Stanley Cup Economics (repost)

#GoAvsGo

The Colorado Avalanche just won the Stanley Cup for 2022. Tampa Bay took them to six games, and for a while I was beginning to think the Bolts were going to pull off a miraculous comeback from being down three games to one (in a best-of-seven series). But the Avs pulled it off.

I should have known. No team has managed to win the Cup three years in row since the early 1980s – forty-some years ago. Today, such a feat would be all but impossible; major kudos to Tampa Bay for coming so close. In the past few decades, the National Hockey League has instituted a few rules intended to keep the game competitive and prevent the sort of dynasties which used to be the norm. The downside of such dynasties, of course, is that for every team coasting alone eternally on top, there are several at the bottom without much chance of improving in a timely manner. Some didn’t survive at all.

There were 21 teams in the 1980s. If you weren’t the NY Islanders or one of the teams from Canada, however, there wasn’t much point in even lacing up your skates. The 1990s got a little better, but teams continued to fold up in one city and move to another, hoping for better results and a stronger return on owners’ investments. Teams able to generate enough revenue stayed on top, while teams not already in the upper echelons struggled even to exist.

As it turned out, unrestrained “capitalism” wasn’t that good for hockey as a whole – not for the fans, not for the players, and not even for the teams riding along at the top. With less competition, teams and players had less reason to get better. Those on top didn’t really have to, and those on bottom often lacked the resources to effectively compete.

Sound familiar?

True Meritocracy

From 2006 (a year whose significance I’ll explain in a moment) to 2022, on the other hand, the Stanley Cup has been awarded seventeen times. Eleven different teams have claimed hockey’s top prize in that time span, none of them more than three times and never more than twice in a row. Ten more teams made it to the finals at least once during that time frame, meaning more than two-thirds of all NHL teams (there are currently 32, but two of those have been added in the past few years) have had the Cup within their reach since George W. Bush won a second term.

Every single team that existed in 2006 has made it to the playoffs at least four times – one season out of four. It’s genuinely unpredictable from year to year who’s going to make a serious run.

The Montreal Canadians (bless their hearts) made it all the way to the finals in 2021 but didn’t even make playoffs this year. My Dallas Stars (who live to hurt me) made it all the way to the finals in 2020, didn’t make it into the playoffs at all last year, then squeaked by to lose in the first round this season. The Vegas Golden Knights recently fired their coach after not making the playoffs for the first time in their existence. They’d made it all the way to the finals in their first season as a team (2017-18), so expectations were a bit high. 

In short, there are no teams whose fans have no reason for hope ever again, and no teams able to feel particularly secure about their place in the hockey hierarchy – at least not for long. There’s simply too much equity in the league.

Salary Caps and Floors

In the early twenty-first century, the NHL wanted to institute a cap on player salaries which would be tied via fancy math to league revenues. Players, some of whom had been making pretty good money under the old system, naturally resisted. The resulting dispute ended up cancelling the entire 2004-2005 season. Plus, people said hurtful things to one another and days grew dark and cold.

In the end, the players, owners, and league emerged with a compromise in which each season the league places a cap on how much each team can spend on player salaries IN TOTAL. There’s no individual limit, but even with star players on your roster, you have to have enough warm bodies with sufficient talent to compete. Connor McDavid makes more than Colton Sceviour, but it would be difficult for any other team to outbid for his services (even if he didn’t have a lengthy contract) without sacrificing key pieces of their own. The cap forces a rough equity between teams without preventing top talent from making big, big money.

With the cap came a salary MINIMUM as well. Some teams (*Toronto*cough*cough*) had discovered that they could fill their roster with the cheapest players possible and still pack stadiums despite rarely winning a game. That doesn’t work anymore; the system requires each team spend at least a set amount of dollars on player salaries each year.

Team members who are injured still get paid. Weak players can’t simply be fired until their contract with the team expires, meaning there’s great motivation to work with players to help them improve their game rather than simply cutting them loose. If traded, the terms of a player’s contract must be fulfilled by the receiving team.

Teams are “protected” under league rules as well. As with most sports, the system by which draft picks are selected each year favors the worst-performing teams. While there’s still an element of chance in the mix, struggling teams largely snatch up the best up-and-coming players, thus ensuring that more often than not, they’ll be back in the hunt within a few seasons. In the meantime, their fan bases have hot new talent to be excited about and buy tickets and merchandise for.

It’s still possible for individuals to fail or for teams to collapse. It’s just that there’s so much more genuine opportunity for them to succeed before that happens.

A Bigger Zamboni

It’s funny the league has evolved this way, since when it comes to life off the ice, we’re constantly assured that anything designed to promote equity, or to “level the playing field,” or to promote opportunity, must do so by damaging quality and punishing success. It’s become something of a religious doctrine among many Americans that those on top become effectively untouchable by ethics, the legal system, or the business cycle, while those at the bottom deserve whatever they get.

To rationalize such convictions, we insist against all evidence that anyone willing to make the effort can rise to the top. Just as weirdly, we teach in economics and history classes that those who’ve reached elite status can easily fall based on poor choices or other changes in circumstances. We ascribe hard work and good decisions even to their offspring and their offspring’s offspring, no matter how little they accomplish or what damage they do. In so doing, we must repeatedly deny the reality around us. (Fortunately, Americans are particularly gifted at such things.)

Professional athletes are, by definition, the best of the best. Most work very hard to get to where they are and even harder to stay there. It would seem only logical that the same sort of laissez-faire competition apply within their respective fields. What better place for pure Social Darwinism to provide us with the maximum amount of entertainment through excellence?

Except it doesn’t – not fully. Competition is still central to pro sports, both individually and as teams. But within that framework are guidelines which ensure the sport remains competitive – that last year’s success doesn’t automatically translate into this year’s dominance with less effort and without fresh new accomplishments. In short, the NHL, like many professional sports leagues, applies a healthy dose of socialism to its rules in order to benefit the whole.

Nothing symbolizes this better than the Stanley Cup itself, awarded to the winning team each year and inscribed with their names. They may do with it as they please for the next twelve months, but come next spring, it’s up for grabs again. This year’s success is insufficient to secure next year’s rewards. Your name will remain on the Cup for a time, but eventually even that will be replaced by a new generation. There are no Trumps, Hiltons, or Kennedys in hockey.

Dogma vs. Data

So, to recap – a relatively free system of capitalist hockey was replaced in 2006 by strict rules regarding team spending, strong worker protections, and policies to ensure that genuine competition exists each season. Being on top no longer gives you the power to lock in the best talent indefinitely or crush the guys on the bottom in any sort of lasting way. Being on bottom means you get extra help from the system to improve. The most successful workers are certainly rewarded, and those who don’t perform will eventually lose the gig. But both rising and falling take time, and no single owner or coach or general manager can make or break a player for an extended time using their positions or their checkbooks.

Like I said – socialism. Heavy bureaucratic regulation inflicted from what is essentially a central government and a workers’ union with enough power to shut down entire seasons if unhappy with the terms being offered. Restrictions on “success” and rewards for “failure.” Surely hockey as a sport has become a shallow mockery of its former self since 2006!

Except that it hasn’t. Viewership continues to trend up year after year. Ticket sales are strong in almost every market. Players get better and better with every wave of young talent; moves which used to be reserved for skills competitions or YouTube videos are becoming normal parts of the game. Somehow, all this “regulation” and oppressive “limits” have made hockey better – for fans, for players, for markets, for media, for everyone.

Hockey is not the economy at large, and professional athletes aren’t the guy trying to keep his shop open over on 11th street. It’s a limited analogy, to be sure. But in a market and a business model which literally relies on competition and allowing the best to rise to the top in order to maintain both credibility and profitability, experience suggests that reasonable limits and regulations designed to protect workers within reason, promote a degree of equity and ongoing competition, and limit the ability one generation’s “winners” to pull up the ladder and hide in their treehouse, might actually be good for the game as a whole.

Just something to think about.

The Pedagogy of Antoine Roussel

Roussel Thumbs Up

Most of you are probably unfamiliar with the name “Antoine Roussel.”

He’s not a traditional educator – or an educator at all. He’s a professional hockey player. A personal favorite of mine, actually.

And I have the t-shirts to prove it.

Pro hockey, like any other high-end form of athletic entertainment, is home to the elite. That’s why we pay big money to watch them – because they’re better than everyone else at what they do. Lots better.

Ridiculously better.

Nevertheless, there is much to learn from Roussel for those of us in a very different world. A world in which many people do what we do, for not very much money. A world in which it’s eternally debatable whether we’re winning or losing, and no one can seem to agree about exactly what our job is, let alone whether or not we’re doing it well.

I’d like to introduce you to the man fans call the Feisty Frenchman, the Rousster, or DangeRouss – all names I’m pretty sure he hates. In fact, if it comes up, don’t tell him I shared those, covenu?

I’d like to tell you why he’s one of my edu-heroes. And yes, it’s a list. Like cargo pants or cover bands, contrived blog-lists never quite go out of style.

1. Have a plan, but be ready to follow unexpected paths.

With Great Power...

Roussel was born in Roubaix, France. For those of you who don’t follow God’s Favorite Game, professional hockey players don’t generally come from France. Rouss is one of only three currently playing in the NHL.

He played rugby as a youngster. It was hot out there on the field, so he kept going to the sidelines to get water. Once Antoine went, teammates followed.

We all have that kid in class – not necessarily intentionally disruptive, but a natural leader who often chooses directions we wish they wouldn’t. And they never go alone.

It made his coach crazy, and eventually it was clear rugby wasn’t going to work. His mother figured hockey would be cooler – like, literally.

He played in France, and eventually came to North America. For several years he bounced around in the minor leagues, sometimes getting looks from NHL affiliates, but not quite finding his role.

The Dallas Stars underwent a major rebuild several years ago, and in 2012 picked up this relative unknown for his reputation as a gritty, in-your-face presence on the ice. It wasn’t long before he was a fan favorite not only for his skill set, but his infectious grin and borderline psychotic drive towards success.

Was it his destiny? Who cares? It’s where he is – and he’s making it count. Apply this as you like to your professional journey, your learning journey, or any given lesson or unit. Sometimes you take it where you decide; sometimes you let it go where it wishes.

2. Standards matter, but growth matters more. Value effort and meaningful gains.

It’s disingenuous to suggest that natural talent doesn’t matter – in hockey, in teaching, in being a student. It does. Whatever combination of genetics and upbringing and luck make for success, sometimes it just… is what it is.

But there’s much to be said for sheer force of will. It’s not a guarantee, but determination sure changes the odds. Sometimes exponentially.

Most of us have a soft spot for that kid who gives 137% whether or not they become the most brilliant student or the most talented player as a result. That mindset stirs greatness. It changes the game not only for that player, but for everyone around them. It changes attitudes, and perceptions, and those intangibles that make everything better.

You want a growth mindset? Don’t be so quick to celebrate lazy excellence – student work that meets your basic requirements but cost them little to do so. Acknowledge their gifts, but ask them how they could stretch themselves productively.

You want a growth mindset? Know when to embrace faltering steps forward from those short on talent, passion, or both. Recognize widows’ mites when they’re given.

I know there’s a whole ‘grit’ argument still raging on the more legit blogs, and that’s fine. What I’m talking about, though, isn’t externally imposed discipline or inflicted hardships. It’s simply recognizing the long-term value of deciding to keep going. To work harder. To figure things out. It’s finding ways to make yourself better and demand of the universe that progress will occur – with or without its cooperation.

That’s you, too, teacher-type. Roussel’s energy is exceptional even among the elite – it’s productive, and diverse. When things are good, he takes it up a notch. When things are bad, he takes it up two.

Don’t give up. Don’t stop trying things. Qui n’avance pas, recule.

3. Students can’t excel if they feel bound by directions; teachers can’t excel if they’re always worried about breaking the rules.

Roussel plays on the edge, sometimes past it. There are times I’d rather he made better decisions in the moment. But that same fearlessness that gets him into trouble also makes him a perpetual force for good on the ice. Coach Ruff is periodically asked after a game how he’ll address something Rouss did that in retrospect hurt the team more than it helped, and his answer is always the same. “It was the wrong decision, and we’ll look at that. But he’s out there every day giving us everything he has. I’m not going to quash that.”

I’m not suggesting it’s ever OK to be unethical. It’s never OK to hurt or misuse your kids, for any reason. But every great teacher knows that you can’t build the relationships you need to draw out the best in some students, or establish the dynamics required of a productive classroom, if your primary concern at every step is whether or not everything you say or do would play well at a disciplinary hearing.

Know the content, and the pedagogy. Know the standards, and the policies. But when it’s time to make things happen, follow your gut and do what’s best for learning and for kids – not what’s safest for you.

As to assignments and other directions, give students enough guidance that they have structure, and support. Unclear expectations can be crippling. But don’t let the rules take over like evil robots in bad sci-fi. The rubrics were made to support the learning; the learning isn’t there to satisfy the rubrics.

4. Sometimes it’s OK to irritate other people. 

Roussel is not what you’d call a ‘goon,’ but he is an agitator. He thrives on targeting top players on the other team and annoying the hell out of them. Why? Because their focus starts to become him, rather than playing the game. They make stupid mistakes which work to his team’s advantage.

In terms of education, it’s rarely useful to irritate people just for kicks. But the idea that we should never annoy leadership, or parents, or political power, or one another, is silly. Sometimes the pot needs stirring so the dross rises to the top. Sometimes insight requires provocation.

I personally learn a great deal by lobbing a few conversational hand grenades when I meet new people and seeing what happens. I don’t always make new friends that way, but I sure do learn a great deal. And the friends I do have tend to be smarter than me, bluntly honest, and quick to call me out. Why have them otherwise?

(And it’s ALWAYS OK to taunt Chicago, I assure you. They eat it up and give back twelve baskets-full.)

5. Recognize outbursts of greatness when they occur.

Roussel signed with the Stars in 2012 and scored in his first game. That makes a mark. He’s rarely a top scorer on the team, but he’s often in the top dozen players in the LEAGUE in terms of game-winning goals. He always leads the team and sometimes the entire NHL in penalty minutes, but he’s getting better at picking and choosing which penalties are worth taking, and in what circumstances.

As a teacher, be good every day if you can. Never give less than your best. But be great sometimes. Step up when it matters most.

More importantly, you want to keep kids with you even a little? Recognize the good moments. Treat those random bits of brilliance as the natural greatness you always suspected they were hiding. Be genuinely thankful for the bits of each kid that make them interesting, or fun, or worth tolerating for one more day. You’ll accomplish more and last way longer.

6. People always matter.

Roussel is a fan favorite for his on-ice performance. Off the ice, however, he’s one of the most approachable and grateful professionals in the league. He avoids the easy clichés many players fall into doing countless interviews, instead giving his real self for every reporter, every time. At away games, Rouss will find the green jerseys in the crowd and celebrate with them when the Stars score. It’s a simple thing – a small, silly thing – but the kind that changes people’s entire experience.

Dangerouss

When fans line up for autographs as the team leaves the practice arena, most players are professionally polite. Rouss is approachable and charming. My wife and I were caught off guard in the stands one day as he came up to fetch a couple of friends sitting nearby.

“Oh! Um… Rouss!”

It would have been easy to feel awkward or foolish, but he grinned like we were doing him some huge favor by noticing him at all. That’s not about us – that’s just how he treats people. All of them.

It’s adorable.

You know the clichés in education. They don’t care how much you know, etc. People always matter. Always. First. Every time. Small people. Make it happen, or you have no business trying to teach them anything.

7. Do what needs doing, as best you can do it. That’s good enough. You are good enough. 

As in many sports, hockey players tend to grow into certain ‘roles’ they’re expected to play. Sometimes circumstances change, and flexibility is required.

Not being pegged into a single role has actually benefitted the winger. Though Roussel often plays on the Dallas Stars’ checking line, {he’s recently} found himself providing support to his team’s top players such as Jason Spezza, Patrick Sharp and Ales Hemsky.

“I’m not a top-line guy, but I’ve been up and down the lineup, just helping the team do whatever we need,” Roussel said. “If it’s playing on the fourth line or the top, I can do it all. It’s a good confidence {Coach Lindy Ruff} has given me sometimes. I appreciate that.”

Be realistic, and advocate for yourself – absolutely. But once planted, bloom like you mean it. That manure they’re dumping is just more fertilizer, baby – and that rain is just, well… rain.

Conclusion

Nothing I do is nearly as entertaining or impressive as Roussel or any other elite performer, although I like to think it has value in its own larger way. We live vicariously through those we cheer, and whether he’s winning or losing at the moment, I can’t help but draw hope and encouragement from a wild-eyed Frenchman on skates, who simply doesn’t know when to quit.

You may, of course, choose someone else as your role model if you like – but mine can probably beat yours up.