Would a 30-Team Stanley Cup Tournament work?

[MARTYEWR 0]

I got the latest edition of SI Extra in my e-mail this morning, and Michael Farber had an interesting idea as far as salvaging the season goes (if a new CBA deal is done before March). The article is as follows:

 

The NHL and the players' association will meet today (sans commissioner Gary Bettman and NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow) in an effort to create some headway in the current lockout. The sides have not met since Dec. 14, when the league rejected the union's proposal—and don’t expect a new collective bargaining agreement to come out of this meeting. “Conversation is better than entrenched silence,” says SI senior writer Michael Farber. “But I think it's pretty much too late to have a season. If they settled on Sunday, for instance, you would have to get people back from Europe and get a ton of free agents signed. The season could not start until about Feb. 2. Then maybe you could think about a 36-game season or so.” Farber says there is a better way. He calls it April Madness. Under Farber’s plan the league would forego an abbreviated regular season in favor of a 30-team Stanley Cup playoff beginning in April. The first round would consist of best-of-three series followed by a best-of-five series in the second round. Then he’d have best-of-seven series all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals. Farber would give opening-round byes to the Stanley Cup champion Lightning and the runner-up Flames and seed the teams based on last year’s final standings. “The advantage of this is it would give both sides another four to six weeks to work out a CBA if they are so inclined,” says Farber. “Is it any less legit than a 36-game season? Well, it’s different, for sure. But it would definitely draw attention to the league. And certainly every game would count. But most of all, it would be a great gesture to the fans.”

 

What do you guys think? I definitely think it would be far more worthwhile to go this route than to try to force any sort of a regular season going. If you can get something sorted before March, you can still have some sort of training camp going before the tournament. And as Farber himself said, every game counts.

 

Of course, this idea doesn't mean shit if there's no new CBA.

[Guest The Gecko]

I think this would be a good idea. Playoff hockey games are the most exciting and most entertaining events in sports. This would not only take the sting out of a shortened season, but I also agree that it would attract some people to the games. The one bad thing I see about it is that it might take a little credibility out of the playoffs and the Stanley Cup, perhaps the most cherished prize in sports, but honestly, the NHL has lost most of its credibility already.

[Dogbert 0]

If these new talks produce anything (and I hope to God they do), then we won't need to do that.

[ISportsFan 0]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1970647

 

Dogbert, they're at least going to be talking tomorrow. I don't know if this was posted elsewhere, but...

 

The bid to jump-start NHL labor negotiations appears to have been a success.

 

Union president Trevor Linden and NHL board of directors chairman Harley Hotchkiss spoke Wednesday at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, and the sides are due to meet again Thursday in Toronto in an effort to save the season. Hotchkiss will not be at Thursday's meeting, however, ESPN The Mag's EJ Hradek reports.

 

Wednesday's session lasted about five hours, including several breaks so each three-man negotiating group could huddle. It was just the third time the league and its players have had face-to-face talks in the four months since the lockout was imposed Sept. 15.

 

"We engaged in good dialogue today and will continue our discussions in the near future," Linden said. "We will not make any further comment at this time."

 

More than half of the regular season -- 662 of 1,230 games through Wednesday -- has been wiped out so far, plus the All-Star Game.

 

If Wednesday's meeting does represent a key step forward in the negotiations, it might be worth noting who was not present: NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and union chief Bob Goodenow.

 

Linden reached out to the owners and invited Hotchkiss to talk. The center for the Vancouver Canucks hoped that by holding talks without the leaders of the two sides, some of the acrimony could be removed from the negotiating process.

 

"We credit Trevor Linden's initiative in requesting this session, which was informal, open and professional and which resulted in a constructive exchange of viewpoints," Hotchkiss said.

 

NHL chief legal officer Bill Daly joined Hotchkiss and outside counsel Bob Batterman in representing the NHL; Linden, NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin, and outside counsel John McCambridge were there for the players.

 

Linden didn't have a new proposal, and he wasn't looking for attention. Indeed, it wasn't until late Tuesday that word filtered out were the meeting would be.

 

"The parties had a good, candid dialogue, and we intend to talk again," Daly said. "Out of respect for the process, we have no further comment at this time."

 

These were the first talks since Dec. 14. That was when the sides broke three months of silence by sitting down for the second time in six days, but any optimism was lost quickly.

 

The players presented a proposal that offered an immediate 24 percent rollback on all existing contracts, but owners rejected the plan, saying it didn't provide cost certainty.

 

The NHL presented a counterproposal, which was turned down as soon as the players' association saw that the offer included a salary cap.

 

Since then, other than rhetoric, there had been silence.

 

If the next round of talks don't move the sides to a settlement, the season probably would be lost. That would mean the Stanley Cup wouldn't be awarded for the first time since 1919, when a flu epidemic canceled the final series between Seattle and Montreal.

 

No major North American sports league has missed an entire season because of a labor dispute.

 

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

 

The idea from SI is very interesting and unique, and I would definitely watch (because I like hockey), but I don't know if it would regain any casual fans after this ridiculously long lockout.

 

Jason

[Vigo 0]

If the NHL hypes it up enough as something to see then they'll attract some viewers.

[Guest Smues]

I like the tourny idea. Too bad it'll never happen.

[Gert T 0]

The one bad thing I see about it is that it might take a little credibility out of the playoffs and the Stanley Cup, perhaps the most cherished prize in sports, but honestly, the NHL has lost most of its credibility already.

I'd watch, but I don't really think it would be that great of an idea.

 

Would an 8 game pre-season leading up to a bastardized Stanley Cup really be worth it? It just seems gimmicky.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Okay fine then nobody wins the Stanley Cup, that was great for baseball wasn't it? Took almost a decade to recover from that.

[iggymcfly 0]

That's a terrible idea. Are you telling me you're going to have teams practice and go through training camp, pay their players, and then have close to half of them be done after 2 to 3 games? That's ridiculous. They'd be better off running a 20 game season than trying that.

 

As it is, if they run a 36-game season, they might actually be more appealing to casual fans since they will have had a longer break and the regular season games will be more meaningful. If they can get an abbreviated season in, then great, but this tournament idea's retarded.

[MARTYEWR 0]

The one bad thing I see about it is that it might take a little credibility out of the playoffs and the Stanley Cup, perhaps the most cherished prize in sports, but honestly, the NHL has lost most of its credibility already.

I'd watch, but I don't really think it would be that great of an idea.

 

Would an 8 game pre-season leading up to a bastardized Stanley Cup really be worth it? It just seems gimmicky.

I don't know if anyone said anything about a preseason. Just go with the training camp, then the tournament. Personally, I don't know if they even need the entire month of March to prepare. Athletes at that level shouldn't need that long to get in game shape.

[Gert T 0]

Okay fine then nobody wins the Stanley Cup, that was great for baseball wasn't it? Took almost a decade to recover from that.

Obviously that would be bad, but that will not save the season.

 

Baseball had a lot more casual viewers. The majority of hockey fans will come back, the people that didn't watch before will continue not to watch again.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Stanley Cup, perhaps the most cherished prize in sports

I say yes, and here's why:

 

Other than maybe football, you don't compete for the league title of the NHL, you compete for the Stanley Cup...Granted, there's cache to the title of "World Series Champions" or "Super Bowl Winner", but how many people honestly know the names of basketball's trophy or the Comissioner's Trophy in baseball, other than hardcore fans of the respective sport? Almost everyone knows what the Stanley Cup is...

 

 

As for the idea, no. Even hardcore hockey fans think the playoffs end too late. A season of 64 games, even 58, would make each game more important, and it would put the playoffs in a sensible ending period(late April, even early May isn't too bad). Plus, having every team compete for the Cup makes a farce of it, IMO.

 

Roll the season back so it increases the aura of being able to see a visiting player or team, like in football. I can go see my Habs in nearby Buffalo or Toronto like once a month, but if I wanna see my Oakland Raiders play the nearby Bills, I have about once chance every two or three years, thus I'd be far more inclined to buy a ticket.

 

Want to better market hockey, especially in smaller markets? Market your players. How many Lebron James jerseys have we seen sold in the last two years, even to non Cavs fans?

 

Just my two cents.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

I agree. Team should play more regional rivals in a shorter season and occasionally play teams from the opposing conference. The Ducks have a much greater chance of selling out against the Kings then against the Blue Jackets.

[Vern Gagne 0]

No way the owners would be willing to get rid of 7 to 12 home games.

[iggymcfly 0]

They don't need any real dramatic changes. It only would take a few things to fix the NHL.

 

1) The financial changes that the players would already agree to would keep the owners from losing too much money right now. A salary cap is gratuitous and unnecessary.

 

2) Some minor changes to increase scoring. They don't need anything radical, but when I watch the Senators play three playoff games and get one goal, it makes me less likely to make sure to catch the next one.

 

3) A good TV deal. They need a network or two that will really market the NHL, treat it like it's important, and show regular season games other than Avalanche/Red Wings. When you can only follow one or two teams during the regular season, and sometimes you can't even find the playoff games, it's hard to get excited.

[Positively Kanyon 0]

The players presented a proposal that offered an immediate 24 percent rollback on all existing contracts, but owners rejected the plan, saying it didn't provide cost certainty.

Okay... I'm not an expert on hockey, but I do know about salary caps...

 

Here in Australia, our two major football codes, Aussie Rules and Rugby League, have salary caps in place on all teams... The reason for this is to keep the competition fair and equal which means more exciting games for the fans...

 

The majority of players here play football because they love it, not for the money (although some do) A good example is the Brisbane Lions (my team!) when they won back-to-back Premierships, the majority of the Premiership players all took pay cuts to keep the team together and go for a third title, they succeded of course... And there was the chance to go 4-in-a-row but that's a story for another day...

 

There are other avenues of revenue, sponsorship and endoresements... I understand that these players need to look after their families, but if these guys really love hockey, they should be playing for the glory and the Stanley Cup, not money... Moral of the story, don't be greedy...

 

Any thoughts?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

From my experience, salary caps do little to promote competitive balance. The gap between good and bad teams is worse in the NFL and NBA, where there is a salary cap, and MLB, which has no salary cap. The problem as I see it is that a salary cap fixes costs, which sounds good for a while, but it eliminates the incentive for a team to improve its product. The Yankees' domination of payroll has its problems, but it has forced the rest of the league to adapt, and I truly believe it produces a better product.

 

Another problem is that a salary cap pays players less than they are worth. I am sure many of you don't see a problem with that, but artificial restraints on salaries lead to other problems. In baseball, the luxury tax has not stopped the Yankees from spending, and in fact has only served to widen the gap. When the reserve clause limited player movement and salaries, the Yankees won by outspending other teams on amateur players. If MLB were to somehow institute a salary cap, the Jared Weaver/Scott Boras type demands for draft bonuses would increase to the point where only the Yankees could afford them.

 

A cap sounds nice in theory, but given the problems they carry, and the difficulty in instituting them, I believe they are more trouble than they are worth.

[iggymcfly 0]

I actually like the basketball "soft cap" system a lot. It keeps teams from going all out to dominate the league through pure force of their checkbook like the Yankees, but it doesn't force teams to break up, and dynasties can stay together for as long as their egos will coexist.

 

In the NFL, the turnover's too much from year to year, as the Patriots are the only thing even remotely approaching a dynasty in years, and usually there is little correlation from year to year.

 

I really don't think the NHL has many problem with competitive balance though (Flames/Lightning anyone), so as long as the players' association is agreeing to roll back salaries, I really don't see what the problem is.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I actually like the basketball "soft cap" system a lot. It keeps teams from going all out to dominate the league through pure force of their checkbook like the Yankees, but it doesn't force teams to break up, and dynasties can stay together for as long as their egos will coexist.

 

NBA's system sounds good in theory, but it is disasterous in practice. It discourages competitive balance by limiting player movement, making it difficult for a losing team to improve itself outside of the draft. It does not curb salaries, and in fact makes the system worse by ensuring the overpaid players are the wrong players. Players are overpaid because they represent their team's only option, rather than because of their pure level of talent.

[MARTYEWR 0]

From my experience, salary caps do little to promote competitive balance. The gap between good and bad teams is worse in the NFL and NBA, where there is a salary cap, and MLB, which has no salary cap. The problem as I see it is that a salary cap fixes costs, which sounds good for a while, but it eliminates the incentive for a team to improve its product. The Yankees' domination of payroll has its problems, but it has forced the rest of the league to adapt, and I truly believe it produces a better product.

 

Another problem is that a salary cap pays players less than they are worth. I am sure many of you don't see a problem with that, but artificial restraints on salaries lead to other problems. In baseball, the luxury tax has not stopped the Yankees from spending, and in fact has only served to widen the gap. When the reserve clause limited player movement and salaries, the Yankees won by outspending other teams on amateur players. If MLB were to somehow institute a salary cap, the Jared Weaver/Scott Boras type demands for draft bonuses would increase to the point where only the Yankees could afford them.

 

A cap sounds nice in theory, but given the problems they carry, and the difficulty in instituting them, I believe they are more trouble than they are worth.

I meant to ask you about that. Forgive me for being under a rock on the subject, but when was the reserve clause in baseball that limited salaries?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

From my experience, salary caps do little to promote competitive balance.  The gap between good and bad teams is worse in the NFL and NBA, where there is a salary cap, and MLB, which has no salary cap.  The problem as I see it is that a salary cap fixes costs, which sounds good for a while, but it eliminates the incentive for a team to improve its product.  The Yankees' domination of payroll has its problems, but it has forced the rest of the league to adapt, and I truly believe it produces a better product.

 

Another problem is that a salary cap pays players less than they are worth.  I am sure many of you don't see a problem with that, but artificial restraints on salaries lead to other problems.  In baseball, the luxury tax has not stopped the Yankees from spending, and in fact has only served to widen the gap.  When the reserve clause limited player movement and salaries, the Yankees won by outspending other teams on amateur players.  If MLB were to somehow institute a salary cap, the Jared Weaver/Scott Boras type demands for draft bonuses would increase to the point where only the Yankees could afford them.

 

A cap sounds nice in theory, but given the problems they carry, and the difficulty in instituting them, I believe they are more trouble than they are worth.

I meant to ask you about that. Forgive me for being under a rock on the subject, but when was the reserve clause in baseball that limited salaries?

The reserve clause came into existence in September of 1879, after only Chicago's franchise made money. The reserve system started with five players, soon expanded to eleven (when clubs carried fifteen players), and after various battles with rival leagues such as the American Association and the Union Association competed for players, the system expanded to include all players. The system persisted for almost 100 years, until arbitrator Peter Seitz's decision invalidated the reserve system, in the Winter of 1975.

[nl5xsk1 0]

The biggest flaw I see in this proposal is the number of unsigned FA's ... There wouldn't be enough time to sign all of these players, and then get them used to the system of their new teams. A team like the Bruins wouldn't be able to field an NHL-caliber team, what with the small number of players that they have under contract for 'next season'.

[The Czech Republic 0]

A season of 64 games, even 58, would make each game more important, and it would put the playoffs in a sensible ending period(late April, even early May isn't too bad). Plus, having every team compete for the Cup makes a farce of it, IMO.

No no no no, this is a HORRIBLE idea. Toronto has sold out either Maple Leaf Gardens or the ACC like what, every game for 75 years? Why go from 41 games to TWENTY-NINE? That's fucking stupid. That's a loss of, I'd approximate to be around 228,000 tickets that just disappear. That's a lot of lost revenue. Jacking up the prices for your remaining 29 home games to compensate is just plain stupid. You have a terrible idea.

 

In the halcyon days of the 1993-94 season, they played 84 games, and cities where hockey mattered had no problem filling the arena forty-two times, and the players had no evident qualms about playing 84 games. This is evident in that the game was much better played in the 84-game season, whereas the NHL that people want to cut back to a 70-game season is full of slacking.

 

58 games is ridiculous.

[Kaertos 0]

The gap between good and bad teams is worse in the NFL and NBA, where there is a salary cap, and MLB, which has no salary cap.

 

Huh? You can't seriously belive that there is a better chance the Devil Rays could improve as fast as, say, the Chargers. I am a Reds fan, and I know that even with the $22,000,000 extra spent on free agants this winter that my team has a next to zero chance of (a) landing any major free agents or (b) being competitive in the long run. There are just too many teams willing to spend an obscene amount of money on free agents that the middle and smaller markets get squeezed. In the NFL, salaries are kept under control by the cap and my team has just as much of a chance (monetarily speaking) of signing a major free agent as a huge market like New York.

 

As far as the abbreviated hockey season goes, they are going to have to come up with something to get casual fans interested in the League if they do have a season this year. If they cancel everything... well, I'm afraid that the NHL may not survive.

[nl5xsk1 0]

As far as the abbreviated hockey season goes, they are going to have to come up with something to get casual fans interested in the League if they do have a season this year. If they cancel everything... well, I'm afraid that the NHL may not survive.

Speaking as a die-hard hockey fan, the casual fan can go to hell. It was catering to the casual fan that killed hockey. The sport existed for decades as a fringe sport, and the owners made decent money. But then the league decided to try & emulate the NBA and brought in Bettman, and now it's in the predicament that it's in.

 

Let the casual fan go away. Let the teams that don't have reasonable support get contracted. Lose the TV package. Fans that want to watch hockey will pay for things like the Center Ice cable package, and even if they're unwilling to pay for that, they'll still watch the regional games.

 

I'd rather have the small, underground sport that it was than the bloated, dying monster that it became.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Huh? You can't seriously belive that there is a better chance the Devil Rays could improve as fast as, say, the Chargers. I am a Reds fan, and I know that even with the $22,000,000 extra spent on free agants this winter that my team has a next to zero chance of (a) landing any major free agents or (b) being competitive in the long run. There are just too many teams willing to spend an obscene amount of money on free agents that the middle and smaller markets get squeezed. In the NFL, salaries are kept under control by the cap and my team has just as much of a chance (monetarily speaking) of signing a major free agent as a huge market like New York.

 

Certainly, there is more turnover in the NFL, and teams can improve more quickly. But in the NFL, you have teams finishing 15-1, 14-2, and 13-3, while the worst teams finish 4-12, or worse. When an MLB team finishes 40-120, they're historically awful. When an NFL team finishes 4-12, its par for the course. In the NFL, if an awful team plays the Patroits, you're relatively sure the Pats will win. But on any given day, the Reds, or even the Devil Rays, can beat the Yankees. That's what I am saying here. The NFL has bad teams, they just change from year to year.

 

As an aside, I have a hard time holding sympathy for a team that thinks $25 Million for Eric Milton is a good idea.

[tbondrage99 0]

I think its a great idea. Make it happen says I!

[iggymcfly 0]

Certainly, there is more turnover in the NFL, and teams can improve more quickly. But in the NFL, you have teams finishing 15-1, 14-2, and 13-3, while the worst teams finish 4-12, or worse. When an MLB team finishes 40-120, they're historically awful. When an NFL team finishes 4-12, its par for the course. In the NFL, if an awful team plays the Patroits, you're relatively sure the Pats will win. But on any given day, the Reds, or even the Devil Rays, can beat the Yankees. That's what I am saying here. The NFL has bad teams, they just change from year to year.

 

As an aside, I have a hard time holding sympathy for a team that thinks $25 Million for Eric Milton is a good idea.

That's just because there's a smaller sample of games to choose from. If you go to the NBA, the Hornets probably started out something like 2-14 this year, and I know for a fact that baseball teams have started 0-16 before. If your only goal is to increase parity, a salary cap will do it, and you won't find more parity than exists in the NFL.

 

I personally, am not a big fan of parity for parity's sake however. I don't like the idea that a team will continue to be the best when all their players leave because they can overspend like the Yankees, but the "disastrous" NBA model that allows players to stay with their teams is fine. If a guy like Duncan spends his whole career in San Antonio, or KG spends his whole career in Minnesota, then great for them. It allows a connection to build that's just being instantly wiped away in the NFL.

 

I like it taking three years for someone like the Pistons to dethrone the Lakers, or letting MJ stay in Chicago to win championships until he retires. I was a Mavs fan through all the lean years, and it just makes you appreciate it more when things finally do turn around. It's not instant gratification where a team can go from 4-12 to the Super Bowl, but it's more meaningful.

 

The problem with MLB is that a low-budget team knows it can never turn around unless a new owner buys the team. That's long-term desperation that hurts the market and depresses the fan base. It might take time between the Mavs losing Jason Kidd and Jamal Mashburn and them picking up Michael Finley and Dirk Nowitzki, but the possibility's always there.

 

The NHL model was actually working pretty well from a competitive balance standpoint, as the Red Wings built a dynasty for a while, but the Lightning were still able to rise out of nowhere and win a Cup. If they just took reasonable measures to roll back salaries, there would be no need for radical change or institution of a salary cap.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

There wont be any hockey this year..or next year..or the year after that.

 

The sport is D E A D in the USA. Let those wacky Canadians start up their own little CFL-esque NHL league...

[The Czech Republic 0]

There won't be with a shitty attitude like that. Good thing Gary Bettman catered to your people and killed the league.