Jim Rome on NHL

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Do people honestly think that if the NHL shrunk due to lack of popularity, Calgary could still afford to compete? Think about it. If you remove the bottom 10 teams, that's roughly the lowest 250 players off the rungs. The cap goes down and salaries go down with it? Hmmmm, me thinks that it'll be a tough sell and the average salary would likely go up, pricing the NHL right out of even more markets. Calgary and Edmonton being two of them.

Salaries go down when work is scarce, not up. Take the lower 250 players out of the league and suddenly those guys that were in the middle become the lower 250, and the minors are full of newly minted "bubble" players chomping at the bit and willing to play for league minimum.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Titan

Americans watch cars going around in a circle for two hours. You don't think they would get into hockey if it was marketed to them properly?

As a matter of fact, yes, they will watch cars going around in a circle for FOUR hours more readily than they'll watch hockey even if the latter is marketed to them "properly."

Because one thing is more culturally ingrained than the other.

Cowperson

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

As a matter of fact, yes, they will watch cars going around in a circle for FOUR hours more readily than they'll watch hockey even if the latter is marketed to them "properly."

Because one thing is more culturally ingrained than the other.

Cowperson

yep. It's got nothing to do with how "good" the game is. I'm sure Cricket is a great game, but I don't give a crap about it because I didn't grow up with it. Until Americans play hockey from the time they walk like Canadians do, it will remain a fringe or niche sport.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Salaries go down when work is scarce, not up. Take the lower 250 players out of the league and suddenly those guys that were in the middle become the lower 250, and the minors are full of newly minted "bubble" players chomping at the bit and willing to play for league minimum.

No no, I get that. What I'm saying though is you still have the same number of superstars but now you have a lower salary cap and fewer teams to take on the burden of star salaries. So the top salary goes down, but now you have a team full of $3 million dollar earners instead of having the money spread out more widely. There would be greater wage parody between the stars and the lower rung players because you have to fit the same number of stars on fewer teams so you can't afford to pay any one single player 20% of your total salary any more.

Not to mention that the remaining teams are taking in fewer gate admissions unless you figure out a way to have 20 teams still play 82 regular season games. The logistics of shrinking to 20 teams would be a nightmare. The logistics of trying to spread out the talent pool again would be a nightmare.

[Hakan]

Everyone would be a lot better off with a major American TV contract.

That's a big statement. Care to answer why Canadian fans would be better off with a big American TV contract?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by FireFly

No no, I get that. What I'm saying though is you still have the same number of superstars but now you have a lower salary cap and fewer teams to take on the burden of star salaries. So the top salary goes down, but now you have a team full of $3 million dollar earners instead of having the money spread out more widely. There would be greater wage parody between the stars and the lower rung players because you have to fit the same number of stars on fewer teams so you can't afford to pay any one single player 20% of your total salary any more.

Not to mention that the remaining teams are taking in fewer gate admissions unless you figure out a way to have 20 teams still play 82 regular season games. The logistics of shrinking to 20 teams would be a nightmare. The logistics of trying to spread out the talent pool again would be a nightmare.

But what is a "Star"? Often it is just the players on a team who put up the most points. And if there were only 2/3 as many teams there would only be 2/3 as many stars.

The issue I would wonder about is what would happen to the salary cap?

For the sake of simplicity:
If there were only 3 teams supplying revenues of $400, $500 & $600. Then the League revenue would be $1500, and the salaries capped at 54% would be $810 and with 3 teams each team could be capped at 1/3 of that amount - $270.
Now if you drop the bottom team, league revenue would be $1100. Salaries capped at 54% would be $594, and since there are only 2 teams each team's salary expense would be capped at $297.

So if you drop the lowest "revenue" teams, the net result would be the cap for each team would go up (even though their revenue remained the same).

For teams like the Leafs or Rangers who would gladly spend more money if they could, it really wouldn't matter. But for teams that struggle to even approach the cap it would put them in a bit more of the "have-not" category (perhaps no different than the teams that were just dropped).

Mind you, this analysis doesn't take into account things like national TV contracts which would now be split among fewer teams. I'm sure there are many other things too.

(Why is this thread in OT? Seems like it would be better served in the main forum)

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

No no, I get that. What I'm saying though is you still have the same number of superstars but now you have a lower salary cap and fewer teams to take on the burden of star salaries. So the top salary goes down, but now you have a team full of $3 million dollar earners instead of having the money spread out more widely. There would be greater wage parody between the stars and the lower rung players because you have to fit the same number of stars on fewer teams so you can't afford to pay any one single player 20% of your total salary any more.

Not to mention that the remaining teams are taking in fewer gate admissions unless you figure out a way to have 20 teams still play 82 regular season games. The logistics of shrinking to 20 teams would be a nightmare. The logistics of trying to spread out the talent pool again would be a nightmare.

You have to fit the same number of stars on fewer teams -- true, but they aren't going to be making the same money they make now. And those 3 million dollar players will become 2 million dollar players and all the way down the line.

I don't really understand that stuff about logistics. They had an 80 or 82 game schedule not so long ago when the league had 21 teams. Distributing the players wouldn't be so difficult. The guys who can cut it in a smaller league get a job, the guys who can't don't.

Anyway, this is all hypothetical jibber-jabbering. The league isn't going to contract anytime soon, and if it does happen it'll be one team at a time.

[skins]

it seems like the only press that hockey gets in the States is bad press. but more fans probably means more coverage which is a good thing. I guess it also means more money for players, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

[Julio]

One thing that I thing all the "we need back on ESPN" people tend to forget is that ESPN didn't really want hockey. It was getting to the point that you couldn't find the NHL on the main network, and that was only going to get worse with ESPN getting the NBA cable contract.
Versus isn't great, and it will definitely need to have more on it for it to be top of mind in the sports bars etc, but I don't know if it is that bad compared to having a couple of weekly games on ESPN 2.

[ken0042]

Yes, but ESPN2 (as well as ESPN) is on the base Dish Network package; and I would suspect that other cable companies have similar channel packages.

Versus is only available on the higher channel packages. Most people don't even know its there.

[Julio]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Yes, but ESPN2 (as well as ESPN) is on the base Dish Network package; and I would suspect that other cable companies have similar channel packages.

Versus is only available on the higher channel packages. Most people don't even know its there.

Very good point...I didn't realize just how low Versus is on the totem pole there...geesh, the Dish Network has 2 horseracing channels on it's Top 100, but no Versus.

Something that was mentioned on the Big Show yesterday was that the NHL should perhaps be going harder after the European market for both TV and merch...the thought being that a lot of Europeans already love hockey. Maybe package a combination of the Sat aft HNIC games and the NBC games to to a Hockey Night in Europe and really aggressively sell it in Europe?

[Alpha_Q]

Americans can't relate to hockey because the vast majority of them did not play it as children. Market the games to the kids, try to have some grassroots hockey organizations in large markets, something similar to all the 3 on 3 basketball tournements that pop up everywhere. Market it to the kids in the summer, have them play it on pavement, in running shoes with a tennis ball, and try to invest in arenas in large markets for those kids who become more interested.
Football and baseball are so slow paced; baseball is just one level above golf on an action scale, while a 60 minute football game has about five minutes of actual play time. Hardcore fans of these sports in America may have a hard time adapting to fast paced game that requires almost constant attention such as hockey. Basketball is fast-paced, but, and I hate to say this, it's easy to see the freakin' ball on TV and how the play develops. For many new potential fans of hockey, the size of the puck is an issue. So...
Instead of trying to convince a bunch of older sports fans to watch hockey, start the brainwashing when they are kids, and in 10 years, voila!

I do like the idea of the recent NHL marketing attempts though, the 'Players are just like you,only they are good at hockey' idea.

Hockey only rears its head in America when the head is ugly. Rome might have Iginla and Roenick on the air every once in a while, but for the most part, someone has to bludgeon someone else for him to take notice. It is similar to the US view of soccer; Ignore, ignore, ignore, then when something ugly happens in the sports, give it media attention. It's as if the US media is re-affirming to the people of America that the sport is bad, and that you have to remind them that 'this is why we don't watch this.' This is clearly becoming hockey's problem as well.

[Ice]

I think the problem in the states has little to do with being able to grow up playing hockey. The problem is one of exposure. I've brought so many people to games, they had no idea how exciting hockey was before they saw it live. Then they go home and can't find a game on TV. If you aren't willing to spend $150 for Center Ice, you're only option on TV is for the local team, and not even all those games are televised on the regional sports channel.

NBC pre-empted the Detroit/Colorado game to show the LA Marathon. You can't just flip channels down here, land on a hockey game and check it out. It makes it nearly impossible to find a casual fan, much less turn them into a regular hockey viewer. Its just a shame the NHL hasn't found a better way to get the sport out there if they really are looking for new fans. When we watch local hockey games, we see commercials for basketball, baseball, Nascar, etc. If you watch any of those programs, you won't see a hockey game advertised.