Make the NHL’s Stanley Cup Finals a USA-Canada Border War

So the New York Rangers and the Los Angeles Kings will face one another in this year’s Stanley Cup Finals. Predictions are that NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman is salivating over the potential for some of the highest TV ratings for the NHL in years, with teams from the two largest American markets facing off. I’m here to tell you not to get too excited.

Meanwhile, it’s another year, another failure for teams in hockey’s homeland of Canada. Yet, despite this, the Stanley Cup Finals will make for big ratings north of the border — certainly bigger than in the good ol’ U. S. of A.

What’s more amazing is that the NHL obliviously refuses to acknowledge that its labor strife and business stupidity over the past two decades has done too much damage to its brand, and continues pretending that hockey doesn’t work in places where it isn’t regularly played by the local population.

The last lockout renewed the calls for fewer teams in warm places and more teams in Canada. Should another lockout take place, the other shoe will drop. We’re going to see more teams move or simply fold. And to me, this is a good thing. In a post-Great Recession world, you are what your revenue streams say you are. There are too many teams, and most of them don’t matter enough for casual fans to care.

It’s time for the NHL to cut the fat.

TV Rules

We live in a world where the NFL Draft DOUBLES the average TV ratings for the Stanley Cup Finals in America. This is while NBC/Comcast dropped more than $2 billion on the NHL for TV rights through the 2020–2021 season. They’re going to have to make that money back somehow.

Meanwhile, Canada, a country with one-tenth the United States’ GDP, and one-tenth the population, just watched the NHL sign a new 12-year, $4.9 billion (in U.S. dollars) TV rights deal with Rogers to broadcast the Coolest Game on Earth — more than twice what Comcast paid.

Supply vs. Demand

Hockey has relegated itself to a regional sport, and no region cares more than the sport’s homeland. There is demand for more NHL hockey in Canada. There just isn’t as much in the USA. Why chase dollars that aren’t there? We need fewer NHL teams in the US, and more in Canada.

We know the NHL’s Southern Strategy has failed, sapping millions from the league. The lost season of 2004–2005 rendered it to life support. For the second time, an NHL team based in Atlanta, the largest city in the American South, moved north of the border. Several other teams are still in dire financial straits.

Elsewhere, a 2011 report by the University of Toronto stated that Canada could support as many as 12 franchises. And we know that there are too many teams in the NHL anyway. So how can we combine these factors to make the NHL interesting again?

The answer: Nationalism.

The New NHL

Here’s how it would be if I were king (or Commissioner):

Step One: Contract or move the following franchises: Columbus, Nashville, Dallas, Phoenix, the New York Islanders, Carolina, Anaheim, Tampa Bay and Florida. Sorry, guys. It’s not working anymore. Stop pretending that it is.

Want proof? Check out this article from The Hockey Daily. They analyzed which NHL teams were considered the most popular, factoring in Google search results, Facebook Likes, Twitter followers, team worth and attendance. The results: eight of the nine franchises I listed above were the eight least-popular teams by these metrics. The only one that did not — Dallas — had its results skewed because if you Google Search “Dallas Stars,” you get a bunch of non-Hockey-related results. The authors of the article admitted openly that “Google Search Results may not be the most consistent of the [five] criteria.” So there.

Step Two: Add or relocate some of the above franchises in Quebec City, Hamilton and Saskatchewan, and add second franchises in Vancouver and Toronto.

That gives us 26 teams: 14 in the U.S. and 12 in Canada. Now split the remaining clubs into Canadian and American Conferences, and here’s how the NHL’s new map would look:

The arrangement is simple: Each conference is split into two divisions, East and West. The playoffs would remain as they are now, with divisions decided in the playoffs. The top four teams in each division move on to the postseason, and the divisional playoff winners face each other in the conference finals.

The Stanley Cup: The reward you get for winning the World’s Friendliest Border War (Image: Wikimedia Commons)[/caption]

And for the coup de grace, the Stanley Cup finally gets the kind of hype worthy of its illustrious history: The best team from Canada will face the best team from the U.S. in a best-of-7 series.

Having a U.S. vs. Canada element to the Stanley Cup Finals brings a number of good things to the game, notably:

• Nationalism. When the goal of an entire country is to “Win back the Cup” or “Keep the Cup,” the aura surrounding the greatest trophy in sports is magnified. Nationalism is an attention-grabber. Just ask the folks at NBC around the Olympics.
• Increased interest in major U.S. markets. When national pride is on the line, American audiences tune in. For the American TV networks, this is a ratings winner every time, regardless of who is playing whom.

The Need for Urgency

Lastly, it’s time to shorten the season. By shrinking the league, you create scarcity, which any good company will tell you can drive demand for your product. Fewer teams plus fewer games equals even more urgency, and more urgency equals better attendance and higher TV ratings.

I’d be in favor of shrinking the NHL’s regular season to 54–60 games, and starting it on New Year’s Day with the now-staple Winter Classic. That way, we kick off the season with the spectacle of outdoor hockey, and end it with the equally appealing spectacle of the World’s Friendliest Border War.

In an era of shrinking wallets and less time to waste, the NHL has to re-launch itself as a leaner, meaner league. Most of all, in today’s business climate, it has to play to its strengths, which lie in Canada and northern American cities. Going south was a failed experiment in terms of resources and market viability.

Add the spice of nationalism to the mix and you have a 21st century sports league with 21st century appeal.