SI.COM article: NHL needs to reexamine its alliance with Olympics

[Jazz]

Bettman needs to tell certain onwers to simply shut up and look for the greater good of the game, and shorten the season during Olympic years.

I also think that some European fans need to understand the first paragraph below, ie why there is a reluctance by some owners to break the season during Feburary. The obvious counterpoint is that hockey should be able to stand on it's own 2 feet and not worry about other sport's schedule's (but unfortunately at this point in time, it can't....)

.....
For many American-based teams, the reluctance is understandable. The Olympics fall during what amounts to their Christmas season: post-Super Bowl, pre-March Madness, a fallow time on the sporting calendar when hockey is as easy a sell as it ever is going to be. To stay dark at money time, NHL owners want tangible benefits, something that rings the cash registers and not merely stirs the fans and the soul
.....
Although the NHL is sending its players to the Olympics through the 2010 Games in Vancouver, that level of commitment has to change. The league can't continue to straddle the fence. If Bettman still believes the Olympics provide a global platform that ultimately will make the game grow, he simply has to tell his owners to release players for the Games with a smile (edit: Jazz: Ed Snyder). If not, the NHL, in the next CBA, should extricate itself from the Olympic commitment, a move likely to rile the Players Association
.........
To make the Olympic hockey tournament mature, the NHL must give it a break. A decent break. Canada captain Joe Sakic thinks an earlier start to training camp and a September start to the season would allow the Olympics -- and the regular season -- to feel less hurried. "Certainly it would be nice to have more days," said teammate Vincent Lecavalier, who plays for Cup-champion Tampa Bay. "I know we get back [from Turin] on a Monday night and we play Tuesday. Some guys get home and play back-to-back [games]. They were talking about it yesterday." But after winning the golden ticket with its last CBA -- controlled labor costs -- the NHL should suck it up and shorten the season every quadrennial to make the tournament better and less risky. Cut four games. Maybe six
....

You can read the entire article here: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/olympics/2006/writers/02/15/nhl.olympics/index.html

Click to read more...

 

[Phanuthier*]

I think the SI should look more at the numbers. Who stands to benefit the most from this? The IOC and hosting country.

What does the NHL get out of this? Do they really "expand their markets" ? How many of you have got into women's hockey or started watching or putting money into bobsledging or skelaton?

I honestly don't think the NHL will get as much out of this as they think. In fact, I personally think that compared to how much the IOC benefits from this, its almost negligable.

Screw the Olympics, stick with the World Cup (which I show lukewarm interest in anyways)

Even if none of my teams players (Iginla, Regehr, Leopold) are involved, it wouldn't make me sad to see the NHL not participate in the Olympics.

 

[Garbs]

For many American-based teams, the reluctance is understandable. The Olympics fall during what amounts to their Christmas season: post-Super Bowl, pre-March Madness, a fallow time on the sporting calendar when hockey is as easy a sell as it ever is going to be. To stay dark at money time, NHL owners want tangible benefits, something that rings the cash registers and not merely stirs the fans and the soul

Oh please, it happens once every four years. What kind of ******** is this? If your organization is in such bad shape that a two week period in February is that crucial in keeping it financially stable, then your city shouldn't have a professional hockey team.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

THN suggested moving ice hockey to the Summer Olympics after 2010, which is an interesting proposition, to say the least.

 

[DownFromNJ]

I'm sorry, but there is just something about professional athletes competing not for reward but for country that supercedes business concerns to me. If I am a professional athlete, the greatest pride in my life would not be to win a Stanley Cup or sink a 100 million dollar contract, but to put on the "USA" on the front of my chest.

Good luck winning a CBA battle on this one. Because if I am a player, this issue is damn well more important than increasing the salary cap. If I am an athlete, I'd give up a few extra million dollars on my contract just for the opportunity to play for the United States of America.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Ok, I'll take a Stanley Cup and $100 million, and you can wear your jersey.

 

[DownFromNJ]

And I'll take my USA jersey every time Phanuthier.

 

[joshjull]

I'm sorry, but there is just something about professional athletes competing not for reward but for country that supercedes business concerns to me. If I am a professional athlete, the greatest pride in my life would not be to win a Stanley Cup or sink a 100 million dollar contract, but to put on the "USA" on the front of my chest.

Good luck winning a CBA battle on this one. Because if I am a player, this issue is damn well more important than increasing the salary cap. If I am an athlete, I'd give up a few extra million dollars on my contract just for the opportunity to play for the United States of America.

The owners would love for you to negotiate the next CBA on the players behalf. I'm sure the vast majority of players who don't go to the olympics would be thrilled to give up money so a few of their counterparts could go.

 

[blitzkriegs]

Hm...NHL players in the Olympics begins...at the sametime, NHL revenues consistently increase annually until the lockout.

Are owners expanding their LOCAL markets? No. Their worldwide exposure and markets? Yes.

 

[LannysStach]

that john garrett idiot was whining on about how bad the olympics are for the NHL.

how any hockey fan can watch a Slovkia - Russia game like on opening day and say this is bad, is crazy.

there's only 8 more days left of this (for another four years) -- i'm relishing every shift.

 

[therealdeal]

The important thing about that article is that its written by SI, so you can just throw it right in the trash.

 

[joshjull]

Hm...NHL players in the Olympics begins...at the sametime, NHL revenues consistently increase annually until the lockout.

Are owners expanding their LOCAL markets? No. Their worldwide exposure and markets? Yes.

That is why the shouldn't be in the olympics in the current setup. The local fanbase is the revenue that makes the teams survive or make money. Not the European market. the NHL has shown year in and year out that it is a ticket driven league. Meaning it derives a majority of its revenue from ticket and suite sales. These are two things that the "worldwide market" can do nothing to help.

 

[Kurri17]

What a bunch of ********.

 

[khy206]

Ok, I'll take a Stanley Cup and $100 million, and you can wear your jersey.

I'll take those, too.

Don't get me wrong, I like international competition but my priority is always the NHL team that I support. I just hate to see players injured or fatigued at the middle of regular season because of NON-NHL GAMES.

That's the reason why I don't mind seeing no NHLers in Olympics. As Phanuthier said, we can find a replacement. Make World Cup more competitive. Why not?

If fans still want to see NHLers in Olympics regardless of the competitiveness level of World Cup, then shorten the schedule once every 4 year! As SI.com said, start the season a bit earlier (hey, look how European soccer leagues do due to upcoming World Cup), give'em more break, and shorten the season to 70 games or something. I guarantee it will help to prevent injuries.

Players are not robots, they are humans. Don't forget.

 

[joshjull]

I'll take those, too.

Don't get me wrong, I like international competition but my priority is always the NHL team that I support. I just hate to see players injured or fatigued at the middle of regular season because of NON-NHL GAMES.

That's the reason why I don't mind seeing no NHLers in Olympics. As Phanuthier said, we can find a replacement. Make World Cup more competitive. Why not?

If fans still want to see NHLers in Olympics regardless of the competitiveness level of World Cup, then shorten the schedule once every 4 year! As SI.com said, start the season a bit earlier (hey, look how European soccer leagues do due to upcoming World Cup), give'em more break, and shorten the season to 70 games or something. I guarantee it will help to prevent injuries.
Players are not robots, they are humans. Don't forget.

It will not only prevent injuries but produce better hockey. Teams would have a week to practice and get organized. Team USA today looked disorganized and tired. If they had been there a week that wouldn't be an issue. Although I'm an American it was hard not to be happy for Latvia. I always have a soft spot for the underdog.

I think the shortened season would be a tough sell now because the owners and PLAYERS would be against it. With the new CBA the cap would be affected by lost revenu from 10-12 less games.

 

[Phanuthier*]

The players wouldn't agree to it. Take a hit in pay?

I don't think the owners will agree to it either. Dispite playing 72 or 82 games, they will have to pay the same building costs, ect ect, so it doesn't exactly cut down on expenses.

 

[Gozer]

The olympics is probably one of the best way of advertising a sport around the world. There are millions and millions of people watching, and if you don't think that something like that is good for a sport, I really don't know what to say. Like in sweden, there are far from everybody that have a chanse of seeing nhl regurally, and if you ask young hockey players how they got interested in hockey, they often say, watching the olympics in 94, the woldchampionships, and so on. Why not show the world how exiting hockey can be, take a longer brake, make sure the best players can be there. I really think hockey will benefit from it.

 

[Phanuthier*]

The olympics is probably one of the best way of advertising a sport around the world. There are millions and millions of people watching, and if you don't think that something like that is good for a sport, I really don't know what to say. Like in sweden, there are far from everybody that have a chanse of seeing nhl regurally, and if you ask young hockey players how they got interested in hockey, they often say, watching the olympics in 94, the woldchampionships, and so on. Why not show the world how exiting hockey can be, take a longer brake, make sure the best players can be there. I really think hockey will benefit from it.

And how many people stick with it and watch it?

I'd be interested in seeing how the numberse did after 1998 in Nagano. I doubt it had very much interest there - even after actually playing a couple NHL games there, ie. Flames vs SJ - and I also doubt you'll European and/or Asian numbers growing for the NHL.

We showed them in 1998. They got it again in 2002. I don't know how many times we need to push it.

 

[Raimo Sillanpää]

Whats going wrong.. is that the NHL cannot market itself worth **** in the rest of the world.
You can find kids in Chicago Bulls shirts in Nairobi, Yankee caps in New Zealand and people watching the Superbowl on Easter Island.

The NHL goes nowhere near that.

And this isn't small money we're talking about, there's lots of money to be made by selling paraphanelia in Asia, Central Europe etc.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Whats going wrong.. is that the NHL cannot market itself worth **** in the rest of the world.
You can find kids in Chicago Bulls shirts in Nairobi, Yankee caps in New Zealand and people watching the Superbowl on Easter Island.

The NHL goes nowhere near that.

And this isn't small money we're talking about, there's lots of money to be made by selling paraphanelia in Asia, Central Europe etc.

That's because you can play basketball and baseball in Europe and Asia. How many hockey arena's do you see in Shanghai? How many hockey arena's do you see in Thailand?

In the European market, they already know about hockey. The Swiss already have a top notch league as well as the Scandanavian countries. Hockey isn't something new to them... if it would have got them hooked into putting money up front, they would have done it already.

I know what market they're targetting, I just don't know if they're pointing the gun in the right direction. Hell, they're still trying to secure a market in the USA. They were on the right track in 1994, and they have to go back to what was making them great then.

I think this is the NHL's last kick at the can. There's no use sending them to Vancouver.

 

[Bohologo]

Once again, SI demonstrates how little it knows about hockey. Citing Colorado's collapse from a 3-1 series lead in 1998 sounds like a convincing stance against extended season fatigue, unless you count the number of Olympians on the Oilers' roster at the time: oops, it's the same.

 

[blitzkriegs]

That is why the shouldn't be in the olympics in the current setup. The local fanbase is the revenue that makes the teams survive or make money. Not the European market. the NHL has shown year in and year out that it is a ticket driven league. Meaning it derives a majority of its revenue from ticket and suite sales. These are two things that the "worldwide market" can do nothing to help.

The local fansbase is your core. You know you have it. See: the lockout and the return of the league.

Expanding the marketplace is NHL's goal for the Olympics. It's not about 'surviving' it's about tapping into a wider audience.

 

[Phanuthier*]

The local fansbase is your core. You know you have it. See: the lockout and the return of the league.

Expanding the marketplace is NHL's goal for the Olympics. It's not about 'surviving' it's about tapping into a wider audience.

If you can make a couple bucks, go for it, but I wouldn't take a hit from my primary market for it.

I look back to 2002 when Canada was glowing with pride when Mario Lemieux put it all for Canada ... for about a day. I don't think anyone even remembers now. But, Pittsburg sure remembers that he abandoned his own team to take part of the Olympics.

 

[Ogopogo*]

that john garrett idiot was whining on about how bad the olympics are for the NHL.

how any hockey fan can watch a Slovkia - Russia game like on opening day and say this is bad, is crazy.

there's only 8 more days left of this (for another four years) -- i'm relishing every shift.

It's every two years with the World Cup. For some players, that is too often and that is why they stay away (i.e. Kiprusoff)

 

[Gozer]

And how many people stick with it and watch it?

I'd be interested in seeing how the numberse did after 1998 in Nagano. I doubt it had very much interest there - even after actually playing a couple NHL games there, ie. Flames vs SJ - and I also doubt you'll European and/or Asian numbers growing for the NHL.

We showed them in 1998. They got it again in 2002. I don't know how many times we need to push it.

I was more talking about getting kids interested in playing hockey, benefiting the sport hockey, which perhaps in the long run would benefit the nhl. To get more people watching the nhl, you need to have a much larger interest for hockey. And you do that by expanding the sport in each country, which you don't do by not advertisning your sport around the world. Of course you can't expect that the asians will watch this olympics and suddenly decide that hockey is something they should expand, it needs much more than that. But if you want hockey to grow, I think the olympics is one very good means.