HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Montreal Canadiens (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   When they say BAD for hockey, I think... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=64314)

Lafontaine 03-23-2004 08:35 AM

When they say BAD for hockey, I think...
 
GOOD news! When the reporters (especially the American ones) make a big fuss over all of the evil plays happening in hockey and how it's ruining the game I say (ala Mr. Burns) "Excellent". What "bad for hockey" actually translates into is loss of American interest in the sport, creating a smaller market and a less commercialized sport. Ouch, how painful, how could I ever watch the game again if hockey-rich cities like Carolina and Florida ever lost their teams? Or if I could no longer watch Markus Naslund and Ilya Kovalchuck run around city streets in Nike commercials? And do you know what would really hurt? If we had to replace those lost American franchises with places like Quebec and Winnipeg, and player salaries, then ticket prices went down because of a drop in league revenue...My point is, Canadians don't care about all this non-sense talked up by the media. We know how this game is played, we know it is a rough game. None of like to see that dirty crap happen, but it does, and we won't lose sleep over it. I know there are a lot of Americans that feel the same way, and this isn't meant to sound like an anti-American thread, but the truth is when analysts say "the league is in trouble", all they mean is Americans might stop watching the game. Can't really see why I'd care. That is the power of media over our tiny little minds. As fans we will never lose the game of hockey, yet effectively the media has us fretting over the plight of several multi-million dollar corporations and individuals that are ****** the game of hockey for all it's worth. It's a great game and if you don't want to watch it that's not my problem, I'll just sit back and reap the benefits of an under-exposed proffessional sport...Oh, but wait, does that mean they'll stop playing chart music at a billion watts in the arenas, and take down those dazzling score boards meaning I have to actually watch the game??? If so I take it ALL back!

Darz 03-23-2004 08:49 AM

Agreed. That has always been my opinion of 'good for the game' as well.

I never understood why I should be so concerned about the game getting more exposure south of the border. I never understood how that would help the loyal follower of the sport.
They removed the Canadian team closest to my hometown (Jets). Was that good for me????
They drive up salaries to the point that my favorite team could possiblely not be able to compete in the future. Is this good for me?????

To me it seems like whatever is good for the game as far as Amercian exposure goes, seems to work against what I want to see, and what's good for me, so I'm glad ESPN is cancelling their hockey show. I hope the NHL DOESN'T get an Amercian TV deal. EVER!!!!! I hope that Joe Amercian decides NOT to watch, or follow hackey (I mean half of them can ever properly say the name of the sport). I hope that 4-5 (if not more) of these new American franchise fold. I hope the NHL has to go back to 21 teams. I hope that the average NHL players salary has to be cut (I think they will live making $1M a season, I live on ALOT, I mean ALOT less, so.....).

Bad for the NHL = good for me!

Jacques Strappe 03-23-2004 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafontaine
GOOD news! When the reporters (especially the American ones) make a big fuss over all of the evil plays happening in hockey and how it's ruining the game I say (ala Mr. Burns) "Excellent". What "bad for hockey" actually translates into is loss of American interest in the sport, creating a smaller market and a less commercialized sport.

:bow: Amen Brother! :bow:

Gros Bill 03-23-2004 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafontaine
GOOD news! When the reporters (especially the American ones) make a big fuss over all of the evil plays happening in hockey and how it's ruining the game I say (ala Mr. Burns) "Excellent". What "bad for hockey" actually translates into is loss of American interest in the sport, creating a smaller market and a less commercialized sport. Ouch, how painful, how could I ever watch the game again if hockey-rich cities like Carolina and Florida ever lost their teams? Or if I could no longer watch Markus Naslund and Ilya Kovalchuck run around city streets in Nike commercials? And do you know what would really hurt? If we had to replace those lost American franchises with places like Quebec and Winnipeg, and player salaries, then ticket prices went down because of a drop in league revenue...My point is, Canadians don't care about all this non-sense talked up by the media. We know how this game is played, we know it is a rough game. None of like to see that dirty crap happen, but it does, and we won't lose sleep over it. I know there are a lot of Americans that feel the same way, and this isn't meant to sound like an anti-American thread, but the truth is when analysts say "the league is in trouble", all they mean is Americans might stop watching the game. Can't really see why I'd care. That is the power of media over our tiny little minds. As fans we will never lose the game of hockey, yet effectively the media has us fretting over the plight of several multi-million dollar corporations and individuals that are ****** the game of hockey for all it's worth. It's a great game and if you don't want to watch it that's not my problem, I'll just sit back and reap the benefits of an under-exposed proffessional sport...Oh, but wait, does that mean they'll stop playing chart music at a billion watts in the arenas, and take down those dazzling score boards meaning I have to actually watch the game??? If so I take it ALL back!

I wouldn't call it "bad for hockey" - I just call it "bad hockey".

mcphee 03-23-2004 09:01 AM

Good points, I tried to say something similar in another thread but you hit it on the head. I don't need people to say that hockey is the 3rd or 4th or 24th most popular sport somewhere else to enhance my enjoyment of it. Approval of the American public matters very little to me. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy discussing hockey with the many American posters on these boards and consider them as knowledgeable as anyone else. But these are hockey fans, or fans of a team, it has nothing to do with whether a guy in Memphis can watch the Cup finals. The radio voices who we hear on syndicated shows who tend to discount the sport and prefer to talk college basketball are well within their rights, as am I when I choose who to listen to. I do happen to think that the NHL has to seriously look at some things wrong with the game, such as the way it is officiated and some rules that the players and coaching have made necessary, but that isn't the same issue.

Habber 03-23-2004 09:02 AM

:handclap:

Bravo. Great thread.

What has American expansion done for us so far? I can't see one positive aspect where it has improved the game. All it's done is put an excursion to an NHL rink unattainable for the average Canadian family. Even if you're lucky enough to be near one of the few markets that can sustain a team, you're looking at $250-$300 for a family of 4....and that's in crappy seats.

I also would love it if a bunch of American teams folded and if salaries went way down. Sure we might lose some European talent, but who cares. This would be more than offset by the the increased availablilty to Canadians.

With salary and ticket prices reduced, places like Winnipeg, Quebec, Halifax, Hamilton and Saskatoon could afford a team. I couldn't imagine a better scenario than a 10 team Canadian conference and a 10 team US conference.

Hockey is fine the way it is. Over 10 million Canadians watched the last olymipic final, HNIC draws more than 2 million in the playoffs. The Canadian teams' rinks are at or near capacity every game. Why not embrace the game in Canada and put efforts into making inroads where the game is striving instead of feebly trying to force the game on a nation that doesn't, and never will, care about the game.

Carbo N8 03-23-2004 09:37 AM

I will really miss ABC telling me when Roenick or Yzerman is "on the ice".
As if I need to be told. I find that as annoying as the 'magic puck' they had a few seasons ago! :mad:

Gros Bill 03-23-2004 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Habber
:handclap:

Bravo. Great thread.

What has American expansion done for us so far? I can't see one positive aspect where it has improved the game. All it's done is put an excursion to an NHL rink unattainable for the average Canadian family. Even if you're lucky enough to be near one of the few markets that can sustain a team, you're looking at $250-$300 for a family of 4....and that's in crappy seats.

I also would love it if a bunch of American teams folded and if salaries went way down. Sure we might lose some European talent, but who cares. This would be more than offset by the the increased availablilty to Canadians.

With salary and ticket prices reduced, places like Winnipeg, Quebec, Halifax, Hamilton and Saskatoon could afford a team. I couldn't imagine a better scenario than a 10 team Canadian conference and a 10 team US conference.

Hockey is fine the way it is. Over 10 million Canadians watched the last olymipic final, HNIC draws more than 2 million in the playoffs. The Canadian teams' rinks are at or near capacity every game. Why not embrace the game in Canada and put efforts into making inroads where the game is striving instead of feebly trying to force the game on a nation that doesn't, and never will, care about the game.

Well said. Does that mean, though, that we can't improve the game, just for our sake?

Habber 03-23-2004 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gros Bill
Well said. Does that mean, though, that we can't improve the game, just for our sake?

Definately the game can be improved for our sake. But changes should not be made solely to make it more appealing to Joe American.

tnq 03-23-2004 10:22 AM

good and bad thing. Good thing, we won't have a pay 10M for a superstar. Bad thing, the best players from Europe don't want to come here for 1 M contract.

chicpea* 03-23-2004 10:30 AM

Agreed totally. I thought of posting a similar one in the NHL forum but thought I'd just get flamed. Glad to know you feel similarly. Oh, and I am 100% behind you with the Chart Music! BRING BACK THE ORGANS, please! I hate that stuff. I don't need crappy music to make me feel excited about being at a hockey game. (except for the Habs goal song of course :))

Guy Caballero 03-23-2004 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tnq
good and bad thing. Good thing, we won't have a pay 10M for a superstar. Bad thing, the best players from Europe don't want to come here for 1 M contract.

With fewer teams, we won't need them. We did fine without them before the 90s anyway. The Habs had 2 European players in 1986, and that team was a helluva lot more exciting to watch than the Euro-heavy Hab teams of the late 90s, featuring guys like Oleg Petrov, Martin Rucinsky, Sergei Zholtok, Juha Lind, and Peter Popovic.

Habs 03-23-2004 10:33 AM

I think it was a huge black-eye for the sport. However, I don't think it will have any effect on the US markets.

If you think the league doesn't need a healthy US fan base, your are wrong. This league wouldn't last 5 years without the new fan-base it has attracted from Florida - Anaheim.

People knock the lack of interest in Carolina, and other US cities, but it's always a revolving door in testing new franchises. Always has been, and always will be.

You know, it wasn't long ago the Canadiens were stinking up the league, and the fan base dropped off considerably. Just because the team is heading to the playoffs, you can't take a 'screw you' attitude to every other city who doesn't match the enthusiasm of the city of Montreal and its fanbase.

Look no further than Calgary, if you want to see how Canadian fans lose interest in a hockey team, and gain it back again, with a winning season.

Guy Caballero 03-23-2004 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Habs
Look no further than Calgary, if you want to see how Canadian fans lose interest in a hockey team, and gain it back again, with a winning season.

The NHL could completely fold and there would still be a team called the Canadiens wearing red, white, and blue jerseys hosting hockey games in Montreal. Hell, the next ice age could come, bringing an end to civilization as we know it, and people would still be going out to see the Habs. The Montreal Canadiens transcend the NHL. They were there before it existed, and they will always be there.

chicpea* 03-23-2004 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Caballero
The Montreal Canadiens transcend the NHL.

That is sublime, GC!

Habber 03-23-2004 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Habs
I think it was a huge black-eye for the sport. However, I don't think it will have any effect on the US markets.

If you think the league doesn't need a healthy US fan base, your are wrong. This league wouldn't last 5 years without the new fan-base it has attracted from Florida - Anaheim.

People knock the lack of interest in Carolina, and other US cities, but it's always a revolving door in testing new franchises. Always has been, and always will be.

You know, it wasn't long ago the Canadiens were stinking up the league, and the fan base dropped off considerably. Just because the team is heading to the playoffs, you can't take a 'screw you' attitude to every other city who doesn't match the enthusiasm of the city of Montreal and its fanbase.

Look no further than Calgary, if you want to see how Canadian fans lose interest in a hockey team, and gain it back again, with a winning season.

You say it yourself, we need US teams with a healthy fan base. IMO, , Anaheim, Columbus, Nashville, Carolina, Pittsburgh, Pheonix, etc don't fit into this category.

And how do you figure the league wouldn't last 5 years without some of these teams? What do they bring to the table that's so important? How is it then the league survived 100 years without these teams?

And how in the world can you say Montreal's fan base has ever dropped off considerably? I guess you mean in '02 when we "dropped off" to 19,000 and we're only 3rd in the league despite leading the league in 6 of the past 7 years.

And I go to Flames games every so often and have never been in the Saddledome with less than 16 or 17 thousand in it. I don't think they've ever averaged below 15K.

Habs 03-23-2004 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Caballero
The NHL could completely fold and there would still be a team called the Canadiens wearing red, white, and blue jerseys hosting hockey games in Montreal. Hell, the next ice age could come, bringing an end to civilization as we know it, and people would still be going out to see the Habs. The Montreal Canadiens transcend the NHL. They were there before it existed, and they will always be there.

Yeah, so would the Flin Flon Bombers, and hundreds of Beer League teams. But lets face it, the hockey would be terrible.

Guy Caballero 03-23-2004 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Habs
Yeah, so would the Flin Flon Bombers, and hundreds of Beer League teams. But lets face it, the hockey would be terrible.

Hey, Bombers-Habs on a Saturday night? Sounds fine to me, as long as we still got to see guys like Jose Theodore, Michael Ryder, Mike Ribeiro, and Sheldon Souray ply their trade. And unless the league couldn't afford to pay them more than what they'd get in the "working world," there's no reason to believe they wouldn't choose hockey as a career. Many oldtimers pine for the days when NHLers were "regular guys" like them and had to pitch bales of hay in the summer to buy their skates for the next season.

habilicious 03-23-2004 11:33 AM

Hi first time poster, long time lurker

As a habsfan who lives in the midwest (by columbus) alot of the people are actually attracted to the game throught the violence. I will assure you that there are a few chocie rednecks in the columbus area who will now come to games to see someone get their face busted open with a stick or whatever, and then yell "hee haw". And remember, any media coverage is good coverage. In other words; gross violence = good for US hockey

romain_jaime 03-23-2004 11:42 AM

Haha the magic-puck with the blue and red tail when it moved... That had to be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. They said they "couldn't see the puck". Hell, when I was younger we had this chip on our TV screen that looked EXACTLY like a puck and I had no problem following the game (even though I mistakingly watched the chip thinking it was the puck now and then).

Player salaries, I don't even want to get into a debate concerning this issue but I will say one thing. Doctors save lives, teachers raise the future, and none of these heroes get paid these outragous salaries.

Too many teams in the NHL? Hell ya ! There are a few teams that should NOT have an NHL franchise i.e. Florida, Carolina. I believe that you have to have a hockey bed to be able to have a franchise and most places that never see snow don't have many hockey fans. However, there is always an acception to the rule i.e LA, TB.

Too many NHL clubs equals too many players. What I mean is that this is diluting the on ice talent with sub par NHL caliber players filling up rosters, and no I don't mean character players.

American media. They bash the game of hockey because of a few mishaps, they also bash the game because of the violence they see at the amature level with parents going after coaches. BTW, I've witnessed a few parents going after each other at amature football games with sticks, flags, shoes, etc.. But look at Football and basketball in the US. How many pro athletes getting arrested is it going to take for the NFL and the NBA to be labelled as an "evil" sport? This won't happen.

A lockout is actually a GOOD thing. Why you ask? Because it will force those struggling teams to file for bankruptcy.

All in all I kinda do wish that the NHL would take a step back and realize that trying to make the sport more entertaining to the US is actually killing the game in sooo many ways. But by far it is creating a rift between the NHL and the common but loyal fan that can't afford tickets.

Habs 03-23-2004 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Habber
You say it yourself, we need US teams with a healthy fan base. IMO, , Anaheim, Columbus, Nashville, Carolina, Pittsburgh, Pheonix, etc don't fit into this category.

Carolina have an excellent fan base, but they won't pay to watch a losing team, nor would most fans. The problem in Carolina, was the original rink was located a long ways from where they are now. They packed it in for the playoffs, and were very supportive during their playoff run.

Pittsburgh? You have got to be kidding me. So they have a poor attendance record, due to an AHL team on the ice, and suddenly they don't deserve a team? So their Stanley Cups mean nothing? I can see your view already, and all you care about is the Canadiens, which is selfish.

Anaheim went to the finals last year, and have a decent market share and fan base. Columbus and Phoenix I'll agree with you on, but I'm willing to give Columbus a chance to get established, after the expansion growing pains are over with.

Quote:

And how do you figure the league wouldn't last 5 years without some of these teams? What do they bring to the table that's so important? How is it then the league survived 100 years without these teams?
The league would never survive at its current level, without an expansion fan base. You really think the league would be healthy with only the original six in place? In the new era of sports? Please tell me how, I'm curious. The league survived through the ages, with minimum wage. You can't compare 1935 to 2004. Expansion hasn't killed the game, economics has. The two aren't as related as you apparently believe.

Quote:

And how in the world can you say Montreal's fan base has ever dropped off considerably? I guess you mean in '02 when we "dropped off" to 19,000 and we're only 3rd in the league despite leading the league in 6 of the past 7 years.
I said the fan base <b>had</b> dropped off, before Gillette and Gainey, turned it around.

Quote:

And I go to Flames games every so often and have never been in the Saddledome with less than 16 or 17 thousand in it. I don't think they've ever averaged below 15K.
Guess you never witnessed a Flames game, like I have, with barely 9000 people, during the non-playoff years. Winning teams bring in the fans.

Habs 03-23-2004 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Caballero
Hey, Bombers-Habs on a Saturday night? Sounds fine to me, as long as we still got to see guys like Jose Theodore, Michael Ryder, Mike Ribeiro, and Sheldon Souray ply their trade. And unless the league couldn't afford to pay them more than what they'd get in the "working world," there's no reason to believe they wouldn't choose hockey as a career. Many oldtimers pine for the days when NHLers were "regular guys" like them and had to pitch bales of hay in the summer to buy their skates for the next season.

I'm sure Theo, and crew, would be lining up to play hockey for 30k a year, when they already have a couple million in the bank.

Why isn't the ECHL a decent market, if you believe this theory? Because the product is second tier.

romain_jaime 03-23-2004 12:03 PM

All I got to say is that with NYR unloading all their top overpaid underachievers, I see player salaries going down next year. Without NYR offering guys triple their worth, they will have no choice but to take a smaller contract or play elsewhere for WAY less money. And as the higher paid players contracts end they too will be forced to take pay cuts and slowly this will force player salaries down. The question marks is by how much will this be by?

Darz 03-23-2004 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by habilicious
In other words; gross violence = good for US hockey

Ya, I've always found it funny that a country that loves football, pro wrestling, war coverage and Rambo movies is offended by hockey players fighting.

romain_jaime 03-23-2004 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darz
Ya, I've always found it funny that a country that loves football, pro wrestling, war coverage and Rambo movies is offended by hockey players fighting.

:lol:

Don't forget shows like South Park and Ren & Stimpy... Now THERES entertainment at it's finest !


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:27 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.