why do so many people hate gary bettman?

[brylin18]

i'd like to hear specific reasons for why you believe this man deserves all of the criticism that's been directed at him. IMO, he hasn't hurt the game nearly as much as his detractors claim.

[Derek21]

1.The idiotic expansion into areas where not enough people care about hockey. Need examples? How about Atlanta, Nashville, Florida and Anaheim for starters? They can't draw.

2.The relocation of Hartford to Carolina and Winnipeg to Phoenix. Since when are Carolina and Phoenix hockey hotbeds? Truth be told, they were better off staying where they were. Notice I didn't put Quebec to Colorado down because that's been a success. I still wonder what would happen if the Avalanche became bad. Would fans still go? I suppose Colorado is more a hockeyplace than the other two places.

3.The moronic changing of the division names and conferences. Remember the Patrick, Adams, Norris and Smythe divisions? Those were what gave the NHL an identity. I liked the Campbell and Wales Conference. Of course, the idiot regionalized the league and took away any tradition. That's what happens when you hire an NBA guy.

4.The dumbest rule ever that took away the tag-up rule. It was implemented to protect defensemen. Instead, it forced players into the neutral zone and then the trap followed. All of a sudden, no flow and little excitement followed. What a shock that they finally banged their heads together and realized it was a mistake? It only took almost a decade.

5.The Instigator Rule. Just another wussy rule that took away enforcers and turned the game into a joke. Players no longer could police themselves. And coincidentally, sticks went up and respect went down.

6.The idiotic crease rule. Just another example of how not to run a sport. The rule became so controversial that it cost a team a chance to win a Cup when they couldn't wait to get off the ice and didn't even review it properly. Just what the sport needed. Controversy. And that's not the only time it happened.

7.The glowing puck phenomenon on Fox. Not to mention those ugly robots when goals were scored. What did that have to do with hockey? Just awful. The only good thing Fox gave us was the team of Emrick and Davidson.

8.The two referee system. It was supposed to improve things but instead, has made the game impossible for players to interpret because they don't know what's going to be called. And even worse, there are AHL calibre officials sometimes on games. Nice job.

9.The lack of marketing. They have the fastest game and great players. But with little fanfare. How do they expect to attract more fans when no one player is featured to draw fans? Only a braindead league wouldn't market their product.

10.The 1994 lockout. Off a great postseason where new fans were tuning in, they didn't take advantage of no MLB or NBA. Instead, they locked the players out. What did it accomplish? Absolutely nothing. They wound up giving in four months later. By then, it was too late. The momentum they had built was gone. So was their credibility.

And here we are ten years later in an even worse situation. And you wonder why he's hated?

Edited September 21, 2004 by Derek21

[Satans Hockey]

I got nothing to add I think Derek covered all the reasons why I hate the weasel

[LOTCB]

Heres mine:

NO GOAL

Ive said my peace

['7']

expansion

relocation

changing the division names

changing the playoff format to stupid NBA style which causes painfully boring hockey as teams "compete" for a playoff spot

1995 lockout

moving the nets out

instigator

crease rule

2 refs

no more touch up offsides

no more bench clearing brawls

no enforcement of clutching and grabbing, Mario retires early

yet more expansion

allowing goalies to become michelin men

allowing teams to wear 3rd jerseys

still more expansion

nets behind the goals

quick faceoffs

2004 lockout

I guess I can add more, but this is all I could think of in 30 seconds

Edited September 21, 2004 by '7'

[Pepperkorn]

I don't hate him, I just think he's a little out of touch and tends to oversimplify when it comes to his "solutions." This is not a man who eats sleeps and drinks hockey. You need a serious fan of the game as commisioner not soley a businessman. Someone who first and foremost has the good of the sport in mind and won't get caught up in the business and politics. But he has to have the good sense to surround himself with brilliant businessmen. It's not the commisioners job to draft the brilliant business plan -- it's his job to bring the business people to the game -- to APPROVE the road map not write it himself based on his past experience in other sports or other businesses. All sports are NOT created equal particularly one with as rich a history as Hockey -- and with the multi-cultural aspect hockey has -- its' more Canadian than it is US and that requires a different kind of business modle. Business is NOT business anywhere you go and while intellectually Bettman gets it he can't let go -- thsi is when the love of the game has to take over and motivate your decision process. It's too easy for Gary to distance himself. It's a shame. I wish Bart Giamatti hadn't died -- I think he was what a commisioner is all about even if it was baseball. He would have gone down in history as one of the greats I'm sure Even Lou I think is just a hair too uptight... but he's so mutable I'm sure he'd meld into a perfect commisioner -- he is so cool! And you can't tell, you know? It's only when you take in his complete body of work that you see how amazing the guy is. Neat. but I way digress ... heehee

I admire that Bettman can forge ahead in a way -- he's not stimied into inaction as many can be -- but his forward movement isn't rooted strongly enough in the game -- I guess that's my main point then, huh?

it was a neat idea to get him and it hasn't proven a total bust... but it's not a raging success by any stretch now is it?

[Pepperkorn]

Wow you guys have point by point stuff and wrote it FAST!

[Don]

Hurry-up faceoffs are a BAD thing? I used to get bored waiting for the players to line up that I'd often switch the channel and watch Law and Order just because the game was too slow.

[MantaRay]

Just to play (apropos) Devils Advocate:

I don't hate Bettmen, on the contrary I think he has done some good work in expanding the league and tapping into new markets.

I think southern expansion was neccessary and needed to make the league more than just a regional game.

How can anyone blame Bettman for a team leaving very small markets (Winnipeg, Hartford and Quebec) for much potentiallly much greener pastures? (Phoenix, Carolina and Colorado).

The smaller markets could not afford to keep their teams and they moved. It should be pointed out that each one of the teams that moved have a committment by their new communities and ALL of them have new arena's which they couldn't have gotten had they stayed.

How is that bad for the league????

The only fault I have with him is that he isn't as good as organizing the owners too help themselves. The league needs revenue sharing and cooperative marketing efforts.

Otherwise, I think the league is in better shape than it was before he got here.

Let the games begin....

[Weekes Head]

I don't hate him. I strongly dislike him and would like to shove my foot up his ass. Why?

Because he sucks.

That's pretty much it.

[MantaRay]

A very thorough analysis.

[NJDevs4978]

Just to play (apropos) Devils Advocate:

I don't hate Bettmen, on the contrary I think he has done some good work in expanding the league and tapping into new markets.

[TK]

my reason:

he just sucks

[AddictedToHockey]

All of this... plus the number one reason... safety netting. I'll never forgive him for forcing that upon us, no matter how long I live.

1.The idiotic expansion into areas where not enough people care about hockey. Need examples? How about Atlanta, Nashville, Florida and Anaheim for starters? They can't draw.

2.The relocation of Hartford to Carolina and Winnipeg to Phoenix. Since when are Carolina and Phoenix hockey hotbeds? Truth be told, they were better off staying where they were. Notice I didn't put Quebec to Colorado down because that's been a success. I still wonder what would happen if the Avalanche became bad. Would fans still go? I suppose Colorado is more a hockeyplace than the other two places.

3.The moronic changing of the division names and conferences. Remember the Patrick, Adams, Norris and Smythe divisions? Those were what gave the NHL an identity. I liked the Campbell and Wales Conference. Of course, the idiot regionalized the league and took away any tradition. That's what happens when you hire an NBA guy.

4.The dumbest rule ever that took away the tag-up rule. It was implemented to protect defensemen. Instead, it forced players into the neutral zone and then the trap followed. All of a sudden, no flow and little excitement followed. What a shock that they finally banged their heads together and realized it was a mistake? It only took almost a decade.

5.The Instigator Rule. Just another wussy rule that took away enforcers and turned the game into a joke. Players no longer could police themselves. And coincidentally, sticks went up and respect went down.

6.The idiotic crease rule. Just another example of how not to run a sport. The rule became so controversial that it cost a team a chance to win a Cup when they couldn't wait to get off the ice and didn't even review it properly. Just what the sport needed. Controversy. And that's not the only time it happened.

7.The glowing puck phenomenon on Fox. Not to mention those ugly robots when goals were scored. What did that have to do with hockey? Just awful. The only good thing Fox gave us was the team of Emrick and Davidson.

8.The two referee system. It was supposed to improve things but instead, has made the game impossible for players to interpret because they don't know what's going to be called. And even worse, there are AHL calibre officials sometimes on games. Nice job.

9.The lack of marketing. They have the fastest game and great players. But with little fanfare. How do they expect to attract more fans when no one player is featured to draw fans? Only a braindead league wouldn't market their product.

10.The 1994 lockout. Off a great postseason where new fans were tuning in, they didn't take advantage of no MLB or NBA. Instead, they locked the players out. What did it accomplish? Absolutely nothing. They wound up giving in four months later. By then, it was too late. The momentum they had built was gone. So was their credibility.

And here we are ten years later in an even worse situation. And you wonder why he's hated?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[L]

That pretty much covers it...

Seriously though great analysis by everyone so far.

Good point about Colorado Derek, I have said this to many people - and I think that we all remember what happened when Colorado had a crappy team...but atleast it was our gain.

Edited September 22, 2004 by L

[PeteyNice]

Hocley *is* a regional game! If you want to grow hockey in non-traditional markets you do not start with the highest level. You put a minor league team there and let the audience build. Bettman expanded too quickly and without concern for the concequences if the team did not do as well as the Avalanche.

Yes, Has, Atlanta failed with the Flames but Denver failed with the Rockies and the Avs are doing well (mainly because they win but still). Atlanta is a notoriously bad sports town. It is very transient so you have a lot of people who still remain loyal to their original home town sides.

I agree with almost everything Derek said.

If Bettman kept the NHL as a regional game where it was succeeding we would not be in a lockout right now.

[Don]

But it wasn't succeeding in Winnipeg, Quebec and Hartford. They were losing money by the bucketload. Especially Quebec.

They just had the Bettman interview on CBC and someone in Winnipeg was irate with Bettman in regards to their not being a team in Winnipeg as opposed to Carolina. And Bettman was quick to point out that there is a big difference between the .7B hockey made in revenues with Winnipeg left the league and the 2.1B the league takes in now.

Winnipeg couldn't draw 12M fans when ticket prices were $50CAN avg.. Carolina draws 12,000 each game with tickets well into the $100US range. Quebec has a population of 700,000 - Ottawa's 1M people couldn't keep a team from going bankrupt. Quebec city didn't have a chance of succeeding with the way that salaries escalated.

[Rock]

We're blaming Bettman for all these things, yet he didn't come up with most of the ideas, his hockey people did!

Just as people here berated Lou for letting players go, being cheap etc, he was trying to do his job in compliance with his boss' budget and wishes.

Just as Bettman is doing now with the CBA.

While I don't agree with all the changes he's wrought, I understand why they were implemented.

[brylin18]

1.The idiotic expansion into areas where not enough people care about hockey. Need examples? How about Atlanta, Nashville, Florida and Anaheim for starters? They can't draw.

expansion to those areas was absolutely the right thing to do. hockey needed to expand its market base and that's what bettman did. the owners brought in bettman to expand the sport, to take it to the next level with respect to its exposure in the US. bettman gets positive marks from me as far as expansion goes.

2.The relocation of Hartford to Carolina and Winnipeg to Phoenix. Since when are Carolina and Phoenix hockey hotbeds? Truth be told, they were better off staying where they were. Notice I didn't put Quebec to Colorado down because that's been a success. I still wonder what would happen if the Avalanche became bad. Would fans still go? I suppose Colorado is more a hockeyplace than the other two places.

bettman didnt force teams to pick up from winnipeg or hartford and relocate to carolina and phoenix. relocation requires the cooperation of owners and local officials in both the city from which the team is moving and the city to which the team is moving. as far as i know, the NHL (bettman) never forced these teams to move.

3.The moronic changing of the division names and conferences. Remember the Patrick, Adams, Norris and Smythe divisions? Those were what gave the NHL an identity. I liked the Campbell and Wales Conference. Of course, the idiot regionalized the league and took away any tradition. That's what happens when you hire an NBA guy.

this just sounds like whining to me. each one of those guys has a trophy named after him, the respect paid to them and to hockey tradition has not been decreased in the slightest. the current naming of divisions is more logical and brings the NHL in line with other major sports leagues. but if you feel that this is a reason to rip on bettman, fine.. it just sounds like a bunch of crying to me.

4.The dumbest rule ever that took away the tag-up rule. It was implemented to protect defensemen. Instead, it forced players into the neutral zone and then the trap followed. All of a sudden, no flow and little excitement followed. What a shock that they finally banged their heads together and realized it was a mistake? It only took almost a decade.

the lack of a tag up rule didnt force players into the neutral zone or promote the trap. even with a tag up rule players would be stuck in the neutral zone. the tag up rule doesnt eliminate offsides.....if anything, in today's game, it only allows the defensemen more time to recover the puck while offsides players tag up in the neutral zone. the tag up rule does keep the game moving though, and for that reason it probably should (and probably will) be brought back.

5.The Instigator Rule. Just another wussy rule that took away enforcers and turned the game into a joke. Players no longer could police themselves. And coincidentally, sticks went up and respect went down.

"turned the game into a joke"......no, what turns the game into a joke is goons turning hockey into WWE smackdown. fighting has a role in the game, the fans like it, the players respect it, and coaches still use it when the time is appropriate. bettman has tried to delineate that role so that people focus on the game itself and not the brawls. respect does not depend on the number of goons in a game, but instead on the individual's willingness to harm another player. the league has to come down hard on guilty players to decrease this willingness.

6.The idiotic crease rule. Just another example of how not to run a sport. The rule became so controversial that it cost a team a chance to win a Cup when they couldn't wait to get off the ice and didn't even review it properly. Just what the sport needed. Controversy. And that's not the only time it happened.

i agree, the crease rule was unnecessary.

7.The glowing puck phenomenon on Fox. Not to mention those ugly robots when goals were scored. What did that have to do with hockey? Just awful. The only good thing Fox gave us was the team of Emrick and Davidson.

.......and the relevance to gary bettman is.....?

8.The two referee system. It was supposed to improve things but instead, has made the game impossible for players to interpret because they don't know what's going to be called. And even worse, there are AHL calibre officials sometimes on games. Nice job.

the two referee system was enacted in order to catch all of the clutching and grabbing and the behind the scenes garbage that people like you are always complaining about. the league's intentions were inline with what people wanted.

9.The lack of marketing. They have the fastest game and great players. But with little fanfare. How do they expect to attract more fans when no one player is featured to draw fans? Only a braindead league wouldn't market their product.

you complain about expansion and at the same time expect the league to attract new fans. bettman has put teams in most of the major markets in america. that's the best sort of marketing a league can do, to make the game accessible to people in new markets. the league is more popular now than it was during the "glory days" of hockey. people in florida know about hockey, not because the new york rangers won a cup in 1994, but instead because there are two teams in the state, one of which is a stanley cup championship team.

10.The 1994 lockout. Off a great postseason where new fans were tuning in, they didn't take advantage of no MLB or NBA. Instead, they locked the players out. What did it accomplish? Absolutely nothing. They wound up giving in four months later. By then, it was too late. The momentum they had built was gone. So was their credibility.

again, why does bettman, and bettman alone, get the blame for this?

[sheeps]

Derek, I hate to say it but a lot of the things you solely attributed to Bettman started by Wayne Gretzky. Division names being renamed was Gretzky's biggest push ever. If I had evidence for the rest I'd tell you but I'd say between three and five of your points should be blamed on Gretzky, not Bettman.

[Don]

I blame Gretzky for expansion.

[Derek21]

expansion to those areas was absolutely the right thing to do.  hockey needed to expand its market base and that's what bettman did.  the owners brought in bettman to expand the sport, to take it to the next level with respect to its exposure in the US.  bettman gets positive marks from me as far as expansion goes.

Oh really. San Jose was a success. Anaheim was and still is a joke. There was no need for three teams in California. The same way having two teams in Florida was overkill. Atlanta is a laughingstock. It's a horrible sportstown. So, why bring the weakest sport to a place that can't even sellout Braves games? Nashville I will never understand. Maybe Z-man can tell us if it's worked.

bettman didnt force teams to pick up from winnipeg or hartford and relocate to carolina and phoenix.  relocation requires the cooperation of owners and local officials in both the city from which the team is moving and the city to which the team is moving.  as far as i know, the NHL (bettman) never forced these teams to move. 

You're right on Hartford. Karmanos wanted a new arena there or relocation. However, from what I have been told, he didn't give them much time. No way will anyone tell me Phoenix deserves a hockey team. I don't care how bad a shape Winnipeg was in. Phoenix is not a hockeytown. Winnipeg is. They want a second chance.

this just sounds like whining to me.  each one of those guys has a trophy named after him, the respect paid to them and to hockey tradition has not been decreased in the slightest.  the current naming of divisions is more logical and brings the NHL in line with other major sports leagues.  but if you feel that this is a reason to rip on bettman, fine.. it just sounds like a bunch of crying to me.

I believe in tradition brylin. Obviously, you do not. The NHL had its own identity with those division names. Why copy the NBA? Because of who was running it.

the lack of a tag up rule didnt force players into the neutral zone or promote the trap.  even with a tag up rule players would be stuck in the neutral zone.  the tag up rule doesnt eliminate offsides.....if anything, in today's game, it only allows the defensemen more time to recover the puck while offsides players tag up in the neutral zone.  the tag up rule does keep the game moving though, and for that reason it probably should (and probably will) be brought back.

Of course it did. If you can't have attacking players touching up at the blueline and attacking, they then have to go into the neutral zone. It clogs it up. If they had kept that rule originally, it would have kept the flow intact and put more pressure on D-men. Instead, they had free outs. The rule created a lot more delayed offsides whistles. Something that hurt games.

"turned the game into a joke"......no, what turns the game into a joke is goons turning hockey into WWE smackdown.  fighting has a role in the game, the fans like it, the players respect it, and coaches still use it when the time is appropriate.  bettman has tried to delineate that role so that people focus on the game itself and not the brawls.  respect does not depend on the number of goons in a game, but instead on the individual's willingness to harm another player.  the league has to come down hard on guilty players to decrease this willingness.

It wouldn't have become that way if they had been allowed to police themselves. Instead, once enforcers are gone, the stickswinging incidents increase and so do the cheapshots. I guess you were a big fan of all those scrums after whistles. Why do you think Bobby Holik didn't get his ass beat on a nightly basis?

.......and the relevance to gary bettman is.....?

Not sure how he relates to the TV deal. But putting games on Fox was not all that great.

the two referee system was enacted in order to catch all of the clutching and grabbing and the behind the scenes garbage that people like you are always complaining about.  the league's intentions were inline with what people wanted.

It didn't workout the way it should have. You should know that by all the complaints on this board due to the inconsistencies in calls. They still couldn't get control of the game.

you complain about expansion and at the same time expect the league to attract new fans.  bettman has put teams in most of the major markets in america.  that's the best sort of marketing a league can do, to make the game accessible to people in new markets.  the league is more popular now than it was during the "glory days" of hockey.  people in florida know about hockey, not because the new york rangers won a cup in 1994, but instead because there are two teams in the state, one of which is a stanley cup championship team.

That's the best they can do? LOL... hardly. What big star has an endorsement deal that is shown a lot? How come Jarome Iginla wasn't promoted more?

again, why does bettman, and bettman alone, get the blame for this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because he was in charge. The person who runs it has to get the majority of the blame for how things turned out.

You wanted reasons why. I tried to give them to you as did several other knowledgable posters. That's all I can add.

[squishyx]

idk Derek, i kinda liked the robots, Fox did a much better job covering the SC finals the ABC ever did

[Sarge18]

Why do you think Bobby Holik didn't get his ass beat on a nightly basis?

Well personally i think its at least partly due to the fact that he is 6'4" and easily one of the strongest guys int he league(at least when he played here) And most guys were neither tougher, bigger or stronger then him.

There are plenty of things that the instigator can be blamed for, the rise in cheapshots i think is certainly one. But if your going to pick an example of someone that should have been royally beaten by now i think one would be better served using a player such as Avery or Niemenen as an example.

[NJD Jester]

I think Derek's post did a good job with specifics, so I'll get a little bit more broad.

I hate Gary Bettman. I'm not going to lie to you. I hate the man. I hate what he represents, which is the homogenous Americanization of the sport in order to attract fans who aren't going to watch hockey if you paid them to. I hate the way he treats die hard fans -- we don't matter to him, because we were here when he arrived and he arrived to bring in new fans. I hate him because the history of the NHL, the things that make the sport so beloved around the world, don't matter to him; all that does is making this product marketable in places where, quite frankly, it doesn't belong.

From a rule changes perspective, Bettman's tenure has been littered with countless mistakes. The instigator is an awful rule: constantly misapplied, and counterproductive when it comes to what should be the bottom line for Bettman, which is entertainment. But since Bettman is the world's only "marketing genius" who doesn't think violence and blood sell, we get pacifist hockey for the Bible Belt.

I don't blame Bettman for over-expanding. I blame him, and the Board of Governors, for just expecting these fans to keep showing up when the novelty wears out. You have to give them a reason to show up. What better reason than to see a rival? And how do you create rivalries? By playing the teams in your division over and over and over and over again, and then making those games critical for the postseason. I grew up hating the Washington Capitals, because in some years it felt like it was us or them. Now? I could care less about them...but so could the Bolts, Panthers and Canes, and that's the issue.

Give them a reason to show up...seems simple, doesn't it? I mean, Bettman's guru, David Stern, knew how to market his stars in the NBA; yet for some reason, Bettman's NHL has no clue. Two words: Jarome Iginla. This guy should be as big as anyone in professional sports. Instead, because he plays on a Canadian team whose viewership numbers don't count towards the NHL's bottom line with American advertisers, he might as well be playing on Uranus.

Here's the question every fan has to ask about Bettman: Is hockey better off now than it was before he arrived?

In market share: no.

On the ice, the game itself? No.

Economically? No.

Television-wise? No, save for the fact that the NHL is on national cable, but any commish could have closed that deal.

Fan-friendliness? No.

There really isn't much of anything I can say about Gary Bettman that could be considered positive outside of the fact that this lockout will help in the long run. But only if Bettman and his advisors don't use it as an opportunity to alter the game even more.

<JESTER>