Recently “How to Fix Hockey” has become the topic de jour.  And almost all of these “solutions” involve shrinking the league (*Spoiler alert: so does mine*) but I don’t think it’s as simple as just looking at the teams that aren’t doing well and cutting them off like gangrenous limbs.  Instead I think that European Soccer holds the key for the NHL’s success in North America.  That key is…relegation. 

For those of you unfamiliar with England’s soccer hierarchy, there is the Premier League (the top league, it has 20 teams.)  Each season the worst 3 teams in the league get relegated (demoted) down to the Championship (think: AAA baseball.)  Meanwhile at the end of the Championship’s season the best two teams automatically get promoted to the Premiere, while teams 3 through 6 have a playoff, the winner of which also gets promoted. 

I love this concept and for years have tried to figure out ways to make relegation a part of the American sports scene- the problem is that the Big 3 (NFL, MLB, and NBA) don’t have a system in place that would work well with relegation.  For instance, if baseball believed in relegation, the Tampa Bay Rays would have been kicked out the year before their World Series run.  But that just means the idea is still there for hockey to adopt.  Because here’s the thing about relegation: it can only work once, if this system was already in place in the American sports scene it certainly wouldn’t have this appeal.  But because it’s never been done here it has a lot of appeal and can fix a lot of hockey’s problems. 

The schedule is a problem because it fits the exact same schedule as the NBA, but shrinking the league and adding in the relegation element changes up the schedule.  (Maybe a Sept through January regular season allowing the playoffs to take over the baron wasteland that is February?)

Lack of differentiation?  I’ve already got the marketing material ready.   ‘Hockey: Only the strong survive.’ 

The quality hierarchy too engrained?  Well if a team isn’t good, kick them out. 

And lastly over-expansion.  Well there’s the rub: exactly how over-expanded is the NHL?  Basically, what’s the right number of hockey teams?

My guess, simply because it’s what England’s Premier League uses, is 20.  Kick 10 teams out of the league and see what happens.  But how?  I have a few ideas about how to get down to the right fighting weight. 

The Hatchet- just kick ten teams out

Again, I don’t like this idea.  Because do you kick the Ducks or the Kings out?  One has been around longer and had Gretzky, the other has had more success including a Stanley Cup Championship.  So you’ve got to get rid of one, but how do you do it fairly?  Again, relegation makes the decision on the ice.  Who do you kick out?  The team that loses. 

The Royal Rumble- a one-time tournament

One way would be to set a date a few years out- like say when the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2011 season.  This date gives you time to re-organize the minor leagues in order to create a clear hierarchy, it lets you negotiate the new CBA, and it gives you a few years to promote the biggest sports event of the decade. 

Want to take March Madness to another level?  Want to make the sporting event of the decade?  Then take the 14 teams that didn’t make the playoffs and set up a one-time playoff system where they all battle. 

You’ll already have the 3 teams from the minor-leagues ready to take the new spots, and the winner of this tournament will also stay.  Basically you’ll get down to the finals, and then the two teams will battle.  One team stays, the loser goes.  Honestly, you wouldn’t watch this?  One more bonus: this tournament would generate a significant one-time revenue that could be split among the relegated teams as a severance package.  Then each season after, you simply have 3 go down and 3 come up. 

The problem with the royal rumble solution is that it’s a one-time fix.  Like ripping the band-aid off.  What if you could take this morbid anticipation and make it last for years? 

The Ten Year Plan

What if every year the bottom four teams were dropped from the league and only three were promoted to replace them?  So instead set up a second bottom-feeder mini-playoff.  Last two teams definitely go but take the next bottom 4 teams, and have them battle for survival.  It would be like the Anti-Super Bowl.  Even if you’re not a Toronto fan, if the Maple Leafs were playing for their NHL-lives, wouldn’t you watch?  I would.  After ten seasons of 4 down, 3 up, the league would be down to 20 teams and could then continue with a 3 down, 3 up plan.  While a royal rumble, loser-goes match would be a fun onetime thing, this plan lets the league slowly shrink.  This way lets the league not alienate ten team’s fanbases all at once.  In fact, odds are that we’d see former-NHL teams battling in the Top Tier Minor League and could see the return of a once-removed team, which could soften the blow to future relegated teams to let their fans know it’s not necessarily the end.  In fact, most of the teams relegated down are going to have a soft fanbase but if they get promoted people are so excited by the one year boost that they could come back in droves.  Basically 3 teams each year will be like expansion teams and have the ensuing community excitement that comes from expansion.

While the New Jersey Devils don’t have a lot of support right now, their fans have spent years hating the Rangers and Flyers and everybody else.  These fans aren’t just going to jump on some other team’s band-wagon.  If you kick the Devils out, those fans are just gone from hockey.  Instead the hardcore fans will still keep an eye on the Devils even if they are a minor-league but the first year that they start challenging for promotion their will be an instant buzz back in Jersey.  If Euro Soccer is any guide the minor-league playoff to determine who gets promoted could be as big a draw as the major league’s playoffs.  Ultimately that just generates a lot of excitement that could carry over to the following season in the NHL. 

There have been other ideas- like moving teams to Canada.  And obviously the NHL is more popular in Canada but we need to remember that a lot of teams moved south of the border for a reason, there frankly are very few population bases in Canada big enough for the current NHL.  Could Canada really support 12 teams? 

But then again, who would’ve actually thought that Green Bay, Wisconsin (population 100,000) would be a better NFL city than Los Angeles (population 13,000,000)?  In fact Portland is one of the best NBA cities in the country, partially because they have no other teams; Seattle lost the Sonics but has long been a great NFL city and recently has become one of the best MLS cities.  We can’t be sure a market would be good until a team is actually there and if that team has a history in the community and earned their way into the big leagues, then it’s all the better.  Who’s to say that the Iowa Chops shouldn’t get their shot at the Red Wings too?  Basically, rather than deciding in a board room which cities should get big-league teams why not just let everything be decided on the ice?

If your favorite team gets kicked out of the NHL, I’m sure it will be hard to continue to follow the league.  Then again, maybe the only thing that might get people to watch the NHL again is the risk that their favorite team might not be there next time.   

Come back tomorrow for Part Two of Ryan’s plan to save the NHL!