NHL "Fixit" Idea

[RichardGraham]

Hi Folks,

I know that someone brought this idea up recently regarding (I believe) Major League Roller Hockey or the Professional Inline Hockey Association, but here's a writer on Slate.com suggesting it for the NHL:

http://www.slate.com/id/2175024/pagenum/2/

I was dubious, but I have to agree with one of the arguments near the end of the article -- I'm not too interested in watching a Nashville Predators/Columbus Blue Jackets game... ever.

Your thoughts?

[DblJ44]

The realistic problems with this are:

1. A team being removed from the NHL to a lower level league will then move most or all of the clubs "pro" rosters to the promoted team if they are in the same system. Devils go down River rats go up, Brodeur buys a house in Albany.

2. The New York Rangers finish in the tank and you loose the biggest market in the league. And not everyone in NYC is traveling to the island to support the Islanders or to NJ to see the Devils.

[ACCCT2]

Actually, it's a great idea that has quite frankly save professional hockey (and "pro" sports in general) in Europe.

As for "DblJ44" so-called "problems" --

1) Not really an issue, as it would make owners and GM's more responsible with their long-term contracts. It might also force a realistic re-thinking of especially "guaranteed" contracts and what a "2-way" contract might really mean under such a "relegation/promotion" system -- at the very least possibly "incentivizing" contracts with "2-way" levels of pay that are dependant on whether a team is 'at' the NHL level or not (and for how long).

Those who think this "2-way" contract "incentivization" system would cause an exodus of NHL players to 'other' leagues (especially the European & Russian "Elite" leagues) should realize that pay-scales (in any sport) are basically set and competed-for by the premier "pro" league within that sport -- and at even its worst, the NHL is at least that, the sport's premier league -- and further, the NHL going to a "relegation/promotion" format would most certainly have all of their teams and players under very carefully worded, "incentivized" and NHL/NHLPA-vetted contracts that obviously would take into account the contract 'landscape' (and 'demand') of non-NHL competition for players' services.

2) Trust me -- as a New Yorker, the Rangers finishing "in the tank" (7 years in a row OUT of the playoffs, 8 with the lockout, before last year's edition) has never meant "sink-or-swim" for either the league or other local teams like the Devils and Islanders -- and conversely, their being "in the picture" has certainly never really meant anything as far as a meaningful network broadcast contract is concerned.

Interestingly, at the very least, this "relegation/promotion" concept would conceptually bind together the game at all levels (NHL & minor-pro, etc.) MUCH, MUCH closer and because of this more inclusive and broader "footprint" and "presence", might possibly and finally give it the BEST chance of securing a meaningful, "incentivized" and lucrative LONG-term broadcast contract.

And I think it would certainly stand the sport a much better chance of finally doing away with the all-too-often "mailed-in" performances of those teams and players who think that just "making" it to the NHL is enough, as they certainly wouldn't "be there" very long under a "relegationpromotion" system...

[TULaw]

I like the idea and I think it could be done, but not in the manner that they mentioned on slate. Here is my idea. create a whole new league. Thus we would have the NHL division one or premier league or whatever you want to call it and you would have NHL2 or division two or league two, whatever creative name the marketing guys come up with. Here is why it would work. The NHL still controls all teams. Also, the league as it is cant sustain anymore expansion, yet we have many cities with nice new arenas that want NHL teams such as Winnipeg, Kansas City, Quebec City, Oklahoma City but there just isnt any room for them. Thus a new rule would be that all expansion teams must start in NHL2 and work their way up to NHL1 if the owner chooses to spend the money and build an NHL caliber team or simply stay put in NHL 2. So this is how it would work the first year, lets say you give 6 new cities expansion teams. the teams could be:

Winnipeg Jets

Quebec Nordiques

Kansas City

Oklahoma City

Seattle

Milwaukee

then we would add the bottom 6 teams from the NHL to this league, thus giving you a 10 team league.
The NHL2 champion would then get an automatic berth into the NHL playoffs (giving you a nice potential underdog story) and a spot in the next years NHL. while the last place team in the NHL that season would placed into NHL2.
this would format wouldnt have the problems of teams from say the CHL who play in minor league caliber buildings in towns way too small for NHL teams. all the teams in both NHL1 and NHL2 would be playing in NHL caliber buildings, would be subject to the same sallery cap and rules etc. and both leagues would be under NHL control for marketing and rights purposes.

thus NHL 1 would be a 24 team league ( a decent size league) and NHL 2 would be a 12 team league the first year but could be expanded eventually to maybe a 24 team league as well.

[ACCCT2]

Interesting that this "relegation/promotion" topic isn't getting more reply/input, as it's truly a subject worth exploring and expounding upon, don't you think (hmmm, is it something I said?)...

[MajorTomFoolery]

A two-tier league is quite an interesting idea, and I think TUlaw expanded in the right direction. I still have difficulty seeing the NHL on Versus, though. And I agree that they need to be under the NHL.

[MajorTomFoolery]

The realistic problems with this are:

1. A team being removed from the NHL to a lower level league will then move most or all of the clubs "pro" rosters to the promoted team if they are in the same system. Devils go down River rats go up, Brodeur buys a house in Albany.

2. The New York Rangers finish in the tank and you loose the biggest market in the league. And not everyone in NYC is traveling to the island to support the Islanders or to NJ to see the Devils.

I agree with point #1. True, contracts may oblige a player to the bottom of the basement. But then players won't sign with borderline teams, meaning these lower tier one teams won't grow. Would you sign with a 10-year contract with Nashville if you knew they might not play in the NHL?

[MajorTomFoolery]

And am I the only one that doesn't understand the relegation/promotion thing? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I don't understand it. Could you explain?

[quick_dry]

MJT: its like having two grades/divisions, A grade and B grade. If you lose A grade, you get dropped into the B grade. If you win B grade, you get 'promoted' into the top (A) grade.

[MajorTomFoolery]

MJT: its like having two grades/divisions, A grade and B grade. If you lose A grade, you get dropped into the B grade. If you win B grade, you get 'promoted' into the top (A) grade.

That's what he was talking about? What's the promotion thing, then?

[MajorTomFoolery]

2) Trust me -- as a New Yorker, the Rangers finishing "in the tank" (7 years in a row OUT of the playoffs, 8 with the lockout, before last year's edition) has never meant "sink-or-swim" for either the league or other local teams like the Devils and Islanders -- and conversely, their being "in the picture" has certainly never really meant anything as far as a meaningful network broadcast contract is concerned.

Wait a minute. This idea was brought up because we don't want to see bad teams on TV. If the Rangers are qualified as a bad team, your TV time goes down. If you have these nobodys that move up from league two to league one, then they replace the ones you love with nobodys. And not making it to the playoffs (maximum of 30 or so games, if they all are seven game series, and the Rangers even make it that far) compared to the 72 during the league, all of which will probably be televised in the NY area.
I'm not saying it won't work, but there are some issues. How about local, Tier-two games get televised. They won't clog up TV time, because it's only local, and you don't miss out on your favorite team.

[quick_dry]

That's what he was talking about? What's the promotion thing, then?

promotion is what happens to the team moving up from the B league to the A league i.e. they get 'promoted' from B to A.

[MajorTomFoolery]

Yeah, I thought he meant something about a contract. What's he mean by the two-way contract?

[skooled]

I like this Idea, and would go well to be adopted to both of the Inline leagues.

I have had this thought in my head about PIHA for a while now, sine the amount of teams has exploded so much in such a short amount of time. If you cut div 1 down to say 20-odd teams, and the rest go into div 2 you would have feircer competition, just to stay alive.

as said earlier, it works well for EPL soccer as an example... VERY WELL... someone get the yoders on the phone will ya?

[ACCCT2]

What I meant by "2-way contracts" was that if an NHL-signed player was playing at the NHL level, he'd be paid a higher salary; conversly, should the team play bad enough to be "relegated/moved-down" to the lower ("minor"?) league, that same player would see a lowered paycheck -- now tell me that wouldn't "incentivize" contracts and more importantly, the on-ice passion and play of players (who now get paid NHL wages whether they finish 1st, 1 game out of the playoffs, or dead-last). These "2-way contracts" should/could/would also (in my conception of this idea, at least) work for the minor-league "promoted" teams and players as well (there could be an NHL-paid "bonus" to help cover higher "promoted/moved-up" contracts of the "promoted" players -- who would obviously enjoy "playing" for these "incentivized" contracts (probably almost as much as the "relegated" NHL-ers would hate their pay-cuts)...

Those "nobodys" are definitely not "nobodys" to their fans, supprters, sponsors, advertisers and media partners, and would certainly qualify as (at least) very interesting "dark-horse-somebodys" being that they moved-up and replaced, say (for conjecture) the Rangers for at least a year, as well possibly longer, as long as they could tenaciously 'hold' onto their NHL spot...

The fact of say, the Rangers, a traditional NHL "big-market" team being out of the playoffs (in either the present NHL playoff formula or our "relegation" hypothesis) has never made any difference whatsoever to major network broadcast coverage of, and media dollars spent-upon, the NHL playoffs as they're presently presented broadcast-wise (last year's playoffs and "Finals" numbers were absolutely atrocious). If anything, the mere possibility of a moved-up "minor-league" team doing "wild-card" well in the NHL playoffs would add a degree of cross-continental rooting for the "David/little-guys/dark-horse" (that this team would clearly be) vs the NHL "Old Guards" -- and this seasonal "wild card" scenario might plausibly provide the NHL with the BEST possible chance of a truly major-network continental broadcast contract/package and their so-incredibly-desired-&-sought-after "cultural footprint" within the general sports audiences sensibilities, especially those of the highly-desired demographics of the general American sports fans...

By the way -- this "relegation" formula would also help out the broadcast/revenue streams of the "minor/relegation" leagues, as the 'binding-together' of all of the sport's 2 (or even 3) levels of the game (just like in European soccer) and their respective consumer/viewer markets would only make the NHL an even more "sure thing" (that it currently is clearly NOT) in the corporate consciousness' and boardrooms of the veritable myriad of local, regional and most importantly, major national advertisers, sponsors, marketers and media outlets (who generally like to "Think Global, Act Local" in their marketing strategies)...