The NHL BOG's seat of power

by James Mirtle on Aug 19, 2009 6:02 PM CDT Comment 81 comments

Powerful_nhl_bog_medium

James,

In The Globe and Mail, your colleague Stephen Brunt writes:

"George Gillett, the soon-to-be-former owner of the Montreal Canadiens, is not one of Gary Bettman’s lap dogs, is not part of the long-standing inner circle that forms the commissioner’s power base. He is not wedded to ancient beliefs about extending the sport’s "footprint" into non-traditional American markets in order to attract phantom, big-time television deals."

I read a lot of hockey news and have for years. Yet I have never read anywhere where the owners of various NHL teams fall in relation to Gary Bettman. Which owners are "part of the long-standing inner circle that forms the commissioner's power base," which owners are skeptics, which straddle the line?

Surely, the journalists who cover the league have some idea where these guys stand. Is this too hot to handle? I think there are probably many like myself who would like to know.

Thanks,

Josef S

It's incredibly difficult to know exactly where all 30 owners fall, and I often get the sense many are ambivalent about their roles running the league. Like any professional sport, the NHL has its absentee owners who appoint others to serve as governors in their place, and most in that category rarely speak out on key board of governor related issues.

No journalists are in the room when the governors meet, so we're left relying on reading the tea leaves and other sources to determine who Bettman's staunchest supporters are. In my opinion, the three key members of his "power base" are Flyers owner Ed Snider, Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs and Devils GM and governor Lou Lamoriello — all long, long time veterans of the BOG who were around when Bettman was hired and likely began exerting their influence on the then relatively youthful (40) commissioner in the very beginning.

That they're all also advocates for large American markets doesn't hurt.

Bettman gets blamed by fans and media for a lot of what happens in the league (including an expansion plan set in motion before he came aboard), but as many note, he is in a sense a puppet and the aforementioned three have a great deal of influence in pulling the strings. I'd be surprised if any of Snider, Jacobs or Lamoriello voted against major proposals in recent years, and I bet all likely backed the massive run on expansion — and the related fees — through the 1990s.

Part of Bettman's job is to get owners aligned together on big issues such as the 2004-05 lockout and the Coyotes fiasco, and while you can imagine that's a bit like herding cats, he's done a good job of playing politician to his round table of billionaires in recent years. Rarely do you hear governors speak out on major issues, on the record or otherwise, and much of the league's business is carried out in silence.

There are certainly skeptics in the group, but they're not very vocal ones, and even those on "the line" appear to side with the commissioner more often than not.

That's my read on things anyway.

0 recs | Comment 81 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

A couple of scary looking characters in that rogue's gallery

But aside from that…I seem to recall reading in one of the many documents made available through the Coyotes situation that members can be fined if they speak out of line. If true, it’s no wonder that we don’t hear anything – they are enforcing caucus solidarity in their by-laws.

by hockeycountry on Aug 19, 2009 7:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Until he resigned as Chairman, Harley Hotchkiss was a big Bettman backer, I think.

Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.

http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo

by poploser on Aug 19, 2009 8:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Bettman and Hotchkiss worked together to convince the American owners to agree to the Canadian assistance plan. And, of course, Hotchkiss’ intervention on the owners side helped break the loggerheads the two sides were at, and is a major reason why he was inducted into the HHOF. Truth is, as much as Canadians like to trash Bettman for the demise of the Jets and Nordiques, I doubt the Flames are still here if not for Bettman’s support of Hotchkiss’ revenue sharing idea. It definitely stands to reason that Harley is trusting of Bettman.

by Resolute on Aug 19, 2009 10:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Every time the Canadian assistance plan comes up, it’s worth noting how limited that plan actually was. I believe it only split about $7-million between the three or four teams that qualified for it.

So teams like the Flames received roughly $2-million a season to help ease the currency crunch. The Coyotes this past year received $13.5-million in a single season.

The CAP was a help, but I don’t think it saved anyone.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 20, 2009 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The point is, they even thought about it in the first place.

Kind of puts a crimp into the “Bettman hates Canada” mantra.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 20, 2009 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

James, I was under the impression that it was a lot more than $7 million…closer to an equalization plan than an assistance plan that kind of balanced difference in the Can vs. US dollars for Canadian team payrolls.

by Bosc Ulrich on Aug 20, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t believe any team received more than $3-million in a particular season. It was not the cure all some have made it out to be.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 20, 2009 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It wasn’t a cure-all by any means, but when the Flames were losing upwards of $10 million a year, that little bit of extra money helped keep losses low enough that the owners were willing to fight though until the lockout.

by Resolute on Aug 20, 2009 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The issue I have is everyone comparing that CAP to the current revenue sharing system. There’s just no comparison given the dollar values involved and the impact it made.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 20, 2009 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course, though, if you ask Winnipeg Jet supporters, the only thing that stood between the team living and dying was the exchange rate …

Keep in mind that $2-3 mil in the late 90’s is not the same as $2-3 mil now. Your larger point does stand that the magnitude is not the same, and that is a point worth making.

BTW, the Coyotes only got about $10 mil in revenue sharing. They were ineligible for the full share.

by Gerald on Aug 20, 2009 7:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So their year-end balance sheet was incorrect? It had $13.5-million under revenue sharing.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 20, 2009 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep, it’s going to be. From an acounting perspective I guess they sem to have felt it necessary to put in what they have expected (perhaps they have accrued it), but the court filings of Jeff Shumway indicated that they got penalized last year, and we already know that they didn’t hit the 14k attendance requirement this year either.

They will get hit with the full 50% penalty.

by Gerald on Aug 21, 2009 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The numbers I’m seeing now are what you said, James. I thought I heard it was more, but that may have been a different part of the plan:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1038620&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1

Here Hotchkiss says the Flames received $3.5 mil in 97-98, and Sather says there was up to $2.5 mil per team for the 4 Canadian teams needing assistance.
The matching part was if an offer sheet made by a US team and signed by player on a Canadian team, the Canadian team only had to cover his salary in Cdn dollars and the league covered the difference. Bettman said that there was $20 million available in the plan.

by Bosc Ulrich on Aug 20, 2009 7:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In Chicago, we knew Bill Wirtz was a supporter of Bettman and league expansion; in one article I recall being written during the expansion that saw the creation of two Florida teams, Wirtz was quoted as saying that any expansion into the US meant more money for every team (I am of course paraphrasing from memory). Anything that meant more money for Dollar Bill was guaranteed to get his stamp of approval.

But with his son, who has broken many Wirtz traditions (home games on TV, actually paying players market value), I wonder if there may come a paradigm shift. After all, an owner of an original six franchise in arguably the third largest TV market on the continent carries a lot of weight.

It might be interesting to watch.

by russellguldin on Aug 19, 2009 9:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Bill Wirtz used to run the league with Ziegler and Eagle, pretty much.

by Bosc Ulrich on Aug 19, 2009 10:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

AEG (Kings owners) are pretty close with Bettman too, I think, and non-coincidentally own the arena in Kansas City and are trying to build one of the arenas in Las Vegas.

The West Coast is the Best Coast.

by RudyKelly on Aug 19, 2009 9:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

James, thanks for running this. A lot of meat in this but a couple of observations.

1) The powers that have been the driving force behind the league for the last 15 years are very much still in control.

2) The legacy of the Bettman era is all about driving revenues. “Build it and they will come”. Anything to increase the value of the owners is paramount. Talk of anything else (speed, excitement, etc…) is not credible.

3) This old guard does not protect the game. Evidence includes the “dead puck era” and the “lockout” – the other legacy of this era. The excitement of the 1980’s gave way to “the Trap” and despite refs calling the game closer, it’s still not what it was. The NHL lost a golden opportunity (not saying that every game must end 6-5 but check out some of the “Classic Series” of the late 90’s on NHL network and you’ll see what I mean).

4) Finally, individuals who thought that “build it and they will come” would also create a major financial windfall were half right. They got expansion fees and annual franchise fees but could not get the TV revenues other US sports had. Many reasons for this but casual fans in the US don’t understand the game or they didn’t like what they saw.

When the league becomes all about the almighty dollar, it’s really no surprise that someone like Bettman is so loved by the real powers – because that’s all they really care about when the day is done.

by oilerdago on Aug 19, 2009 10:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Evidence includes the "dead puck era" and the "lockout" – the other legacy of this era. The excitement of the 1980’s gave way to "the Trap" and despite refs calling the game closer, it’s still not what it was.

I’m sort of veering off topic in response (and I actually agree with the main point that “the old guard does not protect the game”), but regarding excitement, I think it’s as close to “what it was” as it can ever be, considering the advances in defensive coaching and video scouting since the ’80s.

I mean, I’m as nostalgic for the ‘80s NHL as one can get, but I can’t watch old games from the era without noticing 1) the lack of butterfly goaltending fundamentals, 2) the size of goalie equipment, and 3) the fact that Gretzky & Co. scored a lot of great goals against a lot of truly awful defensemen.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Aug 20, 2009 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

I mentioned this off-handed in my blog today (SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTION) but the goaltending, when compared to today, is truly awful. Sure the pad size is a lot bigger now, but the old time technique seemed to be “flail around and hope you hit something”.

Goalies are light years ahead of where they were 20-30 years ago, and so are defensemen. Those two aspects of the game finally caught up to the offensive talent that had been around for years.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Aug 20, 2009 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just read that. Great point about Zubov in relation to the ’80s point-collecting blueliners.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Aug 20, 2009 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I stumbled on this the other day...

an SI piece from the original 6 days. Interesting to compare the BOG/Commissioner dynamic from that era to now, and see who was in favor of expansion vs. maintaining the status quo.

Also interesting to see real-time quotes from some of the legends that built the NHL; seems like every other person interviewed has one of those glass plaques with their picture on it in that old bank on Yonge St.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077075/index.htm

by bison on Aug 19, 2009 10:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

that was brilliant

wow, that was absolutely phenomenal. a must-read…

by Hawerchuk on Aug 20, 2009 12:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed. What a great article, thanks for the link. I actually said “wow” out loud when I read Conn Smythe’s comment about talent dilution, because it is still so relevant 40+ years later. (I’m looking at you, Ryan Hollweg.)

Those guys were all closed minded and economic protectionists, of course, as the league could and did tolerate an expansion very well. And no one could have predicted the influx of European talent in the late 80s and early 90s. But it’s amazing to read about how popular a sport hockey used to be, albeit in only six markets, and how many of the issues they were discussing are still ones the league is grappling with today.

Rangers, Royals, Raiders, Knicks...the man loves a winner.

by self loather on Aug 20, 2009 1:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and how many of the issues they were discussing are still ones the league is grappling with today.

This is a theme that transcends time for the NHL. While reading The Game by Ken Dryden(1983) and Net Worth by David Cruise and Allison Griffiths (1991)…sometimes you’d swear that they were written in the past 4-5 years.

by Bosc Ulrich on Aug 20, 2009 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Talent dilution is an absolute farce.

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Aug 20, 2009 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not with respect to officials. :)

It would have been a valid point if the talent base hadn’t expanded to both the US and so many European countries, which it did. The comment made in the article that if expansion happened the talent might have been diluted, but only for a few years, was pretty accurate. A short-term problem only that would solve itself by finding new markets for players.

Imagine how the league would look if the player talent pool was entirely restricted to Canadians only. Blech. It would be like baseball without the Dominicans, Venezuelans, Puerto Ricans, Japanese … far less interesting and not nearly as enjoyable to watch. :(

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
(Currently, and sadly, on a self-imposed team-specific puck sabbatical.)

by Baroque on Aug 20, 2009 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed. In 1967 dilution would have been something of a concern… though there was so much talent in the AHL, WHL and IHL that it was doable. Hell, my grandfather was a PPG player in the IHL in the early 1960s. If he had been healthy when expansion came around…

But I absolutely laugh at people who argue the 1970s and 1980s represent the high water mark for talent in this league. As noted, the hockey world went from six major league teams in 1967 to 32 in 1974(ish), and back to 21 by 1979. Virtually all players came from a single nation of about 22 million people. Yet when the NHL went from 21 teams to 30 in the course of a decade, people say the game got watered down, even though there is now easily 6-700 million people that the NHL is drawing players from. Boggles the mind how some people blind themselves to that.

by Resolute on Aug 20, 2009 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The game did get watered down

and it was very noticeable, at least to me. In the 1980s, the best teams had three good lines; in the 1990s only two – a clear and predictable effect of increasing the number of teams by 50%.

That’s not to say that it was as dramatic as the original expansion, which ushered in the goon era of the 70s, but I’ll take issue with anyone who says talent dilution wasn’t obvious in the 1990s.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Aug 20, 2009 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree vehemently. There are many more factors at work in the 90’s that add up to your “watered down” effect. Off the top of my head: player conditioning, predominance of defense-first systems, widespread use of butterfly goaltending, and lax officiating. I believe all would have a larger effect on the game than the supposed dilution of talent due to a 10-year expansion.

2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity

by Mike @ MHH on Aug 20, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those factors contribute to a lack of goal scoring. I’m talking about a lack of talent, and it’s not at all the same thing. All around the league, players who had been fourth-liners became third-liners, and the quality of play suffered as a result.

One overlap: lack of talent does frequently lead to a predominance of defense-first systems. I believe this was a post-67 complaint as well.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Aug 20, 2009 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the talent was available, given the global pool of players, but coaches didn’t use it, because in an expanded league that increasingly allowed obstruction to even out competition, coaches chose those mind-numbing grinders who would skate through a wall to block a shot over guys who could actually convert a 2-on-1 but wouldn’t backcheck to save their life.

The guys who made up “talented” third lines in the ‘80s were guys who would’ve been cut in the ’90s because they were floaters or allergic to backchecking.

Even if we disagree on the route, though, in the end it’s the same: 1990s expansion led to competitive factors that created boring, defensive (and illegal) hockey, which allowed most expansion teams to avoid the Capitals/Islanders expansion experience.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Aug 20, 2009 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I should have spelled my point out better, but the things I listed essentially bridge the gap between talented and not talented so effectively that it drags down the perception of high-end talent.

My working theory is this: There are more players and more-talented players today than the bygone days, but the relative high level (the mean or average) is so much higher than it used to be, that the truly talented do not stick out as much as they used to when they were surrounded by their relatively lackluster contemporaries.

Does that make sense?

One overlap: lack of talent does frequently lead to a predominance of defense-first systems. I believe this was a post-67 complaint as well.

I disagree with this a little bit too. Sure on expansion teams just out of the gate or low-spending teams, the first instinct is to institute a trap or similar until your depth catches up to the rest of the league. But I think the defensive systems came into vogue do to their effectiveness at leveling the playing field between offense and defense, not talented and less talented.

2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity

by Mike @ MHH on Aug 20, 2009 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand the logic behind your working theory, but it doesn’t explain the phenomenon I described. My recollection is that the top end talent stood out even more, because the depth of their teammates and competition was reduced. Not in the sense of greater goal scoring, but in the sense of quality of play. Perhaps this sounds subjective, but dammit, I knows what I sawed.

Also, as in my response to Doogie below, I am not comparing 1989 with 2009. I am talking about the early 90s when repeated expansion drafts punched holes in lineups.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Aug 20, 2009 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, but this has little or nothing to do with expansion. This phenomenon has happened in all sports. Go through some baseball statistics, and note how much worse the bottom half of every roster was in the 1950s than it is today. (This is one of the main reasons that pitchers don’t pitch as much as they used to; it’s harder to get through the order every time today than it was when Real Men were pitching 300 innings a year.)

It’s not just the team sports, where expansion is an issue. Take a look at track and field, or swimming. The gap between the best in the world and the 20th best is much smaller than it once was.

What’s happened is that training methods have gotten better as sports has become something that can be used as a profession year round. No longer do athletes have to get a regular job during the off-season. The Olympics is no longer just for the upper classes, who can afford to be an amateur. As more and more people are exposed to high quality training regimens, the talent distribution has flattened. When we talk about the NHL, or MLB, we’re still talking about the extreme right side of the curve, but it’s shaped differently.

by J. Michael Neal on Aug 20, 2009 7:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bill James actually addressed this issue in one of his books, although it is an anthropological issue as applied to sports and he was recounting the work of others.

Long story short, the evidence indicates that as time goes on, extremes of performance become less pronounced. That is a gross simplification, mind you. Interesting stuff, though.

by Gerald on Aug 21, 2009 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nonsense. Sure, the two or three best teams had three good lines. Then the next few had two. Then the other 15 had a couple of good players. Talent disparity should not be confused for talent largesse.

Let me put it to you this way: The number of roster spots in the League has increased by about 200 since the 1980s. The number of non-Canadians in the League has increased by more than 200 in that time, and nearly all of them are better than the worst player in the 21-team League. The average NHLer in 2009 is significantly better than the average NHLer in 1979 or 1989.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on Aug 20, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

1) I did not confuse talent disparity with quality. What I meant was that the depth required to have a good team in 1989 was greater than the depth required for a good team in 1995. The number of talented players per team decreased for several years.

2) At this point, I don’t dispute that the talent pool has caught up with expansion; but I don’t think that happened overnight.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Aug 20, 2009 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough; I understand you now.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on Aug 21, 2009 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I will also argue that you are completely wrong in your assessment. If you have NHL Network or ESPN Classic, watch some games from the 70s and 80s. It was a much slower, sloppier game as most of the lower pairing players simply could not skate or handle the puck. Passes were simpler, plays were simpler. Many Goalies simply stood up and hoped that the puck hit them. There were fewer truly talented players in the game – but those players could skate circles around the pylons they faced.

If Wayne Gretzky’s prime was the 2000s rather than the 1980s, he never comes close to 92 goals or 200 points.

The “clear and predictable effect of increasing the number of teams by 50%” would have been true if Canada remained the exclusive provider of NHL talent at the same time. This is false, given that the Iron Curtain fell in 1989, and the early 90s saw a flood of Europeans hit the NHL.

There are virtually the same number of Canadian players in the NHL today as there was 20 years ago. To suggest that the game has been watered down requires one to believe that the European and American players who have joined the NHL since 1989 are inferior, on average, to the worst Canadian players.

I doubt many would agree with that statement, thus I don’t think the argument that the game has been watered down is legitimate.

by Resolute on Aug 20, 2009 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again

The game was watered down. That doesn’t mean it is today. And no, I’m not arguing that players were ‘better’ in the 80s than they are today. They weren’t (except for Gretzky, of course). But as a year-to-year progression, the quality of hockey decreased as expansion progressed, and it took time for new players to come into the league and build talent levels back up again.

I honestly didn’t expect this much pushback. Were you guys watching hockey in the 80s? Those Oiler teams were pretty impressive in terms of depth, and they had some competition.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Aug 20, 2009 9:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes I was, and the game was absolute garbage back then compared to now. And yes, the Oilers were extremely deep throughout the 80s. But that one example has as much relevance as if I were to claim there was no talent at all because the mid 80s Red Wings were atrocious.

The truth is, the flood of European players began two years before the Sharks began play, and was in full swing as expansion progressed. The NHL’s problem in the 90s was that talent was increasing faster than the league could expand. That is why offence dropped. Better players, better forwards, better defencemen and better goaltenders make it harder to score.

by Resolute on Aug 20, 2009 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hockey did not exist only in six markets. Some of the stories of the old PCHL/WHL days are quite entertaining. Bill Jennings heavily promoted NHL expansion as early as 1963 because the WHL was on the verge of becoming a major league.

by Resolute on Aug 20, 2009 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Many players who lived in Western Canada ended up in those other professional leagues instead of the NHL, which was all in the East in the Original Six era. My grandfather played in the PCHL in the ’40s because it was just too tough to break into the NHL ranks.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 20, 2009 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was excellent. Thank you very much for the link.

Any business can’t remain static, but it also can’t grow too quickly and still be successful. The NHL seems to have completely skipped the happy medium and gone too far, too fast instead of a reasonable growth rate. In that they are like almost every other business, though – why should hockey be any different.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
(Currently, and sadly, on a self-imposed team-specific puck sabbatical.)

by Baroque on Aug 20, 2009 8:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rapid growth

Good stuff; thanks, Bison. Hard to believe that within 10 years of that article being written there were no fewer than 32 “major league” teams, due to four expansions and a new rival league with an expansion of its own.

Interesting also to see the 1964-65 Red Wings referred to as “league champions” for winning the regular season Prince of Wales Trophy. Have never understood why the modern NHL doesn’t put way more emphasis (a.k.a. “interest”) in the President’s Trophy which, at least in theory, recognizes the best team over the six months. But the marketing wizards who run things these days treat it like an afterthought.

Writer for The Copper & Blue

by Bruce McCurdy on Aug 20, 2009 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I kinda have to agree with this. I’m no traditionalist (I came to the sport way too late to be one) but one thing I do regret is the way the conferences have been watered down into NFL/MLB style conferences. I wish they’d bring the conference names back and restore a bit of prestige to winning the division and conference titles in the regular season. I’d think it’d pique a bit more interest in the 82 non-playoff games on the schedule, you know?

I think we’ve all seen that making the NHL more like the NBA, NFL, etc. has robbed the sport of a lot of its uniqueness – and I’d wager that that may be part of the reason why Americans as a collective tend to say “meh” about pro hockey. Restoring a few of the quirks to the game would be a great move to satisfy the traditionalists and create a few hooks that would help the NHL stand apart from the pack in pro sports. IMO, of course.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 20, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Literally ALL they'd have to do...

…is restore the damn conference and division names, and come up with a couple of new ones for the Southeast and whoever loses the NW/Pac coin flip to be the Smythe. For Pete’s sake, if an ESPN honk like Chris Berman is still porting the Norris Division name over to the NFL more than ten years after we dumped it, that’s an awful lot of brand equity we canned.

I’m not sure where to go for the new Western Conference division name, but as an American hockey fan, I think we could do a hell of a lot worse than to have Washington, Carolina, Atlanta, Tampa and Florida fighting for the championship of the Brooks Division.

That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
@joshcvt / blog / photography

by JoshCVT on Aug 20, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hell, name the Pacific division the “Gretzky Division.” He’s almost single-handedly responsible for it being here in the first place.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 20, 2009 7:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd thought of that...

…but dude’s not acquitting himself well in management (as you well know).

Plus I’m still not happy about Bettman retiring 99 league-wide. Gretzky’s the greatest player in history, but he’s no Jackie Robinson. It should take far, far more than on-ice play to earn that kind of honor.

That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
@joshcvt / blog / photography

by JoshCVT on Aug 20, 2009 8:42 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Hmm

I think the O’Ree division suits the SE just fine.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Aug 21, 2009 12:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would be a nice tribute to the man. I like adding Brooks and O’Ree as names for the other two divisions. Dallas is nowhere near the Pacific Ocean, so that name is competely inaccurate anyway as well as being devoid of interest. Hockey has a wonderful history – they shouldn’t ignore it by trying to be more like the NBA.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
(Currently, and sadly, on a self-imposed team-specific puck sabbatical.)

by Baroque on Aug 21, 2009 6:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Works for me, if you’re going to use Brooks for the Pacific.

That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
@joshcvt / blog / photography

by JoshCVT on Aug 21, 2009 8:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or just split each conference into an eight-team and a seven-team division and use the same four names. You’re left with a bit of a problem of where to chop the Atlantic in half out East (I think I would have the three New York-ish teams join the NE as the Adams and the two Pennsylvania teams join the SE as the Patrick), but the geographic lumping-together of teams actually works a lot better in the West (MIN, DAL, and the Central become the Norris; everyone else to the Smythe).

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on Aug 21, 2009 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Have never understood why the modern NHL doesn’t put way more emphasis (a.k.a. "interest") in the President’s Trophy which, at least in theory, recognizes the best team over the six months.

Amen. The regular season championship reflects the greater team achievement but lacks the sexy trophy and all its mythology.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Aug 20, 2009 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve heard that Karmonos has a ton of clout with Bettman, and I’m sure Leipold does too to get a sweetheart deal getting rid of the Preds and end up with the Wild. And get away with lending money to the new owner of the team he sold.

Bettman only needs 8 votes to strike down something he disagrees with. Yes, you read that right. 8. That’s an absurd amount of power.

by Bosc Ulrich on Aug 19, 2009 10:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

And then there is little Jimmy Dolan…

Rangers, Royals, Raiders, Knicks...the man loves a winner.

by self loather on Aug 20, 2009 12:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I’m sure every owner that was in place when Bettman was hired has his back. That list would also include Mike Illitch even though he has yet to be mentioned here.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Aug 20, 2009 10:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Bettman saved every owner a ton of money in the lockout. I’d say Bettman’s support from stable market owners is very strong.

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Aug 20, 2009 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know about very strong. Many of the Canadian team owners are not anywhere close to the power base. Someone in ownership was leaking information on this Coyotes business as early as December, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was an owner of a “stable market” team who was tiring of paying out for teams like Phoenix.

There is dissension there, and I doubt it’s coming from the likes of the Florida Panthers.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 20, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’d be hilarious as hell if it were the Leafs that were leaking that info because they were “tiring of paying out for… Phoenix.” Because if it WERE MLSE, they really stepped into the “be careful what you wish for” dogshit pile.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 20, 2009 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt that they would have been unaware of the possible repercussions of leaking information.

MLSE is a lot of things but stupid isn’t really one of them. Well…not when it comes to money.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Aug 20, 2009 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He might have had Illitches support, but he’s definitely not part Bettman’s inner circle/power base.

by Bosc Ulrich on Aug 20, 2009 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Probably by personal choice if anything. He’s probably more interested in the Red Wings than the NHL as a whole. If Illitch isn’t part of the inner circle, it’s because he isn’t interested in being part of it.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Aug 20, 2009 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That could be partly true. Illitch is mainly represented by Jimmy D. However, two of Bettman’s closest owners, Jacobs and Karmanos, have had very well-known feuds with Illitch. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that has an influence on keeping Illitch out of Bettman’s circle of influence.

I also remember reading about how the NHL, when looking at marketing the game, basically ignored Illitch and the Wings who had experience in marketing and turning a garbage franchise completely around. I’m pretty sure it was during Bettman’s tenure that this happened.

by Bosc Ulrich on Aug 20, 2009 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This isn’t really related to the business end of this discussion, but Ilitch reportedly snubbed Bettman’s handshake after the SCF this year.

by mc keeper on Aug 20, 2009 1:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, that’s just because the Red Wings are little bitches.

The West Coast is the Best Coast.

by RudyKelly on Aug 20, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 4 recs

Rec’d for truthiness

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Aug 20, 2009 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So that would make the bitches of the little bitches…the what, exactly?

by Bosc Ulrich on Aug 20, 2009 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Formally I think they call them “Red Wings fans”

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Aug 20, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wrong team, wrong division, right conference…1/3. Not bad for an Avs fan :)

by Bosc Ulrich on Aug 20, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

You mustn’t be talking about the avs then… since they won 3/4 against the Wings last year.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Aug 20, 2009 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I wasn’t really thinking about the regular season, but whatever makes you happy.

by Bosc Ulrich on Aug 20, 2009 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In that case

Playoff series tied 3-3

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Aug 20, 2009 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I smell pwnership, with a crusty Motown topping…

I imagine his next recourse will be to quote all the original six cups the Wings won. That usually has so much bearing on a rivalry that is approx. 15 years old.

2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity

by Mike @ MHH on Aug 20, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Aww, and we were having such fun before you had to come to the rescue and put words in my mouth.

by Bosc Ulrich on Aug 20, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

cough topic

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 20, 2009 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since the Coyotes are a prevalent topic (and tied to this post indirectly), I will simply say that the Coyotes – the lowly, bankrupt, lousy franchise amid a sea of dirt and cacti, supported by 10 hard core fans (including yours truly) – actually beat the Detroit Red Wings this past season.

That’s right. Chew on THAT! :P

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 20, 2009 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs