MAKING TIES PROPER

   Attendance is down or certainly it seems that way.  Natural rivalries have been lost (e.g. Detroit versus Toronto) or certainly it seems that way.  And the atmosphere is one of workers waiting for the notice that the plant is closing down or certainly it seems that way.

   The focus on the CBA masks what may turn out to be a more fundamental problem.  Does the NHL know what sells?  Rules get constantly changed but somehow the product seems less intense.

   Fans and players feed on each other.  Its time for the league to examine its fan base.  Some empty seats in Florida might be attributed to the baseball playoffs; but that excuse does not explain the less than 10,000 reported in Nashville (10/16).  Perhaps its time to face facts, at least some sun belt cities cannot support hockey. 

   Its time for the league to re-examine three fundamental issues:  Location, Alignment, and Television.   This examination should occur in the context of one consistent fact:  Hockey is an acquired taste.  With the possible exception of Valentino Rossi trail-braking underneath Max Biaggi in a tight corner, hockey is the consummate contest of skill.  It deserves to be presented as such. 

   LOCATION:  As the NHL struggles college hockey is expanding.  The college game is no longer just for New England, Minnesota or North Dakota.  Hockey remains very healthy in places where it snows.  Yes, the Blue Jackets are a comparatively new team; but isnt it odd that they outdraw Miami (Florida).  If a team can succeed in Columbus might it succeed in Cleveland, or Indianapolis, or Milwaukee, or Kansas City? 

   Presumably the NHL felt compelled to blanket the country in order to secure national television.  But national television must be ranked a failure (see below).  Besides, team movement need not be extreme. 

   As an example, assume that the Nashville franchise was moved to Indianapolis and the Florida franchise to Cleveland.  There is one less team in Florida; but one team remains.  The Nashville market hardly drives the TV ratings.  In exchange you tap a more knowledgeable fan base and establish some natural geographic rivalries:  Chicago/Indianapolis and Columbus/Cleveland.  Arguably there will be a net gain in television interest, not a net loss.

   ALIGNMENT:  In baseball and football the two conferences have historical roots.  Each conference also spans the country, creating the potential for a championship battle between two New York teams, or San Francisco and Oakland. 

   The alignment in hockey is entirely artificial.  The Western conference includes Detroit and Columbus.  These cities are hardly western.  There are good economic reasons to minimize travel.  Nonetheless, in the overall scheme of Jaromir Jagrs contract, is a somewhat longer flight really that cost important?

   There are two approaches:  One is to mimic baseball and football.  Los Angeles and Anaheim would be in separate conferences.  The Islanders and the Rangers would be in separate conferences.

   Another approach would eliminate the divisions and have just three conferences.  The top five teams would advance to the playoffs.  The top four seeds would be the three conference champions and the second place team with the best record.  The team with the best overall record gets a bye in the first round.  Teams are seeded based upon their records.  Opening rounds would not permit two teams from the same conference to go head to head; but after that anything is possible.  In other words mimic the highly successful NCAA tournament where teams from the same college conference often face each other. 

   There have been years when the Stanley Cup final has lost its luster because one conference produces a champion who was not one of the teams with a top record.  Only J.S. Giguere prevented such an occurrence this past year.  Nonetheless, with an NCAA style playoff, more likely than not the Ottawa/Devils series would have been for the cup final.  And as consequence Jeff Friesens goal would have been far more dramatic. 

   TELEVISION:  Television is a business.  As a business it tends to appeal to the lowest common denominator.  Regular hockey fans do not fall into that category.  Those who watch for the fights will eventually switch their interest to wrestling. 

   This is not intended to be snobby.  Hockey requires a more sophisticated fan.  As a consequence hockey requires more sophisticated coverage.  ESPN has failed to provide that.  The commentators do their best.  But they are burdened by extensive advertising that disrupts flow.  There seems to be a direction to hype easily recognizable drama points.  Totally arbitrary geographic considerations often dictate what game an audience can view.  If you live in California, most people would rather watch Ottawa or Philadelphia than the Phoenix that is more likely to appear on their schedule.  

   Drama is not built.  Drama builds itself from an understanding of the competing forces at stake.  Canadian coverage puts the game into a perspective that ESPN lacks.  This is understandable.  On ESPN hockey always ends up behind football, baseball, basketball, and sometimes other sports.   Particularly with the emergence of college hockey, a proliferation of AHL teams, and the threat of the WHA, the time has come for a true hockey channel.  Let ESPN schedule more beach volleyball.  In the long run it will be better for hockey.  (10/18/03)

(August 10, 2003)

            A loss should never be worth the same as a tie.  Even in overtime.

            The practice of awarding a point for an overtime loss presumably encourages teams to go for broke during overtime.   It also encourages teams to play conservatively at the end of regulation:  secure the sure point first; then go for the extra point in overtime.  The present system does little to add excitement, and arguably diminishes the credibility of the playoff race.  We all know that an overtime loss is not, in reality, the same as a tie.  To treat them the same cheapens the game.  If there is going to be an extra reward it should be for success, not failure.

            The League should follow the suggestion of adopting a four point per game formula.  The most attractive alternative is to award 4 points for a regulation win, 3 points for an overtime win, 2 points for a tie, 1 point for an overtime loss, and 0 points for a regulation loss.   An alternative is to award 4 points for either a regulation win or an overtime win.  The latter option suffers from creating a total of 5 points in any overtime game.  Teams that find themselves in overtime more often have more points available to win. 

            The standings that appear below reflect what would have occurred if either of the two proposals above had been adopted.  Employing the system where only 3 points is awarded for an overtime win Philadelphia, not the Stanley Cup Champion New Jersey Devils, would have won the Atlantic division and faced Boston in the first round.   In the west Vancouver, not Colorado would have won the Northwest division. 

            Hopefully I have transcribed and computed all of the numbers correctly.  Ive double-checked but mistakes do happen.  In any event, the spreadsheet looks like this:

(July 17, 2003) (reworked August 15, 2003)

   An upwardly mobile young man visits the European car dealer seeking wheels to impress his new girlfriend.  The sales agent tells him his selection will cost $1,000 a month on a three year contract.  I can only afford $800, the anxious buyer moans.  No problem, replies the sales agent.  Well put you on a five year contract instead.  The buyer grabs the pen and signs before the sales agent changes his mind.

   Two years later the young man returns to the car dealer.  I need to turn in this car.  Im married.  I have one kid and another on the way.  I cant afford the payments.  Besides, I need a minivan now.

   The sales agent conjures up a sympathetic smile.  We can take the car back.  But youll owe us $15,000.  The residual that youre obligated on the lease is far higher than what the car is worth.  Of course, if you are willing to pay more per month we can put you in this stylish European sports wagon.

   Many teams act like this young man at the car dealer.  The focus on the high salaries that teams have paid free agents in past years highlights only half the problem.  The other half of the problem, indeed the larger half of the problem, is the length of the contracts.  The difficulty is not that you are paying Jaromir Jagr $11 million a season, or John LeClair $9 million a season, or Bill Guerin well over $8 million a season.  Each of these persons was worth that much money at least one season in their career but not for several seasons.  And their contracts run for several seasons. 

   This season teams are making many of the same mistakes but on a smaller scale.  Federov, Marchant, Prospal all received long term deals.  The problem of limited money has been solved through the device of paying over more seasons.  Teams fall into the trap of our young car buyer.  The deal looks great when you sign it.  A few years later, however, the car may not work as well as you expect.  The car may no longer serve your needs.  Or your financial situation has changed so that you can no longer afford the monthly payments.  Now you are stuck.  You cannot turn the car back in to the car dealer without paying a substantial penalty.  In the case of an over-salaried player the penalty is buying out the contract or subsidizing the salary in a trade to another team or swapping the over-salaried player for another over-salaried player. 

   Compounding the problem, just like the young man feels compelled to impress his girlfriend, the general manager feels compelled to impress ownership.  If his team fails to make the playoffs the general manager will have a hard time explaining how smart he was for not signing that key player who insisted on a four or five year deal.  The smart general manager may well be gone.  Its far more sensible to be a dumb general manager.  Take care of todays problems today however you can.  Worry about tomorrows problems if you are still around tomorrow.

   One cannot fault a player for desiring the long term security associated with a long term contract.  But in a sense the free agent has it both ways:  high payments over many years.  The natural incentives are set up so that in the cutthroat competition to attain the playoffs there will always be the general manager somewhere you will throw in that extra year or two or three. 

   If a salary cap should create a complete impasse between ownership and the players I would suggest an experiment: relax the rules so that more players are eligible to become free agents but any player signing with a new team can only sign for one season.  Relieved of multi-year obligations some of the financial burdens that presently necessitate a salary cap may disappear. 

   Salary cap and collective bargaining issues are discussed in greater deal on the CBA 2004 page.