If I ran the NHL Part Trois

By Pete McGrath

This edition will cover some of the league's marketing and its TV Deals. Through the years I've always heard people say about hockey on TV "But I can't see the puck." Nothing made me cringe as much as those words (until I saw the stupid light up puck the league tried out). I don't follow that logic. I have never had that problem my entire hockey watching life. So if you can't see the puck, I am not writing this for you.

The NHL has always been a distant fourth in the four major professional team sports in the United States. What the NFL shows every league out there is that dragging your season out all year is not the key to success. The NFL thrives on TV money because every game is a big deal, and seeing as how their TV contract is bigger than all of hockey's revenue put together, it safe to say they were right. So what the NHL needs to do is get more people to watch the game, both in person and more importantly on TV (that's where the money really is). Here are my ideas.

First thing the NHL needs to do is grow the game at a grassroots level. I went to college in Cleveland, and I was shocked at how little people knew about hockey there. Steve Yzerman who is basically canonized here in Detroit is unheard of in Cleveland. People who are rabid Browns, Indians, and Cavs fans (it's not that they don't like sports) literally do not know who he is. Aside from the occasional Sabres fan, the only people that cared about hockey that were not from Detroit were people that had actually played the game through high school.

For this reason, I believe the best thing the league can do for its long term success is get kids to play hockey. Kids in America usually play Little League as a right of passage, high school football is a big deal all over the country, and often people play at least intramural basketball through their college years. The NHL needs to sponsor and facilitate the construction of as many rinks and the formation of as many youth leagues as possible. In Canada, the game of choice is always hockey, weather its watching or playing. The United States will never be as hockey crazy as Canada, but part of the reason people appreciate their NHL clubs so much in Canada, Minnesota, Detroit, and other Northern American cities is that a large part of the populous played the game "back in the day," or still plays in a weekend beer league. Long story short, the nicest arena in America occasionally full of fans won't be worth much in the long run if there aren't a bunch of little rinks in the area full of kids playing the game.

Getting back to putting the game on TV, the NHL made a terrible mistake by signing the TV contract with Versus. Versus is rookieball compared to ESPN. The camera is too close to the ice,
the set looks like a high school doing the video announcements, and Brian Engbloom's mullet sucks compared to Barry Melrose's. Mullets notwithstanding, the global reach of ESPN is simply incredible. ESPN's brand name is worth more than any other channel out there. ESPN is in every basic cable package, is on in every sports bar, and every college guy's dorm room is tuned to ESPN. Versus simply isn't always available.

I realize that Versus offered 60 Million year instead of revenue sharing- but that comes out to 2 million a team, which is for all practical purposes pocket change. This is like turning down the unpaid internship at the best company in your field to work for McDonald's and make some money. Yeah you get a little money upfront, but you are killing your future. Get back on ESPN because that way fans who have never seen you before might. People watching something else on ESPN like Sports Center might forget to change the channel and give hockey a shot. Versus generally has hunting shows on all day, so the NHL isn't getting a whole lot of lead in viewers. Also, Versus simply isn't as widespread channel as ESPN. Any basic cable package has ESPN and ESPN 2. The same cannot be said for Versus, which has left a lot of people who actually want to watch hockey shit out of luck because their cable package does not carry the channel. In conclusion, the NHL needs to pad its resume and take its unpaid internship. The exposure gained from being on ESPN can only help the league.

The league needs to realize that it shouldn't try to out NBA the NBA. Instead the league should embrace and market those quirky things that make the NHL and its players so great. One of my favorite traditions in hockey is the playoff beard. However, come playoff time you hardly ever hear about it. They should market the hell out of this. My product placement gears were turning on this one- why don't they have Gillette sponsor a contest for the best beard in the playoffs? That seems like a no brainer for me.

I was also upset when Bettman changed the Wales and Campbell conference to East and West, along with directional names for the divisions as well. I thought it was cool that the divisions were named after people, and it was unique to hockey. While they can keep the current alignment of teams, think of two people to name two divisions after and bring the old way back. If anything it'll put the league in the news for a bit and will generate publicity just like David Stern did with the NBA dress code a few years back.

These days, when I watch a baseball team celebrate in the locker room I can't tell if they won their division or the World Series. However, hockey players know whats up. They don't touch the Campbell Bowl or the Wales Trophy, because the Stanley Cup is the only true championship. The league needs to let the folks out there know about this great superstition. Market the conference championships as the "Don't Touch the Trophy/Bowl" series.

The NBA is expanding aggressively throughout the world, and the NHL needs to do the same. I don't think the league needs to put teams in different countries, because due to travel that wouldn't be prudent. Players will go to play in the league with the best competition, and that will be the NHL for some time. For example, while Brazil and Argentina produce the world's best soccer players, and their national teams compete for the World Cup (and win it often), nearly all of the players play professionally in Europe. So I do not foresee the need for European teams in hockey (or basketball for that matter).

What the NHL could do though is have each NHL team partner up with a European or Asian city and play a series of games there before the season begins. It would be like having a sister city or a pen-pal for fans from both towns. Have each club play two or three games in one city, that way people can connect to one team, and this way the league can really expand its international footprint. The league already has international players, why not make more money off the international fans.

Back here in America, the league should do something similar by playing more neutral site games, or have some teams have a secondary city. The example that always comes to mind is Green Bay playing one game in Milwaukee every year. Obviously clubs like Detroit, Montreal, Toronto, etc, do not need to do this. However, it would be good for Columbus (if they don't move the team) to maybe play a couple games a season in Cleveland or Cincinnati. Maybe have the Blues play a couple games a year in Kansas City, the Kings in San Diego, the Sharks in Portland etc. If you're having trouble filling up your arena, you might as well take your act on the road where the novelty of a pro hockey game might give you a sellout at the gate. Also, you can get people in those cities to become fans of your club as well, selling more merchandise and getting more people to watch the games on TV.

The league needs to also think a little outside the box in terms of marketing. I got this idea from the World Series of Poker. Relatively speaking the winner's share of any modern trophy really isn't that much (compared to their contracts). For instance, the winner's share of the World Series Trophy was $308,235.75. Now three hundred grand ain't bad, but for guys with the contracts they have now that's chump change. Here's the idea, the league should have every team, and perhaps the NHLPA, ante up for the right to play for the cup in the beginning of the season. Have a couple sponsors (I'm talking about you Labatt) match the money, so this way the winner's share is around 3-4 million bucks per player. And no losers share either- just like the superstition says, conference championship does not count, only by winning the Stanley Cup are you a true champion. I realize that the Cup itself should be a worthy enough goal for any player, but this is really meant to motivate the owners just as much as the players. There are many owners that are doing a terrible job running their teams and are happy to just sit back and collect the revenue sharing. They won't be anymore. Lastly, World Series of Poker style, try to bring all the cash out on the ice as a photo op. I really feel this would be a great publicity stunt for the league, and will help the league out on the operational level by getting more teams to compete as well.

The league needs to do a better job of promoting its video games. While NHL 94 on Sega is widely considered to be a masterpiece, the games since have failed to have that sort of crossover success. Video games are big business these days, and hockey is a sport that translates very well to video games. The league needs to use its flagship game as one of its chief marketing tools the way the NFL does with Madden. If you're not going to play the sport, you should at least play the video game. Also, for an old school guy like me, package the most modern game with an emulator for the 94 version with today's players and rosters. Show the pizza boy/Sega scene from Swingers in the commercial then cut to a similar scene of guys hanging out and giving each other shit playing the modern game, and give a tag about how hanging with the guys never changes no matter what game you're playing.

Also, put Don Cherry on TV. People in Detroit and Buffalo love watching Ron McLean try to keep Don in check. Weather people love Don Cherry or think he's a moron, people still watch Coach's Corner. Also, I love his Fu Manchu playoff beards and crazy suits. Some of what he says I don't agree with, but there is no question that he cares deeply about hockey. Also, in a world of vanilla sportscasters, Don Cherry is refreshing as someone who speaks his mind. Perhaps the NHL should name it's aforementioned video game franchise after Don Cherry. Perhaps EA Sports should call the game Rock 'em Sock 'em Hockey. Just a thought.

Anywho, that's all I got for now. I'll cover game rules, rivalries and schedules next time.

If I Ran the NHL

By Pete McGrath

As a hockey fan, I will always watch my beloved Detroit Red Wings. However, the NHL still has its problems. This will be an ongoing series of my proposals for building a stronger NHL.

League Alignment/Team Locations

The NHL has made some questionable team location calls over the years. Cities that have a large hockey friendly populations (Minnesota’s twin cities, Quebec, Hartford, and Winnipeg) lost their teams. The league moved or added expansion franchises in many places with no snow and no history of ice hockey, and small cities at that. Here is my team-by-team analysis of which clubs need to move, and where they should go.

Columbus-

Ohio is not really a hockey state. Despite being up north, despite being close to Hockey loving cities like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Detroit, folks in Ohio pretty much think about football and the Buckeyes all the time. However, what really makes no sense about the Blue Jackets is putting it in a city with so much sports competition already there. Columbus is the home of The Ohio State University. OSU has a huge football program, and pretty high profile Hockey and Basketball programs all competing during the NHL’s season. Only the Bruins have more in city competition for Hockey fans dollars, and Boston has a much larger hockey fan base, and the Bruins have a much longer tradition. Columbus as a location was always a stumper for me.

Atlanta-

Atlanta is a terrible sports city. I think it has something to do with a lot of people recently moving there. People didn’t grow up Atlanta fans, so they really haven’t embraced any of their teams. The Braves have empty seats during the playoffs for crying out loud. The Thrashers need to be in a city that will truly embrace them, and Atlanta is not that city.

Florida-

Miami is a city that only cares about the Dolphins, and football in general. Sure people showed up for the Heat when Shaq was in town, but you could tell that the American Airlines center was packed with fair-weather fans. People in Miami can go to the beach, go to the club, go to fashion show, and if they do want to see sports, it’s football they want to see. In any event, the state of Florida does not need two hockey teams.

Nashville-

Nashville has fielded some decent teams over the past couple years. However, filling up their arena has been an uphill battle for the Predators. Nashville is a relatively small metro area with very little hockey history, and it shows. To be honest, I don’t see why the team was put here in the first place. There are lots of bigger metro areas with more hockey interest, and with better arenas that would have made more sense.

Anaheim/Los Angeles-

The Los Angeles metro area does not need two hockey teams. Los Angeles is not a good sports town. Dodger fans are known for showing up late and leaving early. If So Cal really cared about sports, wouldn’t they have an NFL team by now? Here’s the tough part- which team to move? Anaheim has had some success, but I highly doubt that anyone in Anaheim really cares. The Kings are the team that needs to stay in town. They play downtown at the Staples Center, and if they were halfway decent they could be somewhat of a glamour franchise of the league, much like the Lakers are for the NBA. While the NHL needs to have a presence in this market, they do not need two.

Phoenix-

The Coyotes have not really caught on in Phoenix, as with the rest of the clubs in town. Phoenix is seemingly western version of Atlanta- a growing city where no one is actually from there. Maybe people care about the Suns, but I doubt anyone gives a shit about the other teams. Hockey in the desert is just a stupid idea, and the club’s abysmal attendance record over the years makes the evidence very clear.

Carolina-

I never really understood this move. Hartford to Carolina seemed like a lateral if not a downgrade of a move by owner Peter Karmanos. To go from one small city in the North where it snows and people actually care about hockey to another small city in the South where people do not care about hockey (or know what it is) was a bit of a stumper to me. Carolina has hovered in the bottom half, usually the bottom third of league attendance even though the team brought home a cup. This points to a team that should relocate.

Where to?

Winnipeg-

A new arena downtown, a rabid and starved hockey fan base, and it’s in Canada where people actually care about hockey. If you ever saw the white outs the Jets fans pulled off in the playoffs, you knew this town loved its team. It has the arena now, so give them a shot. Phoenix had their chance and they blew it. Give Winnipeg their Jets back.

Hamilton-

Another city in Canada that would be a great fit for a big league club is Hamilton. While it’s close to Buffalo and Toronto, Hamiltonians used to have an NHL club way back in the day, and would assuredly embrace another if it moved to town. Once again while it’s a smaller area, it is in Canada where hockey is king and faces competition from no other sports. The arena would need renovation, but that wouldn’t be a problem here.

Cleveland-

If keeping a team in Ohio, Cleveland would be a better location because it is a bigger metropolitan area and would be more receptive to a professional club. Natural rivalries could be created with Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Buffalo. Also, this old Cleveland Barons logo is pretty cool. Perhaps an arrangement could be worked out where they play a few home games in Columbus and Cincinnati, much like the Packers playing a few home games in Milwaukee, which was successful in making the Packers not just Green Bay’s team but Wisconsin’s team. The Cleveland Barons need to become Ohio’s team, but they will always be second fiddle in Columbus to the Buckeyes. A nice arena in downtown Cleveland doesn’t hurt either.

Houston-

This may seem like a stupid idea to some, but hear me out. While Houston Texas is not exactly a hockey hotbed, Houston is actually a big city. If trying to expand the footprint of the league to cities that are not traditional hockey markets, they should at least be big markets. Houston is a large metro area full of cash and sponsorship opportunities from oil companies, and a nice arena is already in place. An interstate rivalry with Dallas could and should spring up. Name suggestions: Houston Aeros, the name of the current AHL team and former WHA team.

Portland-

Portland is an affluent, growing metro area with only one other professional team in town. Portland is not located in the middle of a desert. While town residents were weary of building a new stadium for a potential Florida Marlins move, it has an arena currently in place. This arena also has a cool name- the Rose Garden. Not a lot of people know this, but the Portland Rosebuds were the first American hockey team to compete for Lord Stanley’s Cup in 1915. Portland Rosebuds would be a cool name for the current team as well, as I think it would be nice to see a new team without some sort of stupid animal logo or natural disaster motif.

Seattle-

Seattle as a city gets a bad wrap. Many a columnist, including S.I.’s Rick Reilly, mailed in a “Seattle is a town of wine and latte drinking, Volvo driving, smug elitists especially up against blue collar archetype Pittsburgh” type column. But look at the music this town has given us – Jimi Hendrix (the best to ever pick a guitar up), Alice in Chains, Heart, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Duff McKagan of Guns’n’Roses, among many others. A town that rocks this hard would enjoy a hockey team, especially after the Sonics took off for Oklahoma City. Maybe Key Arena isn’t perfect, but within a few years, Seattle would probably be willing to renovate or build a new one. Another brief history lesson- while the Portland Rosebuds were the first American club to compete for the Stanley Cup, the Seattle Metropolitans a year later in the 1916 were the first American team to win it. One last bit of advice- try to get Bill Gates to own the team.

Kansas City-

Hockey tried and failed once in K.C. in the form of the Kansas City Scouts. While it didn’t work out in the seventies, Kansas City deserves another chance. Kansas City is a good sports town, with Arrowhead Stadium known for being one of the NFL’s loudest. I’m sure when the Royals were halfway decent, people showed up at Kauffman Stadium too. Anyway, the Sprint Center has been built downtown and the city does not have a tenant. This means any team that wishes to become the new Kansas City Scouts (please stick with that name) can hammer out a sweetheart lease, which is pivotal to any franchise’s success. Also, since there are no hoops teams in K.C., the hockey team will have winter sports options all to itself.
Thanks for reading. My next entry will be on team names/logos/jerseys and come with a ranking of NHL uniforms.