HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Anybody read Jay Greenbirgs article in the hockey news???? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=32723)

JR#9* 12-02-2003 07:38 AM

Anybody read Jay Greenbergs article in the hockey news????
 
It was a dead on story about how NHL now stands for "No Heroes League" as the NHL seems to be doing everything possible to bring parity to this league and do away with stars and the skill they bring to the game.

He had some great points about how Bettmen and Co have let coaches who have a short lifespan to take over the reigns and take the game away from the superstar players in favor of a system that preaches caution and passive play.

It states that the league has become a 4 line system where 19 teams out of 30 don't have a single forward getting 20 minutes of icetime!!!

His main point is that those players that are significantly more TALENTED and ENTERTAINING then 95% of the other players are being buried amoung the 4 line craze that is sweeping the NHL and it's the fans as usual who lose in the situation.

Each and every game seems to be a carbon copy of every other one.What passes as offense these days is simply disgusting and when you have such talented guys such as Thornton and the like it is just pathetic that the NHL thinks it's in the league's benefit to snuff out individual talents in favor of a generic, 4 line game that strives for artificial parity and the decrease in attendance in alot of NHL cities are showing the results of all this.

I can't wait until Bettman and his moron crew have to sit and try and hammer out a National TV deal here when the guys on the other side of the tabel are going to laugh and say why would I pay anything substantial when you draw no viewers and the game is getting WORSE not better as scoring and more importantly scoring chances are yet again down this year.

Yes, this system succeeds in making it a case where any team can win on any given night but at what price??

I'm sick of shots being thrown from the outside and bad angles in hopes for a lucky bounce-defelection-rebound passing as offense and I'm sick of no skating, no skill being on display.Each and every game is the same and the repetitiveness is getting really old.

Anyway, if you get a chance to read Jay's article do it b/c he makes some great points and hopefully one of the a-holes at the NHL offices takes some sort of notice and stop coming up with their lame excuses and custom made figures to support how great hockey is at this current time.

pld459666 12-02-2003 07:57 AM

.
 
While I do somewhat agree, it's also an indictment of the "offensive" players not being nearly as creative as they used to be way back when.

Additionally there are just to many guys not willing to do what is needed to find the open space and therefore find themselves a bit flat-footed in the offensive zone.

I don't have a problem with todays game in either of the Offensive/Defensive zones, it's the neutral zone that is boring the game.

Bring back the Tag up rule for off-sides and not only will it speed up the game, but the forechecking would increase therefore spreading out the opposing team opening up passing lanes all over the place, thus creating opportunities for the "offensive" to be creative again.

Yes it has become a boring game, but things can be done to correct that situation.

True Blue 12-02-2003 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pld459666
Yes it has become a boring game, but things can be done to correct that situation.

We've said it many times in the past, but the game can be improved if the refs simply called the obstruction that goes on. The 'Leafs are an example of a team that simply gets away with murder as far as obstruction goes. The refs simply refuse to call Sundin for any type of a hold and the rest of the team can interfere all they want becuase the refs are not doing a thing. The problem is not the "systems" that are being played. The problem revolve around 2 things. First and foremost the refs have got to go and call the obstruction. And for more passion, how about getting rid of the instigator rule as it would allow for more things to be settled on the ice.

John Flyers Fan 12-02-2003 08:06 AM

Another factor not mentioned as to why teams now have to play 4 lines on a regular basis instead of 3 lines is the length of the season.

The season used to begin Oct. 1-3 and ends April 10-12.

The season now begins Oct 8-9 and ends April 3-4.

No less games are played, but there are 10-14 less days in which they play the games. That means less off days, more back-to-back games.

Less rest means you need to play 4 lines more than going three lines and just spot shifting the 4th lines.

pld459666 12-02-2003 08:11 AM

.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
We've said it many times in the past, but the game can be improved if the refs simply called the obstruction that goes on. The 'Leafs are an example of a team that simply gets away with murder as far as obstruction goes. The refs simply refuse to call Sundin for any type of a hold and the rest of the team can interfere all they want becuase the refs are not doing a thing. The problem is not the "systems" that are being played. The problem revolve around 2 things. First and foremost the refs have got to go and call the obstruction. And for more passion, how about getting rid of the instigator rule as it would allow for more things to be settled on the ice.

Instagaitor rule was phased out over the summer.

Barnaby was called for a Roughing penalty (which was used instead of the instagaitor penalty in this instance in my opinion)

Yes the calls should be made.

Melrose_Jr. 12-02-2003 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pld459666
While I do somewhat agree, it's also an indictment of the "offensive" players not being nearly as creative as they used to be way back when.

Or just being hooked and held more. Obstruction is the game's biggest problem.

No one ever credits the improvement of defensive players and goaltenders over the years as a reason for offense drying up. What constitutes being an "NHL caliber" player at either position means something different today than it did even 10 years ago. What's changed more, the game or the people that play it?

Fletch 12-02-2003 08:26 AM

I agree MJ...
 
it would be interesting for the NHL to do a study of many games to see how many calls were missed/bad calls made and then come out and say what the # of PPs in those games should be. I'm all for good defensive systems, great goalies and great defensemen/defensive forwards, but the game needs to be played within the limits and they should be enforced better. I believe that would open the game up a bit. Heck, we don't need to see 6-5 games to be happy, we just need to see a lot of the crappy obstruction penalties to stop, or be called consistently.

dedalus 12-02-2003 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
What's changed more, the game or the people that play it?

It's both of course but I think you're dead on in identifying the primary change being in the players. As I've said many times before, systems hockey is nothing new. Jacques Lemaire will be the first to state that the old Habs teams on which he played were using a trap. No big deal.

The thing is that the physical size and excellence of the players has advanced to such a degree that systems SEEM deadlier. In fact it's not the systems themselves that have changed; the players are simply able to carry them out better, more efficiently, and more quickly.

IMO many things need to change to bring back something like "old time" hockey:

Make nets larger. This compensates for larger goalie pads and, more importantly, safer goalie pads. Goalies are no longer intimidated by anyone's shot, including Al MacInnis'. Making the nets 8" wider and 4" higher will provide a competitive advantage but only to players who are already skilled shooters. Pluggers will see little benefit from making nets 4" wider on a side, but a player who can pick his corners will be able to take advantage of the opportunity.

Lift restrictions on the curvature of sticks. Bring some unpredictability back to the shot, and let it come with more force. Goalie protection is such that they no longer need fear injury from shots.

Adopt Dave Taylor's plan. More than anything else this will help offset the changes in the players themselves. It has the net effect of making the ice surface deeper no matter what zone the puck's in. Furthermore it has the benefit of making the offensive zone smaller when going in. This gives a roaming goalie less time to handle the puck before a forechecker is on him.

Eliminate permitted icing on the PK. One of hockey's truly bizarre notions is that you penalize a team for cheating, but then mitigate the penalty by allowing the team to do what normally wouldn't be allowed. Force a team to pass, skate, or chip the puck out. It increases the chances for the attacking team, and it also promotes better gameplay from the penalty killers. If you demand something more than a heavy clearing shot from the defenders, you make them better, more skilled players.

Commit to calling obstruction penalties. Call 'em all. Call 'em all game. I assume there's no argument to calling obstruction fouls, but in addition, hockey's quaint tradition of putting away the whistle in the third period has to go. Hockey is the only sport that is content to issue an entirely different rule book in the third period of a game.

If you've not done it yet, go to a game with a hockey neophyte and explain the first crosschecking penalty to him. When he points out late in the game that a player has done "that crosschecking thing" and doesn't understand why the ref - who was looking right at the play - hasn't raised the arm, offer that this is the third period and such rules no longer apply.

And the league offices wonder why it's so tough to bring in new fans.

Laches 12-02-2003 06:14 PM

I think some changes need to be made, but I also think that the alleged boringness of today's game is often highly overstated, particularly by Ranger fans who are more bitter about their own team's lack of success than anything else. If it were the Rangers, not the Devils, that just won their third cup in eight years, I doubt you'd see so many diatribes about how bad the game is today.

I haven't read Greenberg's article, though I never really thought much of him as a hockey writer. I do wholeheartedly agree with some of the changes suggested here. First and foremost, make the referees grow the stones to call penalties. It's not the "systems" that diminish displays of skill, it's that defenders are too often allowed to hold, clutch, grab, mug and tackle offensive players away from the play, and it's not called. If you can find a way to stop the Sakics and Modanos of the world by playing sound, fundamental defensive hockey, fine by me. But it becomes too easy when the rulebook is thrown out the window. That's what Thornton threatened to retire over a couple of weeks ago.

I like the idea of not allowing the shorthanded team to ice the puck in theory, but in practice, I'd be concerned that the officials, already timid about calling penalties in the third period, would be even more reluctant to do so if they knew it would result in a full two minutes.

Making the nets bigger would add more goals, but to me, more pucks going into the net doesn't necessarily make the game more exciting.

Getting rid of the curved stick restrictions and bringing back the tag-up offsides rules would be good things.

Another one I'd like to see is increasing the size of the ice surface. Like dedalus said, guys are so much bigger and faster than they were 20 years ago, they're capable of defending a lot more turf. I'd like to see some more room on the ice. And for goodness sakes, put the nets back to where they were.

Evileye 12-02-2003 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
We've said it many times in the past, but the game can be improved if the refs simply called the obstruction that goes on. The 'Leafs are an example of a team that simply gets away with murder as far as obstruction goes. The refs simply refuse to call Sundin for any type of a hold and the rest of the team can interfere all they want becuase the refs are not doing a thing. The problem is not the "systems" that are being played. The problem revolve around 2 things. First and foremost the refs have got to go and call the obstruction. And for more passion, how about getting rid of the instigator rule as it would allow for more things to be settled on the ice.

Yeah the Leafs are an obstruction team, whatever.
One of the main reasons the Leafs haven't gone as far as they can is because Quinn refuses to play an obstruction trap game.
If you're going to use an example of a team that get's away with obstruction try the Devils, Wild, Ducks, or any of the other trapping teams.
A better description of the Leafs would be an aggessively physical team, who by the way have been shorthanded the most times in the NHL.

JCProdigy 12-03-2003 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laches
I think some changes need to be made, but I also think that the alleged boringness of today's game is often highly overstated, particularly by Ranger fans who are more bitter about their own team's lack of success than anything else. If it were the Rangers, not the Devils, that just won their third cup in eight years, I doubt you'd see so many diatribes about how bad the game is today.

In my case that would be true if I didn't shake my head sometimes even after a Rangers win and wondered why the game was rather boring. Now that I have center ice I'm becoming even more concerned. Because as a Ranger/hockey fan, when I'm watching western conference teams I really have no interest in who wins. I just want to see an entertaining hockey game and I'm just not seeing as many as I used to.

Dedalus: All your suggestions are good ones and hopefully the NHL will pick a couple of them. I don't think the game needs an overhaul (I know most of us don't) but just needs to be tweeked to bring back some offense in the game. You're also absolutely right about systems and the fact that nothings new with the trap. Also what breaks the trap is speed on the forecheck after a dump in. Just by calling the interference, the trap will become less effective.

On making the goals bigger: I think the one thing that it could accomplish is by making it easier to score goals it could open up the game a bit because teams will have to abandon the trap to a degree since more outside chances will find their way into the net.

True Blue 12-03-2003 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evileye
A better description of the Leafs would be an aggessively physical team, who by the way have been shorthanded the most times in the NHL.

Who cares about how many time shorthanded they are? What does that have to do with anything? And who cares how physical they are? What does that have to do with anything? Last I saw, the Devs were a pretty physical team, but is anyone out there going to say that they do not have "obstruction" issues?
In the last 2 games, the 'Leafs have absolutely gotten away with murder as far as obstruction away from the puck is concerned. Being physical has nothing to do with inteference away from the puck.

Potter 12-03-2003 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dedalus
It's both of course but I think you're dead on in identifying the primary change being in the players. As I've said many times before, systems hockey is nothing new. Jacques Lemaire will be the first to state that the old Habs teams on which he played were using a trap. No big deal.

The thing is that the physical size and excellence of the players has advanced to such a degree that systems SEEM deadlier. In fact it's not the systems themselves that have changed; the players are simply able to carry them out better, more efficiently, and more quickly.

IMO many things need to change to bring back something like "old time" hockey:

Make nets larger. This compensates for larger goalie pads and, more importantly, safer goalie pads. Goalies are no longer intimidated by anyone's shot, including Al MacInnis'. Making the nets 8" wider and 4" higher will provide a competitive advantage but only to players who are already skilled shooters. Pluggers will see little benefit from making nets 4" wider on a side, but a player who can pick his corners will be able to take advantage of the opportunity.

Lift restrictions on the curvature of sticks. Bring some unpredictability back to the shot, and let it come with more force. Goalie protection is such that they no longer need fear injury from shots.

Adopt Dave Taylor's plan. More than anything else this will help offset the changes in the players themselves. It has the net effect of making the ice surface deeper no matter what zone the puck's in. Furthermore it has the benefit of making the offensive zone smaller when going in. This gives a roaming goalie less time to handle the puck before a forechecker is on him.

Eliminate permitted icing on the PK. One of hockey's truly bizarre notions is that you penalize a team for cheating, but then mitigate the penalty by allowing the team to do what normally wouldn't be allowed. Force a team to pass, skate, or chip the puck out. It increases the chances for the attacking team, and it also promotes better gameplay from the penalty killers. If you demand something more than a heavy clearing shot from the defenders, you make them better, more skilled players.

Commit to calling obstruction penalties. Call 'em all. Call 'em all game. I assume there's no argument to calling obstruction fouls, but in addition, hockey's quaint tradition of putting away the whistle in the third period has to go. Hockey is the only sport that is content to issue an entirely different rule book in the third period of a game.

If you've not done it yet, go to a game with a hockey neophyte and explain the first crosschecking penalty to him. When he points out late in the game that a player has done "that crosschecking thing" and doesn't understand why the ref - who was looking right at the play - hasn't raised the arm, offer that this is the third period and such rules no longer apply.

And the league offices wonder why it's so tough to bring in new fans.

dedalus I agree with you on everything except for the size of the goal. I feel like that would be changing the game too much, almost de-globalizing it. The restriction on goalie pads is fair enough. But I love the idea of taking away free icing on power plays, that really would be a great move.

However I would like to add that loosing the Red Line would really open up the game and make it much more exciting... quick transitions, odd man rushes, break away goals (and saves).

And, despite what most people think, penalty shots after the over time should be put into place. The common fan, the perspective (or potential) fanbase associates only two exciting things with hockey and thats fights and penalty shots. That same group also associates ties with the biggest waste of time and money. Quite frankly I don't blame them. Ties KILL this game on so many levels. First of all, I truly feel the league executives could come up with a point system that would work out fair so I'm not even going to bother coming up with a draft of one right here. I feel that after 65 minutes of hockey (5 minutes of 4 on 4) and there is not a winner determined by the final score, then an exciting 5 on 5 penalty shot round would be justified. To adress common objections, I understand a goalie can beat the harder working team but that goalie might not be as good at stopping penalty shots and regardless, the goalie is part of the team. One I saw alot that it's unfair to reward a team for being better at penalty shots... well isn't the idea of the game to put the puck in the net? Now teams will make sure they have players who can score on penalty shots.

So many people say that penalty shots would be a terrible way to end a game because the game is all about grinding corners, working hard, defense, ect. ect. But thats where I disagree with you. I could make an arguement that the basics of the game, the core, the game changers are skill vs. skill (the skill players can single handedly break a game) and goaltender vs. goaltender (as can goalies). Penalty shots exemplify those aspects. Teams would be rewarded fairly if they lost on PSs, fans would be happy, and even those fans who initially frowned on the concept would open up to it once they realized how exciting it was.

Fans would watch games and goto games HOPING for a tie now. It gives common people a reason to go. I dont know if you all have noticed but us hockey fans are becoming more of a minority everyday. Say what you will, how people dont respect the other parts of the game, defense is entertaining, the game isnt boring... but the market speaks for itself and this league is about to go under. Not only are these solutions exciting, but they might make hockey one of the major sports again.

I dont mean to bring up a dead arguement here... but everything I said I truly believe.

Laches 12-04-2003 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Potter
Say what you will, how people dont respect the other parts of the game, defense is entertaining, the game isnt boring... but the market speaks for itself and this league is about to go under. Not only are these solutions exciting, but they might make hockey one of the major sports again.

I dont mean to bring up a dead arguement here... but everything I said I truly believe.

---This is one of the common misconceptions that appears in every thread on this issue: hockey was once really, really popular, and it isn't anymore. Folks, it's never had mainstream popularity in the US. It's always had what is a essentially a cult following. Even when goal-scoring was sky high in the early 90's, the league still had attendance problems and low TV ratings. Thus, the notion that these solutions "might make hockey one of the major sports again" is impossible, as hockey has NEVER been a major sport in the US. I'm all for making changes to improve the quality of the product, but this idea that people will start flocking to arenas in droves and everyone and their grandmother will start watching National Hockey Night on ESPN as a result is naively idealistic and without any factual support.

NYIsles1* 12-04-2003 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laches
---This is one of the common misconceptions that appears in every thread on this issue: hockey was once really, really popular, and it isn't anymore. Folks, it's never had mainstream popularity in the US. It's always had what is a essentially a cult following. Even when goal-scoring was sky high in the early 90's, the league still had attendance problems and low TV ratings. Thus, the notion that these solutions "might make hockey one of the major sports again" is impossible, as hockey has NEVER been a major sport in the US. I'm all for making changes to improve the quality of the product, but this idea that people will start flocking to arenas in droves and everyone and their grandmother will start watching National Hockey Night on ESPN as a result is naively idealistic and without any factual support.

Good points. Unfortunately Espn/Abc only hypes the veteran players and the next generation of star players have been neglected so all they can do with the limited coverage they provide is to keep throwing Hull, Modano, Sakic, Forsberg at their audiance.

Only thing I disagree with is in seventies and eighties it was not a cult audiance, the games had a good local market on channel nine and both the Isles and Rangers got a lot coverage.

But today they are not going to hype Kovalchuk or star players in small markets here and the teams in canada do not get enough coverage here either. We see less and less of the Western Conference because teams need to sell rivalry tickets and that waters things down too.

Also the New York market is a terrible place to market hockey on a year-round basis. Baseball dominates this market, even in December.

If the New York market has to lead hockey and they are the fourth sport in the area, how does that help change anything?

When Feb hits the media leaves for spring training and the playoff races for hockey will not be the story.

JR#9* 12-04-2003 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laches
I think some changes need to be made, but I also think that the alleged boringness of today's game is often highly overstated, particularly by Ranger fans who are more bitter about their own team's lack of success than anything else. If it were the Rangers, not the Devils, that just won their third cup in eight years, I doubt you'd see so many diatribes about how bad the game is today.

I haven't read Greenberg's article, though I never really thought much of him as a hockey writer
.

I don't think that's the case at all.Success or not the way the game is played now is simply dreadful and each game is pretty much a carbon copy of eachother and EVERYONE from players to fans to analysts acknowledge this FACT as it is simply undeniable if you watch hockey on a consistent basis.

Between the positional hockey along with the obstruction factor skating has been all but removed from the game for the most part and skill has also taken a beating as it is rarely on display anymore.Everything is this generic, take no chances conservative hockey that is void of much emotion and is played as systematic as possible which absolutely KILLS any entertainment value in the game and last I checked the game is suppossed to be entertaining.

The league has tiled way to much toqrds rewarding 4 line systems and making each player a cog as oppossed to allowing for the supremely talented guys to dictate the outcomes of games where as now you have ciaches who face an extremely high turnover rate dictating the outcomes of games by instituting these passive systems so that their respective teams remain "competitive" and the result is some really boring F'in hockey that can be so much more than what it currently is.

Whether you want to believe it or not this is a major problem facing the league and the fact that you see so many star players complain about it should speak volumes.People including me don't pay to see 3rd and 4th liners get almsot as much time as the supposive stars and allowing for the NHL to implement their goal or parity whether articial or real(It's very artificial in todays game) is killing the game and pushing people away from the game, even diehards.

As one of the above posters stated, I also have center ice and even when I'm just watching other teams while having no interest in the game other than entertainment and going with that goal it's tough to come across a game that really keeps my interest and that certainly wasn't always the case and that's disturbing.

dedalus 12-04-2003 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laches
---This is one of the common misconceptions that appears in every thread on this issue: hockey was once really, really popular, and it isn't anymore. Folks, it's never had mainstream popularity in the US. It's always had what is a essentially a cult following. Even when goal-scoring was sky high in the early 90's, the league still had attendance problems and low TV ratings. Thus, the notion that these solutions "might make hockey one of the major sports again" is impossible, as hockey has NEVER been a major sport in the US.

That's true to a degree, Laches, but as I've posted here before, the NHL saw a 42% drop in viewership between '96 and '02. It's hovered at the '02 level ever since. I agree that hockey will never come near the other big three, but its rating have dipped considerably. Something caused that drop. Something drove viewers away in that six year span and has kept them away ever since.

Figure it this way, '94 was the last year that saw a Finals wherein neither team trapped. '94 was also the high water mark for ratings. By '96 trapping/locking hockey had become the vogue throughout the league. I don't believe it a coincidence that the ratings peaked when they did nor started dropping when they did. You can correlate it to the explosion of teams adopting the trap or lock in emulation of the Devils and Wings.

Laches 12-05-2003 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dedalus
That's true to a degree, Laches, but as I've posted here before, the NHL saw a 42% drop in viewership between '96 and '02. It's hovered at the '02 level ever since. I agree that hockey will never come near the other big three, but its rating have dipped considerably. Something caused that drop. Something drove viewers away in that six year span and has kept them away ever since.

Figure it this way, '94 was the last year that saw a Finals wherein neither team trapped. '94 was also the high water mark for ratings. By '96 trapping/locking hockey had become the vogue throughout the league. I don't believe it a coincidence that the ratings peaked when they did nor started dropping when they did. You can correlate it to the explosion of teams adopting the trap or lock in emulation of the Devils and Wings.

---But what about pre-94? I think that you might have seen higher ratings in both 93 and 94. You had Gretzky playing for LA in the finals in '93, and the Rangers in the finals in '94, both huge US media markets, and those were the last 2 finals to have Canadian teams in them, and thus drew a much larger Canadian viewship. The TV ratings for this past final were virtually identical to those of the 1991 final, when scoring was at its peak. If offense draws viewers, you'd think more people would have tuned into see Lemieux in his prime scoring hattricks all the time. I've found some articles that I can't post here because they are from a pay service I have access to and I don't want to risk a ban, but TV ratings during the 1980's and early 1990's weren't really any better than they are now.

Laches 12-05-2003 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR#9
I don't think that's the case at all.Success or not the way the game is played now is simply dreadful and each game is pretty much a carbon copy of eachother and EVERYONE from players to fans to analysts acknowledge this FACT as it is simply undeniable if you watch hockey on a consistent basis.

Between the positional hockey along with the obstruction factor skating has been all but removed from the game for the most part and skill has also taken a beating as it is rarely on display anymore.Everything is this generic, take no chances conservative hockey that is void of much emotion and is played as systematic as possible which absolutely KILLS any entertainment value in the game and last I checked the game is suppossed to be entertaining.

The league has tiled way to much toqrds rewarding 4 line systems and making each player a cog as oppossed to allowing for the supremely talented guys to dictate the outcomes of games where as now you have ciaches who face an extremely high turnover rate dictating the outcomes of games by instituting these passive systems so that their respective teams remain "competitive" and the result is some really boring F'in hockey that can be so much more than what it currently is.

Whether you want to believe it or not this is a major problem facing the league and the fact that you see so many star players complain about it should speak volumes.People including me don't pay to see 3rd and 4th liners get almsot as much time as the supposive stars and allowing for the NHL to implement their goal or parity whether articial or real(It's very artificial in todays game) is killing the game and pushing people away from the game, even diehards.

As one of the above posters stated, I also have center ice and even when I'm just watching other teams while having no interest in the game other than entertainment and going with that goal it's tough to come across a game that really keeps my interest and that certainly wasn't always the case and that's disturbing.

---What's so artificial about the parity in the NHL today? It seems to me that everyone is playing the same systems under the same rules, and the most talented teams, Detroit, Colorado, New Jersey and Dallas, are the ones who are earning rings. So what's the problem? That they have to fight through some upstart 7th/8th seeds in the playoffs that give them a run for their money and sometimes even bounce them early? That's always happened in hockey, and playoff upsets are a good thing, they make the game exciting. How interesting could a playoff series possibly be if you knew that one team didn't have a prospect's chance in Rangerland of winning? Maybe the suspense of how many goals the more talented team would win by would be enough to keep you interested, but not me.

JCProdigy 12-05-2003 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laches
---But what about pre-94? I think that you might have seen higher ratings in both 93 and 94. You had Gretzky playing for LA in the finals in '93, and the Rangers in the finals in '94, both huge US media markets, and those were the last 2 finals to have Canadian teams in them, and thus drew a much larger Canadian viewship. The TV ratings for this past final were virtually identical to those of the 1991 final, when scoring was at its peak. If offense draws viewers, you'd think more people would have tuned into see Lemieux in his prime scoring hattricks all the time. I've found some articles that I can't post here because they are from a pay service I have access to and I don't want to risk a ban, but TV ratings during the 1980's and early 1990's weren't really any better than they are now.

Well we're talking about popularity of the sport here in the US so Canadian viewership does not come into play nor does it come into the final US ratings. So the fact that Canadian teams were in the finals in 93 and 94 makes little difference. Maybe it helped the US ratings because it became US VS CAN in a way or maybe it hurt rating because it proved that Hockey wasn't a US sport.

The difference between 1991 and today? Ratings and popularity in the states increased up to and through 1991 on into 1994. So in 91 something was happening that made more people want to see what was happening in 92 and so forth. So yeah you can say that Mario's offensive prowress made more people watch hockey between 1991 and 1992. Then between 94 and now it's been downhill. The question has to be asked why? You can say big city teams like the Rangers and the Kings being in the finals helped but would the ratings recouperate to anything near 1994 levels if the Rangers or the Kings somehow made it to the finals this year? I just don't think it would.

The overall popularity of the sport shouldn't be the question. It's the relative popularity that is important. In 91 the popularity was increasing, now its decreasing. Why?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36 AM.

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.