Thursday’s question of the day: Are out-of-the-country games for pro teams worth the disruptions they cause?

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

Reporters from around the Tribune family tackle today’s question of the day, then you get a chance to chime in and tell them why they are wrong. Today’s question: Are the out-of-country games that pro leagues play during the regular season worth all the disruptions that they bring with them?

Helene Elliott, Los Angeles Times

The NHL’s international flavor lends itself to sending teams to Europe for regular-season games. More than two dozen countries are represented in the league: the Kings have players from seven countries (the U.S., Canada, Russia, Slovakia, Latvia, Slovenia, and Sweden) and the Ducks have players from six countries (the U.S., Canada, Russia, Finland, Italy and Switzerland). Playing in Stockholm and Helsinki makes sense because Sweden and Finland are well represented in the NHL and the games give players a chance to compete in arenas they skated in as youngsters and in front of people they grew up with.
The real motivation, though, is business. In the press release announcing that the Blackhawks, Panthers, Red Wings and Blues would go overseas this season the NHL included this nugget: Finland and Sweden are the top-ranked countries in terms of overseas visitors to NHL.com. To the NHL, getting web hits from Sweden is more important than getting people into the arena in Phoenix, and the NBA is operating on the same principle with its overseas ventures.

Paul Doyle, Hartford Courant

For years, we’ve watched the NHL unsuccessfully push its sport to fans in warm weather markets around the country while interest in traditional markets such as Boston is eroding. So what’s the next phase in marketing the league? Go global.
It’s not a terrible idea to spread the NHL brand to Sweden and Finland, two countries that supply the league with players. But forcing four teams to shift training camp overseas and open their schedule in another part of the world seems unfair to players and fans.
The NFL and MLB have each tried to expand their global reach with in-season games around the world. In both cases, it seems pointless and a bit greedy.
For the NHL, struggling in so many markets, it’s misguided. Get the league in order at home before taking on the rest of the world.
And think of this: The NHL is taking a home game away from the best market in the league (Detroit) for a marketing opportunity in Sweden. For that reason alone, this is a bad idea.

Ethan J. Skolnick, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
In every sport, overseas in-season trips are an unnecessary burden, for the traveling teams and their fans fighting sleep to watch them. Is there some international marketing benefit? Sure. But that comes with the debasement of the product through the creation of an inequitable schedule, with two teams forced to adjust their routines significantly while rival relax stateside. The trips seem particularly misguided when sponsored by an attention-starved league like the NHL, which needs to sell its product to this country first, especially in ambivalent markets like South Florida. Maybe two games in Finland will net an extra minute on SportsCenter. But they won’t make much of a sound back in Florida, where most won’t even know the season has begun.