NHL plans to reinvent itself after lockout

[Jazz]

Interesting read - they really do need to market the game better.

NHL Plans to re-invent itself after lockout

It talks about a 3-point plan:

A new collective bargaining agreement that ensures financial
steadiness, be that through the league's cost-fixed link system or the
union's market-reset proposal.

Harnessing technology - primarily the advent of high-definition TV -
to help the league bloom beyond a "ticket-centric" economy. Having a game freed
up by new rules to display on high-tech TV would help. Also using similar means
to promote the players and league more extensively.

A "rollback or at the minimum a stop to ticket prices," Bonham said.
The NHL average ticket price last season was $43.60, and while the league drums
for lower salaries, so do fans for lower fares.

and goes on to talk about how HDTV will help.

The league's new broadcast partner - which agreed to share revenues with the
league instead of paying a guaranteed fee - will be essential in the
"re-launch." Bettman and many others have said HDTV will make hockey a TV
sport. No glowing puck necessary. It may finally give fans what they've
previously only gotten in video games - "the best seat in the house," as Dave
Littman of EA Sports said. That's because the dimension of Hi-Def technology -
movie-like in scope - shows a sharper image of the rink.

"Let me start by saying I don't think any sport televises better in HD than
hockey," said NBC sports president Ken Schanzer. "We've got to find a way to
find it in more places. The access to HD needs to expand first. . . . But it's
the spectacle of the game that just shows better. Whether it's the ice or
details of the action. It's not just about (seeing) the puck. It's the
vividness of the whole sport. It flat shows better. . . .

Click to read more...

 

[two out of three*]

I like it, and feel that the NHL does have to "re-invent" itself. Me personally, I want to know what the definition of more offense is.. Because sometimes the 2-1, 3-2 games are exciting, but thats probably because Im a huge hockey fan. But if I have to start watching 5-4, 4-3, games on a nightly occasion I really have no problem with it. As long as the game is helping itself by doing so. I am anti-shootout, but if the NHL wants to install one after a period of OT, then fine. Just no shootouts in playoffs.


The NHL needs to get out of this lockout immediately. They need to do whatever it takes, because if they don't they are going to lose even the best of hockey fans. Do what you gotta do.. "Re-launch", "Re-invent" yourself whatever, but do it before its not too late. It took Baseball years to recover after their lockout.


And they have to market their product better than arena football for god sakes. Hell, even NASCAR has over-taken them. 3 hours of left turns has over-taken the great game of hockey, and that is just simply ridiculous. Pro-PA, or Pro-NHL, I'm sure we can all agree that we need to see hockey on T.V. this season. But first things first.. They need to reach an agreement that will fix their problems for good, not just for one-time.

 

[HckyFght*]

When the league wants to get serious about being good on TV, they'll convince owners to give up a few precious lower box seats and figure out how to get a camera in each of the three zones. Until then, it's looking over players shoulders from above when the most exciting play is going on.
-HckyFght

 

[CarlRacki]

FWIW, for those of you that have HDTV via DirecTV, they show game re-runs Friday nights on their HDNet channel under the title "NHL Relived". Hockey looks great in HD, but I'd give the edge to football regarding whish sport looks best.

 

[no13matssundin]

You know what bothers me? It bothers me that the NHL DOESNT GET IT... after reading that article, while I am on the Owners side in the labour dispute, its obvious they are BLIND to the realities facing the sport.

HDTV? "New Branding"? A "hip new outlook"? When I hear these crap, meaningless catch phrases and how "technology" like HDTV is suddenly gonna rake in the big bucks, I wanna vomit.

This is not going to help the profile of the NHL.

This is going to only bring some people into the fold at first, but when people see the quality (or lack thereof) and when the NHL realizes that 1 in a Bazzillion people actually can afford HDTV, then they'll get why theyre behind Poker, NASCAR and the CFL in ratings in the states: They need to focus on the product... bring back scoring.... make it cheap to goto games... make it fun and a spectacle.

Cheap meaningless buzz words will not "re-invent" the league. This kind of tripe I hear from the NHL just shows me that, while Bettman is dead on about the labour stoppage, the MOMENT the Cap is installed he should be fired for the massive mismanagement hes overseen of the league.

"Re-invent itself". Please.

 

[me2]

You know what bothers me? It bothers me that the NHL DOESNT GET IT... after reading that article, while I am on the Owners side in the labour dispute, its obvious they are BLIND to the realities facing the sport.

HDTV? "New Branding"? A "hip new outlook"? When I hear these crap, meaningless catch phrases and how "technology" like HDTV is suddenly gonna rake in the big bucks, I wanna vomit.

This is not going to help the profile of the NHL.

This is going to only bring some people into the fold at first, but when people see the quality (or lack thereof) and when the NHL realizes that 1 in a Bazzillion people actually can afford HDTV, then they'll get why theyre behind Poker, NASCAR and the CFL in ratings in the states: They need to focus on the product... bring back scoring.... make it cheap to goto games... make it fun and a spectacle.

Cheap meaningless buzz words will not "re-invent" the league. This kind of tripe I hear from the NHL just shows me that, while Bettman is dead on about the labour stoppage, the MOMENT the Cap is installed he should be fired for the massive mismanagement hes overseen of the league.

"Re-invent itself". Please.

Did you read the whole article? Including the bit that read

On the ice, the plan is to rekindle a fleeter, more offensive game.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

Maybe the NHL should consider using a quick hand of poker between opposing coaches to settle tie games. I'm sure it would look good on television.

 

[roadrunner]

Bring back skating! Anything that promotes hard skating in a sport that has skilled and tough athletes with blades on their feet moving and moving some more, I'm all for it! I don't care if you are 6-5 on "O" 0r 5-8 on "D"....move those blades...together as a team. May the best team win...skating hard!

 

[struckmatch]

The League needs to do something to make teams WANT to score. Right now, teams have no motivation to score, or even play a remotely entertaining game when they are leading, or even tied, they just sit back.

As far as the points in this plan go, I like the ideas, and i think its absolutely necessary for the league to prosper.

 

[Sinurgy]

Cool article, thanks for sharing it!

I like most everything I read. Though it was kind of depressing to read the bit about Sports Illustrated pegging the NHL as the next big thing and predicting it would pass the NBA. sigh...I don't know but I hate thinking about what could've or should've been. Right after New freakin York of all places wins the Stanely Cup, they strike?!? What the hell were they thinking? Oh nevermind, I don't want to get this thread off topic. Good article and I look forward to seeing the NHL work it's way back into respectability!

 

[me2]

The League needs to do something to make teams WANT to score. Right now, teams have no motivation to score, or even play a remotely entertaining game when they are leading, or even tied, they just sit back.

As far as the points in this plan go, I like the ideas, and i think its absolutely necessary for the league to prosper.

3 points for win by 2 goals or more.
2 points for a win by 1, 1 point for a loss by one.

If they are determined to have shootouts at least you are guaranteed a winner.

Downside is teams won't open up and give up EN goals unless they are down by 2. Upside is teams won't sit on 1 goal leads as much.

 

[Morbo]

Marketing

A key element of the "re-launch" will involve marketing the players.

"Let's face it, hockey does not have a high profile right now," Kasten said.
"The top cadre of players aren't well known enough. What can we do for a TV
contract? Increase our appeal. The league won't like me saying this, but Jarome
Iginla, Martin St. Louis, Rick Nash - these players have to be in (bigger
markets). Your best and brightest young players have to be in your biggest
media markets to give us a fighting chance."

Interesting.

 

[bling]

Interesting.

Sounds like even after all the sucking up that Bettman did in Alberta, Jarome is gone from the Flames... How ironic is that? :lol

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Interesting.

It's interesting but also misguided in more ways than one.

 

[Morbo]

It's interesting but also misguided in more ways than one.

How?

I think he makes a valid point. How is what he said inaccurate?

The league needs a new TV deal badly, but it's going to institute an economic system that will make sure that teams in bigger markets have, on average, no more star talent than a small or medium market. Please correct me if you feel this is not true.

 

[HckyFght*]

I truly believe the NHL needs to quit lusting after network TV. They think that if they bastardize their product enough they will prove to TV that they belong in the club, which is inane. It's putting the cart before the horse. Believe me, networks will dictate the changes you need to make AFTER they own you lock stock and barrel just as in the other three big sports. Network TV doesn't care what the product is, they care about tomorrow mornings overnight ratings. And as of right now the NHL just can't cut it. This is entirely Bettman's fault.

Roll back the Bettman era rules changes and scoring will soar and so will ruff tuff play. That's what puts fans in buildings and makes them watch on TV when their team is away. The biggest unaddressed problem as far as TV goes is that the average fan only watches his or her team and not the rest of the league. Is hockey bad on TV, sure it is. Announcers don't teach the game the way they do in football and baseball, and there aren't cameras in all zones.

As I've said before, when the NHL team in your market can compete with network programming when they are on local television, the netowrks will notice. Not before. And the only way to accomplish that will be to grow the NHL in each of it's 30 markets. Will it take some time? Yes. If they are worried about that, they shouldn't have sat around with their thumbs up their you know what's for the last 25 years either content to be a Canadian league, or chasing after a network contract before they were ready. But grow your markets and TV will come to you.
-HckyFght!

 

[bling]

How?

I think he makes a valid point. How is what he said inaccurate?

The league needs a new TV deal badly, but it's going to institute an economic system that will make sure that teams in bigger markets have, on average, no more star talent than a small or medium market. Please correct me if you feel this is not true.

He is saying that the big markets should have more star players than the small or medium sized markets...unless I am not comprehending this?

 

[Dave is a killer]

3 points for win by 2 goals or more.
2 points for a win by 1, 1 point for a loss by one.

If they are determined to have shootouts at least you are guaranteed a winner.

Downside is teams won't open up and give up EN goals unless they are down by 2. Upside is teams won't sit on 1 goal leads as much.

3 points for a win by 3 goals or more
2 points for a win by 2 goals or less, 1 point for a loss by one ... you must dominate your opponent to get the extra point

 

[Jussi]

3 points for a win by 3 goals or more
2 points for a win by 2 goals or less, 1 point for a loss by one ... you must dominate your opponent to get the extra point

How about 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for for OT/shoot-out wins, 1 for OT/shoot-out loss, extra point for scoring 10 goals? Games could literally be "4 point games".

 

[HckyFght*]

How about 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for for OT/shoot-out wins, 1 for OT/shoot-out loss, extra point for scoring 10 goals? Games could literally be "4 point games".

Jeez Leweez! Can someone tell me what the heck was wrong with 2pts a win, 1 for a tie and nothing for a loss? How complicated do you want this to be?

-HckyFght!

 

[hb6947]

I still believe the only way the league achieves it's goals of a faster, higher scoring more exciting game is to open the ice surface. IMO, not only would it cut down on overly defensive systems, it would alow more skilled players from more counties to raise to the top of the Marketability Pyramid. Add to that a more uniform game that could be marketed in a more uniform way throughout the world and the NHL could take a larger piece of the pie.

Cost certanty should be structred in order to give the owners the ability to lose seats and not lose their shirts. But of coarse they would need to freeze pricing where it is, I'll pay the current prices if I can get Olympic like hockey.

It will be nice to not have to explain to the casual fan why there are so many different regulations from league to league .

 

[likea]

What would you all think of this:

I feel part of the problem in the NHL is the amount of space on the ice...its declining as players get bigger. Now a ton of teams just built new arenas and will not want to expand the ice space because that would take out seats, so the NHL cannot force owners to expand the ice space BUT

why not place a min. and max. for ice space and allow teams to choose which they play on.

The Penguins, who are known for their offense and skill (and they hate the trap) could play on the larger olympic ice surfaces

NJ, who loves the trap style of hockey could choose to play on the smaller surface.

teams that have just built arenas could choose which they would want to play on also.

This would make the reg. season games more meaningful, esp. the seeds in the playoffs.

Home advantage would mean alot more and teams would realize this. NJ's system would struggle on a big ice surface while the Pens system or how they are used to playing at home would struggle on a smaller surface.

Bigger ice would be more entertaining for the fans, and teams can choose...

I kinda liken this to baseball and hitter vs. batter ball parks.

what do you think???

 

[two out of three*]

Jeez Leweez! Can someone tell me what the heck was wrong with 2pts a win, 1 for a tie and nothing for a loss? How complicated do you want this to be?

-HckyFght!

Or we could do it NBA/MLB style, and separate teams by the number of Games Back.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

How?

The league needs a new TV deal badly, but it's going to institute an economic system that will make sure that teams in bigger markets have, on average, no more star talent than a small or medium market. Please correct me if you feel this is not true.

Okay, I will correct you. You are misguided in your perception of how you get a major TV contract.

To get a major TV contract you have to have multiple markets that have interest in the game. This is why the NFL is so damn successful and why it is so widely watched. Teams have a chance to win and every game is interesting. The league is not rulled by six markets, but is wide open field where every game can be great (or bad) and that makes tuning in worth while.

Just because New York has a great pool of talent does not mean that they are going to make for good TV. It does not mean they are going to have broad appeal. It means that New York will have a good market in New York, but frankly they are not going to sell in Phoenix. If you want to have a healthy market in Phoenix and have viewership you have to have the fans knowing that they have a chance for a playoff spot coming out of the gate. The way the economics of the game are set up you know that there are usually nine teams fighting for two spots, and when Christmas rolls around you have a good idea who is going to be in the mix. Interest wanes even in the markets that know they are in the playoffs and isn't rekindled until the playoffs start again. That is the weakness of the model the NHL is using and why it is headed where it is.

You want to get a big TV contract? Then improve the product in every market and stop focusing on the big markets. Get the league to the point where every team can compete and is able to generate interest in the team for the full season. Once you get local interest you will get a ground swell of national interest. But if you only have a half dozen large markets that rule the game and are the only ones competitive, well no one is going to want to tune in and watch teams they don't know. Every team has to be appealing and every team has to have a chance to win. The fact that the Canadian teams are not well known south of the border is part of the problem. No exposure equals no knowledge equals no interest which equals no TV contract.

 

[ChemiseBleuHonnete]

How about 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for for OT/shoot-out wins, 1 for OT/shoot-out loss, extra point for scoring 10 goals? Games could literally be "4 point games".

better idea : extra point if you score 4 goals or more. That way, each team will build their teams for scoring. Also, if ever the game is to get more offensive, blow-outs really make the game boring. So if you're team is down 5-2 after two periods, you can hope they'll score two. Imagine a 3-3 tied game going in over-time? That will be really entertaining. Or if your team leads 3 to 1 in third period, I'm pretty sure they'll open the game to score that extra goal.