Gary Bettman: Happiness is watching franchise bingo

Forget the Stanley Cup playoffs. With the NHL these days, it's all about atrophy.

There is not enough hours on the day to keep up with all the minutia of the Duel in the Desert over the Phoenix Coyotes, unless you are employed to cover the NHL. However, it bears noting Chris Botta at islanderspointblank.com has spelled out that Johnny Tavares' betrothed, the New York Islanders, have one, maybe two years left on Long Island before they'll have to relocate. Most of you know full well that the Atlanta Thrashers and Tampa Bay Lightning have a licence to hemorrhage money. All one can really do is try to understand why Gary Bettman is fighting like a drowning muskrat against the interest of most fans. It has less to do with creating anarchy where anyone could move any team. It's a house of cards scenario that basically parallels the financial crisis, which is really about unravelling the economic lies that have become accepted fact since the early 1980s.

There have been enough rumblings to suggest that keeping Jim Balsillie (at this point, just hearing the words "ball" or "silly" is enough to bring on fatigue) from moving a team to Southern Ontario is about preserving a market for future expansion. People pooh-poohed the idea when it was brought up the other day, but Tom Benjamin, who has more hockey geek cred (he's been on Hockey Night in Canada!) said as much earlier this week:

"Bettman's priority is clearly not about saving hockey in the desert. It is about keeping any hockey team from relocating to Southern Ontario. This is a about protecting a territory the league can sell. (And that’s the worst thing about a failed Balsillie bid. The league will expand in response to the fallout in Canada.)"
-- Tom Benjamin

Essentially, Bettman is fighting to hang on so the league can repeat what it did in the 1990s. Most of you know the NHL went into a period of expansion, from 21 to 30 teams, not long after the 1990-91 recession. It's now known as the Southern strategy.

The problem is that these markets only work - both in real economies and the NHL itself - if there's an ability to sustain it. The NHL during the 1990s succeeded for a time in convincing enough people in places such as Miami, Florida, that they needed to buy hockey tickets. Like the original Florida Panthers owner, Wayne Huizenga, told Sports Illustrated back in 1993, "We want this arena to be a happening place when the Panthers are playing, a place to see and be seen. We've got to get people here for all the wrong reasons, then turn them into hockey fans so they'll come back for the right reasons."

That worked, for a time. At a certain point, though, either there is a market for something or there isn't. It goes bust if there's an artificial market. Imposing demand on sports fans fits in with the same kind of consumption for its own sake that ran rampant in North America during the back half of the 1990s and early part of this decade. It's the same as convincing people to buy a third car, when they only need two, or a McMansion (according to Chris Turner's book Planet Simpson, the size of the average American home increased 17 per cent during the '90s). It's like extolling the virtues of (to quote a commercial that was in heavy rotation during hockey broadcasts a while back) having "fifty-two inches of glorious HD" when you can watch DVDs of your favourite shows on a four-inch high window on your laptop.

At some point, the NHL has to pay the bills. Their economic model is broken because it was short-sighted. A friend who knows about such things says this is pretty much a microcosm of the way the U.S. economy has gone since 1981.

You have probably read at some point that Gary Bettman has shepherded the NHL from being a $400-million business to a $2.2-billion one, and that's why the owners like him. The big but is this assumes as long every member franchise was healthy on its own. It assumed there was infinite amount of goodwill towards pro hockey in markets, just as there was an assumed infinite amount of cheap credit.

It's the same kind of thinking that as recently as 12 months ago, meant any number of idiots believed they, too, could be CFO for a hedge fund. As long as there were not en masse bankruptcies and no one lost arenas (which are sub-prime homes in our analogy), it was all good.

In a further irony, as Bob McCown noted on Prime Time Sports last night, there's not an idea how Phoenix could be saved. The NHL has about as many fresh ideas for keeping hockey in Phoenix as Arizona Sen. John McCain had for fixing the U.S. economy. All both could muster is, "Well, that won't work," and try to hold on to the carcass.

All it takes for one franchise to crater and the whole thing collapses. There was no fallback, no bailout, no nothing. Like Benjamin said with regard to the court-mediated tussle over the Coyotes, the longer it goes, "the bigger the league's black eye gets." The Islanders, the Coyotes, who's next, eh?

You can still block it out and watch the rest of the playoffs, which should be wrapping up sometime in June. It would be silly to use the league's idiotic business practices to justify non-interest in what happens on the ice. Be grateful for the ability to compartmentalize.

On a whinge and a prayer, we have a deal

From about the about-friggin'-time department, it looks like the Rogers/TSN2 impasse will end, just in time for next week's Blue Jays-Red Sox series:

"A person familiar with the discussions told fadoo that an announcement of the agreement should be expected this weekend, likely on Sunday. No specifics of the deal were revealed, however it is believed that, as a result of the agreement, Rogers Cable customers with the VIP package will begin receiving TSN2 almost immediately and automatically." — fadoo.ca

This might be more about straight business than satisfying ball fans. Cable companies seem to be more aggressive about retention in the spring, when people might be more likely to consider cancelling or reducing their package since the warm months are coming and they're anticipating watching less TV. The public relations fallout, as others such as Chris Zelkovich have noted, was too much to risk at this time of year. At the same time, ball fans can certainly view this is a win.

Most of you are familiar with the ins and outs of this situation, which probably had the most adverse affect on Toronto Raptors and NBA fans.

Bell GlobeMedia launched TSN2 in late August knowing it had more hours' worth of sports properties than it could fit on to one channel. Rogers dug in its heels, since Rogers Sportsnet is struggling against its competitor's institutionalized superiority (TSN gets more money per cable subscriber). It dragged on through the entire NBA and NHL regular season (Ottawa Senators fans missed out on a game in December) and first couple rounds of those leagues' post-seasons.

Anyway, this is a satisfactory piece of news. Score one for TSN for throwing some high heat and playing up that next week's Jays-Bosox games were available "only on TSN2." The timing of it all, during the week before the May long weekend, was brilliant.

Presumably, Rogers didn't sell off those games thinking this would happen. It has typically given up games in the third week of may in order to clear prime time for major junior hockey's Memorial Cup. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees, eh.

Related:
Rogers/TSN2 reach an agreement (fadoo.ca; via Sporting Madness)

TSN pulls power play with Rogers Jays?

This has a holy flurking schnit quality about it: Rogers customers won't able to watch the Rogers-owned baseball team play in the Rogers-owned ballpark against an archrival:

"Blue Jays coverage on TSN2 gets underway on Tuesday, May 19 with the Jays
taking on the Boston Red Sox in a key three-game series. TSN2 is readily available in the GTA in both Standard Definition and High Definition on Bell TV (Channel 401, 851 HD), Shaw Direct (Channel 401, 269 HD), and Cogeco Cable (Channel 156, 729 HD)."

None of you need any reminder what cable provider is still not carrying TSN2, especially if you're also a Raptors fan, or that Red Sox-Jays games tend to attract the highest ratings. This is bad news to go along with the injuries to pitchers Ricky Romero and B.J. Ryan.

The FAN 590's Bob McCown, at this very moment, is going high dudgeon about "what maroon brokered this deal?" It is possible this forces Rogers to come to terms about carrying the spin-off network, which launched in August. Or they could go el cheapo. Someone who knows can field this one: Would Rogers be able to air the visiting team's broadcast, particularly NESN in the case of that April 19-21 series vs. the Red Sox, on its four regional channels? It would be an easy way out, but given that they often stick the other team's broadcast of games which aren't being carried by Sportsnet or TSN on that Channel 399, don't put it past them.

The point is it is a blatantly anti-fan decision to stick games on a digital channel which is still unavailable to a wide swath of consumers, if it comes to that point. (Chris Zelkovich at the Toronto Star is saying it will get resolved, finally). However, let's stay on the up-and-up and presume the principals here must know this. Let's believe, in the heart of hearts, that reasonable people can always come to a reasonable solution. Times are tight in the Canadian broadcast industry, so you're going to see this pitched battles for customers, but this is going too far. It lasted through the entire Raptors season, but it might be different with the Jays, whose following is more national, more Boomer.

Really, only in Canada could you see this happen, Rogers owning the team and the ballpark, but being party to its fans not being able to watch. It is awfully curious that a Red Sox series was earmarked for TSN2 (TSN would still have hockey commitments in mid-May). TSN does not mess around and as Ottawa Senators fans can relate, the games won't be on the MLB Extra Innings package (just as local broadcasts aren't put on NHL Centre Ice).

The only other games scheduled for that channel are two Sunday afternoon games in September, presumably when there is an a priori commitment to the CFL. It should be pointed out Edmonton Eskimos fans raised a stink over this last fall and got a game aired when it wasn't going to available in Edmonton. Hopefully Jays fans can mobilize over at The Tao of Stieb and Drunk Jays Fans and elsewhere and do the same.

Snark break ...

As you were picking up sides for 43-man squamish ... and who knew ER was still on the air?

Dane Cook's April Fools' joke was to announce that he's going to be in the next Twilight movie. People laughed for a couple minutes, then thought about later and couldn't figure out why they did.

For Ottawa sports fans scoring at home: On Monday, the baseball team folded, literally. On Tuesday, both hockey teams folded, figuratively.

Seriously, what a brutal end for the Ottawa 67's in Brian Kilrea's final season. Some might say it's too bad they didn't win for him, but really it's too bad they couldn't win for themselves. It's a youngish team beyond Logan Couture (who took the collar, going 0-for-4 in the OHL playoffs) and the other 19- and 20-year-olds.

Bob McCown, yesterday on Prime Time Sports: "Fewer hockey calls than we’ve ever, ever, ever had. Are you that bored? Are you that resigned to the Maple Leafs’ fate? Is there nothing to talk about?" Cripes, it's almost like the 24/7 hockey talk cured people of wanting to talk hockey.

Cox Bloc is switching teams, to the Canadiens. Make sure you check the calendar.

Norm Coleman suffered a big setback in his recount battle for a U.S. Senate Seat with Al Franken. If only there was someone to tell Coleman that he's good enough, he's smart enough and doggone it, people like him.

That was written with full awareness everyone told that joke yesterday.

Afternoon snark break ...

Today's theme, "You'd be excused for thinking ..."

... Senators owner Eugene Melnyk and the crying Giants fan are one and the same. ("Anybody that says we should blow up this organization should get their own bomb and go blow themselves up." Brutal.)

... Nothing Doug Gilmour — Dougie! — did before he played for the Leafs matters . It's forgotten that he was nails in the greatest hockey series ever played, the 1987 Canada Cup, which seems to have been left out of the official hagiography (give Steve Simmons credit for noting he was just as good in Calgary as he was in Toronto).

... The biggest Super Bowl story is how many or how few middle-aged sports columnists have been sent there by their newspapers. No disrespect to the heroes on Prime Time Sports who chewed this over for far too long yesterday, but it's a non-issue. Super Bowl coverage is paint-by-numbers pack journalism and the best stories are found someplace else.

... All the sportswriters who referenced John Updike's famous essay about Ted Williams probably never read any of Updike except his famous essay on seeing Ted Williams' last home run. Poz is a glorious exception. Anyone who would call it "the Ted Williams article" (Maclean's) needs to do more reading.

... the shorter version of CBC's defence of Mike Milbury using the word "pansification" was that, "People are so stupid they don't even realize it's a gay slur."

... Everything about the Detroit Lions organization has to be changed, but they must not touch the Honululu blue colour scheme.

... Friday Night Lights is the one prime-time show which is most willing to dig into the effects of the recession on average Americans, but it will probably be cancelled before it can.

... The reason the press conference announcing the end of Ottawa's 51-day transit strike was delayed was because everyone had to walk. Apparently, the drivers' union reps left for the press conference in a 40-foot-long limousine — well, they couldn't take the bus!

This post is worth nothing; this is worth noting

• Check out The Tao's thoughts on William Houston leaving The Globe & Mail.

Mats who?

For those still paying attention, Bob McCown just reported that he's been told that Mats Sundin will sign with the Rangers this week. For all of his bluster, when McCown breaks something it's usually right.

It's too bad. Montreal would have been far more amusing.

McCown, Brunt and Mitchell on the AFL's potential demise

Bob McCown and Stephen Brunt discussed the AFL's potential collapse and its implications for the CFL on their radio/TV show Prime Time Sports this afternoon with Hamilton Tiger-Cats president Scott Mitchell, and there were plenty of interesting points made. Several of them were in line with my speculation yesterday, but there were some unexpected questions and responses as well. The audio file of the interview can be found here on the Fan 590 home page. Some of their key comments are after the jump, along with my analysis.

In the opening segment, McCown and Brunt discussed the AFL for a while, and both seemed to come to the conclusion that its demise would probably help the CFL in some way. As McCown said, "The presumption is that it probably would be a good thing for the CFL". Mitchell disagreed, though, arguing that if the AFL cancelled its season, the impact would probably be "negligible." He thought that the relatively small crossover rate between the two leagues meant that most AFL guys weren't cut out for the CFL and vice versa. "It’s a different skill set, a different type of player," he said. "Even without that league there, I’m not sure you’re going to see a large migration of players up here."

I don't buy that argument, though. Yes, the game is a bit different, but there are certainly those who could play in either league. As Montreal Alouettes general manager Jim Popp told The Globe and Mail's David Naylor yesterday, there are probably three to five players on each team who would attract some CFL interest, representing 51 to 85 players total by my calculations. Popp is also actively involved the football operations side, while Mitchell primarily oversees the business end, so I trust Popp's evaluation more here. There's also some good talent in the league: check out this list of some notable arena football alumni who have made it to the NFL.

Furthermore, the historical lack of players transferring between the two leagues does not mean that situation would hold if one league collapsed. The salaries are quite similar for many players, so the AFL was a chance for Americans who couldn't crack the NFL to stay in the U.S. and still play football. If it goes under, there's much more incentive for them to come to the CFL (and less alternative options as well). Thus, you'd probably see more Americans willing to come north. As McCown said, "If that option is removed, now where do these guys go?" His conclusion was that a bunch of them would come to Canada, and that seems plausible from here.

The next subject of discussion was Arena League quarterbacks in particular, as the league's known for its quarterback play (the Arizona Cardinals' Kurt Warner got his start in the AFL). Mitchell admitted that quarterback is "one area that could be interesting," but then dumped a little cold water on it by suggesting that "it’s a very quick pass league and arm strength isn’t the prerequisite for the quarterback." Well, arm strength is great, but many NFL and CFL teams have proved that it isn't always necessary; just ask Bill Walsh, Jon Gruden and Chad Pennington. Reading the defence and making good decisions can be just as important.

Another interesting point that was brought up was the idea of suspension versus completely dissolving the league. Mitchell seemed to think that a one-year suspension wouldn't kill the league, but Brunt made an excellent point to the contrary along my own lines of thought. "It seems to me that if something goes away right now, the notion of trying to bring it back 12 months from now in what's probably going to be a worse economy is a non-starter," he said. Personally, I don't see how the AFL could expect to come back after sitting out a year; you'd lose all of your players and contracts, and not all of them would come running back if they found a better situation. You also lose your TV deals, your corporate sponsorship and a good deal of your fan base. It would likely be extremely difficult to revive the league after a year-long suspension.

Brunt also raised the issue of the AFL folding potentially strengthening the CFL's negotiating position vis-a-vis the NFL, as the NFL would still need to develop their players somewhere and investing in the CFL might make more sense than trying to start their own league again. As he said, "The NFL is loathe to put money into developing leagues in general." Mitchell downplayed this idea as well, though, saying, "The European league, that going out of business was probably more advantageous for us than the Arena League [going out of business]."

Next, they discussed how the absence of the Arena League would make CFL scouting more difficult. McCown said "The downside to this is that it makes it more difficult to find those guys who kind of fall off the radar," and there was pretty much consensus on that point. It makes sense from here, too, and means that the CFL would probably have to focus more of their efforts on nabbing potential players when they come out of college. From here, though, that's a pretty small drawback compared to the gains that could be in store in other areas.

Also interesting was their discussion of the idea of a new American league arising, such as the "New USFL". I'd heard rumours about this before, but hadn't really considered what the AFL's demise could mean. It certainly could pave the way for a new American league, though, as the AFL's existence (and that of the old USFL) has shown that there's an appetite for more pro football in the States, especially in the spring. That kind of a league might be problematic for the CFL, especially if they go with a relatively high salary cap and draw CFL players away. As Mitchell said, "If there was a league that came out and was operating at a 30 million dollar cap, that would be the one that’s going to affect us and concern us the most." I'm not sure that any of these leagues will ever get off the ground, though; it's awfully hard to try and launch a new professional sports entity during an economic recession.

The last point raised was a discussion of if the absence of the AFL would allow the CFL to reduce player salaries due to a lack of competition. As Brunt asked, "If you’re the only game in town other than the NFL, shouldn’t that allow you to operate at a less expensive level?" Mitchell replied that the current bargaining agreement locks the players' cut in at 65 per cent of revenues, so that wouldn't change for the moment. However, the lack of an alternative might help the owners' bargaining position in the next negotiations.

Overall, it was a very interesting segment. McCown and Brunt have obviously put some thought into this, and most of their conclusions seem logical. Mitchell seemed reticent to read too much into this, but a good part of that may be his position. It would be bad form for a top executive to gloat publicly about the demise of a competitor, especially when the competitor isn't quite dead yet [Duane Rollins, this blog]. Thus, the impact on the CFL might be more profound than he's willing to admit at this juncture.

Oh, that Bob!

If you were listening to Prime Time Sports Wednesday you just knew that Bob McCown's comments about the U.S. presidential election were going to cause controversy.

Your best bet is to listen to the comments yourself, but basically McCown made the argument that Barack Obama may not have won if he was white--that his massive popularity with African-Americans drove the participation up in that demographic and helped Obama overcome his inexperience (he isn't that much more experienced as a single term senator than Sarah Palin is, yet Palin's inexperience became a major issue).

It's a nuanced argument and one that doesn't translate well on talk radio--especially sports talk radio. But, coverage in today's Globe and Mail doesn't seem to be fair. Although McCown is given the opportunity to explain the comments, William Houston's reportage doesn't accurately convey the complexity to what was being discussed. Predictably, the comments section is lighting up with people a little too eager to yell the R-word (usually relying only on second hand information).

Not that McCown needs the help, but I was compelled to defend him in the comments. I wrote:

I'm not sure many here heard the comment McCown made. He was, in fact, suggesting that there were many voters that were drawn to Obama because of race. He never placed a value judgment on it and he consistently said that he was a supporter (of his) throughout the race.

The comment was made immediately after his co-host said that the win represented a shift in American thinking. McCown challenged that by pointing out exit poll data that showed that close to 70 per cent of older, white male Americans did not vote for Obama. When you factor in the increased turn-out among black voters and the near monopoly Obama had in that vote, then you can argue that it was a significant factor in his win.

Mr. Houston's column, and the replies to it, don't at all represent the complexity of what McCown was trying to say. Additionally, there seems to be an inference/assumption that there was an underlying dismissal to the win. McCown didn't argue that Obama "only" won because he was black (and therefore the victory is less legitimate). He argued that his race was a major contributing factor to his win. He also stressed that his win was a good thing for the United States.

McCown's program is available on podcast. The comments were in the first 20 minutes of Wednesday's show. Perhaps people should listen to it before making further judgment.