How to fix the NHL

[McGuire_to_the_max 0]

Well, here we are. The players are locked out. It is NOT a player strike as many of the uninformed like to think. How are we going to get out of this before Sydney Crosby's grandchildren take to the ice? Here is my top-ten list of suggestions:

1) Fire Gary Bettman, preferably publically humiliating him at the same time. He obviously knows nothing about promoting hockey in the US and even less about labor negotiations. Just because you build it, doesn't mean that they'll come. Force-feeding hockey to places like Nashville, Carolina, and South Florida isn't going to get anyone an NFL-like TV contract.

2) Fold ten teams. I won't provide a list of teams, so as not to offend anyone who might be a fan. But, I think it is pretty obvious which teams need to go. Just think back to that old post about the fact that 75% of the losses were incurred by six teams and it is pretty clear that contraction is absolutely necessary to save this league. This will also have the effect of concentrating the talent pool, meaning less teams will have to resort to the trap (hopefully).

3) Forget the words "salary cap". Its time to wake up and smell the cost certainty. There is nothing that a salary cap won't accomplish that a luxury tax combined with revenue sharing and sensible spending on the part of the owners won't accomplish. Besides, even if a cap of $30 mil means that teams like Edmonton and Pittsburg would still be barely breaking even. But, if those teams were receiving an additional $10-$15 million apiece (which I think is perfectly reasonable, giving the amount of money that big-market teams like Detroit, NY, and Toronto make, and remember, this is a 20 team NHL I'm thinking about) they could sign big-name talent, make the playoffs consistenly, and increase their own revenue in that way. A salary cap would just mean that the Ranger's owners would be pocketing about $50 million more than they are right now, big deal. This whole lockout is basically for nothing, which just makes me hate Bettman more.

4) Go to international-sized ice, put in as many international rules as the owners and GMs will agree to.

5) Grant an exemption for one or two "marquee players" to be exempt from any restrictions on salary, provided that those players were drafted by the team and developed in that team's system. This will allow players like Joe Sakic and Yzerman to stay with the same team for 22 years. There is no reason to punish teams for drafting well, like would be done under a salary cap.

6) Forget ever getting a big national TV contract in the US. Focus on regional contracts that the teams themselves would negotiate. Philly, Detroit, New York, etc have never had a problem with revenue have they?

7) Institute a rule for illegal defense in regards to the trap (this would be tough, but there must be some way)

8) Shorten to a seventy game season, while increasing intra-conference and intra-division games to foster rivalries.

9) The NHL can't survive without Canada. Ensure the financial health of the Canadian NHL teams by instituting a revenue sharing program whereby the shortfall caused by conversion of the Canadian dollar is made-up for by the league.

10) Eight percent rollback in player salaries, institute a "dead drop" date 2-3 weeks into the season so that there are no holdouts (basically, if you don't have a contract by a certain time in the season you ain't playin at all that year), modify the entry level system so that players cannot re-enter the draft if they remain unsigned, and so that their total pay (including all bonuses, in any form) does not exceed a certain percentage of the luxury tax limit on payroll. Also, teams should be able to bring players to arbitration, and qualifying offers make to restricted free agents should be as high or low as the player likes, but an independent mediator could decide if the offer is unreasonably low, in which case the player could be granted immediate unrestricted free agency.

Sorry this is so long, but I think that we can have a good discussion about these and other points. These are all just my opinion, so please take them as that and feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

[kovalchuk71 212]

folding 10 teams would loose money for the NHL too....They do make revenue from those teams...ANd you just cant take teams away...People do care about the teams in their state/province and folding some and not others wouldnt be fair

[all-star 0]

yah, i agree with you.

1) Fire Gary Bettman, preferably publically humiliating him at the same time. He obviously knows nothing about promoting hockey in the US and even less about labor negotiations. Just because you build it, doesn't mean that they'll come. Force-feeding hockey to places like Nashville, Carolina, and South Florida isn't going to get anyone an NFL-like TV contract.

to cut that short. just say hes a big idiot, and he should get his ass fired.

[all-star 0]

folding 10 teams would loose money for the NHL too....They do make revenue from those teams...ANd you just cant take teams away...People do care about the teams in their state/province and folding some and not others wouldnt be fair

well there making revenue from most teams. teams like pittsburgh and carolina are 2 big jokes that the nhl needs to move or get rid of.

[kosydar 0]

I'll just comment on a few here and there to save time...

Cutting teams- I'm for it if it comes down to it. Its sad, but the NHL is a business, and they need to cut their losses with some teams for the good of the league.

Int'l Ice- not all arenas can house int'l sized ice.

Illegal Defence rule- Good luck with that. The refs are having a hard enough time calling penalties such as the clutching and grabbing that are painfully obvious, not to mention all the missed high sticks. Think they're going to be able to call penalties on how someone plays? Yeah, right.

[all-star 0]

it shouldnt be a penalty. it should be a fine.

[kosydar 0]

Fine a team for playing a defense first type game? No way in hell does that happen. Besides, how would you even enforce it? "Well, after review, the team usually only sent in one forechecker, so lets fine them." Seriously....

[JGraz15 53]

Gump (McGuire_to_the_max)....you're a goddamn genius!

[all-star 0]

Fine a team for playing a defense first type game? No way in hell does that happen. Besides, how would you even enforce it? "Well, after review, the team usually only sent in one forechecker, so lets fine them." Seriously....

haha okay okay, we'll let them play how they want to.

[Dangles 0]

it shouldnt be a penalty. it should be a fine.

What the hell is a fine of $1000 going to do to players whose bank accounts are 7 digits? They won't care if its just 1 K. Be more strict please

[all-star 0]

fine the team, no the players. even if it is just 1k. if the team traps every game for the season. thats 82k. not including playoffs.

[kovalchuk71 212]

folding 10 teams would loose money for the NHL too....They do make revenue from those teams...ANd you just cant take teams away...People do care about the teams in their state/province and folding some and not others wouldnt be fair

well there making revenue from most teams. teams like pittsburgh and carolina are 2 big jokes that the nhl needs to move or get rid of.

Thanks for that, Im in Carolina and theyre not a joke....theyve had 2 bad sesons. 3 years ago they made it to the finals thankyou very much......I kinda agree with you with pittsburgh though....I dont consider Carolina a "joke" just cause theyve had a couple bad seasons.....look at Florida.... i dont see anyone going at their asses.... ;)

[all-star 0]

i didnt mean the team was a joke. just how many people that like show up to the games and such. my bad about that.

[kovalchuk71 212]

before their last 2 unsuccessful seasons, they had great attendance..one of the best in the league when they made their run to the finals.....

Its ok All-Star, I see where you were going

[lee92 2]

i know cutting teams would probly be good profit wise, but look at all the jobs that people would be losing...players and staff together

[kosydar 0]

But why should those people hold back the league from being a financial success? Hell, think of it this way, you could argue that a lot of those players who would lose their jobs don't even deserve to be in the NHL. The talent level is pretty low right now, cutting teams would help that.

[MDE3 0]

Getting rid of the trap....as was pointed out by Chadd in another post along the same lines....the trap is not the same as interference, however if you do not allow the interference, the trap becomes ineffective. Unless you are allowed to tie up a player away from the puck, the trap doesn't work very well.

To help the game..list exactly what makes hockey exciting for you...then concentrate on making the game exhibit these elements, and market them...keep it simple. If you focus on two or three exciting elements and highlight these as your product..you will get some attention. For so many potential fans..the game, it's strategies and rules are too complicated..unless you grew up playing the game.

Focus on the grace and speed and hits if you want...that which(IMHO) drew us all to the sport to begin with

Simultaneously work harder with USA Hockey to get more youth players participating....and here is where fighting becomes an issue..too many parents will keep there kids out of the game if fighting is considered an integral part of it. Sure there are short term attendance gains from "grudge matches games", but those short term gains are from within the ranks of the existing fan base....the real problem is that the existing fan base is too small right now and has stagnant growth....I am sorry to all you fans of hockey fighting, but it's presence is a large part of the reason that the growth of youth hockey has stagnated. Many parents shy away from what they consider a "blood sport" for their kids..plain and simple.

But to grow the fan base, you must increase the degree of youth participation...in order to have a broad base of fans who appreciate and understand the game.... kids who have played, and parents who have watched them. That's why it is so much more popular in Canada...a much greater percentage of the population has played the sport. Take a look at the growth numbers of USA Hockey for the last 5 years....pretty interesting when we consider what is happening to the pro level right now. Even if you can get kids playing inline hockey where ice is impractical or too expensive, you will still increase the overall awareness of, and fan base for, the sport.

[MDE3 0]

i know cutting teams would probly be good profit wise, but look at all the jobs that people would be losing...players and staff together

If you think the salary cap issue is a sticky issue for the NHLPA..try proposing cutting 10 teams.....

[Chadd 916]

I have no problem eliminating fighting from all youth hockey with significant suspensions. However that won't fix the NHL in the short term.

Eliminating teams - Not going to happen

Firing Bettman - Not going to happen and to think it should is nuts. Like him or not NHL revenues have grown significantly during his tenure. Teams and players are making more money than ever before, despite the fact many teams are able to hide those profits.

Olympic ice - Not going to happen Retrofitting current rinks is expensive and won't increase the quality of the game. If you want to improve it, make the ice longer and increase the size of the neutral zone.

Revenue Sharing - I don't think they should just give money to a small market team. That small market team should have to meet attendance quotas and prove that it is attempting to attract new fans. If the teams continues to put people in the seats, it should be relocated. Shared revenue should not provide a profit to the small market teams, simply ensure they break even.

[Chadd 916]

With 4-6 fewer teams, there will be millions fewer hockey fans, I don't see any way that benefits anyone. Coaches aren't about to change the systems they run simply because there are fewer teams either. I think the belief that fewer teams would make for better hockey isn't really all that well thought out.

[jay 1]

Fewer teams probably wouldn't make for a lot better hockey, but fewer games definitely would. There is a distinct difference in the pace and energy level when teams have had 3-4 days rest as opposed to having played 3 in four or five nights

[mack 44]

It's easy: There's no fixing the NHL. It came close to dying after the last lockout and this will finish 'er. Enjoy the NBA.

[biff44 0]

You might be onto something. My biggest gripe is when I plunk down $200 bucks to take the family to a Bruins game and see the players wallowing around, flat footed, with little enthusiasm. Part of it is attitude, but probably a big part of it is that the players are simply too tired to give it 105% every game. Unfortunately, cutting back on the # of game, with the same salary structure, is going to mean even higher ticket prices--my 2nd biggest gripe.

[Chadd 916]

The way I see it, fewer teams will equal a better concentation of talent per teams remaining.

You might lose some fans, but as Kosy said: "Hockey is a Business and has to make smart business moves."  Frankly, most people in a place like carolina wouldn't give a damn.  But, by losing 4-6 teams and greatening the talent on the rest of them, we *might see some better offensive numbers and a more enjoyable game.  More stars/ per team, plus you take away the guys who serve absolutely no purpose.  Just a higher level of skill, and I can't see how it would go wrong.  The higher skill should make the game funner to watch drawing new fans.

Either way, it's not happening.  The NHLPA wouldn't want their own to lose jobs and Bettman would never want to admit his mistakes.

From what I hear, Bettman praised the deal he made in 94-95.  Just 10 years later we see how flawed it was.

Theo, look at a team like the Rangers that is filled with talent. They aren't a lot of fun to watch, nor is Philly and they have a ton of talent on the team. The NJ payroll is nearly $60M for next season, one would think there would be a lot of talent on that team as well but you can't actually sit through one of their games. The truth is, as long as coaches want to trap their way to wins, the players won't be able to show their abilites to the utmost. Even the Wings only seem to win when they revert back to the left wing lock. The league has to encourage teams to score more goals in some way.

[jay 1]

...and I don't think it's a stretch to correlate more scoring with a fewer games. Everyone knows that speed and skill beats the trap so fresher players with more energy will in theory lead to a higher scoring league. The whole basis for my theory is that I remember watching a game last year where by some odd scheduling deal two teams played each other having each not played a game in 5 days. It was the highest paced game I saw all season. It was the rangers and somebody, maybe chicago... i can't remember. Shortening the season could also have the addtional effect of extending some players careers by a couple of years. A 76 game season would essentially be two fewer seasons worth of games over a 15 year career.