HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   GREAT article on state of the NHL (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=81832)

True Blue 06-03-2004 08:21 AM

GREAT article on state of the NHL
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun2.html

Hockey is in deep danger, boys and girls. Only Bettman seems to think that he can cancel a season and not have any reprecussions. That's not even mentioning the fact that there are those that want to cancel 2 seasons. I just don't see how the NHL can go on if they do away with next season.
There are many reasons for the demise of hockey:
1. Utter failure of Bettman & other head honchos to market their stars.
2. Utter failure of Bettman & other head honchos to market the sport as a whole.
3. The utter disaster that Bettman created when he expanded the league. The fact of the matter is that the NHL is in 5 or 6 locations that it has not buisiness being in. And good ole' Gary just keeps saying that contraction is not an option. Wake up, Gary. Half of Tampa Bay have no idea that they even have a hockey team.
4. Said expansion has caused a major dillution of talent. The degeneration of the play on ice is evident.
5. Refs simply refuse to call obstruction away from the puck, which leads most games to be played as if the Detroit Pistons laced up the skated and started playing on ice. Simply unwatchable sometimes.

But all of this is secondary to the fact that if Bettman goes through his plan of shutting down the league (and he seems hell bent to do so), the NHL fall below badminton as far as popularity in the USA is concerned.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 06-03-2004 08:35 AM

A lot of issues to address here.

- The marketing of the league is awful.
- The refs simply cannot call all the penalties they need to call. If they did, there would be very little even strength play.
- Say what you will but having Ananheim, New Jersey, Tampa, and Calgary as the last four finalist teams is just not good for the league in terms of exposure for the league.
- The league needs to Rangers, Kings, and Blackhawks to become competetive again.
- Despite a seemingly unequal playing field vis-a-vis large and small market/budget teams, has been exposed as being overrated as the last four Cup finalists and the final four teams this season (save Philly) have all been small budget teams.
- Expansion has watered down the talent and the interest has not been strong enough to compensate for that watering down.
- The new stars of this league are poorly marketable, but they are not terribly marketable in the first place. With the exception of Jerome Iginla (who is in Calgary), what star is terrible charismatic? Many of the stars are European and of the North American stars there really is not a Derek Jeter, Mike Piazza, Peyton Manning, Shaq or A-Rod in the buch.
- Contraction has to happen. It might suck for some cities but for the sake of the league it has to happen.

JR#9* 06-03-2004 08:46 AM

The game is in deep sh#$ and needs some major changes in many areas both on and off the ice IMO and Bettman has been an absolute joke on a commish and the game has only regressed under his "leadership".

The ONLY silver lining of a possible lockout is that I hope it would be to the degreee that 6 teams had to fold up shop bringing the NHL down to a much more reasonable 24 teams.

This would significantly improve the level of talent on each of the remaining teams and make the NHL much more viable and healthy as a whole.

That and the fact that we'd still be in the top couple picks for nexts yrs draft, reported a great draft yr, if there is no hockey played.

Vito Andolini 06-03-2004 09:16 AM

There's something really amusing about watching a bunch of Ranger fans calling for contraction. haha talk about taking the easy way out!

SingnBluesOnBroadway 06-03-2004 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vito Andolini
There's something really amusing about watching a bunch of Ranger fans calling for contraction. haha talk about taking the easy way out!

Not really.

1) The teams that are primed for contraction were not playoff teams.

2) Any contraction would neccesitate a restructuring of the playoffs. Maybe only the top eight teams would make the playoffs. And the Rangers would still be screwed.

kazo 06-03-2004 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Not really.

1) The teams that are primed for contraction were not playoff teams.

2) Any contraction would neccesitate a restructuring of the playoffs. Maybe only the top eight teams would make the playoffs. And the Rangers would still be screwed.

Only 8 of 24 teams making the playoffs? That will NEVER happen.

kazo 06-03-2004 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kazo
Only 8 of 24 teams making the playoffs? That will NEVER happen.

By the way, neither will contraction as long as Bettman is in charge and Bettman isn't going anywhere as long as the Board of Governors continue to extend his contract. I've come to believe that those virtual automatic contract extensions are the easy way out for the owners to rid themselves of some of the things that go along with running a league. Much easier to push that stuff off on Bettman even though he is a clueless incompetent.

Grecian Earnest 06-03-2004 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
Hockey is in deep danger, boys and girls. Only Bettman seems to think that he can cancel a season and not have any reprecussions. That's not even mentioning the fact that there are those that want to cancel 2 seasons. I just don't see how the NHL can go on if they do away with next season.
.

Meh. Alarmism. The league's not going to fold; "hockey" is not in trouble. There is enough interest in enough markets that the NHL will be around as long as MLB is.

In all the worst ways, Bettman really doesn't need to fear a lost season. Losing seasons angers and drives away the casual fan. At this point, sad to say, hockey has very few casual fans. The sport has bottomed out in viewership; it simply can't sink much lower, and so Bettman needn't fear losing viewers he doesn't have.

Put it this way, IMO he would have had a lot more to lose in '94 when the sport was on the cusp of real success.

I say burn a season or two. Use it as the opportunity to cut some of the fat from this bloated league, and come back leaner and better.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 06-03-2004 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kazo
Only 8 of 24 teams making the playoffs? That will NEVER happen.


Whoops. I made a mistake in my previous post. I meant the top six teams in each conference would make the playoffs. Not only 8 all total.

True Blue 06-03-2004 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grecian Earnest
Meh. Alarmism. The league's not going to fold; "hockey" is not in trouble. There is enough interest in enough markets that the NHL will be around as long as MLB is.

I say burn a season or two. Use it as the opportunity to cut some of the fat from this bloated league, and come back leaner and better.

Alarmism? Hardly. If you do not think that hockey is in big trouble in the USA, then you have blinders on. The ratings for the Cup finals have yet to be above a 2.5. That's an embarassment. In a poll taken earlier in the year, figure skating came out to be a more popular sport amongst US viewers. You cannot compare the NHL to MLB. Baseball is here to stay and attracts both the hard-core and the casual fan. IHockey has no casual fan. Everyone knows who Derek Jeter is and will tune in to watch him bat in the playoffs. NO ONE has been tuning in to see Iginla. And his performance is one of the best playoff performances since Leetch in '94.
Burn a season or 2? As you say, that will not drive away the casual fan. No. It will kill him/her. Not to mention that 2 years with no NHL, may even loose a hard-core fan such as myself. Shut down the league for 1 year and you will do irreprable damage to the sport. Shut it down for 2 years, and you may as well cancel the NHL in the US.

NYIsles1* 06-03-2004 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
A lot of issues to address here.
- The marketing of the league is awful.

Agree and it's only going to get worse. Espn cut the games and relegated hockey to Espn2 during the regular season. Nbc will only televise a portion of the season and playoffs, not enough to establish a full time audiance or credible ratings. What was needed was a game every weekend from October to May/June to be televised and all markets included.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
- The refs simply cannot call all the penalties they need to call. If they did, there would be very little even strength play.

Your right but this is nothing new for hockey, especially during the playoffs and finals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
- Say what you will but having Ananheim, New Jersey, Tampa, and Calgary as the last four finalist teams is just not good for the league in terms of exposure for the league.
- The league needs to Rangers, Kings, and Blackhawks to become competetive again.

You mean the Rangers are going to grab the attention over the Yankess, Mets and other teams here? No, those days are over during the regular season and maybe even during the playoffs. Hockey is not the buzz in New York and George Steinbrenner's team owns the press now year round and nothing is going to change that. The media goes thru the motions covering hockey and only beatwriters cover the games, not journalist so they do not identify with the players and are not interested as they used to be.

Even a better hockey market in Philadelphia got poor ratings in a very good series, it's not about large markets and that series was as good as the league can ask for.

The Kings will never supplant the Lakers and the Blackhawks have not had that buzz since they left the United Center. It's time for a hard cap to put some big names in small markets and grow the sports populartity the best they can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
- Despite a seemingly unequal playing field vis-a-vis large and small market/budget teams, has been exposed as being overrated as the last four Cup finalists and the final four teams this season (save Philly) have all been small budget teams.
- Expansion has watered down the talent and the interest has not been strong enough to compensate for that watering down.

No small market team has won the cup since the 1993 Canadians. The Devils payroll was over 50 million dollar when they won in 2003. Expansion markets like Minnesota and Columbus have a bigger buzz than hockey here and sellout exhibition games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
- The new stars of this league are poorly marketable, but they are not terribly marketable in the first place. With the exception of Jerome Iginla (who is in Calgary), what star is terrible charismatic? Many of the stars are European and of the North American stars there really is not a Derek Jeter, Mike Piazza, Peyton Manning, Shaq or A-Rod in the buch.

And the problem with the New York hockey market is most of those names you wrote do play here. Jagr, Yashin and Brodeur are not in the same media universe. When was the last time you saw any marketing for a Ranger, Islander or Devil, despite the big names and marketable players on all three teams that have been top draft picks?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
- Contraction has to happen. It might suck for some cities but for the sake of the league it has to happen.

I disagree. Florida, Buffalo, Atlanta are only getting better and so will the interest. just because Larry Brooks and other writers have no enthusiam about the finals and they are not the choice team does not mean he should put down the product as they did today, those player deserve better for their efforts.

It's up to the NHL to find ways to promote these players as basketball did. One disadvantage is college basketball covered these players for years before they came to NBA markets, where in hockey this does not happen. Lebron James has a billboard next to Msg, no hockey players do and he plays in Cleveland's basketball market.

Bure9* 06-03-2004 12:44 PM

Hockey will never be a popular sport in this country because it isn't an American sport. Our arrogance and ethnocentrism towards other countries is evident in politics and sadly it is evident in sports, as well. You have all seen how many times the 'typical' European stereotypes have been referenced on this board. We are in the minority by having open minds and watching this great game.

As far as marketing players with charisma, how about Roenick, Hull, Modano? Hockey has something that many other sports don't have. Good looking guys. Start marketing some of the pretty-boys like Amonte, Modano, and Dipietro. How does Iginla have charisma all of the sudden? From what I've seen and heard he's like your typical Canadian player. Or maybe it's that whole black thing.

JR#9* 06-03-2004 12:44 PM

How are you going to market hockey's stars better when skill isn't allowed to be on display in the NHL of the last decade or so??? :dunno:

The game has become turning entire teams into plumbers who always look to make the safe play, the conservative play---the BORING play.

And a hard cap will never work as you'd have a handful of teams shouldering the burden of the revenue incoming and that just isn't going to happen.With NO CENTRAL REVENUE SOURCE this can be fairly implemented.The scope of buisness practices between the 30 teams are way too different and a solid system would be almost impossible to come up with.

And despite the success stories of places like Minny or Columbus a 30 team NHL is a joke---increased by a full 1/3 in just over a decade!! :shakehead ---and there are at least 4-6 teams that could/SHOULD be contracted IMO.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 06-03-2004 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Agree and it's only going to get worse. Espn cut the games and relegated hockey to Espn2 during the regular season. Nbc will only televise a portion of the season and playoffs, not enough to establish a full time audiance or credible ratings. What was needed was a game every weekend from October to May/June to be televised and all markets included.

This is a testament to how weak of a product the league is right now. It's now a chicken or egg question which will come first, the product improving so it can be marketed better or maketing making the product better.


Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Your right but this is nothing new for hockey, especially during the playoffs and finals.

It may not be new but it is something that needs to be looked at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
You mean the Rangers are going to grab the attention over the Yankess, Mets and other teams here? No, those days are over during the regular season and maybe even during the playoffs. Hockey is not the buzz in New York and George Steinbrenner's team owns the press now year round and nothing is going to change that. The media goes thru the motions covering hockey and only beatwriters cover the games, not journalist so they do not identify with the players and are not interested as they used to be.

It's not a question of grabbing attention from the Yankees (although this run of succcess can't last forever and anyone who remembers the mid 80's to the mid 90's remembers that the Yankees were not the media hogs they are now). It's a question of gaining attention away from the Knicks and Nets. In 94 when the Rangers, Devils, and Islanders were all in the playoffs, the NHL was arguably a bigger story then the Knicks were and the Knicks went to the finals as well. The media responds to demand. The Rangers sucking, the Devils being less than glamormous and the Islanders being decent does not bring the demand to cover the sport.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Even a better hockey market in Philadelphia got poor ratings in a very good series, it's not about large markets and that series was as good as the league can ask for.

I can't speak to the situation in Philly so I will not try to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
The Kings will never supplant the Lakers and the Blackhawks have not had that buzz since they left the United Center. It's time for a hard cap to put some big names in small markets and grow the sports populartity the best they can.

As someone who lived in LA for a while, I will say that the fans in LA are fickle as hell. They support a winner. When Gretzky was with the Kings and they went to the Cup, the Kings were as big a ticket as you could get in LA and it was the place to be seen in a town where being seen is as important and eating, drinking, and breathing. The Lakers have the stars, the success, and they have enjoyed the intrigue of a new building. The Kings have the intrigue but not the success nor the stars.

The buzz has not been around the Blackhawks because they have not been good.


Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
No small market team has won the cup since the 1993 Canadians. The Devils payroll was over 50 million dollar when they won in 2003. Expansion markets like Minnesota and Columbus have a bigger buzz than hockey here and sellout exhibition games.

Say what you will but small budget teams have been succesful. They have been competitive. Columbus has buzz because the team is still new and a novelty. If they are not competitive in two years lets see where they are.


Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
And the problem with the New York hockey market is most of those names you wrote do play here. Jagr, Yashin and Brodeur are not in the same media universe. When was the last time you saw any marketing for a Ranger, Islander or Devil, despite the big names and marketable players on all three teams that have been top draft picks?

Well the Rangers had that lousy spread for Joseph Aboud with Nedved, Carter, and others. But the problem in New York is a microcosm of the entire league.


Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
I disagree. Florida, Buffalo, Atlanta are only getting better and so will the interest. just because Larry Brooks and other writers have no enthusiam about the finals and they are not the choice team does not mean he should put down the product as they did today, those player deserve better for their efforts.

And what happends when the success wans or a team consistently underachieves? Anaheim was not a hot ticket one year removed from the finals. The Canes were not a hot ticket after their run to the Cup finals. Look what's happened to your Islanders. They tied their hands financially to renew interest and they have gone about as far as they are going to as they are currently constructed (although who the hell knows what MM will do at the draft).

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
It's up to the NHL to find ways to promote these players as basketball did. One disadvantage is college basketball covered these players for years before they came to NBA markets, where in hockey this does not happen. Lebron James has a billboard next to Msg, no hockey players do and he plays in Cleveland's basketball market.

The players are not dynamic off the ice in some cases. Their English is not perfect. They have strange names. They have funny accents. How do you fix that? Again, chicken or egg situation.

True Blue 06-03-2004 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR#9
And a hard cap will never work as you'd have a handful of teams shouldering the burden of the revenue incoming and that just isn't going to happen.With NO CENTRAL REVENUE SOURCE this can be fairly implemented.The scope of buisness practices between the 30 teams are way too different and a solid system would be almost impossible to come up with.

You're hitting the nail right on the head, JR. What all the proponents of a hard salary cap are missing when they say how well it works in the NFL, is the fact that the NFL has a HUGE Central Revenue Source. The NHL has no such things. So, what you would have is teams like the Rangers, Colarado, Detroit, Philly, & Toronto funding the rest of the league. A hard cap without a major source of central revenue is a financial impossibility.
And please. Can we stop calling Anaheim a small-market team. That's one of the biggest jokes of all. That's like calling the time when the Angels won the World Series a victory for small market teams. The Ducks play in one of the biggest media market and are owned by Disney. What exactly is small-market about that? Just becuase their owners CHOOSE to spend a very small amount on their team, does not suddenly make them small market. If Dolan was to spend $30m on the Rangers, would we suddenly be a small market team? That's great. Let's have the rest of the league support us for a change.

NYIsles1* 06-03-2004 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
It's not a question of grabbing attention from the Yankees (although this run of succcess can't last forever and anyone who remembers the mid 80's to the mid 90's remembers that the Yankees were not the media hogs they are now). It's a question of gaining attention away from the Knicks and Nets.

Sorry, but I respectfully disgree. When Leetch is traded and Joe Torre's rumored contract extension gets the back page, hockey is competing
with baseball and that's been the trend for years now. Hot stove league baseball is huge in New York and between that and the two football teams with the increased popularity of the Nets here hockey no longer get's the back page or any real space like it does in other markets. Take a look at the papers in Pittsburgh and Florida or Boston on Sunday's, their media has lots of coverage and their media is working to grow the sport, while hockey fans get Brooks and nothing else in four papers.
It's not like it used to be and casual fans are not really interested.

The Yankees and Mets are year-round back page material now and their rumors are more interesting than important hockey games played in February and March.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
In 94 when the Rangers, Devils, and Islanders were all in the playoffs, the NHL was arguably a bigger story then the Knicks were and the Knicks went to the finals as well. The media responds to demand. The Rangers sucking, the Devils being less than glamormous and the Islanders being decent does not bring the demand to cover the sport.

1980 is over for the Isles and 1994 is over for the Rangers. That was before the Yankess and Mets started spending 100-200 million dollars or played interleague and created a rivalry of their own. The Yankees and Mets were very bad teams in the early 90's and the ballparks were empty. The difference is today when they lose the story is also huge, especially the Yankees and even the Red Sox.

As a hockey fan I cannot answer to the Knicks vs the Rangers ten years ago, hockey fans picked hockey, basketball fans picked basketball. The point is today there is no in-season demand for hockey any longer (aside from the
die-hards) and the media people (aside from the one assigned beatwriter) would rather go elsewhere for better sports stories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
As someone who lived in LA for a while, I will say that the fans in LA are fickle as hell. They support a winner. When Gretzky was with the Kings and they went to the Cup, the Kings were as big a ticket as you could get in LA and it was the place to be seen in a town where being seen is as important and eating, drinking, and breathing. The Lakers have the stars, the success, and they have enjoyed the intrigue of a new building. The Kings have the intrigue but not the success nor the stars.

You lived there, I have not but that was then. My guess is in today's sports market the Kings are far behind the Clippers in the Staple Center and reportedly lose so much money a fan accountant who was skeptical came in a verified the numbers.

The Lakers have a winning history that has been going on for three decades with no signs of letting up. Ziggy cannot compete with Shaq and Kobe but I would love to see him try.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
The buzz has not been around the Blackhawks because they have not been good.

Between the owners, the trades and ppv games (let's hope Dolan does not try that here on our teams because that would be the end) they may have finished that market for good. Their die-hards stay away to punish ownership like Isles and Ranger fans seem to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Say what you will but small budget teams have been succesful. They have been competitive. Columbus has buzz because the team is still new and a novelty. If they are not competitive in two years lets see where they are.

Successful? On some levels. Winning the cup or knowing you have a chance to win from day one of training camp? No. When Calgary is favored to beat Detroit in a series and the teams have the same payrolls that is when this game will have competitve balance. Basketball and Football have it so it's possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
But the problem in New York is a microcosm of the entire league.

I disagree. Other markets do get the coverage and the media, hockey does not have the enormous competiton that is here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
And what happends when the success wans or a team consistently underachieves? Anaheim was not a hot ticket one year removed from the finals. The Canes were not a hot ticket after their run to the Cup finals. Look what's happened to your Islanders. They tied their hands financially to renew interest and they have gone about as far as they are going to as they are currently constructed (although who the hell knows what MM will do at the draft).

Not even GOD knows what Milbury will do at the draft so we will leave the Isles out of it for now. :)

The teams you call successful had one year with a playoff run and no cup. That's not success on any kind of sustained level. What the game lacks is a cap to build off that success and maybe force some free agents to those teams to sustain what they did and keep the fans coming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
The players are not dynamic off the ice in some cases. Their English is not perfect. They have strange names. They have funny accents. How do you fix that? Again, chicken or egg situation.

Hire less baseball writers and more writers who speak these players primary langauge and let the fans get to know them? These players IMO are great, they come here and many do learn english but no one wants to talk with them.

But no sports editor in New York is going to do that.

NYIsles1* 06-03-2004 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
You're hitting the nail right on the head, JR. What all the proponents of a hard salary cap are missing when they say how well it works in the NFL, is the fact that the NFL has a HUGE Central Revenue Source. The NHL has no such things. So, what you would have is teams like the Rangers, Colarado, Detroit, Philly, & Toronto funding the rest of the league. A hard cap without a major source of central revenue is a financial impossibility.

Detroit claims to have to make the finals to break even and play in an old building.
Philadelphia's ownership claimed to lose revenue this week. Msg reported their sports teams lost money and did lay off employees. The Sharks slashed payroll this year and after going to the semi-finals claimed to lose over 10 million this week.

There is no major revenue to share.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
And please. Can we stop calling Anaheim a small-market team. That's one of the biggest jokes of all. That's like calling the time when the Angels won the World Series a victory for small market teams. The Ducks play in one of the biggest media market and are owned by Disney. What exactly is small-market about that? Just becuase their owners CHOOSE to spend a very small amount on their team, does not suddenly make them small market. If Dolan was to spend $30m on the Rangers, would we suddenly be a small market team? That's great. Let's have the rest of the league support us for a change.

According to this Anaheim spent 54.4 million this season.

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

JR#9* 06-03-2004 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Detroit claims to have to make the finals to break even and play in an old building.
Philadelphia's ownership claimed to lose revenue this week. Msg reported their sports teams lost money and did lay off employees. The Sharks slashed payroll this year and after going to the semi-finals claimed to lose over 10 million this week.

There is no major revenue to share.


According to this Anaheim spent 54.4 million this season.

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

Do you really think Philly lost money???

No F'IN way.

This is all BS and if this was the case no publicly traded companies would ever be a part of owning such a bad investment but yet you see these teams going for hundreds of millions.

True Blue 06-03-2004 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
There is no major revenue to share.

According to this Anaheim spent 54.4 million this season.

1. Exactly. And with no major central revenue source, there can be no hard cap.
2. Again, this just proves my point. How on Earth is Anaheim considered a small-market team?

free0717 06-03-2004 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
A lot of issues to address here.

- The marketing of the league is awful.
- The refs simply cannot call all the penalties they need to call. If they did, there would be very little even strength play.
- Say what you will but having Ananheim, New Jersey, Tampa, and Calgary as the last four finalist teams is just not good for the league in terms of exposure for the league.
- The league needs to Rangers, Kings, and Blackhawks to become competetive again.
- Despite a seemingly unequal playing field vis-a-vis large and small market/budget teams, has been exposed as being overrated as the last four Cup finalists and the final four teams this season (save Philly) have all been small budget teams.
- Expansion has watered down the talent and the interest has not been strong enough to compensate for that watering down.
- The new stars of this league are poorly marketable, but they are not terribly marketable in the first place. With the exception of Jerome Iginla (who is in Calgary), what star is terrible charismatic? Many of the stars are European and of the North American stars there really is not a Derek Jeter, Mike Piazza, Peyton Manning, Shaq or A-Rod in the buch.
- Contraction has to happen. It might suck for some cities but for the sake of the league it has to happen.

On the referee issue, if the referees called all the obstruction to the letter of the rules from the start of the season and stayed consistant, all the coaches would adjust. Yes the hockey would be horrible until the coaches adjusted but it would be worth it.

LondonFan 06-03-2004 04:35 PM

Its weird to me. America has produced some amazing atheletes, but you've never really grasped the the world's favourite game - football, and you as a nation show no interest in such a unique sport as ice hockey. And yet thousands upon thousands of you flock to watch Nascar and WWE "wrestling." It really dumbfounds me.

You have a sport that has a "World Series" when lets face it - its just America and Canada. And your version of football involves very little kicking and a whole lot of hands. Its just plain weird.

Sorry, just had to rant a little :teach: - I just feel sad that people can lap up such rubbish and miss out on soemthing really cool. Over here horse-racing seems to get the lion's share of TV time, it annoys me so much.

Fotiu22 06-03-2004 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonFan
Its weird to me. America has produced some amazing atheletes, but you've never really grasped the the world's favourite game - football, and you as a nation show no interest in such a unique sport as ice hockey. And yet thousands upon thousands of you flock to watch Nascar and WWE "wrestling." It really dumbfounds me.

You have a sport that has a "World Series" when lets face it - its just America and Canada. And your version of football involves very little kicking and a whole lot of hands. Its just plain weird.

Sorry, just had to rant a little :teach: - I just feel sad that people can lap up such rubbish and miss out on soemthing really cool. Over here horse-racing seems to get the lion's share of TV time, it annoys me so much.

please. SOCCER is a great game to PLAY, but is absolutely S*CKS to watch... I don't watch either WWE "wrestling" OR NASCAR, but both of them are FAR more entertaining then a NIL-NIL tie where if i guy gets bumped into he lies on the ground like he got shot.

so what are we missing out on?? four hour games then end with nobody scoring?? talk about rubbish... :shakehead

Fotiu22 06-03-2004 06:33 PM

By the way, wouldn't the NHLPA be against contraction? I mean, they have to look out for ALL of their paying members and contraction means layoffs, and more supply (available players) creates less demand = lower salaries, right?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29 PM.

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.