More on the marketing nightmare

So with the Stanley Cup finals delayed until Monday, a week's wait from the end of the semi-finals, I got to thinking about the marketing issues confronting the NHL.

The last few years, here's what the marquee NHL finals matchups looked like:

2003: Anaheim vs. New Jersey
2004: Tampa Bay vs. Calgary
2005: Strike season, no hockey
2006: Carolina vs. Edmonton
2007: Anaheim vs. Ottawa

Not exactly the kind of scenarios that would entice a non-hockey fan to the sport's pre-eminent confrontation, eh?

I'm not sure what could be done about that. At least we know the league isn't in cahoots to fix the playoffs. But with Nashville about to be sold and likely moved, it does beg the issue: Why does the NHL continue to have so many teams. If some of the underachievers were removed from the league, it would greatly improve the rosters of each, making for better games and matchups.

There would be fewer mediocre third and fourth lines, and even less clutching and grabbing by players who get by only because they need to clutch and grab to hang on in the league. There would be fewer mediocre goalies between the pipes.

Think about a league without a Nashville, Phoenix, Florida, Columbus. Are all these markets really necessary? Florida hasn't yet proved it can support two hockey teams. Heck, even Los Angeles isn't a great hockey market.

Contraction would make the game better. Of course, the players wouldn't support it because it would mean fewer jobs, and the owners love their expansion fees. But it's been clear for years that hockey has oversold itself. At what point do the smart owners, the ones who love and understand the game, realize it's time to toss the remarkably inept Gary Bettman and install a powerful commissioner who would do right by the sport?