I've always wanted to see a hockey league use penalty shots in place of power plays, at least for penalties taken behind the blue line. A neutral- or offensive-zone penalty could still result in a team being short handed for 2 minutes, but a defensive-zone penalty should result in a penalty shot. Maybe have the penalty shot start from the blue line rather than from centre ice.
Not sure how this thread ended up on hockey but we may well see an all Canadian Division in the next NHL season as a result of Covid and border issues.
we all know that will be RAs fault
Not sure an accurate grade can be giving yet ,covid did throw a monkey wrench into the best business models. Very unsure about expansion to other countries but the jury is still out. As in the past discussions I think the problems can be fixed with local fans of the game not expansion to other leagues. If he can bring the people back who've been stuck inside watching screens all summer-fall the league could rebound with a vengeance.If he pulls it off it's legend status. Another year is definatly justified.
So there's the thing then. Based on what you're saying, it was 1 owner who convinced all the other owners that they needed to have a hard cap in place in order to agree to a new CBA.
So therefore, it sounds like it matches with the point I made earlier that Bettman was simply acting on the instructions of his membership, and to lock the players out, which lasted the entirety of the 2004-2005 season. His "membership" being all the team owners and/or the league's Board of Governors.
Although I hadn't heard of the Jacobs story (where you're saying he's the one that bullied all the other owners to vote with him), I do seem to recall having heard there were a number of other owners as well that also wanted a cap put in due to the amount of money they were losing.
Based on that, I just don't see how it's Bettman's fault that no champion was awarded that season, and how this is a stain on him.
I suppose though there is the court of "public perception", in which he is the leader of the league that resulted in that entire season being wiped out. So in that sense, yes, you do have a point on the stain on him. It's unfortunate though.
I'm also not aware of the transition on the union side, which doesn't really make sense to me. I know that Goodenow resigned a few weeks after the CBA was agreed to. But why would a transition prevent a vote on their side on offers made by the league? Infact, does it make sense that they would even do a transition while in the middle of a lockout?
Perhaps when you say transition, you may have meant more at the tail end, when it looked like the owners would win heavily (and that Goodenow got virtually nothing his way)? Surely they wouldn't do a transition BEFORE a lockout actually was on (which was at this point the union rejected every offer made by the league, WITHOUT having taken any of them to a vote)?
It would've been interesting to see what the vote count would be if they had actually voted on any of them. I seem to also recall having heard that something like 70% of the union membership were willing to play under a cap system.