Article: 10-Ways for NHL to Recover from Lockout

[Pengwin7]

An article from ESPN's Pierre LeBrun.
I have to say, I like many of these... including a 6-team NHL division in Europe.

LeBrun is one of my fave NHL writers.

[northernnuck]

Free Center Ice, now that is the correct way to treat your fans well, and pull out more closet fans that can't get any, never mind get enough! Not that fans get a vote, but still.

[davidgoodburn]

Love the European division idea. It's a nightmare travel for West coast teams but otherwise makes do much sense to expand the game

[Ross The Boss Palmer]

The first few home games for each team should be free. Problem solved.

[Axeman33]

I like most of his ideas but #9 doesnt do much for me. Moving struggling franchises to Europe is crazy. Teams complain about travelling from the east coast to the west, could you imagine a flight to Moscow. Not to mention TV rights. The time difference would seriously screw up the TV schedule and I cant see many teams/players liking this.

#5 is a bit dumb too. If you don't want the shootout, then get rid of it. Playing a longer game to get to the shootout is again, not something I would enjoy. Start overtime playing 3 on 3 if thats what you want and think it will help decide the games quicker. That or simply get rid of the shootout and replace it with 3 on 3. If no winner after that, then it ends up a tie.

#1 should be an obvious choice for the league. Free centre ice should be an easy one to try and win back fans.

[Pengwin7]

I like most of his ideas but #9 doesnt do much for me. Moving struggling franchises to Europe is crazy. Teams complain about travelling from the east coast to the west, could you imagine a flight to Moscow. Not to mention TV rights. The time difference would seriously screw up the TV schedule and I cant see many teams/players liking this.

I actually don't think Europe would be terrible.

Some Notes:
1st - Teams would go over to Europe for a month. They could play 6 teams twice each. That's 12 games... and they'd only have to this every 2-3 years. Let's say the NHL-NA has 30 teams, you send 12 teams over each year... two divisions worth. I don't think the NHL needs to relocate teams (see end of post), because I think the revenue sharing from an NHL-Europe would have wonderful contributions to the poorer teams.

If the 6 Euro teams each play their 5 opponents 6 times, that's 30 games each... or 15 intra-Euro games at home. If each Euro-team gets visited by 12 teams (two NHL divisions) twice in a year, that's another 24 games at home.

The NHL could operate on a 78-game schedule, 39-home games each.


2nd - For Moscow, they are 8 hours ahead of Eastern. If the NHL dictates that they play their games at 8pm, well that's NOON for most of us on the East Coast... that doesn't sound too bad. We'd actually have hockey to watch on Saturday and Sunday during the day. That sounds great to me. To have games scattered at more viewable times shouldn't HURT a national TV contract, it actually may make it better, I might think.


3rd - I think the biggest thing would be allocating players. Players could obviously sign via Free Agency as they choose. The NHLPA would probably need some sort of opt-out clause, where players could choose to terminate their contract after any given NHL year if traded to a European team. (family reasons). Also, I'm not exactly sure how healthy it would be to force a 18-year old kid overseas if he's drafted there. Hmmm....



But as for adding excitement to the league, the Revenue Sharing from an increased TV contract would be massive. I mean, with all the yip-yap people talk about revenue sharing... I would think the rake the NHL would get from a CAN/USA/Euro TV contract would be massive. They'd essentially be jumping out to an NBA or NFL-size fan-base overnight!

Anyways... kind of derailing this thread... but I'd love to see an NHL-Europe and I think it would be great for the NHL game overall... I'd think it would be a lock that the NHL jumps NBA in popularity... possibly even MLB.

[MXHockey]

Numbers 1 and 2 are no-brainers. They have to get re-alignment done for 2013-14.

I like numbers 3 and 4, but can't see the NHL going for it. Having a World Cup every four years would be awesome, but the idea must make teams cringe, especially if the tourney was in February like the Olympics.

I don't mind number 5, would rather see games settled at 3 on 3 before going to a shoot-out.

Number 6 makes a ton of sense, hockey does lose it's luster with the casual fan by June.

I like number 7, combining Free AGent frenzy with the draft, but getting all GMs in one place for the trade deadline as suggested in number 8 would be impossible.

I like the European division idea, but it'll never happen. Waaaaaaaay too much travel.

A 20 year CBA, not a chance...........

[tgraveline]

Idea number 9 would work as long as there's some serious scheduling mojo involved. It can be done. Basically A West coast team has to be already playing on the East coast, and then make the jump again, but then when they come back get like a week off or so to get their feet back under them. It would be crazy, but very cool at the same time. For tv viewers its hard to watch your team play when their 10 or so hours ahead, but if you're in the East coast, it really isn't so bad. I'm in California and I'd be down with it completely. Plus having something like the San Jose Sharks verses the Moscow Coyotes is a great sounding game.

[Fast Tony DeNiro]

I just don't like the Europe idea, never have. It seems gimmicky. Europe has their own pro leagues that do just fine, and have a lot of fan support....keep the NHL in North America.

I would like to see more NHL teams take tours of Europe like they used to, or have those Euro teams come over here to play. Playing against the Euro clubs in tournaments is exciting for everyone involved, I just don't like the idea of NHL teams permanently being based in Europe.

I'm not even totally sure why I'm against it.....travel obviously would be hard, but it just feels so much like a gimmick. Leave Europe to their own individual leagues, or whatever they want to do over there. What happens to the current club teams when the NHL moves into Stockholm or Moscow? Those teams with 100 years of history disappear? Take a back seat? Make the NHL in their city obsolete?

[Axeman33]

I just don't like the Europe idea, never have. It seems gimmicky. Europe has their own pro leagues that do just fine, and have a lot of fan support....keep the NHL in North America.

I would like to see more NHL teams take tours of Europe like they used to, or have those Euro teams come over here to play. Playing against the Euro clubs in tournaments is exciting for everyone involved, I just don't like the idea of NHL teams permanently being based in Europe.

I'm not even totally sure why I'm against it.....travel obviously would be hard, but it just feels so much like a gimmick. Leave Europe to their own individual leagues, or whatever they want to do over there. What happens to the current club teams when the NHL moves into Stockholm or Moscow? Those teams with 100 years of history disappear? Take a back seat? Make the NHL in their city obsolete?

I just dont see the benefit of sending struggling franchises to Europe when we still have North American venues who would love a NHL franchise. Put one in Quebec City, or put a second team in the GTA, or both.

[Luffy D Monkey]

Free centre ice is the only way I'll be watching NHL again beyond highlight packages, so yeah I like that idea.

[Pengwin7]

I just dont see the benefit of sending struggling franchises to Europe when we still have North American venues who would love a NHL franchise. Put one in Quebec City, or put a second team in the GTA, or both.

Well... having a team in Quebec City or GTA would do fine.
We know that,
The owners know that,
Bettman knows that.

But having a team in Quebec City or the GTA does not increase the fan base significantly. Toronto and Quebec are already passionate hockey areas... so while those hockey clubs themselves would be successful, it doesn't necessarily bring significantly MORE revenue to the "general" NHL melting pot. More money to the general NHL (viewer wider-fan-base & TV market) is what is important to OTHER owners. Yes, Europe has their own leagues... but how many new NHL fans could be reaped from Europe? A LOT... I think.

The reason there was southern expansion (and why European expansion) is to grow the game.
There is a lot of money in TV.

The NHL now has a national US TV contract with NBC Sports for $200million/year.
When Bettman took over the NHL, there wasn't even a national US-TV contract. (ESPN, then Fox, ABC... he's gotten several people to give it a try... stumbled a bit, and recently Versus did well enough to have Comcast/NBC gobble them up.)

Drop a team in Florida and you get:
*10,000 new hockey fans....

Drop a 2nd team in Toronto:
*Does this ADD any new hockey fans?

Let's just say that there are currently 10,000 fans in Sweden that subscribe to the NHL pay-per-view package. Now, you put a team in Stockholm and not only is everybody rooting for them at the arena, but people are also now watching them on TV. That revenue is more easily shared into the big NHL melting pot. This makes the league more stable. The owners that purchase a Stockholm team (or Atlanta, or Winnipeg, or Carolina, or Phoenix... for that matter) all inherit their own team risk... profit or loss. But a geographical expansion increases overall fan base and overall league revenue.


Southern expansion introduced people to hockey and grew the game.
When a team's own ticket-gate (attendance) starts to suffer, it looks bad... but the owners just sell their team.
I'm not sure it hurts the other owners pocket-books that badly when a southern team folds.

So, now - if there is the option of tapping a new geography (Europe) or moving into a saturated fan-base (GTA, Quebec)... which do you think is more enticing to the existing NHL owners?

[letangerang58]

Well... having a team in Quebec City or GTA would do fine.
We know that,
The owners know that,
Bettman knows that.

But having a team in Quebec City or the GTA does not increase the fan base significantly. Toronto and Quebec are already passionate hockey areas... so while those hockey clubs themselves would be successful, it doesn't necessarily bring significantly MORE revenue to the "general" NHL melting pot. More money to the general NHL (viewer wider-fan-base & TV market) is what is important to OTHER owners. Yes, Europe has their own leagues... but how many new NHL fans could be reaped from Europe? A LOT... I think.

That's exactly why I think teams shouldn't be moved to QC and GTA but I think it's better off to find NA cities. Seattle and KC would both be good destinations and more suitable fanbases for hockey than Arizona and Florida. Both Seattle and KC wouldn't create significant travel issues (actually they'd be more convenient) and the people will be more open to hockey than people from Arizona and Florida.

[Dakkster]

I'd add one thing: Make every game worth 3 points. No more extra point for OT games.

Win in regulation = 3 points for the winner, 0 for the loser
Win in OT or shootout = 2 points for the winner, 1 for the loser

[arctic_rogue]

I'd add one thing: Make every game worth 3 points. No more extra point for OT games.

Win in regulation = 3 points for the winner, 0 for the loser
Win in OT or shootout = 2 points for the winner, 1 for the loser

I like that as well. In a tie game, most teams will be super defensive for the final 10 minutes of the game or so. Makes perfect sense, but 3 pts for the regulation win vs 2 pts for the OT win would change that. A small step for sure, but a good one.