[jvjones]

2009 All star game to Montreal.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=193332&hubname=nhl">http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=193332&hubname=nhl</a><!-- m -->

[grimes]

^ [shakes head in disappointment]

you're such a cynic. :lol:

ct

Haha, I'm not a cynic, I'm just a business school grad, so I know how those guys think :thumb:



In other news, it seems the NHL has once again voted to keep the current schedule format for next season. This means the Leafs, Habs, and Sens will not play the Oilers, Flames, and Canucks at all next year. It's times like this I really wish Gary Bettman's reign of terror would hurry up and come to an end already :rambo:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=193326&hubname=">http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=193326&hubname=</a><!-- m -->

[cferneyh]

^ [shakes head in disappointment]

you're such a cynic. :lol:

ct

Haha, I'm not a cynic, I'm just a business school grad, so I know how those guys think :thumb:



In other news, it seems the NHL has once again voted to keep the current schedule format for next season. This means the Leafs, Habs, and Sens will not play the Oilers, Flames, and Canucks at all next year. It's times like this I really wish Gary Bettman's reign of terror would hurry up and come to an end already :rambo:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=193326&hubname=">http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=193326&hubname=</a><!-- m -->

This is one of those deals where the NHL simply can't please anyone. I remember that a lot of these same media experts were bitching (pre-lockout) that the schedule didn't lend itself to rivalries because teams within the same division didn't play each other enough. Now everyone is whining that certain teams don't go to certain markets at all.

It isn't Bettman you should be pissed with - this was voted on by all 30 teams and 11 teams voted against it.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Many of the teams will favour this schedule because it cuts down their travel costs. And in the mind of yer average management type, the game is just "content," like the toothpaste in a tube. It doesn't much matter who you play.

[grimes]

This is one of those deals where the NHL simply can't please anyone. I remember that a lot of these same media experts were bitching (pre-lockout) that the schedule didn't lend itself to rivalries because teams within the same division didn't play each other enough. Now everyone is whining that certain teams don't go to certain markets at all.

I don't think too many people want to watch the Leafs play the Bruins 8 times a year, let alone 8 classic matchups between the Thrashers and Panthers. Besides, the only way an intense rivalry is really created is in the playoffs anyway. This isn't the NFL with a 16 game schedule, 82 games seems like more than enough to play 29 teams to me. And for the record I thought this schedule was a terrible idea from the first time I heard it.

It isn't Bettman you should be pissed with - this was voted on by all 30 teams and 11 teams voted against it.

Yes, but a leader of any quality would realize what is best for the league as a whole and make his voice heard. Instead he spews bs like this from Monday:

''What has happened is we've given this a very thorough examination and nobody as yet has suggested something that everybody likes better, which tells you that there's a great deal of merit in the current schedule,'' Bettman said. ''There are some people…not a lot, not a majority, not even close to a majority who are critical of (the current format). When we put this to bed, everyone will be comfortable, one way or another.''

Was Bettman solely responsible? No. But his ineptitude certainly doesn't help when you have 11 teams who put their own interests ahead of what's best for the league as a whole.

[farmerdan]

one vote off, hmmm

any idea why the habs don't want to play the rest of Canada?

[cferneyh]

This is one of those deals where the NHL simply can't please anyone. I remember that a lot of these same media experts were bitching (pre-lockout) that the schedule didn't lend itself to rivalries because teams within the same division didn't play each other enough. Now everyone is whining that certain teams don't go to certain markets at all.

I don't think too many people want to watch the Leafs play the Bruins 8 times a year, let alone 8 classic matchups between the Thrashers and Panthers. Besides, the only way an intense rivalry is really created is in the playoffs anyway. This isn't the NFL with a 16 game schedule, 82 games seems like more than enough to play 29 teams to me. And for the record I thought this schedule was a terrible idea from the first time I heard it.

Hey man, I'm with you - I think the current sked sucks arse. I'm just saying that a lot of the same pundits bitching about this sked were proponents of it a few years ago.

It isn't Bettman you should be pissed with - this was voted on by all 30 teams and 11 teams voted against it.

Yes, but a leader of any quality would realize what is best for the league as a whole and make his voice heard. Instead he spews bs like this from Monday:

''What has happened is we've given this a very thorough examination and nobody as yet has suggested something that everybody likes better, which tells you that there's a great deal of merit in the current schedule,'' Bettman said. ''There are some people…not a lot, not a majority, not even close to a majority who are critical of (the current format). When we put this to bed, everyone will be comfortable, one way or another.''

Was Bettman solely responsible? No. But his ineptitude certainly doesn't help when you have 11 teams who put their own interests ahead of what's best for the league as a whole.

The commissioner of any professional sport is a figurehead. Ever heard of a commissioner who has veto power? No. Why? Because the real bosses are the owners. Bettman only acts in their interests and does what he thinks will raise the value of their investment. One way to do that is to reduce expenses, and one way to reduce expenses is cut travel costs, and one way to do that is to make teams play more games within their division.

Incidentally you don't hear the NHLPA complaining about the sked, do you? I wonder why that is. It couldn't be because now with revenue sharing, it's in their best interests to reduce expenses as well, could it? Naaaaah. :lol:

[grimes]

The commissioner of any professional sport is a figurehead. Ever heard of a commissioner who has veto power? No. Why? Because the real bosses are the owners. Bettman only acts in their interests and does what he thinks will raise the value of their investment. One way to do that is to reduce expenses, and one way to reduce expenses is cut travel costs, and one way to do that is to make teams play more games within their division.

You hit the nail on the head there. The problem with reducing expenses as a means to increasing value is that you are limited in how far you can go. A far better way to increase value is to target revenue growth. It is my belief that the current schedule format hinders this, most significantly in non-traditional hockey markets, where fans need a reason to go to a game. One of those reasons might be a superstar player coming to town, another might be a team that doesn't come around every other week.

And regarding the travel expenses, in a league where team payrolls are upwards of $40 million, a couple extra plane tickets aren't really all that material an expense anyway. I heard an interview with Blue Jackets GM Doug Maclean recently and he basically reiterated that point. And he should know because his team currently has about the worst travel schedule in the league.

Incidentally you don't hear the NHLPA complaining about the sked, do you? I wonder why that is. It couldn't be because now with revenue sharing, it's in their best interests to reduce expenses as well, could it? Naaaaah. :lol:

I've heard the players complaining about it. Like this from Joe Sakic:

''Every player I've talked to…they're sick of it (the current schedule),'' Sakic said. ''For us, it will be more travel, so you get on a plane and it's an extra hour. What's the big deal?''

Bottom line is the schedule debacle is just one of several fundamental problems with the league right now. I'm sure when Bettman gives his "state of the union" press conference before the All Star game he will paint a rosy picture, but it will be far from the truth.

[tth_fan]

It's times like this I really wish Gary Bettman's reign of terror would hurry up and come to an end already :rambo:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=193326&hubname=">http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=193326&hubname=</a><!-- m -->

I agree. The day Bettman steps down (or is kicked out) will be a national holiday in Canada!

[ryan93]

Ugh, the topic of expansion was actually discussed tonight during the All-star festivites. Please NO!

[tth_fan]

Ugh, the topic of expansion was actually discussed tonight during the All-star festivites. Please NO!

Hope Winnipeg & Quebec get back in!!!

:thumb: :wink:

[cferneyh]

And regarding the travel expenses, in a league where team payrolls are upwards of $40 million, a couple extra plane tickets aren't really all that material an expense anyway. I heard an interview with Blue Jackets GM Doug Maclean recently and he basically reiterated that point. And he should know because his team currently has about the worst travel schedule in the league.

Dude, you seriously didn't use Doug Maclean to back up your point, did you?!? You couldn't find a quote from Milbury? :lol:

[grimes]

And regarding the travel expenses, in a league where team payrolls are upwards of $40 million, a couple extra plane tickets aren't really all that material an expense anyway. I heard an interview with Blue Jackets GM Doug Maclean recently and he basically reiterated that point. And he should know because his team currently has about the worst travel schedule in the league.

Dude, you seriously didn't use Doug Maclean to back up your point, did you?!? You couldn't find a quote from Milbury? :lol:

I'll take him over a lot of the other so-called "hockey people" out there. He's one of the few that actually admit the league is not as healthy as Gary and friends make it out to be. But if he's not good enough for you, Jim Rutherford (the guy who built the Stanley Cup Champions) said the exact same thing about costs not being an issue (though he nonetheless voted against the new schedule, claiming he wants the full three year rotation of this format to be played out before considering alternatives).

[grimes]

Ugh, the topic of expansion was actually discussed tonight during the All-star festivites. Please NO!

Agreed. Especially considering they'd likely go to Houston or Kansas City or some place like that. However if they were going to put another team in Canada, be it Winnipeg, Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo, another team in Toronto, or anywhere else, then I'd be all for it.

The other big problem would be more talent dilution, but here's an idea to deal with that: go to 4 on 4 hockey full time. I realize it's a radical idea that the league likely wouldn't go for, but if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. With one less player on the ice you have more room for the skilled players to shine. You lose probably 3 roster spots per team, for 90 players total, but by adding 2 teams you create 40 new spots that would appease the NHLPA, and your net loss is the 50 worst players in the league. The result would be a better on-ice product. Sure the purists will go nuts and say you can't change something as fundamental as the number of players on the ice. To that I say go watch some games from the 50's, 60's, or 70's. The players today are bigger, faster, and stronger, and because of that don't have nearly as much room to move around the ice. Only way to go back to how it was back then is to lose a player, or make the ice bigger (which would mean taking out seats - not gonna happen).

Considering some of the other major changes that have been discussed lately (i.e. bigger nets), 4 on 4 doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me.

[cferneyh]

Ugh, the topic of expansion was actually discussed tonight during the All-star festivites. Please NO!

Agreed. Especially considering they'd likely go to Houston or Kansas City or some place like that. However if they were going to put another team in Canada, be it Winnipeg, Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo, another team in Toronto, or anywhere else, then I'd be all for it.

The other big problem would be more talent dilution, but here's an idea to deal with that: go to 4 on 4 hockey full time. I realize it's a radical idea that the league likely wouldn't go for, but if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. With one less player on the ice you have more room for the skilled players to shine. You lose probably 3 roster spots per team, for 90 players total, but by adding 2 teams you create 40 new spots that would appease the NHLPA, and your net loss is the 50 worst players in the league. The result would be a better on-ice product. Sure the purists will go nuts and say you can't change something as fundamental as the number of players on the ice. To that I say go watch some games from the 50's, 60's, or 70's. The players today are bigger, faster, and stronger, and because of that don't have nearly as much room to move around the ice. Only way to go back to how it was back then is to lose a player, or make the ice bigger (which would mean taking out seats - not gonna happen).

Considering some of the other major changes that have been discussed lately (i.e. bigger nets), 4 on 4 doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me.

The net loss is why the PA would never, ever go for it.

And as for your other post, Rutherford claims that travel isn't a material issue, but he "he wants the full three year rotation of this format to be played out before considering alternatives". That's rich. I imagine his vote against it has absolutely nothing to do with an alternative schedule meaning Ovechkin would be playing in Carolina less often. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.