 |
INDEPTH:
NHL LABOUR STRIFE > FEATURES
Contraction Is
smaller really better?
CBC Sports Online | Last updated Oct. 29, 2004
Gary Bettman: "I don't believe in contraction.
I think that's a terrible thing to do to your fans." (AP Photo) |
It's the one word on the lips of the majority
of hockey fans, and the one term NHL commissioner Gary Bettman says
isn't even in his vocabulary: contraction.
In 1992-93, the NHL was comprised of 24 teams. In the 2003-04 campaign,
30 teams competed in the NHL.
Critics say the easy way to fix the league's financial problems
is to get rid of a few teams. The NHL says contraction is not an
option.
So who's right? Decide for yourself.
What exactly is contraction?
As a way of addressing the financial and entertainment woes of the
National Hockey League, some fans, players and critics have suggested
that a possible solution could be contraction: the purging or elimination
of one or more clubs from the 30-team league.
Which teams are most often mentioned as being candidates for
contraction and why?
Not surprisingly it's the clubs in the U.S. sunbelt –
the Carolina Hurricanes, Atlanta Thrashers, Nashville Predators
and the Florida Panthers – because of what some fans and media
perceive as a lack of interest in those cities.
Atlanta, Nashville and Carolina finished in the bottom third of
attendance for the 2003-04 season, with the Predators (an average
of 13,157 fans per game) and Hurricanes (12,086) finishing 28th
and 29th, respectively.
"There are too many teams, especially in southern outposts far removed
from where hockey has always thrived," opines William Gildea of
the Washington Post. "The NHL has made the mistake of pulling up
from its roots, trying to make itself a national U.S. sport. It
isn't. It's a regional sport."
"The NHL in markets like Nashville, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Anaheim,
Raleigh … I could go on and on … doesn't make any sense,"
said Howard Bloom, publisher of SportsBusiness.com. "Regardless
of whatever Gary Bettman says, contraction is in the NHL's future;
in fact; it's the league's inevitable destiny."
What do the players think?
Opinion appears to be mixed.
Even though it would mean a loss of jobs for
players, Red Wings blue-liner Chris Chelios told a Detroit newspaper
he's in favour of contraction, accusing Bettman of putting hockey
"where it shouldn't belong."
"You get rid of six or seven teams that don't
belong where they are … Some states just aren't marketable,
some cities," Chelios said. "Hockey's not a national sport in the
U.S., and Gary Bettman doesn't have a feel for that. That's my opinion."
At the 2004 World Cup of Hockey, Dallas Stars
forward Mike Modano said he thought that Nashville and Carolina
should be contracted.
Former Montreal Canadien Guy Lafleur said recently
he hopes the end of the current lockout will result in a scaled-back
league.
"I really believe they should cut back to 24
[teams] to make hockey better,'' Hall of Famer recently said of
the current 30-team league.
However, not all players agree that contraction
is the answer.
Predators forward Scott Walker, the team's
NHL Players' Association representative, disagrees with Chelios
and Modano, his NHLPA brethren.
"I was disappointed to hear those guys say that
about contraction because contraction is not something unions should
like," Walker said. "I know I would never vote to contract a team,
and even for them to talk about it is not very pleasing. I don't
think it would be better for the league or the players."
Other players have publicly said that the loss
of jobs that contraction would bring is not the solution to the
league's problems.
Where does Gary Bettman stand on the issue?
Bettman has repeatedly said that he is not interested in contraction
and that it won't help remedy the NHL's financial woes.
"We, as a League, me personally, I don't believe in contraction.
I think that's a terrible thing to do to your fans," Bettman said
during a fan Q&A on the Sept. 22 edition of CBC's The National.
"I also believe that with $2.1 billion U.S. in revenues, we can
have 30 healthy franchises. The reason we don't have 30 healthy
franchises is we pay too much out of our revenues on our expenses,
and there are disparities which have competitive implications in
terms of what our teams can spend and the product that they can
put on the ice.
"With the right economic system, we can have
30 healthy, competitive franchises all with affordable ticket prices,
which frankly all of this is about the fans. All of this is making
sure that our game is as healthy as it can be."
NHL vice president Bill Daly agrees.
"You'd think [a $2.1 billion industry] would be enough for 30 franchises
and 25 players on every club to live kind of nicely live with. From
our perspective, there's more than enough to go around, for everyone
to live comfortably and to have a good, solid entertainment product."
The issue of contraction is the one area where the league and NHLPA
appear to be in agreement. NHLPA officials have yet to say it publicly,
but they have told players when asked that they do not support contraction,
as the union would lose over 100 jobs that NHL expansion has given
to its membership.
Would the quality of play improve with fewer teams?
A lot of people seem to think so. Supporters of contraction say
the addition of nine teams in less than a decade has watered-down
the NHL's overall product.
"I think [expansion] diluted the talent base, which in turn forced
teams to win with defence and systems," said Ed Willes of the Vancouver
Province. "Teams knew their only opportunity to win was with defence
first, instead of playing with speed, skill and creativity."
Willes thinks fewer teams would mean deeper and more talented rosters.
"I think the majority of teams would have two good scoring lines,"
Willes said, "instead of having four good forwards to kind of mix
and match, and then everyone else plays the system."
Others point out that the NHL's expansion has resulted in a dramatic
drop in scoring over the last decade.
In 1992-93, the last season the league had 24 teams, the top 10
scorers all had at least 123 points. Since then the league has added
six teams and only three players … Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux
and Jaromir Jagr (twice) … have scored more than 122 points.
Another argument for contraction is that fewer games and less travel
would mean less fatigue for players, fewer injuries and thus a higher
calibre of play.
Contracting a few teams would result in a better overall product
on the ice, right?
Some critics say that contraction would have the exact opposite
effect on the NHL.
Toronto Sun hockey writer Al Strachan argues the reason why scoring
in the NHL has drastically dropped over the last decade is not because
there are more teams playing defensively, but because players are
bigger and faster and thus have less open space to operate within.
According to Strachan, the purging of the player pool would only
make it that much more difficult to score.
"I'd accept that there's more parity in the league, but that doesn't
mean it's watered down," said Strachan. "All the players are good
these days. There are no defencemen you can skate around, no goalies
you can beat with floating wrist shots.
"There's not a lack of skill. There's too much skill. If you cut
teams, it'll make it even worse."
Others argue because the pool of available European-born players
is bigger than it was when 24 teams made up the NHL, the league
can reasonably sustain 30 competitive teams.
|
|
|
|
