Never in my life can I remember so much focus from the sports world on hockey than during the Vancouver Olympics. I was completely hooked, leaving games on in my apartment whenever I was home, whether it be the preliminary round or the gold-medal game. People I knew, who ranged from casual hockey fans to apathetic ones, became invested. The national media turned its focus away from college basketball, the NBA and the NFL offseason to the U.S.-Canada gold-medal game. The sport could not have asked for a better showcase.
After the dust settled, analysts everywhere debated whether or not the sport could sustain the success of the tournament and transfer it to the NHL. Hockey-specific writers are optimistic, believing their favorite sport now has enough attention to affect the NHL's popularity. More general pundits say once the buzz wears off the NHL will go back to relative oblivion and return to the proverbial backseat behind the other major sports.
The latter group is correct. The sport could not have asked for a better tournament, but after the 2006 Olympic Games, and even following the 2002 Games that also featured a U.S.-Canada final game, we never saw a residual effect strong enough to create a long-term impact on the sport.
But I can't let it go that easily. After such an amazing event, we know there is potential for the sport to succeed in some capacity. I can't accept simply allowing the sport to succumb to a poorly-run league and wait another four years for another Olympic hockey experience (if there even is one, with the NHL unlikely to pause its regular season for the 2014 Games in Sochi, Russia).
There is a solution out there—way out there. What I've seen the past couple weeks is a sport that struggles in its primary domestic league but thrives in international play. So what is needed is a complete overhaul of hockey's landscape—to shift the sport's base from the NHL to the world. The sport doesn't need to abolish the NHL, it just needs to shorten the season and emphasize international play with more events.
To accomplish this, hockey can use soccer as a model.
The MLS season lasts 30 games. The Premier League in England plays 38 games in a season. The NHL's 82 games are way too many to begin with. The league should cut its season in half and downsize the playoffs from 16 teams to eight. It can spread out the games more and still chop two months off of the season. A greater value on each game may even increase interest and revenue in the long run.
Even with a shortened NHL season, the Winter Olympics will still probably cut into it. So let's let Commissioner Gary Bettman have his wish and continue the NHL during the Olympics. If players still desire, they can ditch their teams for a couple of weeks to represent their country (Alex Ovechkin and Patrick Kane already declared they'd do so if the season does not stop for the 2014 Games).
The Olympic tournament would not carry the same gusto as before, but with a handful of NHL players and the intensity international hockey carries, it would still be must-see television.
Then, just as soccer does, hockey should adopt a World Cup as the hallmark event of the sport. Hold it in November just before the NHL season and throw 16 teams in there. Everyone could play in it, conflict-free. And without worrying about the NHL's season, the event can hold more games and spread them out more.
Then with a shortened and more spread-out NHL season, the NHL can throw its top four teams each year into the Champions Hockey League, playing against teams from Russia's KHL and the Finnish and Czech domestic leagues, along with the best teams from the other top European leagues.
The CHL has had its struggles and has actually been suspended for the 2009-'10 season, but the injection of four NHL teams into it each year would be all it would need to get back on its feet.
And taking one more page out of soccer's book, throw in some international friendlies. The U.S.-Canada rivalry is peaking, but who knows when the squads will meet again. Even without tournament implications, the thought of one or two U.S.-Canada games a year with both teams playing their best players is mouth-watering.
Clearly, hockey in the United States is at its best when played at the international level, and anyone who watched the Olympics cannot argue with that. This sport is desperate for a popular resurgence, and one tournament every four years cannot do that.
Making hockey an international sport and allowing fans in the United States to watch the best of the best play for their country against the likes of Canada, Russia, Sweden and Finland on a regular basis is the only way for this sport to flourish.
Chances of all this happening? Not good. But Bettman and the league have to at least start somewhere on the international level in the near future if they have any hope for their sport, and the sooner the better.
Should hockey put more emphasis on international tournaments or stick with the NHL? E-mail Scott at kellogg2@wisc.edu.
