the media felt that the players lost big time.

 

[nyrmessier011]

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?

Many teams in financial trouble due to the imbalance of salaries come from traditional "non-hockey" markets. If the teams from the 1988 season for example were in the NHL today, there wouldn't be such unbalance. Because of teams like NYR and the Leafs financial situation, a salary cap IS neccesary, as to avoid the problems baseball has with the Yankees and Red Sox spending five times as much as some teams, but the cap would have been much higher if not for expansion. Jim Dolan is making out like a bandit this year...he's still selling 18,200 tickets, selling merchandise, and people are still buying $8 beers, yet his costs are cut in half this year. 17 other teams spent more than the cap for this year in the 2003-04 season. What comes as no suprise is that 7 out of 13 teams that were spending under that limit come from these "non-hockey" markets. They are all expanded or relocated teams in the 90s.

About the TV contract...you are speaking like a guy who likes OLN because it has pretty decent coverage and has hockey in the foreground. That's fine, I like the hockey shows, documentaries, films etc they've had throughout the playoffs. Point is, i'd rather be on ESPN, the number one sports channel on the planet, and be the "red-headed stepchild" and atleast show some legitmacy, than be on OLN, where daily jokes are cracked and everyone I know says "arent they on the outdoor life network or something...what channel is that?? what? 408?!?!" I can't agree with the die hard Bettman defenders on OLN vs ESPN. Just because Hockey isn't #1 on ESPN does not mean the exposure will be better than OLN. ESPN reaches out to 100 million homes, and has the reputation as the number one sports network in the world. You want just one reason, there it is...65 million homes vs almost 100 million. It's ESPN vs OLN, that should be enough! It's terrible. Maybe I have such a bias because half of the greater New York area has to tune to channel 408, stuck in some random channel location away from every other station...while the other half that don't want to pay extra money for Dolan's digital cable service can't even watch with their basic cable package. You might think that it doesnt matter but it does. More people will tune to OLN if it was on channel 50. There wasn't any value to maintain anyway, gs. OLN needs to become a legitimate sports network. Hopefully they get some MLB and NFL like they plan on doing. Hockey, bull riding and fishing isn't getting this channel anywhere.

You type a valid argument, and you articulate it well, but regardless of our opinions, there isn't one true answer to each of the problems.

 

[tinyzombies]

I just want to chime in that I'm a big Bettman fan myself. The man has saved the league. I look forward to a future of great hockey.

 

[RangersMoogle]

You know, if you skip over the flaming and insults, there's actually a pretty good debate going on in this thread?

 

[I am Jack's Fish]

About the TV contract...you are speaking like a guy who likes OLN because it has pretty decent coverage and has hockey in the foreground. That's fine, I like the hockey shows, documentaries, films etc they've had throughout the playoffs. Point is, i'd rather be on ESPN, the number one sports channel on the planet, and be the "red-headed stepchild" and atleast show some legitmacy, than be on OLN, where daily jokes are cracked and everyone I know says "arent they on the outdoor life network or something...what channel is that?? what? 408?!?!" I can't agree with the die hard Bettman defenders on OLN vs ESPN. Just because Hockey isn't #1 on ESPN does not mean the exposure will be better than OLN. ESPN reaches out to 100 million homes, and has the reputation as the number one sports network in the world. You want just one reason, there it is...65 million homes vs almost 100 million. It's ESPN vs OLN, that should be enough! It's terrible. Maybe I have such a bias because half of the greater New York area has to tune to channel 408, stuck in some random channel location away from every other station...while the other half that don't want to pay extra money for Dolan's digital cable service can't even watch with their basic cable package. You might think that it doesnt matter but it does. More people will tune to OLN if it was on channel 50. There wasn't any value to maintain anyway, gs. OLN needs to become a legitimate sports network. Hopefully they get some MLB and NFL like they plan on doing. Hockey, bull riding and fishing isn't getting this channel anywhere.

You type a valid argument, and you articulate it well, but regardless of our opinions, there isn't one true answer to each of the problems.

What part of growing with a channel don't you understand?

Go yell at babies for not beiong men or something.

 

[Majik1987]

About the TV contract...you are speaking like a guy who likes OLN because it has pretty decent coverage and has hockey in the foreground. That's fine, I like the hockey shows, documentaries, films etc they've had throughout the playoffs. Point is, i'd rather be on ESPN, the number one sports channel on the planet, and be the "red-headed stepchild" and atleast show some legitmacy, than be on OLN, where daily jokes are cracked and everyone I know says "arent they on the outdoor life network or something...what channel is that?? what? 408?!?!" I can't agree with the die hard Bettman defenders on OLN vs ESPN. Just because Hockey isn't #1 on ESPN does not mean the exposure will be better than OLN. ESPN reaches out to 100 million homes, and has the reputation as the number one sports network in the world. You want just one reason, there it is...65 million homes vs almost 100 million. It's ESPN vs OLN, that should be enough! It's terrible. Maybe I have such a bias because half of the greater New York area has to tune to channel 408, stuck in some random channel location away from every other station...while the other half that don't want to pay extra money for Dolan's digital cable service can't even watch with their basic cable package. You might think that it doesnt matter but it does. More people will tune to OLN if it was on channel 50. There wasn't any value to maintain anyway, gs. OLN needs to become a legitimate sports network. Hopefully they get some MLB and NFL like they plan on doing. Hockey, bull riding and fishing isn't getting this channel anywhere.

So, most people would be more inclined to press two buttons on the remote, but not three? I almost bought this arguement, right up until the nonsense that people would tune into it if it was a lower number "on the dial".

Here on Comcast in Northern Illinois, OLN is channel 68. Guess they get better ratings here.

The arguement about it not being on basic cable is crazy. Lots of channels are moving to digital only access. My parents had HBO for years through Comcast until they made that a digital ony channel in their market. Same with Sci-Fi Channel. Now, you might not be interested in either of those channels, and that is fine. My point is that more people are being forced to go to digital cable for one reason or another. That's the way it is. You can fight it if you like, but much like the horse and buggy was replaced by the automobile, basic cable will continue to be replaced by digital cable.

 

[Timmy]

What part of growing with a channel don't you understand?

Go yell at babies for not beiong men or something.

Who are you, a hockey fan, to denounce ESPN, The Number One Sports Channel on the Planet?

ESPN can do no wrong, has done no wrong, and will do no wrong.

The smartest thing they ever did was off-load the NHL onto some two-bit network that is only interested in promoting it as a sport that appeals to a specific audience rather than a broad one.

My question is, if basketball is so popular, shouldn't we be watching it instead of debating Crosby>>>>Ovechkin?

What kind of Pejorative Slurs are we hockey fans, anyways?

If there are sports more popular than ours, shouldn't we be following them instead?

Shouldn't we relegate the NHL to the dustbin due to this goofy new network and silly salary cap?

I say, Bowling, ho!

 

[nyrmessier011]

Who are you, a hockey fan, to denounce ESPN, The Number One Sports Channel on the Planet?

ESPN can do no wrong, has done no wrong, and will do no wrong.

The smartest thing they ever did was off-load the NHL onto some two-bit network that is only interested in promoting it as a sport that appeals to a specific audience rather than a broad one.

My question is, if basketball is so popular, shouldn't we be watching it instead of debating Crosby>>>>Ovechkin?

What kind of Pejorative Slurs are we hockey fans, anyways?

If there are sports more popular than ours, shouldn't we be following them instead?

Shouldn't we relegate the NHL to the dustbin due to this goofy new network and silly salary cap?

I say, Bowling, ho!

fact is espn is the most watched sports channel in america. i dont agree with the barry bonds, terrel owens, scandal type **** they report on, but it is the most watched in the US.

So, most people would be more inclined to press two buttons on the remote, but not three? I almost bought this arguement, right up until the nonsense that people would tune into it if it was a lower number "on the dial".

Here on Comcast in Northern Illinois, OLN is channel 68. Guess they get better ratings here.

The arguement about it not being on basic cable is crazy. Lots of channels are moving to digital only access. My parents had HBO for years through Comcast until they made that a digital ony channel in their market. Same with Sci-Fi Channel. Now, you might not be interested in either of those channels, and that is fine. My point is that more people are being forced to go to digital cable for one reason or another. That's the way it is. You can fight it if you like, but much like the horse and buggy was replaced by the automobile, basic cable will continue to be replaced by digital cable.

more people would know that there was such a thing as OLN if it was on channel 25 rather than 408, no?

 

[nyrmessier011]

From the paper today: " less than 50-percent of the L.A. market gets OLN, which has exclusive rights to every game of the Western finals." Anaheim is in the west finals I remind you

Better than ESPN, right?

 

[Majik1987]

fact is espn is the most watched sports channel in america. i dont agree with the barry bonds, terrel owens, scandal type **** they report on, but it is the most watched in the US.

I agree that ESPN is the number 1 sports network in the US. However, ESPN has always treated hockey like a second class citizen. If ESPN treats it poorly, then the viewing public, taking their que from ESPN, will also treat it poorly. Perception is reality. I'd rather get a little less exposure in the short term with the hope that with OLN showcasing and talking up hockey, it becomes a first class citizen. Hockey gained everything it was going to gain from ESPN, and it never rose above second class status. I'd rather take my chances with OLN.

more people would know that there was such a thing as OLN if it was on channel 25 rather than 408, no?

No, they wouldn't. There are whole lot of channels in the double digits that if they changed, I would have no idea. In the Northern Illinois Comcast market, channels 13 through 30 are like C-Span, Cable Access, Home Shopping, some Spanish language stations, etc. If they added or moved somthing into this block of channels, I would never know about it unless they sent me a notice because I bypass them all the time. Same with channels between 80-95. I cannot even fathom a guess as to what might be there because honestly, I looked there a LONG time ago, and I found there is nothing there. I don't go back to check them just because they are in double digits. They could put anything in those channel blocks, and I'd have no idea, unless I got a notice. If people want to watch hockey, they'll go find the channel, regardless of if that channel is two digits ot three digits long.

As a matter of fact, with digital cable, you don't even need to know the channel. The menu has a section where you pull up events, movies, or other programing by category. IIRC, The first menu will ask if you want to peruse movies, cartoons, sports, etc. If you pick sports, you can look at all sports, or break it down further to basketball, baseball, football, hockey, soccer, etc. Select a sub-category, and it will show you all the items that are on related to that sub-category. If you pick hockey, you'll see the NHL playoffs a long with any other hockey-related programing, and you can leap to that channel from the menu by selecting the program.

With all the on-screen features of digital cable, I don't think it matters what the actual channel number is. You can find what you're looking for.

 

[Majik1987]

From the paper today: " less than 50-percent of the L.A. market gets OLN, which has exclusive rights to every game of the Western finals." Anaheim is in the west finals I remind you

Better than ESPN, right?

First, which paper did it come from? You can't believe everything you read. Case in fact: A paper out of Naples, FL quoted in the AHL forum says that ECHL and AHL teams move up and down between the two leagues.

There were 27 active franchises in the league this season, with three others dormant — Cincinnati, Edmonton and Utah. Either an existing AHL franchise would have to be purchased and relocated, or an ECHL team could move up like the Peoria Rivermen at the end of the 2004-05 season.
Article

Now, we know that was not the case for Peoria, and yet it appeared in the newspaper as fact. So, without knowing the newspaper, and where that newspaper got its number, I would at least be skeptical. Even if we do know the paper, and I am guessing it was the LA Times, percentages can, and often are, skewed in order to prove a point. I'd like to know how they arrived at that figure; what area does it encompass?

Second, ESPN's hockey ratings were getting less than 500,000 total viewers nationwide in 2003-2004. Los Angeles has 5.5 million TV households. So, even if less an 50% are not getting OLN, say 45% still are. You have to figure that percentage is more than 40% but less than 50%, otherwise, the paper would have said less than 40% in order to further the drama and drive their point. Given that, figure 2.25 million are getting OLN. There were only 500,000 people watching the games to begin with on ESPN, so the loss cannot be that big. Even if 1/3 of the households were from the LA market, meaning 165,000 were watching the NHL playoffs in the LA market in 2003-2004, it is still possible that a lot of those people can still tune in. You have no idea how many of that 165,000 have OLN. Maybe, the people that wanted to watch hockey, made sure they got OLN, in which case, it is irrelevant that only 50% get it so long as those 165,000 get it.

A far more relevant story would be compare market by market ratings the last few years on ESPN versus the rating for this season on OLN. Even this comparison wouldn't be a real good gauge because this is OLN's first season with the NHL. They are growing their market presence.

ESPN was not a media powerhouse at first either. Give OLN time to grow and then compare. This feeds back into my first point that I'd rather be the first class citizen on a second class network that has a plan to grow, than a second class citizen on a first class network. Hockey will never get any better on ESPN, while they have a great potential to be showcased in the future on OLN.

 

[Ar-too]

Better than ESPN, right?

For watching the NHL this year, yes, seeing as ESPN wasn't particularly interested in having the NHL back. In the long term, Absolutely.

 

[GSC2k2*]

fact is espn is the most watched sports channel in america. i dont agree with the barry bonds, terrel owens, scandal type **** they report on, but it is the most watched in the US.




more people would know that there was such a thing as OLN if it was on channel 25 rather than 408, no?

I thought about your responses and it appears that you may be operating under a fundamental misconception as to the purpose of a TV contract.

Can you tell me what you believe to be the purpose of a television contract, regardless of the identity of the network?

Do you believe it to be the proverbial "exposure"?

 

[AdmiralPred]

Better than ESPN, right?

Given how the OLN has progressed this season, yes. The work they've done with the playoffs alone has been better than ESPN during the previous two seasons in terms of coverage and promotion, production was/is another issue, but there is no comparing the OLN playoff broadcasts to the initial Philly/NYR game.

This is their ticket to growing their network and getting into more housholds.

As to the OLN's lineup of Hockey, bull-riding, and bass fishing - keep in mind ESPN runs overkill of Texas hold-em, Strong-man, and obsticle coarse competitions. There was a time back in the late 80's where ESPN didn't have the MLB, NFL, or NBA but did have the NHL and Tom Meese.