NHL Lockout 2012-13 - Yay or Nay?

Well, it's not looking good. Today is the last day for the NHLPA and the Owners to come to a speedy resolution without cutting into the traditional 82 game season. The ticker has literally run out on nhllockout2013.com.

As I wrote in June (YEAH THAT'S RIGHT! IN YOUR FACE!), there will be a temporary lockout this year. They are a product of unfortunate trends. Although in this circumstance it is mostly about money, it is still true about ratings. Money has to come from somewhere! If you haven't read an earlier post I wrote on lockouts and why they happen, read here now (otherwise you won't 'get' the
rest of my post).

Look, everything is supposed to be for the fans, that's just fact. And the fans are getting robbed; we want hockey, especially here in Canada! I have never heard so many people say: "I want hockey so badly I would...[insert ridiculous proposal]". I've read national stories about a man who pleaded for the lockout to end so that he could watch the games with his dying father. That's heartbreaking and incredibly BAD public relations for the NHL. I don't think I need to explain why.

Gary Bettman is a stubborn man, yes, but he's protecting the league as a whole. I understand that and appreciate that he wants to make everyone happy. If the owners aren't happy and accept a deal where they're not favoured, they will feel cheated. Same goes for the players.


There goes the revenue for NHL13. Or will people buy simply because they can't watch it (maybe have the computers play against each other!)? What about the Winter Classic at the biggest stadium that hockey has ever been played in?

This lockout does so much damage to the sport. Not having children grow up with the ability to watch their favourite athletes, will destroy our entire nation and sense of patriotism. Canada already struggles to find itself an identity, hockey makes us stand out. Remember all of the Gold medals, Summit Series and International Hockey Championships that Canada has won? I hope so because this lockout might mean those are the last times we win. It's our national sport, don't force kids to watch Junior A or B hockey. We need to see the finest talent prosper and young talent grow.

What frustrates me even more is that they aren't even willing to meet. Both sides are so stubborn presently that they are throwing away their future (at least for this year). If there is a season, the league will spend a lot time putting out PR fires via fighting and illegal hits and everything else that gives the game a bad rep. These issues STILL haven't been raised, amended or corrected. Good luck NHL PR dep't and see you next year.

Currently growing a lockout beard.

The Sad State of the UFC today

Although I have been openly saying Dana White has done a good job over the years, my opinion is beginning to change. Before you call me a flip-flopper, let me explain:

The entire UFC has changed in the last year. There are way too many events. The true beginning of the UFC was in April '05: the first fight after the first season of The Ultimate Fighter. It was dubbed UFC 52: Couture VS. Liddell 2. This was a simple marketing approach. Those who knew the sport, understood the quality of these fighters and what was at stake. Those who didn't, watched these guys coach their athletes and talk shit to each other for at least 5 episodes. No one remembers who won the first fight - but they knew the two had a history. And the drama was built. It was a great fight, yadda yadda yadda, and the sport built momentum to become what it was...until last year.

Taking into consideration that the number of fights have increased, the UFC has been in decline  (2012: 11,100 attendance approx - 20 events to date, 31 scheduled, not including one events cancellation; 2011: 12,900 attendance approx - 27 events). This includes going to new, large markets this year such as Calgary, Sweden and Japan.

To date, the UFC has now had 214 events. As mentioned above, in 2005 - they were at UFC 52. In 2012 alone, there has already been 20 events. Since it's not even the 10th month, that's more than 2 a month (or one every two weeks!)
Thanks to Wikipedia, I drew up a quick graph of these:

Events are happening more frequently, which means the UFC has to scramble to create fight cards that will draw fans. Now that the uniqueness of the sport has worn off, the UFC needs to build hype by setting up exciting fights with worthy contenders. Unfortunately, the UFC has been headlining average fighters who will face off against each other multiple times in the same year (Ex: Henderson Vs. Edgar I & II).

Without a strong headliner, fights are hard to promote. What the UFC has switched (and why I have been disappointed) is that they have been having good fighters (Anderson Silva & Jon Bones Jones) headline against fighters who are certainly not worthy (Ex: Silva Vs. Franklin II; Jones Vs. Belfort; Silva Vs. Bonnar - Yep, the Stephan Bonnar from TUF 1, 2005).
Yes, injuries play a large role in choosing the fights. But this wouldn't be a big deal for fighters if they didn't fight 3 or 4 times a year (Henderson). Injuries can ruin a card.
My suggestion to the PR team and Dana, take a break for a while. The UFC is not what it used to be. It's time to build up the hype again. There is some exciting fighters at the top of their game but they're not getting the fights they should. Rather than scheduling a fight in stone, set up fights that are worth watching and not entirely one sided. Get your fans excited and stop pumping out empty, nameless events.

UFC 1000: The same two guys. Coming early 2013.

Lance Armstrong: "Haters gonna hate"

Lance Armstrong is amazing with or without the titles. Armstrong, aka The Boss, aka Juan Pelota, aka Big Tex, aka The Texan, aka Mellow Johnny, has done more than you in his lifetime. Why do I say that? Here's a quick checklist:

• Survive testicular cancer, after it metastasized to his brain and lungs - check (By the way, his cancer treatments included brain and testicular surgery and extensive chemotherapy. His prognosis was originally poor)
• Win the Tour de France seven consecutive times AFTER beating cancer - check
• Raised tens of millions of dollars for charity - check (Did this via the Lance Armstrong Foundation and Livestrong [the yellow bracelet you wore] which provides support for people living with cancer)
• Named the ABC Wide World of Sports Athlete of the Year, 1999;  Sports Illustrated magazine Sportsman of the Year, 2002; Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year for the years 2002–2005.; ESPN's ESPY Award for Best Male Athlete in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006; the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Overseas Personality Award in 2003 - check

And now, after years of being harassed by anti-doping teams world-wide, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency said it will ban the cyclist for life and recommend he be stripped of his Tour de France titles. What a brutal way to let a guy retire in peace, USADA.

 In a statement addressing these allegations, Lance said 'enough is enough' - that he is sick of being bothered by doping claims and PED rumours, which began in 1999. Check out his comments here.

I think this is a great PR move by Lance to explain his reasoning for letting the USADA do whatever they want, show his position and post this on his webpage / tweet it out to people who care about him.
You take away his records, but you can't take away the millions he has raised to help cancer patients/survivors.

Sorry Lance, Haters gonna hate.

Without Lin, the Knicks commit PR suicide

Jeremy Lin may depart from the New York Knicks. This may be the biggest crisis for any NBA franchise since the lockout. One year ago, Linsanity was looking for a team to play on. After a fantastic spurt with the Knicks, he became one of the biggest names in the game today. According to the Bleacher Report, Lin's had the second highest jersey sales behind Derrick Rose, this year (that means ahead of Kobe and Lebron). 

The New York fans will never forget his role and what he brought to their team this season, regardless of how long it was for. Not only did he bring the fans some hope at a desperate time but brought the Knicks some serious revenue. Every news outlet (TIME, ESPN, you name it) in the U.S. and Canada had their take on the New York Knicks and their side of the Jeremy Lin story. It was a publicists dream - no pitching involved - and positive stories coming from left and right. He alone branded the team for the 2011-12 season as 'Linsanity in NYC'.

Now that his contract is up, the fans are demanding him back. However, his contract might be heavy but so far this off-season, the team may as well throw their year away. More on Lin and if keeping him would be a PR dream.

If they want to keep their fans happy, The Knicks should keep him on the bench until the fourth quarter (losing or winning)

Steve Nash to save the Raps?

WELL, maybe not.

Steve Nash is expected to sign with the Raptors later this week. Two problems: where does this get the team when he retires and is he good enough to win them a championship?

Don't get me wrong, Steve Nash is still one of the best players in the league today. But, this isn't 2005 anymore. There's no Dirk or Finley. Instead, Demar Derozan and Andrea Bargnani will have to do. His 2 MVP winning seasons had players that could start on any team.

However, Captain Canada (Nash) still brings a lot to the table.
Most notably: Publicity!
His personality is enough to reignite a fire underneath Raptors fans to actually go to a game and maybe even cheer.
His talent will be suspect in his final few years but he will be one of the most popular people in Canada (if he isn't already). Toronto has become a dead basketball city in need of revitalization, starting with improving the public eye and ending with a championship.

However, I don't think he will last more than three seasons and his last will be riddled with injuries; but I wish him the best if he chooses the Raps. If they make the playoffs any of those seasons, I will be impressed and surprised. I highly doubt they would make a deep playoff run, never mind a birth.

The last Rap's game I saw, also looked like this:

BREAKING NEWS: STEVE NASH SIGNS WITH TEAM LIQUID:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xRr6FT6DaA

NHL Lockout 2013

After last night's demolishing victory over the New Jersey Devils, I decided to re-evaluate the effect of the L.A. Kings big win and the position that the NHL will be in next year.

My conclusion: NHL - 2013 - Temporary Lockout caused by: broadcast ratings, lack of attendance (See end of page) / owners ROI or player safety.

What else? The L.A. Kings and New Jersey Devils play in the Stanley Cup and no one cares. This year's Cup Final trailed last year. As USA Today reported: "Ratings for the first two games, on NBC, were down 25% from last year, while the next two on NBC Sports Network were off 33% -- and the overnight for Game 5 on NBC was off 19%."

Here's how I came to that...

Over the last few decades, it seems as though the popularity of teams in professional sports plays an important role of the likelihood of a season the year after. There seems to be a trend on the excitement of the season, ratings and winning team popularity that correlates to the future of the league.
I'm not saying there's a direct cause and effect of popularity. Strikes and lockouts are caused by more than just one factor. For example, rule changes / player salaries vs. owner profit / collective bargaining / player agreement arrangements / etc. are all factors that play a key role.

• NBA - 2011/12 - Temporary lockout resulting in half a season caused by owners upon expiration of the 2005 collective bargaining agreement. What else? Despite charismatic owner Mark Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks were certainly not America's team. Their captain and unstoppable leader Dirk Nowitzki lead the Mavs to win the Championship in 2010-11 after beating the Miami Heat 'All-American Dream-Team' of Lebron, Wade and Bosh

• NFL - 2011/12 - Not an official lockout but caused by owners and the NFLPA who could not come to a consensus on a new collective bargaining agreement, delaying pre-season. What else? The ratings for the season prior were up 10% however pre-game show ratings were at an all-time low. Perhaps fans were getting sick of the repetitiveness of the same teams doing well and the bad ones still losing

• NHL - 2004/05 - Full-blown lock out caused by a labour dispute between NHL owners and the NHLPA over collective bargaining. What else? At this point, the discrepancy between the popularity of hockey and other sports in America was evident. Hockey was not doing well and an unlikeable Tampa Bay Lightning won the Stanley Cup in 2004. Prior to their Stanley Cup, Tampa Bay had a low attendance record and were looking at possibly moving the team. Tampa also knocked out the top 5 most popular (and well-attended - see below) teams, the Montreal Canadiens, Philadelphia Flyers and the Calgary Flames, in the playoffs

• MLB - 1994/95 - Strike caused by the owners of major league baseball teams who collectively proposed a salary cap to their players. What else? The Toronto Blue Jays, the MLB's least popular team, win back-to-back World Series prior

• NFL - 1987/88 - Strike caused by players union who demanded that a wage scale be based on percentage of gross revenues be implemented; NFLPA wanted 55%. What else? John Elway, in his prime, lost the Super Bowl to the New York Football Giants who were heavy favourites over the Broncos and beat them by multiple touchdowns

• NFL - 1982/83  - Strike caused by a lack of collective bargaining agreement. What else? San Francisco 49ers win in 1982 for the org's first time with Joe Montana. Despite this, the Bengals were actually the more popular team: a Superbowl dark-horse after finishing the prior-season 6-10 and never having won a playoff game. The game was a bit of a wash, but so was football 20 years ago

For a cool infografic on the history of lockouts and strikes, check this site out.

I guess I'll try another sport, like knitting.

OPEN LETTER TO 'OPEN LETTER TO LEAFS FANS'

Dear Larry Tanenbaum (MLSE Chairman),
Thank you for accepting some of the responsibility for the Maple Leaf's lackluster performance this year.

Great PR move. Finally, it seems as though someone in Toronto Maple Leafs management actually cares about the fans! The full page insert in the Globe and Mail (imagine if it were in the Sun?!) is a classy move and certainly boosts your reputation.

The words Tanenbaum used were simple and concise, especially for a Cornell grad, which spread a message that he is disappointed with the entire organization. The letter speaks about the team having an unacceptable end to the season as well as highlighting MLSE's (as a brand) key messages of: passion, hard work and accountability. I think this letter hit the nail on the head. Apologizing, moving forward and reassuring the fans are ways that will always work on the public to increase your declining image.

Although your intentions were good, it doesn't account for the consistent failure in the entirety of MLSE history.


The Raptors and Canucks have also done this.

Another Disappointing NHL Trade Deadline

UGH.
It happened again. What you ask? NOTHING. The 2011-2012 NHL Trade Deadline produced no significant changes in any team.
In the last week, it was obvious that the Tampa Bay Lightning were the busiest, but no major trades were made in the NHL.


What happened to the good old days when teams would trade for a bag of pucks for other players?
Here's a list of trades that happened this year - or you could just take my word for it that no one made any significant trades.
Here's why (one of many reasons):
When a team decides to trade a big name player (especially for draft picks), they risk the chance of losing some player-based capital (ie: jersey sales, ticket pricing based on superstars along with a million other money makers). Not to mention that the loss of income can hurt a team in the short term, but the team's public view becomes distorted and it's time for the communications team to earn their pay.

With a team's superstar players, an organization builds up a reputation, whether negative or positive. No matter if the player has a good or bad public image, the team's reputation always depends on the outcome of the trade (who got the better end of the deal).

If you were to trade away your best player (let's say 'he' has a eight years of experience), for first and second round draft picks; your team's public image becomes that of a 'team building towards the future'. If you trade for an experienced players, a la notoriously bad at trading Toronto Maple Leafs circa 1996-2006, then your team may become known as a 'team of old-timers' or 'trying to make the playoffs'.

It's not to say that they aren't a variety of reasons to pick up different valued or aged players but what is important is how the public perceives this. Believe me when I tell you: every GM considers this!

On the same note, teams with a poor rapport can obviously gain some great publicity by trading up. Fans who lost interest in their clubs may suddenly be sparked to start watching again due to the team's newest acquisition.

What's important here is the risk involved in trading. Since management is responsible to make money and win, it becomes difficult to see any other way to accomplish this than sticking with your big guns, or the guys who are going to score 30-goal seasons. These are the same guys that your team has been built around for months if not years and the same guys that kids are growing up, dreaming to be like (remember Dave Chappelle's skit?). Is it worth risking valuable players to gain someone who may or may not fit in the system?

Either way, we would all like to see trade deadline days have more action.