Bettman's Interview with Duhatschek - Nov-15, 2013

[GirlySports]

Not necessarily just more goals but the goalie would cover less of the net. this would mean that goalies can't just be big, go down on their knees and cover angles. They would have to play deeper and be better laterally.

there would be a few more goals but also more Vernon-esque saves.

[lifetimefan]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

I could also go the concession with a dollar and come back with 40 cents change, 6 beers, a loaf of bread, and a stick of butter.

You just can't do that any more. Way too much security.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

For one thing the ice is bad in every arena. Nhl needs to fix that first.
next is reffing some games there are no penalties some games there are 20.
third is there are no quality chances. Sure there are shots but they are perimeter.. the rest of the time is just cycling.

No offense, but what NHL rinks have you played in during your career?
How do you know the ice is bad in every arena? I hear from time to time about bad ice. Unfortunately, in some places in the league, the ice is only going to be so good.. Better in others. Not always bad, everywhere.

Reffing is suspect sometimes, yes. As a coach of BC minor hockey, I get frustrated with inconsistancies the same as anyone else on any level of hockey. As a ref for ISHL (military hockey league), we try our best to be consistant but some teams make it very hard to not be bias...

Lastly, the guys are so big nowadays compared to the 70's and 80's that there is alot less room on the ice for the wheeling and dealing river hockey. Solution to this, make the ice surface bigger or limit the size of player allowed to play. I dont see either happening...

As for the interview... #### you Bettman! The growth and popularity in the US is going to do his job for him that he should have accomplished 10+ years ago, thats get a MAJOR US network deal. Not this once a weekend, 1 game on NBC.. It will happen eventually, with Bettman at the helm or not. But he will take full credit for it im sure.

What needs to be sorted are the absolutely stupid out of area blackouts on sportsnet so I can watch a damn Flames game.

[drewtastic]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

If I weren't such a Flames fan. I'd never watch the NHL.

Girly-you've taken an unfair beating in this thread, in my opinion. This quote is exactly how I feel about the NHL--the Flames are the only thing keeping me watching.

It is clear to see that the ice quality is bad in many arenas. The Flames/Oilers game at the Saddledome on Saturday was also, sadly, an example, as the puck was bouncing around way too often.

You are also correct about the cycling: we've been conditioned to accept that this constant looping around in the offensive zone is 'good' hockey. The most exciting hockey is end-to-end, fast moving, back and forth--something that separates it from the other major N.A. pro sports. I can't remember the last time I watched a game that emphasized skating, speed and finesse like that, on both sides.

The game has outgrown its confines: the rinks are too small; the players too big and too fast for the small rink size. Too many games, too many injuries to star players. If Bettman and the owners really wanted to improve the game itself--as opposed to improving 'the game' (TM)--they'd look at making these changes.

Thanks for posting an opinion that, while not necessarily popular, is one that needs to be heard!

[CliffFletcher]

It's a paradox of the NHL that business reasons stand in the way of improving the product on the ice. I don't think you could find anyone who would disagree that bigger ice surface and a shorter season would make for a much more entertaining game. But at this point, it's pretty clear that the actual product on the ice isn't the commercial draw of the sport. It's all about a pro jock culture serving as a backdrop for corporate schmoozing. Luxury box dining options and jersey sales matter more than excitement on the ice.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's a paradox of the NHL that business reasons stand in the way of improving the product on the ice. I don't think you could find anyone who would disagree that bigger ice surface and a shorter season would make for a much more entertaining game. But at this point, it's pretty clear that the actual product on the ice isn't the commercial draw of the sport. It's all about a pro jock culture serving as a backdrop for corporate schmoozing. Luxury box dining options and jersey sales matter more than excitement on the ice.

A bit of an overstatement, but I think there's certainly some truth to this.

I also think the long season is partially a problem of short term profit reigning over the long term profit.

Now, this could of course be a North American feature, but I find it odd that so many "hockey fans" seem to actually be simply fans of their own team, and simply stop watching when their teams season it's over. The team is the real product, not the league. This is a clear limitation in the games marketability. (It also creates an urge to support teams in non-profitable locations to broaden the games audience)

People watch good sports even if they're not invested in the teams/athletes. But they don't tune in to watch almost meaningless mid-season grinds by two tired teams.

So when the season is too long, the product suffers for the casual fan. On the other hand, the avid fans really watch all the hockey they can anyway. I would certainly watch more other hockey games if the Flames wouldn't be playing so often.

So because the Flames play so often, I watch other teams less, and because I watch other teams less, I'm even less invested in them. Which also makes me know less and care less about the opposing teams when they play against the Flames.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's a paradox of the NHL that business reasons stand in the way of improving the product on the ice. I don't think you could find anyone who would disagree that bigger ice surface and a shorter season would make for a much more entertaining game. But at this point, it's pretty clear that the actual product on the ice isn't the commercial draw of the sport. It's all about a pro jock culture serving as a backdrop for corporate schmoozing. Luxury box dining options and jersey sales matter more than excitement on the ice.

The bigger ice surface would not help anything as evidenced by watching European hockey games where its a trap bonanza and nothing happens for 90% of the game.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Itse

A bit of an overstatement, but I think there's certainly some truth to this.

I also think the long season is partially a problem of short term profit reigning over the long term profit.

Now, this could of course be a North American feature, but I find it odd that so many "hockey fans" seem to actually be simply fans of their own team, and simply stop watching when their teams season it's over. The team is the real product, not the league. This is a clear limitation in the games marketability. (It also creates an urge to support teams in non-profitable locations to broaden the games audience)

People watch good sports even if they're not invested in the teams/athletes. But they don't tune in to watch almost meaningless mid-season grinds by two tired teams.

So when the season is too long, the product suffers for the casual fan. On the other hand, the avid fans really watch all the hockey they can anyway. I would certainly watch more other hockey games if the Flames wouldn't be playing so often.

So because the Flames play so often, I watch other teams less, and because I watch other teams less, I'm even less invested in them. Which also makes me know less and care less about the opposing teams when they play against the Flames.

You raise a good point. I don't think what you said in the bold is an American feature and more the nature of the NHL itself, which means Girly's sentiment actually could be the case for many people, myself included. I actually don't care much to watch other NHL teams play, but when it's the NFL, NBA, MLB, or even NCAA I'll watch any team because of the sport itself, rather than it being my favorite team playing. I think that's the case for many Americans. Granted some matchups will yield a great audience while others will not, but they may be more inclined to watch any matchup due to the sport itself moreso than perhaps NHL fans may. Look at the hype NCAA Football and Basketball get. Those are amateur sports, but during their key points in the season, they get more attention then the professional counterparts get. And many of the people watching have no affiliation to the teams that are playing. They're watching for the event itself.

And I say NHL fans, rather than hockey fans, because there are a lot of fans that only pay attention to the NHL and the NHL alone. Again, I'm one of those for the most part. I have no idea what's going on in junior at the moment, or in the AHL. And when world juniors come around, I actually don't care too much for that tournament either, and will only care to watch the Canadian games.

Let's say Flames ceased to exist one day, would Girly continue to watch the NHL? That's an important question for the NHL because if there are a fair number of people who only watch the game because of their favorite team, then that means the product itself isn't that great as it should be. It may be in NHL's best interest to really explore how to make the game more exciting not just for the casual fans they want to pick up, but for those who already watch it but only pay attention to one team. If international sized rink and bigger nets can lead to more exciting hockey, it's something they should strongly consider.

And I don't believe that the reductions in seats due to a larger rink means the owners will lose money. If anything, it might make them more money, because if the product is more exciting, and the probability of fans attending the game increases with it, then the owners could hike up the prices to make up for the loss in seats.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I think hockey and football have gone in opposite directions.

I'm very much a casual football fan, but find that more often then not if I turn on an NFL game, I am entertained. I can't say the same for the NHL.

Video challenges has really helped football IMO. Not sure why the NHL doesn't embrace this in some fashion.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

I'm very much a casual football fan, but find that more often then not if I turn on an NFL game, I am entertained. I can't say the same for the NHL.

Video challenges has really helped football IMO. Not sure why the NHL doesn't embrace this in some fashion.

This argument of on-ice/on-field product is so subjective, I think. I don't agree with you at all, I think it's the opposite. I find when I turn an NFL game on, all I do is watch commercials and listen to the announcers talk about stuff that's unrelated to the game and I barely know who or what they're talking about (a slight exaggeration of course). Kickoff....touchback.....commercial....3 yard run....timeout....commercial. 5 minute conversation about the visiting team's offensive co-ordinator's career or something with occasional comment on the play. Commercial, 2 yard run. And repeat. There's like 5 minutes of exciting play in the entire game. And as soon as a team's up 2 possessions they just run the clock.

I'd rather watch almost any NHL game on Center Ice than the typical NFL game. But maybe it's because I know almost every player and understand hockey so much better. It's all a matter of opinion!

EDIT: I do agree with you on the video challenge and others regarding lack of consistency of officiating however.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Let's say Flames ceased to exist one day, would Girly continue to watch the NHL? That's an important question for the NHL because if there are a fair number of people who only watch the game because of their favorite team, then that means the product itself isn't that great as it should be. It may be in NHL's best interest to really explore how to make the game more exciting not just for the casual fans they want to pick up, but for those who already watch it but only pay attention to one team. If international sized rink and bigger nets can lead to more exciting hockey, it's something they should strongly consider.

I don't watch non-Flames games now. There are some exceptions because watching the Flames means you need to track a few things. But it's not appointment viewing.
I watched the entire Boston-Chicago SCF. I haven't watch a Canucks game since the 2011 final. Why should I? They cheat, they dive, it's a team full of mugs and the league does nothing about it. Why should I spend 2 hours on that? Perhaps the Canucks have changed? But every now and then I venture into the OOP thread and yup, the Canucks are still like that.

On Friday I watched San Jose-Edmonton just to see what all the fuss of Edmonton not scoring was about. Holy crap that game was garbage. Neither team could put two passes together.

I don't dislike hockey, I'll watch the World Juniors, I'll watch the Olympics. I can't stand the NHL. Not only is the qualify poor, the game makes absolutely no sense. What is a penalty? Glencross goes into the corner in San Jose on a Saturday night and taps the guy on his stick.. SLASHING! There must have been 20 penalties that game. Then I see the Flames on a Sunday evening in Chicago. ZERO penalties until the refs decided to give the Hawks a 5-on-3 just so they could tie it up.

When a team is leading it's more likely a penalty will be called on them then when a team is behind and in the last 5 minutes of a tied game.... nooooooo penalties! That's garbage.

I used to tell my American friends how awesome hockey was. Then they tried to watch it and it made no sense. Why are there no penalties and then suddenly there's a cheap one? The overall product is poor. People just follow their teams. It's not a North American thing. It's a hockey thing. Why? Because they can't stomach how bad other NHL games are. They will stomach it for their team but that's all.


NFL has it's marketing down pat. There is a Sunday night game and a Monday night game. Every single team must play a game on one of those nights and if the team is better they will be on at night more. Doesn't matter if you're Indy, Houston, Seattle, anyone. If you're good and you have a star, you'll be on tv. Why to I have to watch the Leafs every Saturday night?

Next Sunday night it's Manning vs. Brady. Any football fan is going to watch that.

Now I've heard the argument of "well hockey it's a team game, it's not star oriented. The best stars only play 20 minutes out of 60"? Why? Why is it that hockey has become 45 second shifts and no more? Why do the players have to skate so fast and tire themselves out? This will sound sacrilege for hockey fans but why aren't there more commercials so that the stars can rest? Why isn't there more than 1 timeout? Why does a faceoff have to occur so quickly so that a game end in 2 hours 30 minutes? What's the rush? Football fans watch 3 3+hour games every Sunday and they don't seem to mind at all. If hockey were slowed down with more breaks so that the 1st line plays over 30 minutes, you'd still watch.

[drewtastic]

Originally Posted by Itse

So because the Flames play so often, I watch other teams less, and because I watch other teams less, I'm even less invested in them. Which also makes me know less and care less about the opposing teams when they play against the Flames.

This is a very good point and one that I hadn't really thought about until watching the CFL this summer.

I'm an un-abashedly unashamed fan of the entire CFL, to the point that I watch games not involving the Stamps or Bombers (my second team--yep, I sure know how to pick 'em!).

The point is that, this summer, I found myself getting to know about players from other teams, even teams I really don't care about, just because I had access to their games on TV, and because there are less games overall. I found myself enjoying their successes because they were so successful at the sport itself. As a result, I've become more invested in the entire league as opposed to just one team.

I mean, I still want the Stamps to win, or at least, you know, learn how to hang onto a football...but it's kind of neat to see a team like the Ti-Cats make it to the final. I can be disappointed in my team, but still interested in the overal league's success. With the NHL, once the Flames are out, I just watch until the Canucks/Leafs/Oilers are eliminated and then I don't really care.

[GirlySports]

I'm not sure that argument flies either. I watched all the Blue Jays games until they pissed me off but still had time to watch other baseball games. Sportsnet West or Pacific always had a late west coast game every night and I often had that game on. I could watch hundreds of different ball games a year and the entire playoffs. Because I like baseball a lot.

People I talk to who loves baseball, really love baseball. It's like crack.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Now I've heard the argument of "well hockey it's a team game, it's not star oriented. The best stars only play 20 minutes out of 60"? Why? Why is it that hockey has become 45 second shifts and no more? Why do the players have to skate so fast and tire themselves out? This will sound sacrilege for hockey fans but why aren't there more commercials so that the stars can rest? Why isn't there more than 1 timeout? Why does a faceoff have to occur so quickly so that a game end in 2 hours 30 minutes? What's the rush? Football fans watch 3 3+hour games every Sunday and they don't seem to mind at all. If hockey were slowed down with more breaks so that the 1st line plays over 30 minutes, you'd still watch.

Watching a game that last 3+ hours only once a week isn't hard to do. Especially when the networks have their TV programs planned around that for one day of the week. With hockey being played every single night, and teams playing at least 82 games a season rather than 16-19 games a season, 3 hours is a bit much for regular season hockey. I think it would tire fans out a bit much. One of the issues with the NBA to some is the vast amount of timeouts at the end of the game, and those still end at about 2 and half hours, just like hockey.

[GirlySports]

Then hockey should be 16 minute periods with just 15 man rosters and more breaks in the action.
It doesn't have to be drastic, just a few more seconds between faceoffs and a couple more commercials. I find the can't change after an icing rule quite ridiculous. I'd rather icing be a 30 second penalty.

I know I'm being radical now.

[VladtheImpaler]

3-2-1 point system. Bigger nets. 10-5-2 rosters. 4 on 4 full time.

All these things would help the game. I have listed them in the order of ease of implementation...

Back to work.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I'm not sure that argument flies either. I watched all the Blue Jays games until they pissed me off but still had time to watch other baseball games. Sportsnet West or Pacific always had a late west coast game every night and I often had that game on. I could watch hundreds of different ball games a year and the entire playoffs. Because I like baseball a lot.

People I talk to who loves baseball, really love baseball. It's like crack.

I don't think it is the sport that is the issue its being a passionate supporter of a particular team that is the issue. If you have a huge passion for one team then there is a huge letdown when watching other teams. While you might have a favourite team in other leagues it isn't the same dying on every play type feeling. Therefore you enjoy it more.

Also the other sports have gambling done way better. Hockey Point spreads are stupid, the shootout kills to many close games, there is so little scoring an over/under is difficult to bet on. Fantasy hockey is no where near as refined as baseball or football. NCAA has march maddness.

Pools and gambling boosts the popularity of other sports and they just don't work as well with hockey.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Joborule

If the nets were made bigger, you could probably address the blocked shots and cycling issue since players would have more of a target to shoot at, thus taking more shots at any point in the zone. Right now you really have to work to get a shot in a good position since you don't have much to shoot at.

I suspect you'd actually see a greater emphasis on shot blocking. Soccer nets are huge, so the emphasis is on shot prevention. Make the nets sufficiently larger in hockey and you'd probably see teams go from three forwards and two defensemen to two forwards and three defensemen or something like that.

============

Originally Posted by Itse

Now, this could of course be a North American feature, but I find it odd that so many "hockey fans" seem to actually be simply fans of their own team, and simply stop watching when their teams season it's over. The team is the real product, not the league.

I suspect that the NHL exacerbated this when they went to the division-heavy schedule (the one prior to the current system). Why would you care about teams that visit once in three years and that your team might not play in a season?

[GirlySports]

back to the article: I don't see how Bettman can say that he's too scared to risk putting a team in Toronto. "Think long-term, not short-term" Really? He thinks a team in Toronto might fold within 30 years? Yet he would put a team in Kansas City in a nanosecond if there was an owner with some money..

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Joborule

It may be in NHL's best interest to really explore how to make the game more exciting not just for the casual fans they want to pick up, but for those who already watch it but only pay attention to one team. If international sized rink and bigger nets can lead to more exciting hockey, it's something they should strongly consider.

And I don't believe that the reductions in seats due to a larger rink means the owners will lose money. If anything, it might make them more money, because if the product is more exciting, and the probability of fans attending the game increases with it, then the owners could hike up the prices to make up for the loss in seats.

Thing is, the NHL is a gate-driven league. Which to me, is another way of saying it's more about being at the event, than something fun to watch on TV. To owners, moving the needle up on TV viewership doesn't put as much money in their pocket as those rinkside season tickets. It's short-sighted, but it's reality.