The NHL: Where Gary Bettman Happens

(Photo from The Red Line)

Gary Bettman's most recent interview with Ron MacLean, which just aired on CBC's pre-game show, clearly is deserving of its own place in history on the Unintentional Comedy Scale. I recommend at least a 78: better than the Super Bowl Shuffle but not quite up there with Bill Clinton's denial. Credit to MacLean for going after Bettman with both barrels blazing, instead of throwing the softballs usually delivered at the commissioner's public appearances (often by broadcasters from his league's own network) or by callers to his radio show.

A key topic of conversation was sports business columnist extraordinaire Rick Westhead's piece in the Toronto Star yesterday, which revealed that the six Canadian teams (20 per cent of the league, if you're keeping track) account for a staggeringly disproportionate 31 per cent of the league's gate receipts. This provoked incredible hilarity, as Bettman tried to bash the piece as sensationalist journalism without actually denying any of the numbers or statistics cited. One of the greatest moments in the interview came right at the start, when Bettman attempted to reverse the spin of the numbers (an effort that must have made Nick Naylor proud), saying, "It is a little disproportionate, and I think that that may be a very good thing." He went on to talk about how the Canadian teams were struggling back in the late-1990s, and how it's supposedly healthy to have it the other way now.

Um, hello? Is Bettman's brain on? First, most of those struggles were due to a Canadian dollar that was in the dumps during the 90s and hit an all-time low of U.S. $0.61 as late as 2002. When your main expense (salaries) is in U.S. dollars and your main income streams (gate attendance and TV) arrive in a currency that's almost 40 cents below even, but the prices don't tend to be that different for TV deals and seats, that's a severe problem. The dollar's rise to parity has had far more to do with the recent success of Canadian clubs than any league initiatives. Second, any economist worth his salt could tell you that it isn't healthy to have 20 per cent of your clubs (and the 20 per cent that experiences only minimal marketing, as most of the league's efforts are focused on growing the game south of the border) bringing in 31 per cent of one of the significant revenue streams (and it's not unreasonable to think that the TV and corporate sponsorship numbers are similar).

It got even better from there. "Frankly, revenues are growing all across the league," Bettman said. "Any suggestion to the contrary is someone trying for a headline." Uh, sure they're growing, but not all across the league. The ever-excellent James Mirtle did some calculations and figured out that 60.3 per cent of the $119 million in ticket revenue growth came from the six Canadian teams. Sixty per cent of the growth! That's even worse than the 31 per cent overall. When you factor in that a huge amount of that supposed "growth" is really just additional revenues from the rise of the Canadian dollars, it paints a portrait of a league that is in pretty dire straits financially. As the Globe's Stephen Brunt wrote yesterday, "In a league that in the absence of significant national television money in the United States relies heavily on live gate, 31 per cent of ticket revenue is generated by Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa and Edmonton. Even those at the small-market end of the Canadian spectrum are bringing in more than twice the gate receipts of at least eight U.S.-based franchises. Take away the exchange rate bump, and a passion for the game in this country that only increased after the great labour war, and you have a sports business that is close to stagnant."

Bettman continued on in this fine vein of form, growing more flustered and blustery with each passing moment. His quotes also began to make even less sense. "The Canadian clubs are somewhat in the mid-twenty per cent range." What does that even mean? It sounded like he was trying to suggest that Canadian franchises are middle-of-the pack economically, but that's in sharp contrast to Westhead's numbers, which are actually the NHL's own numbers (he got them from a secret league document). When MacLean suggested that the game's in trouble south of the border, Bettman responded with "Trouble's a funny thing," which tells you absolutely nothing. He then continued with the always-reassuring "Everything's going to be fine," said in "We've just hit an iceberg" tones, and the ever-popular "We're in the best shape we've ever been in," which not only elevates him to the Liars' Hall of Fame with such luminaries as Clay Bennett, but also makes me even more disillusioned with this league: if this is the best it's ever been, maybe we should just let it die, as there's little worth saving at the moment.

The interview continued to get even better. Bettman went after MacLean for only talking about gate receipts, saying that they'd seen huge attendance jumps in the U.S. MacLean quite rightly saw through this smokescreen and asked Bettman if that wasn't only due to the sharp discount on tickets in most American markets to try and get to the magical 14,000 number needed to receive revenue-sharing. Bettman knew his bluff had been called, and awkwardly responded with "That's one part of the equation. You have to have a certain portion of paid attendance." He then went on a wild stream-of-consciousness rant about "people" having "agendas" that made Buzz Bissinger look positively lucid.

Bettman then continued in fine form when MacLean asked him about the ongoing federal investigation of Nashville part owner William "Boots" Del Biaggio III, who's pretty much only in the group to move the team to Kansas City. Del Biaggio is now being sued for "complete fraud" in relation to his business dealings, as opposed to his supposed intentions of keeping the team in Nashville. Bettman first asked MacLean about the terms of the investigation (which you'd expect he'd know, as it affects one of his owners, but I'll give him a bit of a break here as this is pretty late-breaking). Afterwards, he said, "Nobody in Nashville should worry. The Predators will be absolutely fine." He also seemingly refuted the possibility of the team moving. Hey, at least he's on the same page as the team management, which said that the investigation "will have no impact whatsoever." As Greg Wyshynski points out, Bettman might actually be right on the team staying in Nashville for a while longer: if Del Biaggio's out of the picture, there's less of a push to jump to Kansas City. As another interesting thing, Del Biaggio is one of at least three NHL owners currently under some form of investigation: the Anaheim Ducks' Henry Samueli is being sued by the SEC and accused of fraud, and their 2007 Stanley Cup final opponent's owner, Eugene Melnyk of the Ottawa Senators, is fighting both the SEC (which his company paid $10 million in a settlement) and the Ontario Securities Commission. Sounds like we might be back to the days of Bruce McNall and John Spano.

(Aside: Kansas City? Seriously, what's with the rush to move into the Midwest? Does the NHL want to start a "Dust Bowl Division" before the NBA can? The only good thing that could possibly come out of an NHL franchise in Kansas City would be Joe Posnanski writing about the league.)

Bettman continued with a fine comment on the state of the league, "There's been a lot of suggestions, a lot of allegations that we're doing something wrong." Hmmm... maybe those suggestions are arising because you're actually doing A LOT OF THINGS wrong. As Brunt wrote, "There are a couple of ways one might describe the Gary Bettman era in the NHL. Unequivocal failure would be one."

Coming soon: ways to fix what Gary hath wrought upon the league.

Hold the Crosby, please.

(Photo from (gasp) AveryNation. Makes me question who I hate more, Crosby or Avery. I think Avery wins by a nose, due to the Vogue internship and the whole Elisha Cuthbert thing, but Crosby's pretty close).

I don't want to make it seem like I'm always ragging on the Globe and Mail's William Houston, but his column today annoyed the hell out of me. Here's the highlights (lowlights?).

"Let's see. He's the youngest player to be appointed as the captain of an NHL team. This is his first Stanley Cup final. Hard to tell, but he may still be hurting from an ankle injury that sidelined him for 29 games in the regular season.
On Wednesday, Sidney Crosby scored two of the Pittsburgh Penguins' three goals and logged almost 20 minutes of ice time to lead the Penguins back into their series against the Detroit Red Wings. It was a terrific performance.
But guess who received the attention during the Hockey Night in Canada postgame coverage? Gary Roberts.
The show's grudge against Crosby has gone well beyond ridiculous. Yes, host Ron MacLean interviewed him last Saturday, but the show's most influential commentator, Don Cherry, doesn't like him. And MacLean certainly defers to his elder.
If Cherry mentioned Crosby in his postgame commentary, we missed it. Instead, he enthused about Roberts, the Penguins' veteran, who played 8 minutes 45 seconds and earned an assist. And he praised the team's Jordan Staal, who also had a solid game, but no points.
“He's only 19 years old,” Cherry said.
Yes, and Crosby's 20."

Grudge? How the hell can you say that the CBC has a grudge against Crosby, and that it's gone well beyond the ridiculous? As Houston admits, he was interviewed by MacLean last Saturday. Later in the column, he talks about how Crosby was named the first star, chosen for a post-game interview by Elliotte Friedman and praised by Craig Simpson. That seems like quite a bit of coverage (and praise) for someone the network supposedly has a grudge against. Houston goes on:

"The ABC rule (Anybody But Crosby) had MacLean toeing the line. When he read off the three stars of the game, he said Crosby had been selected as the first star for scoring the opening goal and picking up another.
That understated Crosby's impact on the game about as much as saying Tiger Woods is occasionally noticed on the PGA Tour.
When Cherry did his postgame spot for ESPN, he continued to ignore Crosby and wax lyrical about Roberts. Finally, ESPN commentator Barry Melrose said, “What about the Crosby kid?”
“Oh,” Cherry said. “I forgot. Yeah, he played a great game.”
Crosby should be a Cherry favourite. He's a Canadian, he's tough and he has been in at least one fight. But the two got off to a bad start when Crosby was in junior hockey and was rapped by Cherry for being a hot dog because he used a lacrosse-style stick manoeuvre to score a goal. For his part, Crosby has a bit of an edge and he probably hasn't been appropriately deferential to Cherry.

First off, comparing Sidney Crosby to Tiger Woods is blatantly ridiculous. Tiger Woods is by far the most dominant athlete in his sport, and some, including ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski, have even anointed him as the greatest individual athlete of all time. That's up for debate, but at least he's in the running. Crosby? He wasn't even the best player on his own team this year (that honour goes to Evgeni Malkin, with a nice 47-59-106 goals-assists-points mark). Sure, he was injured for a lot of the year, and still put up 24-48-72 numbers in 53 games leaving him 31st in the league in scoring. However, even using a points-per-game reference, he finished third in the league behind Peter Forsberg (13 points in only 9 games, so a helluva small sample size, but he can still play when his foot isn't acting up) and Alexander the Great, who led the league with 65-47-112 and will be named the Hart Trophy winner if there is any justice in the world. Crosby's turned it up in the playoffs, putting up 6-17-23 in 17 games, which ties him for the lead with Detroit's Henrik Zetterberg (who has a more impressive 12-11-23). That still doesn't make him the clear best player in the league or even a lock for the Conn Smythe Trophy. It puts him in the conversation, but he's as close to being Tiger Woods as Tony Pena Jr. is to being Alex Rodriguez. Clearly, Houston's been drinking the Gatorade Crosby's (er, the league's, but the two are indistinguishable these days) marketing team is selling.

(Note: This site does not like Alex Rodriguez, and has not ever since he left the Mariners and became overpaid. However, he is still one of the best hitting shortstops in the game (even if he plays third base now) and he's the highest-paid player in baseball, making him suitable for this comparison).

Second, an Anybody But Crosby rule? Really? As Houston himself points out, the CBC named him the game's first star, interviewed him after the game, talked about his performance in glowing terms and had him interviewed by MacLean after the previous game. What more does he want? If he hasn't got his fill of Crosby adoration from the numerous pre-game shows and all of the coverage by CBC, Sportsnet and TSN, there's always the American telecast, where most of the broadcasters seem to think Crosby with a puck is like Michelangelo with a paintbrush. The CBC still shows far too much Crosby coverage for me (one of the reasons I'm not watching these Stanley Cup finals: I'll have more on that later today, though), but apparently it's not yet at the John Madden on Brett Favre level that Houston wants.

Third, consider this quote: "Crosby should be a Cherry favourite. He's a Canadian, he's tough and he has been in at least one fight." Anyone who calls Sidney Crosby tough must not be watching the same player I am (perhaps he tuned in to the practice where Maxime Talbot wore Crosby's jersey)? Crosby makes Manu "The Best Argentine Diver Who Didn't Play Soccer" Ginobili look tough. Crosby's diving has gotten so bad that he was called out by one Jaromir Jagr. The point is, diving is bad for sports (ask any soccer fan who's tried to convince North Americans to give the game a chance). Most leagues realize this: in fact, the NBA's even going to crack down on flopping next year. However, the NHL continues to market Sidney Crosby, a flopper who makes Cristiano Ronaldo look like an amateur, as the only hockey player in existence, so it's unlikely diving will leave the league any time soon. This aside, there is absolutely no good reason to call Crosby "tough" or suggest that Cherry should endorse him: his play is absolutely antithetical to everything Cherry stands for.

Here's how Houston concludes his column:

"Whatever the case, his performance on Wednesday ranked as one of the big NHL stories of the year and it deserved raves.
True, Hockey Night put him on the air for a postgame interview with reporter Elliotte Friedman. How could it not? And analyst Craig Simpson said a few words, chosen carefully, about his rising to the occasion.
But as a whole, the Hockey Night response to Crosby's effort was dismissive and small – a disservice, not to Crosby, because he receives plenty of kudos and doesn't need them from Hockey Night.
It was a disservice to the telecast and the viewers."

This is one of the things that bugs me the most about Houston and his ilk of sportswriters who make a living writing about what's on television: they automatically assume that everyone shares their preferences. Engaging in a reasonable amount of coverage, rather than the Crosby love-in Houston proposes (which can regularly be seen on most Penguins telecasts anyways, especially if Pierre McGuire's involved) is hardly a disservice to the telecast: it's actually a service to the telecast to provide information on what actually happened in the game as opposed to an overly-large focus on one man. In total, Crosby played 19:41 in that game, or just under a third. That includes a grand total of three seconds on the penalty kill. Thus, there was a lot that happened apart from Crosby, although you'd never know it from stories like this, this and this. Yes, Crosby was the best player in that game, which is why he was named the first star and interviewed afterwards. However, the last time I checked, hockey teams had twenty players dressed for each game. Houston and the League of Extraordinary Crosby-Adulaters would have you believe it's a crime against humanity (or at least that insignificant portion of it that watches the Stanley Cup Finals) to praise any of the other guys, but it's far more accurate in terms of reporting what actually happened. No matter how much Crosby "put the Pittsburgh Penguins on his 20-year-old shoulders", he still wasn't even on the ice for two-thirds of the game! Yes, he's a good player, and yes, he deserved at least some of the coverage he got from that game, but please stop asking for more: you're only further alienating those of us who are tired of having Crosby shoved down our throats, further mythologizing a decent game into a new verse in the never-ending "Ballad of Sid the Kid" and further removing coverage of the playoffs from actually reflecting reality, as opposed to the manufactured tales of one savior's heroism churned out by Gary Bettman's PR cronies.

In conclusion, the top five reasons to hate Sidney Crosby:

- The Diving: He consistently out-Ginobilis Ginobili.

- The Overexposure: Not only does he shill for Reebok, Gatorade and Tim Hortons, if you listen to the NHL's marketing campaigns, he's apparently the only player left (seeing as you never hear about anyone else).

- The Silver Platter: He was anointed as the NHL's saviour long before he'd even been drafted.

- The Captaincy: What did he ever do to be named an assistant captain as a rookie and the youngest captain in team history the following year? Sure, he's good, but skill as a player does not equal leadership skills (just ask Pavel Bure).

- The (Pitiful Excuse for A) Mustache:
Please leave the facial hair for those of us who can actually grow it. His "mustache" looks like he stole his mom's eyeliner pencil.



(Photo from (AUGH!) sidcrosby.blogspot.com)

Look, Crosby is a pretty good player. He's certainly in the upper echelons of the NHL, but can we please reduce his coverage to something approximating his status? I'd happily take Zetterberg or Pavel Datsyuk over him any day, as they can play at both ends of the ice and kill penalties (plus they score goals instead of just setting them up), but there's probably about a tenth of the copy written about them as there is about "Sid the Overhyped Kid". To conclude, as the Gatorade commercial says, "Crosby doesn't stop... annoying the hell out of people, flopping, serving as an overhyped saviour the NHL doesn't need and drawing people to his overfilled bandwagon." NHL, if you ever want me to return to your restaurant, please reduce the Crosby portions to a more appropriate size. The CBC should be commended for portraying Sid in a reasonable and fair way, not vilified by Houston and his fellow scribes who want hockey games turned into "The Crosby Show". In the end, it's not going to matter, as the team-first Red Wings will eventually triumph over the Penguins and their overhyped superstar. Now, I hate the Red Wings with most of the bones in my body and I was actually cheering for the Penguins before this, but the Crosby Hype Machine's kick into overdrive after Game Three forces me to opt for the lesser of two evils.

Postscript: Like it usually is, Houston's actual reporting in the column (buried after his rant about how there wasn't enough Crosby love) was pretty strong. The most interesting tidbit was his mention that Setanta Sports has acquired the rights for the FA Cup broadcasts in Canada through 2011-2012. That's a big loss for Fox Sports World Canada, as that was one of their signature properties and the only top-level English soccer they had left (they lost the Premier League to Setanta/the Score/Sportsnet last year, Setanta already has the Carling Cup and TSN's owned the Champions League for a number of years). Thus, soccer fans in Canada will have to shell out the $15/month for Setanta if they haven't already. Soccer obsessives like myself will probably find it worth their while (I love the channel), but it may turn off some casual fans unwilling to pay the extra cash, which could be bad for the growth of the game in Canada.

Related:

- Mike Halford of the superb Orland Kurtenblog (if you don't get the joke, you're clearly not a Canucks fan) has a great take on this. An interesting tidbit:

"That being said, I'm sure there's some media backlash involved with this. Every media outlet in the country was transfixed with El Sid's first tour through Western Canada ("Route 87" was the clever nomenclature, I believe) and the hype surrounding his return from a high ankle sprain was on par with The Beatles coming to America. There's no way HNIC, TSN, Sportsnet and The Score could actually look back on those moments and not cringe a bit with the overzealousness of their coverage. Hindsight being 20/20, it was probably too much too soon. Perhaps these same media outlets are now waiting for Crosby to, you know, win something before lavishing him with even more praise?"
- Houston's column drew some attention from Sports Business Daily south of the border (registration required)
- Houston's original column.