HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   The NHL should disband, start anew smaller (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=102510)

no13matssundin 09-09-2004 08:41 AM

The NHL should disband, start anew smaller
 
Ok, most of you will be all like "thats stupid", but lets think about this...

All of us, ALL OF US, have heard from older hockey fans "Man, this game you called 'hockey' is NOTHING like the old time hockey".. and we all rolled our eyes and said sure-sure... well guess what...

THEY WE'RE RIGHT.

Folks, we've been priviledged enough to witness ubelievable hockey the last 2 weeks... I mean, the endless tape-to-tape passing, the speed-speed-speed, the GREAT scoring plays... the hockey as JUST BEEN AMAZING.

And to those who say "I wouldnt watch an 8-1, 7-2 game".. If I had followed that reasoning, I would have missed that JUST AMAZING 4th goal by Team Canada last night... the tick-tack-toe Mario-to-Iggy-to-Sakic goal last night! According to that reasoning, a 5-0 game would suck... funny, it DIDNT SUCK LAST NIGHT.

So, in light of the unbelievable hockey we've seen, its time the NHL just died and restarted as a 8 to 12 team league. Only allow the best of the best of the best to play... like they used to. As one Toronto paper said earlier this week. "Who would want the NHL to restart after this kind of play... they'll be shamed into stopping."

I know its never going to happen (or rather, it COULD happen if there was an extended extended extended lockout, but theres word that there may be a coming settlement), but I used to be all about "growing the sport" and "extending its reach".. PFFFT, not anymore. Keep it small. Keep it good.

I want old time Hockey. 8 to 12 teams at MOST. Bring back the good old days of fast, high-scoring hockey. Thoughts?

barrytrotzsneck 09-09-2004 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no13matssundin
Ok, most of you will be all like "thats stupid", but lets think about this...

All of us, ALL OF US, have heard from older hockey fans "Man, this game you called 'hockey' is NOTHING like the old time hockey".. and we all rolled our eyes and said sure-sure... well guess what...

THEY WE'RE RIGHT.

Folks, we've been priviledged enough to witness ubelievable hockey the last 2 weeks... I mean, the endless tape-to-tape passing, the speed-speed-speed, the GREAT scoring plays... the hockey as JUST BEEN AMAZING.

And to those who say "I wouldnt watch an 8-1, 7-2 game".. If I had followed that reasoning, I would have missed that JUST AMAZING 4th goal by Team Canada last night... the tick-tack-toe Mario-to-Iggy-to-Sakic goal last night! According to that reasoning, a 5-0 game would suck... funny, it DIDNT SUCK LAST NIGHT.

So, in light of the unbelievable hockey we've seen, its time the NHL just died and restarted as a 8 to 12 team league. Only allow the best of the best of the best to play... like they used to. As one Toronto paper said earlier this week. "Who would want the NHL to restart after this kind of play... they'll be shamed into stopping."

I know its never going to happen (or rather, it COULD happen if there was an extended extended extended lockout, but theres word that there may be a coming settlement), but I used to be all about "growing the sport" and "extending its reach".. PFFFT, not anymore. Keep it small. Keep it good.

I want old time Hockey. 8 to 12 teams at MOST. Bring back the good old days of fast, high-scoring hockey. Thoughts?

Except that you're overlooking the fact that the talent level\competition has increased proportionately to the amount of teams. The top-end talent of the 60s and even 70s seems terrific when we remember it fondly, but the reality is that even with this so-called "dilution of talent," the superstars of today pretty much blow away anyone playing back then, with a few rare exceptions(bobby orr being the one that springs to mind.) and to the layman hockey fan, those that don't have the attention span to appreciate the nuances of a technical game of hockey...those 9-8 scores might be appealing, but something is lost in the magic of a goal if they're occurring every 5 minutes, in my opinion. Part of the reason that I enjoy hockey so much over a sport like football or basketball...is that there's so much suspense. A goal could come at any time...but not so often that it becomes monotonous. 3-2, to me, is a perfect hockey score...and I wouldn't want to tamper with that. I watched the game last night, and ended up turning it off due to sheer boredom. It was fun to watch for you, as a Canadian, because of the sense of nationalistic pride. The overall quality of the hockey was, to me, kind of disappointing, and the same can really be said of the entire World Cup, with a notable exception being some of the stuff I've seen the Czechs do. Overall, though...I would never want the NHL to be this way.

no13matssundin 09-09-2004 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomorekids
The overall quality of the hockey was, to me, kind of disappointing, and the same can really be said of the entire World Cup, with a notable exception being some of the stuff I've seen the Czechs do..

Have you been WATCHING the WCoH? The Sweden-Finland 4-4 game.... disappointing? The great action from all the games? Sure, Germany blows, but its germany. All of the play has been top quality.

Disappointing?!?! :lol

barrytrotzsneck 09-09-2004 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no13matssundin
Have you been WATCHING the WCoH? The Sweden-Finland 4-4 game.... disappointing? The great action from all the games? Sure, Germany blows, but its germany. All of the play has been top quality.

Disappointing?!?! :lol


there are exceptions :shakehead

silly me to have an opinion, and feel that i've seen a lot better hockey in terms of international competition, and even found some of the earlier rounds of last years' playoffs to be more entertaining.

degroat* 09-09-2004 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no13matssundin
Ok, most of you will be all like "thats stupid", but lets think about this...

All of us, ALL OF US, have heard from older hockey fans "Man, this game you called 'hockey' is NOTHING like the old time hockey".. and we all rolled our eyes and said sure-sure... well guess what...

THEY WE'RE RIGHT.

Folks, we've been priviledged enough to witness ubelievable hockey the last 2 weeks... I mean, the endless tape-to-tape passing, the speed-speed-speed, the GREAT scoring plays... the hockey as JUST BEEN AMAZING.

And to those who say "I wouldnt watch an 8-1, 7-2 game".. If I had followed that reasoning, I would have missed that JUST AMAZING 4th goal by Team Canada last night... the tick-tack-toe Mario-to-Iggy-to-Sakic goal last night! According to that reasoning, a 5-0 game would suck... funny, it DIDNT SUCK LAST NIGHT.

So, in light of the unbelievable hockey we've seen, its time the NHL just died and restarted as a 8 to 12 team league. Only allow the best of the best of the best to play... like they used to. As one Toronto paper said earlier this week. "Who would want the NHL to restart after this kind of play... they'll be shamed into stopping."

I know its never going to happen (or rather, it COULD happen if there was an extended extended extended lockout, but theres word that there may be a coming settlement), but I used to be all about "growing the sport" and "extending its reach".. PFFFT, not anymore. Keep it small. Keep it good.

I want old time Hockey. 8 to 12 teams at MOST. Bring back the good old days of fast, high-scoring hockey. Thoughts?

The problem with the NHL's level of play has more to do with the coaching than it does the overall talent level. Coaches realized that defense wins games and more importantly it wins championships. If the systems that coaches were implementing right now weren't defensive systems, you'd see less players with little offensive talent in the league and more players that are stuck in the AHL because their size and defensive ability and/or commitment.

Even if it was feasible to go to 10-12 teams, the defensive game would eventually return. At first, it would be very offensive because coaches would love having all the talent. But, eventually they'd realize that the better defense the team plays, the more likely they are to win and slowly more defensively minded players would replace what offensive players are playing on the lower two lines.

GKJ 09-09-2004 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no13matssundin
I want old time Hockey. 8 to 12 teams at MOST. Bring back the good old days of fast, high-scoring hockey. Thoughts?

If the NHL was to disband and re-start with an 8-12 team league, you will be very dissapointed to know there won't be any teams in Canada.

txpd 09-09-2004 09:18 AM

There are a lot of flaws in your theory. Not the least of which is that it is spawned from the mind of a hockey fan of a team that would be a certain keeper. A Canadian team...Toronto??? Would it be fine with you if the NHL became a Canadian team only league?

You say you loved the 5-0 game last night. You loved the tick tack toe goal that was scored. Would you have been as excited if the 5-0 score had been in the Slovak's favor? Did you enjoy the blow outs of the Germans as much? Its not hard to see that you are little more than a homer.

If there were only 8 teams and Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver were 6 of the teams and you added NY and Detroit as boarder towns, the sport would disappear from the national scene in the United States. As a Canadian, I am pretty sure that you don't give a crap about the American hockey fan.

Your theory that drastically cutting the number of teams and then loading each of the remaining teams with a higher level of talent is going to increase scoring is flawed too. Its like you are forgetting that while each team is loading up on forwards, each team is also loading up on defensemen and goaltenders. That todays #3-4 defenseman is a 5, 6 or 7 in your new league.

I think you are also forgetting that even in this world cup all of the teams are playing the trap. The only team that didnt trap was team USA for the first two games and they nearly got run out of the building trying that. By the way...what was the score of the team Canada vs team USA game??? 2-1, right? is that what you meant by high scoring, old time hockey? Try to remember that the Slovak team
was very much undermanned and totally outclassed by the Canadian team. Do you really think that there will be a 5-4 game in any of the remaining games of the world cup? Broduer, Esche, Kiprisoff and Vokuon. I don't think so.

Kafka 09-09-2004 09:22 AM

A SIMPLE alternative would be to APPLY THE RULES!

No hooking, no interference.

Many players will have problem with it. Some will retire, and big and slow players will lost their job to small and speedy skaters.

----------

Part 2: o just wish the NHL goes back to 24 teams.... and according to a journalist in Montreal, it the lockout ist't finnished in september 2005, then 6 teams would not come back.... I just wish it could happened.

barrytrotzsneck 09-09-2004 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kafka
A SIMPLE alternative would be to APPLY THE RULES!

No hooking, no interference.

Many players will have problem with it. Some will retire, and big and slow players will lost their job to small and speedy skaters.

----------

Part 2: o just wish the NHL goes back to 24 teams.... and according to a journalist in Montreal, it the lockout ist't finnished in september 2005, then 6 teams would not come back.... I just wish it could happened.

even though two of those teams would probably be calgary and edmonton?

eye 09-09-2004 09:31 AM

With the exception of a couple of nice scoring plays last nights game was BORING! That passing play could happen on a regular basis in a 30 team league if they just called the rules and got rid of the let them play mentality that is killing hockey. Having said that my ideal NHL would have a 31 million salary cap with no arbitration or guaranteed contracts with a 30 team league composed of 10 Canadian teams making the northern conference in Halifax, Hamilton or London, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vanvouver, a 10 team U.S. division of New York Rangers, Boston, Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Minnesota, Columbus, St. Louis and Philadelphia and a 10 team division in Europe sites up for discussion. Each conference would determine their own overall champs and then I would use the Memorial Cup format to determine an overall championship each year. I would shut down the current NHL and NHLPA and start up the WHL - World Hockey League.

Puckhead 09-09-2004 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by txpd
There are a lot of flaws in your theory. Not the least of which is that it is spawned from the mind of a hockey fan of a team that would be a certain keeper. A Canadian team...Toronto??? Would it be fine with you if the NHL became a Canadian team only league?

You say you loved the 5-0 game last night. You loved the tick tack toe goal that was scored. Would you have been as excited if the 5-0 score had been in the Slovak's favor? Did you enjoy the blow outs of the Germans as much? Its not hard to see that you are little more than a homer.

If there were only 8 teams and Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver were 6 of the teams and you added NY and Detroit as boarder towns, the sport would disappear from the national scene in the United States. As a Canadian, I am pretty sure that you don't give a crap about the American hockey fan.

Your theory that drastically cutting the number of teams and then loading each of the remaining teams with a higher level of talent is going to increase scoring is flawed too. Its like you are forgetting that while each team is loading up on forwards, each team is also loading up on defensemen and goaltenders. That todays #3-4 defenseman is a 5, 6 or 7 in your new league.

I think you are also forgetting that even in this world cup all of the teams are playing the trap. The only team that didnt trap was team USA for the first two games and they nearly got run out of the building trying that. By the way...what was the score of the team Canada vs team USA game??? 2-1, right? is that what you meant by high scoring, old time hockey? Try to remember that the Slovak team
was very much undermanned and totally outclassed by the Canadian team. Do you really think that there will be a 5-4 game in any of the remaining games of the world cup? Broduer, Esche, Kiprisoff and Vokuon. I don't think so.

While I do care about this sport and its continued growth in the U.S. the facts are the facts. The game has nowhere to go in the States. The point is the teams in Canada may be in trouble financially, but you can't question their love of the game. In the States it is about hot and cold. The Canes are horrible and were horrible even when they were in Hartford, but for one season they put it together and got some luck, and made it to the finals. During that run, hockey actually made it to page 8 in the Carolina sports pages. Fans watched and the rink was full. The next year the team played down to where it should be, and guess what? That's right their fans were more interested in everything else. I don't want to stereotype all Americans with this, because obviously there are loads of passionate fans, but not nearly enough to make a difference. The simple fact is that if Bettman wasn't so infatuated with all that new franchise money which no doubt clouded his judgement, he would have realized then what has become painfully obvious now, that there are too many cities that should never have been given teams. While the owners cry poor, they continue to right off all of those losses against their corporations profits. Why else do you think that given the state of the game, where 2/3 of the league is in the red, would franchises be snapped up in a heartbeat if allowed? I do not want to offend any fans, so I won't state the teams I would get rid of but it would make the game better and the teams stronger. It would also solve much of what the owners and NHLPA are arguing about right now. That's my take on it!

TexSen 09-09-2004 11:31 AM

1) The rules will never be enforced as written. Scrap the league
2) The game will never be a success in the south despite the best efforts of everyone involved. Scrap the league
3) The talent pool is much too diluted with muckers and plumbers. Scrap the league
4) The ice surface is the same size now with players in excess of 6' 6" as when players rarely topped 6' 2". Owners won't take out seats to expand the ice surface. Scrap the league
5) The economics of ownership overspending and reliance on the vagaries of the exchange rate will lead to the eventual doom of most US and Canadian teams. Scrap the league
6) TV viewership peaked years ago in the States and isn't coming back. Times have changed, TV revenue will continue to plumment with each consecutive broadcast deal in the States. Scrap the league.

I love the NHL and have subscribed to the NHL Center Ice package for three years in a row and watched nearly every game of my team that was broadcast.

Although I would miss it, hockey isn't the center of my particular universe and as such, if tearing down the house to have it rebuilt a little better is the solution, then I say go for it.

Mack 09-09-2004 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
If the NHL was to disband and re-start with an 8-12 team league, you will be very dissapointed to know there won't be any teams in Canada.


:shakehead you are so wrong.

The Kitner Boy 09-09-2004 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puckhead
The Canes are horrible and were horrible even when they were in Hartford, but for one season they put it together and got some luck, and made it to the finals. During that run, hockey actually made it to page 8 in the Carolina sports pages. Fans watched and the rink was full. The next year the team played down to where it should be, and guess what? That's right their fans were more interested in everything else. I don't want to stereotype all Americans with this, because obviously there are loads of passionate fans, but not nearly enough to make a difference. The simple fact is that if Bettman wasn't so infatuated with all that new franchise money which no doubt clouded his judgement, he would have realized then what has become painfully obvious now, that there are too many cities that should never have been given teams. While the owners cry poor, they continue to right off all of those losses against their corporations profits. Why else do you think that given the state of the game, where 2/3 of the league is in the red, would franchises be snapped up in a heartbeat if allowed? I do not want to offend any fans, so I won't state the teams I would get rid of but it would make the game better and the teams stronger. It would also solve much of what the owners and NHLPA are arguing about right now. That's my take on it!

When the Hurricanes made their playoff run, it was a big deal in Raleigh. Just like everywhere else playoff tickets were hard to get and the arena was packed. The Hurricanes made it a lot further than page 8 of the sports section. People like to see winners. I have been a season ticket holder since the team came to Raleigh. I will be the first to admit I didn’t go to a lot of games last year because the team was brutal to watch. It wasn’t fun. This is the same reason no one went to games in Pittsburgh, Chicago, and other cities with bottom feeder teams. It is the same reason no one goes to Duke football games, not because there isn’t a market for college football in this area, but because they are awful. This notion of a “hockey city” kind of lame. Raleigh is easily large enough to support big league sports and they will support a hockey team as long as they are competitive. They will not however support a losing team with escalating ticket and concession prices. Unfortunately the management of the Hurricanes doesn’t realize this.

txpd 09-09-2004 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puckhead
While I do care about this sport and its continued growth in the U.S. the facts are the facts. The game has nowhere to go in the States. The point is the teams in Canada may be in trouble financially, but you can't question their love of the game. In the States it is about hot and cold. The Canes are horrible and were horrible even when they were in Hartford, but for one season they put it together and got some luck, and made it to the finals. During that run, hockey actually made it to page 8 in the Carolina sports pages. Fans watched and the rink was full. The next year the team played down to where it should be, and guess what? That's right their fans were more interested in everything else. I don't want to stereotype all Americans with this, because obviously there are loads of passionate fans, but not nearly enough to make a difference. The simple fact is that if Bettman wasn't so infatuated with all that new franchise money which no doubt clouded his judgement, he would have realized then what has become painfully obvious now, that there are too many cities that should never have been given teams. While the owners cry poor, they continue to right off all of those losses against their corporations profits. Why else do you think that given the state of the game, where 2/3 of the league is in the red, would franchises be snapped up in a heartbeat if allowed? I do not want to offend any fans, so I won't state the teams I would get rid of but it would make the game better and the teams stronger. It would also solve much of what the owners and NHLPA are arguing about right now. That's my take on it!

I live in NC not too far from Raleigh. Your treatment of NHL coverage in raleigh is wrong. The Stanley cup period was off the charts. However, lets talk about those unnamed teams that you favor dumping out of the league. I bet they are all out of the playoff teams. If not, then they are teams with overwhelmingly losing histories like Tampa Bay. Are you ready to dump the Boston Bruins out because they won't spend the money to compete and their fans won't buy tickets to the tune of 24th in the league in attendance last year? Are you ready to dump the Chicago Blackhawks because their ownership is just inept? Are you ready to dump the Edmonton Oilers because they just can't keep up financially? no. I am sure you want to dump from the likes of Washington(based on one bad season even), Tampa, Florida, Atlanta and Pheonix because they are in the south. Why not Dallas? the truth is that if any of those 4 teams had years of top playoff play and a stanley cup like Dallas has they would be a very well attended franchise as well.

The problem with your anti southern expansion point of view is that those teams have not had a chance to mature and lets face it, winning matters.

who are the teams you would dump and why?

txpd 09-09-2004 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mack
:shakehead you are so wrong.

yea, you are right. he is wrong. but if you took the top 8 revenue making teams in the NHL only Toronto would make the cut.

Puckhead 09-09-2004 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by txpd
I live in NC not too far from Raleigh. Your treatment of NHL coverage in raleigh is wrong. The Stanley cup period was off the charts. However, lets talk about those unnamed teams that you favor dumping out of the league. I bet they are all out of the playoff teams. If not, then they are teams with overwhelmingly losing histories like Tampa Bay. Are you ready to dump the Boston Bruins out because they won't spend the money to compete and their fans won't buy tickets to the tune of 24th in the league in attendance last year? Are you ready to dump the Chicago Blackhawks because their ownership is just inept? Are you ready to dump the Edmonton Oilers because they just can't keep up financially? no. I am sure you want to dump from the likes of Washington(based on one bad season even), Tampa, Florida, Atlanta and Pheonix because they are in the south. Why not Dallas? the truth is that if any of those 4 teams had years of top playoff play and a stanley cup like Dallas has they would be a very well attended franchise as well.

The problem with your anti southern expansion point of view is that those teams have not had a chance to mature and lets face it, winning matters.

who are the teams you would dump and why?


You make some very good points, and it was well thought out, cudos for that. However, you would have to admit that with all of the teams you mentioned, with the exception of Edmonton, that hockey is way down on the popular sports list for fans in those cities. That doesn't mean that those teams should be out of the league, but without a major TV deal, and revenue sharing being unlikely, these teams will have a hard time making it. By the same token spending money doesn't equal a competitive team. Look no further than the Rangers. There are a handful of teams that have unique situations where the fans just keep coming and they have a license to print money. I agree that winning has a lot to do with it, but building a team that is in the upper echelon every year is getting to be harder to do, and that means that those teams whose fans only follow the winners will be hard pressed to compete. Take the Jays in Toronto. They won back to back World Series and then have not made the post season since. They had the record for fan attendance at over 4 million for 4-5 straight years. Once the team lost its winning ways, they lost their fan base aswell. Teams like Minnesota, Columbus, Atlanta, Nashville, will be given the benefit of the doubt for now, because they are new franchises. When the fans decide, and they will, that this team has had enough time to build and still have nothing to show for it, the fans will choose to spend their hard earned dollars on something else. You can't possibly disagree with that. The Kings, San Jose, Florida, Tampa, Carolina, all have had time and while steps have been taken to fix shortcomings, they continue by and large to struggle. Do not get me wrong, every team in the league has a group of hard core hockey fans, who will go to the wall for their team. Unfortunately, the owners are not in it for the fans, they are in it for the money, and once they realize it is no longer worth their while they will sell the team or move it somewhere else. I feel for you, in that you are caught up in a situation that is dictated by a combination of the ownership, and the fact that without a major TV deal and an equal playing field, by way of a salary cap or serious revenue sharing the teams hands are tied. I wouldn't want someone telling me my team shouldn't be in the league any more then you do, but I am looking at the numbers and seeing no way out long term. With regards to Chicago, Boston, and the like, I think that they have been around long enough and I believe that they have enough fans who will support them regardless of a losing season. What you will find with some teams, especially the original six, is that if the team doesn't do well, the fans will simply not show up to games. Keep in mind that Boston has made the playoffs for 28 or 30 staight years. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, as it was not intended to offend anyone, but the numbers don't lie, only those who are heads of the players union, and the leaders for the owners do. Get over your grandiose egos and put your fans first for once, and get this deal done. We are after all the ones who make it possible for the owners to give the players too much money! That's our money, and yet we get no say. We have to sit idly by and watch as these morons try to exercise their own agendas. So they can stand next to eachother at the urinals and see who carries the bigger stick. The longer this lockout goes the more the game is irreparably damaged, and as we've just talked about, our game is not in good enough shape going in, to possibly even make it out!

GKJ 09-09-2004 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mack
:shakehead you are so wrong.


Care to elaborate? I wish I was. I don't want to see Canada struggling to hold on to the NHL

New York, Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Colorado, Boston, Dallas, Minnesota, St. Louis, Tampa Bay/Miami, Washington, Chicago. Those would be the best bets as to where teams would be in any 'new NHL' because as we know the NHL cares much more about the USA than Canada. They have no problem getting viewers in Canada, but who cares about Canada, because all the NHL cares about is American fans and not pissing off ESPN by wasting their time with putting teams in Canada they actually have to pay attention to.

Puckhead 09-09-2004 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Care to elaborate? I wish I was. I don't want to see Canada struggling to hold on to the NHL

New York, Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Colorado, Boston, Dallas, Minnesota, St. Louis, Tampa Bay/Miami, Washington, Chicago. Those would be the best bets as to where teams would be in any 'new NHL' because as we know the NHL cares much more about the USA than Canada. They have no problem getting viewers in Canada, but who cares about Canada, because all the NHL cares about is American fans and not pissing off ESPN by wasting their time with putting teams in Canada they actually have to pay attention to.

I don't agree whole heartedly with what you say here, but I can't entirely dismiss it as being wrong either. The NHL does take liberties with Cananda for the sake of making a go of it in the States. I understand part of it, but I most definitely do not agree with it.

salty justice 09-09-2004 02:02 PM

Canada vs. Slovakia was very exciting because when the team you are rooting for has arguably 10 of the top 20 players in the world and is dominating a lesser team, you tend to enjoy the game more. A league that has the most of the top talent on 1 team, the way this tournament does, wont last. Did you see any of the games in Prague or Germany? The seats were half filled. Ratings are lower than the Cup because everyone knows who is going to win.

If you want to save the game, just take out the teams in the south: Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina, Florida and some other non hockey market teams like Anaheim. The talent level will get a huge boost, there will be less clutching and grabbing as a result, the teams will be more evenly matched, and more people will want to see that!

SmokeyClause 09-09-2004 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theBob
If you want to save the game, just take out the teams in the south: Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina, Florida and some other non hockey market teams like Anaheim. The talent level will get a huge boost, there will be less clutching and grabbing as a result, the teams will be more evenly matched, and more people will want to see that!

How does removing hockey from the South save the game? By completely ignoring a huge potential market, the NHL does themselves no good. Why not include TB in that group? They are from the South too. Oh, it's because they've won a cup. Give teams like Nashville and Atlanta a chance to develop into maturity before calling for their heads. Teams like Nashville, Florida, and Atlanta have very bright futures and could be very successful teams. What better way to a build a fanbase out of nothing than to put a winner in a non-traditional market.

It's win-win situation for both players and owners. The inclusion of a massive market like the South has the ability to bring in big streams of revenue allowing players to be paid more while also allowing for more jobs.

Sotnos 09-09-2004 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
How does removing hockey from the South save the game?

Because it protects the almighty Game from undeserving people like you and me! You see, it doesn't snow in the South. Having snow is a requirement for making "good" hockey fans, or at least that's what you'd believe by reading this board. :)

Quote:

Why not include TB in that group? They are from the South too. Oh, it's because they've won a cup.
That's the only thing that gets us some slack, and it doesn't get us much. Tampa was ahead of Florida on most people's hitlists before this past season, though I did recently see a suggestion that the whole team should be transplanted to Quebec as opposed to contracted. :shakehead

Anyone who says the talent is "diluted" doesn't grasp the concept that expansion coincided with more players coming to the NHL from Europe, either that or they just want all the talent on their own team. I can't understand why we keep seeing this argument when it's been shown time and time again that it is false.

cws 09-09-2004 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos
Because it protects the almighty Game from undeserving people like you and me! You see, it doesn't snow in the South. Having snow is a requirement for making "good" hockey fans, or at least that's what you'd believe by reading this board. :)


That's the only thing that gets us some slack, and it doesn't get us much. Tampa was ahead of Florida on most people's hitlists before this past season, though I did recently see a suggestion that the whole team should be transplanted to Quebec as opposed to contracted. :shakehead

Anyone who says the talent is "diluted" doesn't grasp the concept that expansion coincided with more players coming to the NHL from Europe, either that or they just want all the talent on their own team. I can't understand why we keep seeing this argument when it's been shown time and time again that it is false.

Lack of patience. Teams placed in the south don't become established overnight. Hell, the don't even become established over a decade. It takes closer to a generation before that happens. But those farther north who aren't in close proximity to a team want one badly, which is understandable. They choose to overlook the fact that this will take time and, if allowed, will work. Any perceived weakness of a team is a small (albeit false) opening for them to say "We'll it's not gonna work in the south, they don't have the support/tradition to sustain it."

It's a tiresome and self-serving argument, one that grates on me as well. I can understand some of their feelings but that still doesn't excuse trying to re-hash the same false assumptions over and over again. Whatcha gonna do but keep on keepin' on?

X0ssbar 09-09-2004 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
How does removing hockey from the South save the game? By completely ignoring a huge potential market, the NHL does themselves no good. Why not include TB in that group? They are from the South too. Oh, it's because they've won a cup. Give teams like Nashville and Atlanta a chance to develop into maturity before calling for their heads. Teams like Nashville, Florida, and Atlanta have very bright futures and could be very successful teams. What better way to a build a fanbase out of nothing than to put a winner in a non-traditional market.

It's win-win situation for both players and owners. The inclusion of a massive market like the South has the ability to bring in big streams of revenue allowing players to be paid more while also allowing for more jobs.

Excellent post and I completely agree :handclap: :handclap:

barrytrotzsneck 09-09-2004 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theBob
Canada vs. Slovakia was very exciting because when the team you are rooting for has arguably 10 of the top 20 players in the world and is dominating a lesser team, you tend to enjoy the game more. A league that has the most of the top talent on 1 team, the way this tournament does, wont last. Did you see any of the games in Prague or Germany? The seats were half filled. Ratings are lower than the Cup because everyone knows who is going to win.

If you want to save the game, just take out the teams in the south: Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina, Florida and some other non hockey market teams like Anaheim. The talent level will get a huge boost, there will be less clutching and grabbing as a result, the teams will be more evenly matched, and more people will want to see that!


Hm, I notice you finger Anaheim to be removed, but not LA. One team recently made it to the finals, the other can't even get into the playoffs. Interesting.

I'm seeing a pretty common mistake being made over and over in this thread: people equating attendance with financial stability. Just because a team has a loyal fanbase doesn't mean a damned thing, and if the current state of the NHL isn't fixed...sure, teams like Carolina and Florida will feel the pain..but you know who will feel it even worse? Edmonton. Calgary. Ottawa. Don't assume for one second that a lockout will cure the nasty expansion virus while allowing some sort of NHL-Darwinism to set in, making all the tried-and-trues happy. That's a nice dream, but a dream just the same. As a Nashville fan, I'm praying there's no lockout(for a variety of reasons,) but as small-market Canadian fans...I hope you're praying just as hard.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.