Hockey’s history in North America is as rich and storied as baseball. The professional level has a championship trophy equalivalent to the Holy Grail—the most recognizable trophy in all of sports.
But hockey’s most notable league, the NHL, hath fallen on dark times. The game had risen from its Original Six status in the early part of the century to a peak in 1994 on the heels of the Great One.
But since ’94, the league has suffered two lockouts, one canceled season, severe loss of fan interest, major financial repercussions, no major network television contract, and a complete overhaul in format called the “New NHL”—all of which has sunk the league deeper into its North American abyss.
It’s as much of “what happened” as “how do we fix it”—for we must understand what brought hockey to this juncture. But to dwell is to tread water. To fix is to breathe new life. And this is exactly what the great game at the NHL level is in desperate need of—new life.
For the game has potential, and surprisingly still has a rather solid foundation of talent to excel upon moving forward. But the post-'04-05 lockout, “new” NHL is a failure—no matter what figures of finances the league office attempts to lavish upon the public.
And so, if the league truly wishes to rise back to the prominence it had in 1994, it will not only consider, but enact these six major changes to rescue the once great league and game. So take a seat, for this may take a bit. I’ll save the best for last.
1. Re-establish a Canadian/American League
This is the second-most important part of fixing the product.
Fans support players they can identify with, plain and simple. Making money isn’t a popularity contest, nor can you manufacture interest as the music industry has discovered. Owners bring in revenue by providing customer satisfaction and a quality product.
The hockey product is a middle class, hard-working, “grind it out” sport—and fans root for players they can envision as themselves.
Politicians speak of a global economy, but in the NHL it hasn’t translated—especially in the NHL’s more recent expansion markets. But most importantly, it doesn’t translate onto TV. Since the collapse of the USSR ('89-92) the influx of Russian and European players into the league has increased dramatically—and so has the decline in fan interest.
This is not a knock on the Russians, Czechs, Swedes, or Fins. This is to say the markets which the NHL thrives on needs more players that come from the fan bases’ very own roots. That’s the product the fan base wants. So to succeed, the NHL must provide it.
What South Floridian homeowner is going to bring his child to a game to root for players who’s last name they find difficult to pronounce and who struggle to interrupt in interviews? What results is a serious connection gap between players and fans. And that’s the NHL’s current status.
The European and Russian style of play is top-caliber hockey. Sweden and Czech Republic have won three of the past four Olympic games. Additionally, the USSR (now Russia) is viewed as the pinnacle of hockey philosophy and style.
But what is so wrong with the North American game and style of play that the NHL decided to stray from it in the mid ‘90’s? The Canadian game is elegant with crisp passing and speed while the Americans hit like a ton of bricks. That product rose the NHL to financial reward by the early 90’s—why go against it?
Did foreign players come cheaper? Did GMs really believe they were better? Was it because the NHL All-Stars got shown up by the Soviet Red Army in the 1979’s Challenge Cup? Or is it just a result of the Russian domination of Olympic hockey?
To suggest that the Russian and European game is superior is false. In actuality the North American game is right on par with the rest of the world. It may be a different style of play and attack—but it ain’t any less.
Realize that during the Soviet Union’s dominance on the world stage (’56-’92), only the United States won gold during that era (’60, ’80) also getting the silver (’56, ’72) while Canada won silver twice (’60, ’92) as well as two bronze (’56, ’68)—proving the North American game was the Soviet's most equal opponent.
And remember, until 1996, the US sent amateurs to compete in international play—or as one Soviet put it, “you have boys, we send men.”
Well, our “boys” held their own.
Olympic Results to date:
1920 Canada United States Czechoslovakia
1924 Canada United States Great Britain
1928 Canada Sweden Switzerland
1932 Canada United States Germany
1936 Great Britain Canada United States
1948 Canada Czechoslovakia Switzerland
1952 Canada United States Sweden
(Soviets finally allowed to participate in Olympic Games)
1956 Soviet Union United States Canada
1960 United States Canada Soviet Union
1964 Soviet Union Sweden Czechoslovakia
1968 Soviet Union Czechoslovakia Canada
1972 Soviet Union United States Czechoslovakia
1976 Soviet Union Czechoslovakia West Germany
1980 United States Soviet Union Sweden
1984 Soviet Union Czechoslovakia Sweden
1988 Soviet Union Finland Sweden
1992 CIS (Russia) Canada Czechoslovakia
1994 Sweden Canada Finland
1998 Czech Republic Russia Finland
2002 Canada United States Russia
2006 Sweden Finland Czech Republic
And let’s be honest. Gold and silver are what matter – not the bronze. Hence the chart below with a column for “TWB” (Total With Bronze):
Since 1956 Gold Silver Total Bronze Tw/B
USSR/Russia 8 2 10 2 12
USA 2 3 5 0 5
Canada 1 3 4 2 6
Sweden 2 1 3 3 6
Today's Must Reads
Czech 1 2 3 4 7
Finland 0 2 2 2 4
Other 0 0 0 1 1
Post USSR (’92 to present)
Sweden 2 0 2 0 2
Canada 1 1 2 0 2
Czech 1 0 1 0 2
Finland 0 1 1 2 3
USA 0 1 1 0 1
Russia 0 1 1 1 2
And if the four-year layoff of Olympic competition doesn’t sway the argument, consider the Canada Cup (now the World Cup of Hockey) as yet another form of an international measuring stick.
Played under NHL rules, not those of the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF), the Canada Cup has been held in ‘76, ‘81, ‘84, ‘87, ‘91, ‘96, and ‘04:
Champion 2nd
’76 Canada Czechoslovakia
’81 USSR Canada
’84 Canada Sweden
’87 Canada USSR
’91 Canada USA
’96 USA Canada
‘04 Canada Finland
The real issue comes from a marketing standpoint. North Americans prefer ourbrand of hockey—not circles and four or five lanes of ice. Look no further than in Hockeytown, where thousands of Detroit Red Wings seats were left empty during the 2008 playoffs.
Breaking down the NHL by player origin, there are currently 650 players in the league. In the 2007 season, 373 were Canadians (57 percent), 150 were Americans (22 percent), and 127 were European (20 percent).
This poses the question—if only 20 percent of the league is European, why did the league office alter the All-Star game format from East/West to North America/World from ’98-'02? Another league office marketing flop!
The point is, the North American players are just as good as their European and Russian counterparts—just not as fast or flashy. While the change in roster origins would bring slightly slower play, it’s still play of the same quality as the statistics above prove. And it’s the product the fan base wants—winning domestic hockey.
If fans wanted an international game, they would fly to Leningrad to watch hockey—but they don’t. And until this issue is fixed, the league, its fan involvement, and TV ratings will continue to suffer.
To bring back fans at the record numbers like that of '94, the NHL needs franchises to draft more domestic-born players. The league needs to spend and invest in more domestic programs to encourage and develop home grown talent, especially in the states (USA Hockey) rather than bringing talent from abroad.
Honesty, think about it—do Europeans want to pay to see an American soccer league in their region of the world?
2) Relocate or Fold
Ask any older hockey fan (that means pre-'90s expansion) and they’ll tell you their No. 1 problem with the NHL is too many teams in the league. Commissioner Bettman’s expansion model went too far, and it has turned pure fans away from the game.
Since 1992, nine clubs have been incorporated into the league: San Jose Sharks (1992), Ottawa Senators (1993), Tampa Bay Lightning (1993), Florida Panthers (1994), Anaheim Ducks (1994), Nashville Predators (1999), Atlanta Thrashers (2000), Minnesota Wild (2001), Columbus Blue Jackets (2001).
It’s an overload of teams in a short period of time, as the league attempted to establish southern markets in the wake of popularity of the game arising from Gretzky’s fame.
But the temporary interest in those markets is running dry. The league needs a solid mode—one that regains fans interest and trust, not just money AND generates TV revenue. The current model does neither.
Take an example of another league, the NBA. Over the past five seasons, three clubs have been on the move: Vancouver to Memphis, Charlotte to New Orleans, and Seattle to Oklahoma City—and the league has put a team BACK in Charlotte.
The truth is, there just isn’t enough support for any of those clubs, no matter their location. The interest which owners seek cannot come from every market. And it hinders the product and the game.
So it goes for the NHL. Fans will respond to a few new clubs— as they showed in 1994 (five clubs had been added at that point). But not nine. NINE?
And the same goes for a TV audience. TV viewers tune in to watch the Red Wings-Rangers, Bruins-Canadians, or even Kings-Blues—not Predators-Thrashers. That matchup cannot guarantee enough appeal to draw interest and enthusiasm for hockey fans to watch. And with nine new clubs, you get that form of a match up on a consistent basis.