On the Topic Of 20-Team Playoffs

With word of the NHL and NHLPA possibly looking at a 20-team playoff when play finally returns leaking out-- the social media people came out in droves and questioned the audacity of such a thing, that this outside the box thinking is something that shouldn't be even considered.

Of course...it was considered since Elliotte Friedman wrote about it December 2011 and then Dave Hodge kept the idea rolling in March 2012, but that wasn't 2013 thinking!!

In any case, the idea is something that Friedman threw out about the 20 teams being grouped into one, then having seeds 13-20 playing in some kind of play-in series or sudden death game in order to join the other ten teams in the march to the Stanley Cup, Whether or not it's like the QMJHL and they do a 1 vs. 16 and say the hell with the conferences is to be decided, I'm sure. Again-- this is just outloud thinking and not set in stone as many would think.

The main ideal is to bring more revenue to the teams, which goes to the league, which then gets shared with the players. When you lose half a season, you have to find a way to get that money that you lost back in some capacity. Plus, when you look at what happened with MLB and their play-in Wild Card games-- it could be something that is right in Donald Fehr's wheelhouse.

When all is said and done, it probably won't happen, but thinking outside the box isn't a horrible thing. The more drama the playoffs bring the better it is for the game and the casual fan. Of course, the "traditionalists" will all be opposed to it, much like they were many other innovations and stuff like that. In a game that has had more changes over the past couple decade in their rules and technology than most any other sport-- the term "traditionalist" has to be in quotes or else those who call themselves that could have checked out of the game years ago.

For me, when you have 30 teams and 66% of the teams get into the playoffs makes the league look more farce-like than the lockout had us believe. The best idea is to either bring in two teams or get rid of two teams and then have four divisions, have the playoffs start with divisional play and then the two divisions in each conference play to win the conference, then to the Stanley Cup-- much like the old days of four divisions. Of course-- when you bring up expansion or even contraction-- people get all into a tizzy.

Nothing can go right for the NHL, especially not in the state they are in now. The fact of the matter is that rather than tinkering with the playoffs-- they need to have a season in order to get to the playoffs. And even after there's games-- make sure you exhaust all your research and tools in order to make sure that 20 teams in the playoffs is a great idea for the game rather than for the revenue it could bring in.

On the Topic Of NHL Contraction

As I've tried to avoid lockout talk, I did see something that should be a discussion point and should have been a discussion point for this lockout-- the idea of contraction, something that hasn't happened since the Cleveland Barons in 1979. Luckily, someone much smarter and more well-known than I has made that a new discussion point-- especially with all that legal wrangling going on right now. Here's what Pierre Lebrun had to say in his latest article:

"I'm not sure the NHL returns with 30 teams on the other side of a lost season. Can the weaker markets truly survive this? That's damage both sides would feel."

Even Forbes has made the argument for contraction, thinking it could be the best hope and saying Western and Southern teams aren't hockey markets and the "fans" are "fans" at all. They know something about money, but I don't know about pleasing the masses.

If that were to happen, it could do much more damage to the revenue stream and how it is divided or proposed to be divided in any projection that comes out. Sure, the lower teams wouldn't bring in much revenue; but any hit would skew the boat one way or another.

Of course, the question becomes-- how many teams do you cut to make the league healthy again?? Is it two, four, 10?? The question will vary depending upon what people believe from their own view. And while the lower market teams would take away some money-- those teams could be the ones bleeding the money, as well-- thus making their elimination something that could keep the league healthy under whomever terms and conditions the NHL and NHLPA agree on.

That said, that's going to hurt the NHLPA as well for the obvious reason of jobs being lost by the players. Even if two teams are gone, that makes 64 players without jobs (based on the 23 players per roster ideal) and you can bet Don Fehr won't like that one bit...which means that Bettman and the Board of Governors could be touting this as a possibility soon.

Which is what makes this whole lockout posturing insane. But we all knew that.

In any case, the idea of contraction is something that could make the league better off than it is right now because it could cut cost of travel, lessen the amount of money lost, and while losing revenue in some sorts; it'll be for the greater health of the league and revenue sharing if something were to happen. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a couple teams taken out for the health of the league, but the fans who would suffer would probably revolt as it were-- though when has the NHL thought of the fans, am I right, folks??

Expect this to be the new talking point as this battle goes around and around into possibly the New Year. Unless there's a Christmas or Festivus Miracle, this thing will go on and on with teams, players, and fans hurting-- but maybe some other leagues reaping the benefits-- hockey or otherwise.

Second Expansion Go 'Round in Sunrise

Traveling this past week or so has been the reason for the delay on new stuff-- so apologizes or something.

As the introduction of the new Florida Panthers happen, the questions will always come up about how this new team could actually make an impact and whether or not they will actually be worth all this spending to get to the salary floor. In all honesty, I think a lot of people are rooting for them, but with the guys they brought in for how much they brought him in for-- there's not a lot of hope for this team.

This team is an expansion team for a second time. There's no way around it, but with what the Panthers have done, they will have to learn to how to play together and have to form some kind of chemistry in a short period of time in order to be somewhat competitive. In the early going, you have to think they may have a rough time about it; but they could throw some other teams off because you won't know what's going to happen when them-- though trying to sustain that for the long-term is the real task.

It was a necessary evil for the Panthers to do, however. With the team being wreck from previous GM's tenures; they don't have any "homegrown" talent. The guys they did have who they groomed from the start are off to greener pastures-- whether it's because the GM at the time didn't like them and traded them out or if they didn't feel like dishing out the money to keep them there-- something went wrong. I doubt that Dale Tallon fully expected to spend like a sailor on shore leave with this free agency season-- but at the same time; he had to. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't in all honest. If he didn't go on this spree, people would be on his case and the Panthers case for not caring. He did make these moves and people are wondering why the hell he gave such big contracts to menial players for big dollars.

The contract length is something I can totally understand, but maybe-- just maybe-- they're giving their newly stocked prospects a chance to grow and learn the system before rushing them into the line-up-- which could be worse than inflated contracts. Odds are, with the younger kids (if they were around) they would be as bad as the veterans they signed and lack the chemistry these new Panthers would have. Plus, there's no guarentee that any of the younger kids would pan out in the NHL style and speed of play-- which could also be worse due to the fact that it could ruin their mentality when playing; being more destructive in the long-run.

While the idea is if a team can't hack it, they should be moved or even eliminated from the league-- which I think should happen-- the NHL won't do it and the NHLPA won't agree to it because it would eliminate many jobs and ruins a lot of the market the NHL has built up. The Panthers, along with the Phoenix Coyotes, are prime examples of why there should be NHL contraction-- mostly in a business sense. It has nothing to do with on-ice product (at least in Phoenix), but the mismanagement that happens off the ice-- that's what kills it for everyone and makes the common fan look down on the organizations; if they even pay attention to them at all.

The bottom-line is that the Florida Panthers, from pillar to post-- were and are in a bit if disarray. While they had some kind of building blocks come their way in the past couple days (Keith Seabrook, Sergei Shirokov, and Angelo Esposito), it's nowhere near what they could have had if they keep and grew their talent from back in the day....or did, but didn't want to dole out the money when contract time was up. Granted-- two of those three names I mentions have bounced around many organizations-- which shows that it's probably going to be even harder to develop because they can't hack it with any team much less this one.

Best of luck to the Panthers-- because they'll need it.

Relocation or Contraction?? The Eternal Debate

DATELINE: New York City, New York: Bothered by the troubles of some teams and their inability to actually pay their bills, Gary Bettman has decided to abandon the plight to have 30 teams in the NHL. Rather than keeping fledging teams afloat, Mr. Bettman has decided to cut four teams and go ahead next season with 26 teams in the league.

That does a seem a bit of a drastic measure, but to be honest-- it would probably be a little bit better than dealing with the issues the NHL is dealing with today. We all know that Phoenix is on life support, Atlanta seems to be flat-lining, Columbus has been having issues, as Florida seems to be the next on the radar in having issues or even the Islanders if their $400M arena deal gets shot down. The amount of teams looking for ownership is amazing (Dallas, St. Louis) and while we've had success stories with teams like Buffalo and Nashville in recent years-- the fact remains that maybe the NHL can't actually sustain 30 teams.

When you look at it, there's definitely a lot of issues and legalities that would happens if they decided to contract teams, much more than if they relocated a team. But the fact remains that even if teams do move-- odds are the market they move to will embrace them for a short time, but a decade down the road; these same issues could still arise and we're back in the same boat we were before. More over than the legal issues, fighting with the other owners when it comes to revenues and the NHLPA with revenues and guys losing jobs-- it's definitely easier to relocate or keep the team in the troubled market, because then you're facing only one or two problems rather than five or six.

Yet, when you look at the ideal of contraction-- it seems like it would be a decent idea so that fans aren't going to have to deal with the off-ice issues a franchise is having and focusing on the product that's actually on the ice. It's board-play rather than boardroom antics. Of course, the fans that lose the team will always be bitter (RE: Winnipeg Jets), but at the same time-- it's almost a necessary evil for people to actually focus on hockey rather than if their team is going to be there or not. Plus, it's not toying with potential cities who could get a team, only to have local government intervene (which they would with contraction, too) and then the team is still there floundering. You take the team away, but you don't give it to anyone else-- it's gone forever.

In the end, no one is going to be happy with contraction for the time being, but the greater good will probably prevail and make the game healthier in the long-run. It's not like now because teams are having to sacrifice getting better and bringing in a new fan base because the team is winning-- only because the team is owned by the league or the team is up for sale and you don't want to put out big money for a team you're selling due to not wanting to pay the money or passing the buck to someone who may not have signed off on the deal for one reason or another. Not only that, but the trickle down of minor league affiliates being downsized due to it.

Yet, the prospects of seeing a better product on the ice could be something that may sway other hockey fans to take interest in a team outside of their market for the good reasons and not because it could be the last time you see the team in that location.

Sure, we could see another success story in many of these teams that are in limbo, but is the headache now worth the rewards that could come in the end game for this?? I don't know if you can take the risk like this with the economics being the way they are. With the Coyotes' situation-- the city government is deciding to take money that they could go to other things in the municipality that aren't sporting related to go to a team that may not be there next year. That almost seems like bad politics, but the city has pumped a lot into the arena, which the Coyotes are the only tenant-- so I guess I can understand the logic. With the Thrashers, the city doesn't want to do the same thing Glendale is doing with the Coyotes because they'll still have the Hawks there and won't take money they could put to something else for a hockey team that no one is seeing. Of course, the city sizes and appeals are different-- so it's not a good correlation, yet shows that some places aren't going to ragdoll the people of their city around with hope the team can have a White Knight come and save the team.

While I'll personally love the idea of teams actually hanging around, I always understand the reality that if they can't be profitable, they have to either move or get out completely. That's the sad reality of it all, but it seems many people don't like to think in reality a lot when it comes to sports. In the end, what will happen with these relocation rumors-- some may come true, some may be bunk, some may be strung out for five years. This does go to show that the season is winding down and there's not many games on TV-- there needs to be something to talk about. Also-- welcome to another Summer of Relocation Rumors, folks.

Friday Five: Moving and Shaking Organizations

Checking out of the weekend?? Don't go anywhere before the F5 hits. This week, I'm glad that the Columbus Blue Jackets' troubles happened this week, especially since someone sent in a question about relocation and expansion. Let's get right to it.

1. What comes first, expansion or franchise relocation to Canada?? (From Justin W.)

With those being the two options, I think relocation as a no-brainer. The relocation to Canada is the smart idea as it would bring in more revenue to the league, thus raising the cap numbers and allowing more owners to spend. However, the downside is like what we have in Phoenix where there's a lease there with the city and it's near impossible to get out of. With all the legal debates and stuff, the relocating owner would definitely have a lot on their plate to break out of leases and agreements they have with the place they're trying to get out of.

Expansion is the option that is a last resort and would probably only be used in order to feed the demand of owners an prospective locations; which really isn't there right now. It's not like the early to mid 90s when hockey was the hot sports and everyone wanted a piece of it; we're in different times and it's not feasible to have other teams to worry about when it comes to financial stability.

2. Wouldn't expansion also dilute the talent out there??

Yes and no. Obviously, you're going to see a lot of guys you'd never thought would be NHL regulars get into the league. At the same time it would create more jobs, which the NHLPA would love to have for it's players, and maybe give more options for guys thinking about going over to Europe to play. The biggest thing it would impact is more jobs for goalies who are on the fringe and more teams for superstar forwards to victimize, as the defense for the expansion team will probably not be so good. And who knows, you could have guys who get an everyday spot on the expansion squad and turns out to be part of the elite; who would never have gotten a chance anywhere else because of the numbers game.

3. What places would be ripe for expansion/relocation??

You obviously have places like Winnipeg, Hamilton, and Quebec City-- the ones that create the most buzz. Yet, I think that Kansas City would get a look if they can find some solid ownership. They already have an arena there, they have decent size media outlets to deal with (31st in radio, 32nd in TV), and would have a decent amount of rivalry build in with possible the Blues if they were to move there. While it may not be the sexiest option, the Kansas City hockey history not as memorable as some other places-- it's something that really could do well and if they get a good team, actually keep the people in the stands after the buzz is gone.

You could probably mention Las Vegas, but I don't think it'd be plausible since it is a tourist town and you probably wouldn't get many residence turn out every game to make it work there. The good thing about Vegas is you could put the payroll on a hand of blackjack and double your revenue like that....or lose it all.

4. What about contraction, is that a valid option??

I think it's a definite last resort if you can't sell a team, but it's be a fight from some other owners and definitely from the NHLPA, who would have their players lose jobs. That said-- it's something that would probably kill off some of the teams that don't pull their weight for revenue and drag down the earning power for the NHL. Some owners would enjoy it, the others not so much. The reason is because once you actually start contracting teams, where does it stop before you're back down to single-digits.

5. Which team should be the first to go if there is contraction??

This could get some angry responses (or not), but I don't think the Coyotes are the ones who should be the first to go if there is a reduction-- they'd be my first candidate to move. Personally, I think the Florida Panthers may be the best bet to get contracted. While they did have a good team, they also don't get the butts in the seats and it's not really their fault. If anything, they are a victim to their enviroment. Miami loves teams when they win, ignores them when they lose. Most of Florida is like that, actually-- but Sunrise takes the cake it seems. The Marlins and Heat couldn't get people into the stand when they were awful, but when they win-- you can't find a ticket. I think the fact they're going to be putting a tarp over the cheap seats (albeit with advertisements to counteract the losses) shows that this is a team in trouble if they don't start doing something with their on-ice product.

---------

If you have an idea or question for the F5, like Justin did, then all you have to do is email me at Scotty.Wazz@Gmail.com and pitch it away. Odds are I will use it in the next installment of the F5, mostly due to my own issues with coming up with something worth rambling on about.

"Bett and Bals": C-Bust??

Thankfully for the Blue Jackets, this knocks out two gimmicks for the week. This time, it's the "Bett and Bals." As you may or may not have heard, the Columbus Blue Jackets are down just about 25% in their season tickets sold so far, with about a month until the season starts. Of course, this will raise the question of relocation, contraction, and of course why expanded to that market. Luckily, we'll have fake figureheads to actually explain it and go on from there. Enjoy....or not.

We start with Gary storming in the door in a huff, tripping over the steps and flying into the arm rest of the couch where Jim is sitting

Jim Balsillie: (Looking over to Bettman) Something wrong, Gary??

Gary Bettman: Ouch.....no, just my world coming down on top of me. Not only do the Coyotes have a deadline coming up, now.....now....the Jackets are looking to be ruined.

JB: Just take it to Leo the dry cleaner; he'll be able to stitch up and clean anything.

GB: Not that, stupid. Did you hear about the Blue Jackets?? People don't want to see them. Columbus is the capital of the damn city, you'd think they'd have people flocking there to see them and take into the pride. It's a city of insurance.

JB: Well, there's never any insurance when it comes to a sports team.

GB: Punny, but get serious. It's enough problems that I have the Coyotes' heat on me, now this?? What's going on?? What the hell happened to all of this. It seems that I have one good team and one bad team-- I mean the Avalanche moved from Canada and are good, the Wild are doing fantastic-- what the hell is going on with this?? They need to get on the same page.

JB: It may be the capital, but it's also a college town. You think college kids (a) have the money to actually plunk down the cash for season tickets and (2) care about hockey when there's Buckeyes sports around?? The theory is great that you think there's a market already instilled there, but when you don't win-- these things seem to fall apart in your hand.

GB: Tell me more, Captain Obvious. Listen, you think I don't know this, but the thing of it all is that hockey there does have some kind of heat; what the hell is wrong with the whole ordeal that this team, who has some decent young stars, aren't able to get more butts in the seats?? Sure, winning is one thing, but when you don't seem to have a solid front office in effect-- what can I do??

JB: You know my Blackberry is always on, you can give me a buzz. Columbus is close enough to Canada for me to annex the state to make it part of Southern Ontario.

GB: You can't actually do that, can you??

JB: The more you don't know.....but anyway-- sure, the youth movement is nice; but how is this team marketable?? This team does have Rick Nash and Steve Mason amongst others, yet they don't actually get any air time for other areas to actually know about them. Therefore, the appeal of the isn't going to be the hottest, especially to the home audience. They may see them on TV and get them excited, which leads them get him out to the area. Part of that has to be onto you for not actually giving them any air time.

GB: It's a vicious cycle for TV. We have to get ratings, so you put the teams out there people will recognize and that people will have an interest in because they have fans spread across the nation like that. That leaves the teams that need the exposure out because they aren't the "sexy" thing for TV. Yet, they're the teams that need the exposure, but the network isn't going to buy it because their numbers go down and then we'll get crap for it. We can't win, one way or another.

JB: It's quite the dilemma, but sometimes you actually need to take a stand. You either have to stand up for your league and your team-- maybe build up a following for teams by putting the "unsexy" teams on TV. If not, you may need to contract in order to limit this situations happening, but I know you'd lose money there, too. I don't envy you in this-- but like I said; you know where to get me.

GB: Unfortunately. Oh man, I need a drink; anything in the fridge??

JB: Yeah, I just put something cold in there.

GB: Good, I could use it. (Walks to the fridge) You know, I'll be glad when this is over and I can get back to the easy stuff....like the CBA. Maybe start a new NHL clothing brand, "No Fehr" and sit back to hear the laughs.

JB: Yeah-- really good and something you want to make in order to have a partnership.

GB: Hey, I didn't say it was golden, just throwing ideas out there. Alright, what's in here?? (Opens fridge door)

Judge Redfield T. Baum: T-BOMBED!!!!

GB: SWEET SASSY MOLASSY!!!

JB + JRTB: Huh?!?

GB: I mean......

JB: Just fade out....

Putting the Jackets On To Leave??

Interesting story coming out of the Columbus Dispatch, where a story is saying that if a new financial model cannot be found to help out the Blue Jackets, there's a distinct possibility that they could leave Columbus. According to this report, the current ownership and the City Chamber is looking to find a model that will help the Jackets' with the $5M in rent they pay a year, as well as the $4M a year they lose in operational costs. The ownership apparently wants to have this settled, or at lease something done by the end of the calendar year.

I could be wrong, but this is the first time the Blue Jackets' name have come up in terms of moving from their area. The area they are in is a very snazzy one, with a lot of establishments nearby. The arena itself is beautiful, as is the practice facility next store; but in these tough times, no one seems to be immune to having to deal with financial hardships of that sort. Though, you have to wonder, considering the city voted not to give public money to building the arena, if they'll do anything of sort to really help out the team and keep them in the city for the long-term. Although, now that the arena is making money with concerts and stuff of that ilk; so who knows.

To an extent, I almost look at the Blue Jackets as the Atlanta Thrashers of the North; a team that has the talent to be great, but can never get to that next plateau due to not having depth in their system. Now, another comparison is going to be whether or not the team will be in the same city in the next five to ten years from now.

Granted, there's a lot of economic issues and numbers being thrown around and I'm sure that there's much smarter people within the area who could tell you more and tell you if it's just propaganda to get more money out of the city; but it's now out there from the doing of the city and not just rumors and guessing.

Yet, even with this out there now-- could this spell the return of everyone's buddy Jim Balsillie in terms of trying to buy the franchise and creating a hoopla around it again. Of course, the NHL is kind of pre-occupied with the Coyotes and all, so who knows how they will address this. The question is whether or not if this whole thing goes down, if the NHL will seek someone to keep the team in Columbus, even if a system in Columbus won't work. How much will the NHL push to keep a team in a city when the city even says they won't help out on?? The different issue with Phoenix is that the City of Glendale is actually trying to help keep the team in the area, which is probably why the NHL is pushing so hard to pull out all the stops to keep the Coyotes in the area.

While this is still developing, we can only wonder what kinds of twist and turns this whole saga will take now. If the NHL didn't have enough headaches with other kinds of speculations with other teams, now they have to deal with this. While Columbus has the ability to be a big time team, the attendance continues not to be there; which doesn't help the cause for the future. The Jackets are regularly at the bottom third of the league for attendance, hovering around 85% capacity for their troubles. It's a wonder if something can't be reached in terms of relief, whether that number will increase in support or decrease in depression. Only time will tell.

Reinsdorf Done, Bettman Bids, Balsillie Threatens-- We All Win

We've had time to digest the whole ordeal that happened with the latest twist in the Phoenix Coyotes' saga, let's look at this bit by little bit.

First, Jerry Reinsdorf pulling his bid for the 'Yotes. You almost got the thought that he wasn't too keen on it in the first place, but he put his name there to be the guy for the NHL. However, on his way out-- Reinsdorf's "people" basically doing what the NHL has been doing and bashing Jim Balsillie for organizing a "publicity effort designed to provide negative and misleading information to interested parties." As well, the Reinsdorf group bashed Jerry Moyes for being an "unwilling seller." For the Moyes' issue, that's kind of true; as Moyes wants his money back that he dumped into this team and Balsillie's bid gives Moyes that money, whereas Reinsdorf bid wouldn't do that at all. In any case, it didn't seem like Reinsdorf was all into this bid at all and the NHL threw his name out there to be the "Great and powerful Oz" while they ran the show behind the curtain. However, when push came to shove, Reinsdorf wasn't able to belly-up to the Coyotes' table and get his piece.

--------------------

Next, the NHL pulls the curtain back and puts in their own bid in order to make the Phoenix Coyotes into the Montreal Expos. That puts the bidders at the NHL, Jim Balsillie, and at the last minute-- Ice Edge Holdings-- for the Phoenix Coyotes. A team that no one seems to want. The NHL bidding is just showing how much they want to save face in this ordeal. Their biggest name bidder is gone, they are going against their archnemesis, and the other bidder wants to have games in Canada-- both regular season and some playoffs. If I'm the NHL, I cut ties and let Jim Balsillie do what he wants with this team because it's going to do no good at all fighting a fight they have a slim chance of winning.

Sure, they could win in terms of getting the team-- but they risk losing money that revenue brings in to run the fleeting franchise, they also lose face in the sports echelon for having to put their own bid in a team no one wanted to stay in that market. Most importantly, they risk losing a team as a whole-- not just from the US to Canada, but going from 30 to 29, which I don't think anyone wants because it puts players out of jobs-- though the owners wouldn't lose as much money in revenue sharing in that. In any case, if that were to happen when the NHL owned it, they would look really bad, especially in the public relations lexicon over sports leagues.

--------------------

Finally-- Jim Balsillie speaking, saying that he's giving the process until September 14th to get a deal done or he's out of the running. This is four days after the auction is to take place and one day before the Coyotes first pre-season game. Balsillie wants to deal to be done and to move the team immediate or else he's gone and will lay low until the next troubled team pops up.

Now, I like Jim Balsillie, I think that he's a good owner for the NHL and would shake things up and get interest in the game, much like Mark Cuban in the NBA-- but to Jim Balsillie: SHUT UP!! Don't say anything, don't as much think of putting out a press release or comment until all is said and done. You can do nothing but hurt your cause by pulling this gimmick. It didn't help you back in July, it won't help you now. Especially when you looked like it was a slam dunk, you have to talk. Talking now would only hurt your case and make you look like the bad guy and semi-insane. Stay quiet, let the process happen, and you'll come out looking fine. The less you say, the better you look. Let the NHL attack and attack and attack, because they'll look like the petty ones and Judge RTB (Redfield T. Baum) will not buy what they are selling.

--------------------

So that's what's up. We're no better off now than we were yesterday and just as confused. In the end, with the NHL and Balsillie bitching, Ice Edge Holding could be the winner in all of this, which could be the best of both world and maybe the lesser of three evils and not as many appeals when this is overwith. We can only hope this is over soon, but we're only just beginning, I'm sure.