Yet Gary Bettman just announced that NBC/Versus has just renewed their TV deal for $2 billion dollars over 10 years after a long fight for the rights with ESPN.
$2 billion dollars.
Two billion.
10 years on one of the biggest networks in American television.
While a self-important sponsor like Air Canada has a hissy fit and writes a "strongly worded" letter to the NHL because someone on their hometown team got injured on a perfectly legitimate yet unfortunate hockey play, the Commish is closing $2 billion dollar deals if you need him. I'm sure Air Canada is just dying to get out their NHL deal.
Maybe there's actually something appealing about a fast paced, skilled and often violent sport.
Who knew?
And maybe, just maybe, Gary Bettman knows what he's doing despite everyone sitting on their couch at home being convinced they could do his job better than he can.
I know, I know, these are radical ideas for Canadian sports fans but there just might be some merit to them.
19 comments:
Nope, I'm pretty sure I could be doing a better job than Bettman.
The league's success (such as it is) is in spite of Bettman, not because of him. Could you imagine what the NHL could be if it weren't presided over by people with absolutely no clue? If discipline wasn't always a spin of the roullette wheel? If the league wouldn't make deals with criminals to keep teams in money-losing markets?
I also think I could do a better job than Bettman, and I'm American. Sorry to wreck your theory.
Still considering that there was a reported bidding war and this contract crushes the old one, I think Bettman does deserve some credit where it's due.
Now if he could only get a handle on the Phoenix and Atlanta situations...
I don't think the people that claim Bettman doesn't know what he is doing are the same people that desire a contact free NHL. All I know is I can't wait for the first/next all Canadian final on NBC.
easily your worst post to date. excellent work otherwise and i look forward to reading the next.
All I have to do is say one nice thing about Gary Bettman and people can't stand it.
When I said that people "sitting on their couches" thought they could do a better job than Bettman, I was exagerrating to make a point, yet some of you actually believe this I see.
Bettman has made some mistakes in the past, but there's a reason he has near unanimous approval from the board of governors year after year.
He's grown the game and made the owners filthy rich.
It goes against conventional wisdom to praise Bettman, which is tough for some people to handle, but conventional wisdom is almost always wrong anyways. It's a cliche to rip Bettman, and about five years too late.
Fans in Ottawa, Buffalo and Edmonton wouldn't have an NHL team if it wasn't for Bettman's insistence on finding buyers committed to keeping the team where it is.
He's an easy target. And I expect a more nuanced argument from some of you than just "this is your worst post to date". Tell me exactly why you think Bettman is doing a bad job. I'd be interested to hear your arguments.
the nbc deal works out to less than 7 million a year per team ... big deal. it's nowhere near nfl or mbl money.
Anon, for a league that was not even considered part of the four major sports going into the lockout, the NBC deal is absolutely huge. Of course it's nowhere near NFL or even NBA money. If you're waiting for that kind of deal, you'll be waiting a long time.
i don't think the argument is that bettman doesn't KNOW what he's doing, it's that canadians don't LIKE what he's doing.
i also don't think canada's hate-on for bettman has to do with headshots nearly as much as it has to do with teams existing in atlanta and phoenix instead of quebec city and winnipeg. it's all passion and very little logic..
Anyone who denies that Bettman has done a great job with the business side of the game is kidding themselves. The business side is as strong as it's been since Gretzky's heyday in Los Angeles.
Still, there are other problems with the league right now. Although you're dismissive of it, the league does need to do something to improve player safety, and further rules against dangerous hits aren't the only answer. The 'Wheel of Justice' is laughable, and the fact that the league's suspension guru is the father of a player makes the league look like a gongshow.
He's done well. But not as well as he, or as others, could have.
I agree, you seriously cannot get away with saying one positive thing about GB without getting slammed. I think its fair to acknowledge that this thing is huge for the league. Yes, it is a smaller league than the NFL and MLB, can you not accespt SOME growth when it comes? $7M per team is peanuts? I ask you this, Anonymoose #2 (you heard me), would you like your business to have $7M extra to work with per year for a decade (during a recession to boot), plus more exposure to a country of 300M people who love watching TV AND buying things? If you have selected No, congratulations you are terrible at (pretend) business! And thats coming from ME, an idiot.
Do I like teams in the sun belt? Meh, not especially I guess, but i get why he's trying to protect his/other peoples investment to the bitter end. Hockey has worked in LA, San Jose, Anaheim, Dallas, Nashville, even Tampa Bay. It makes SOME sense why there are teams down there. Phoenix is a huge market for TV, Atlanta is a much, much larger city than Winnipeg and QC (all due respect) at over 5M. Has it all worked? Obviously, its going very poorly in PHX, ATL, FLA but its not like every team failed. Failed like QC and WINN failed, unfortunate as it was. Peter is also absolutely bang on in that guy has some serious work to do for sure in terms of player safety but to say the league has suffered greatly under him since the lockout is a stretch. Does Bettman come off as a completely unlikable dude? Whew yeah. Yeah he does. Lawyery as f_ck. But also, thanks for protecting the Sens when the chips were down and hooking up 7M when are team is doing lotto pick bad.
Jeremy, Phil has it right. Maybe Bettman has done well to line (some of) the owners' pockets, but is he lining mine? No? Then I am free to disagree with much that has gone on during his tenure.
If you, as a fan without money invested in this, think that making money for the owners is the ultimate indicator of his time at the head of the league, you're entitled to it.
I agree with a lot of your posts Mr. Milks, but I'm going to continue to disagree you on statements like "a perfectly legitimate yet unfortunate hockey play". Your continued, self-righteous defence of needless violence in our beloved game has me questioning your judgment. And your attempt to justify it somehow with money deals has me questioning your logic.
I have to agree with Peter's take on Bettman and the league. Good for business. Not good for the game.
Love the game. Love the speed, the excitement, the hard hits and the battle for the puck. Can't love the intentional head crushing that continues largely unchecked, and inconsistently officiated.
You can deride or dismiss my opinion as "headshot fever" if you want... but that won't make it go away.
*correction: "I'm going to continue to disagree WITH you..."
This sounds like another appeal to authority fallacy column. First Murray,now Bryden,maybe next week Jeremy tackles Harper, the Pope and Obama.
Oh no, let not the common man ask questions, be inquisitive or hope for a better alternative. Shame for doing that.
I mean, Quebec gone, Winnipeg gone, hockey failing across the States, and two billion? Melnyk is worth that much and won't even buy us a new scoreboard...
Terry
Meant Bettman, not Bryden who was >> > Melnyk.
Terry
I wonder if Jeremy would put on a pair of skates then volunteer to have another player hit him in the head, giving him a serious concussion then come on the boards and tell us how great that hockey play was.
Probably not, right?
Strange.
Mike
Mike,
If I was lucky enough to have the talent to play in the NHL and earn an NHL paycheque, then yes, I would gladly take the risk of being injured, just like all NHL players do.
It's a widely accepted fact that all NHL players give their tacit approval to be subject to a reasonable level of violence in order to play in the league and earn compensation. That includes being hit, sometimes aggressively and in contravention of the league rules. This is not just my viewpoint, it's a self-evident truth. There is almost a century of NHL competition to prove this point.
I notice that a lot of people are still under the misguided impression that I don't believe in any action being taken against "headshots". Nothing could be further from the truth. Where I draw the line is penalizing all plays that involve contact with the head. It's a slippery slope to a league where every hit is over scrutinized. In fact, we are already there.
NHL hockey is popular because of 3 basic features: 1 - scoring/skill, 2 - hitting and 3 - fighting, probably in that order although I'm sure some would argue.
Maybe you don't like hitting or fighting, but it's impossible to deny that both are a major selling point for the sport and always have been. Scoring has already been watered down due to oversized goaltending equipment. Fighting has been decreased due to the instigator rule (which I support by the way). Now a basic function like hitting is under intense scrutiny by the media and the fans.
At some point, certain fans are going to have to accept a certain level of violence, like all players do, or else they should look to another sport for their entertainment.
Hockey will always include hitting, which means there will ALWAYS be concussions. The head is on a swivel, which means if it isn't hit directly, it will still get hit indirectly in the aftermath of a hit.
Like most, I support penalizing senseless hits that needlessly target the head, but unlike many, I don't see every hit as something that needs to be analyzed to try and figure out the hitters intention. Not only is it boring to do so, it's pointless.
The NHL needs more hitting, just like it needs more scoring. I won't apologize or jump on some reactionary bandwagon just because a commenter like Mike can't muster a coherent argument to challenge my views.
I appreciate everyone's interest, and respect their takes, but it's frustrating to hear people try to simplify my point of view on the subject in order to bolster their side of the argument.
And Terry, no, you will not hear me writing a defense of Stephen Harper. The one thing you can be sure of, outside of death and taxes, is that there will never be a vote cast for a Conservative politician by one Jeremy Milks.
Rest assured my friend, rest assured.
Hi Jeremy,
One of the reasons I like this blog is that the debate tends to be cordial and reasonable. I think this thread is a good example.
I know I sound like a sissy, but it's just too dangerous out there.
I've never played a high level of hockey, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that these guys can avoid making contact with others' heads.
Honest question: Am I wrong on that?
If that means 'pulling the chute' (as MacTavish said on the McGinn hit on Richardson last night), then so be it.
I think there's some merit in the idea of trying a 'no head contact' rule in the minors or juniors.
I admit that my approach may be wrong, but I don't think it's wise to continue with the 'everything is fine, the NHL is fine' mantra when world-class athletes are sustaining brain damage.
Jeremy, is there a middle ground between what's happening now and no head contact?
If you could change the game in this respect, what would you propose? I am genuinely curious.
Well said Jeremy. Maybe our disagreement has to do with the level we should "raise the bar" on hits that make contact with or cause direct damage to the head.
I think the league is moving in the right direction, but too slowly and without a high enough level of consistency.
Case in point: who can tell me why the shoulder to the head on Bieksa wasn't penalized or reviewed? You may think it's a "good hockey hit", but my question is how is it any cleaner than a number of hits recently that have been penalized, reviewed and generally more scrutinized? It was a blindside shoulder to the head... was it not?
Post a Comment