View Single Post
09-11-2013, 01:11 AM
Yes my liege!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,558
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by KingCanadain1976 View Post
The reason that it wasnt consider imo is the league thinks the shootout and loser points is more in tune for the nhl public. Lets face it defensive hockey doesn't sell. Goals are sexy and shootouts are the nhl version of sex sorta as they garente a quicker ending in most cases. The nhl thinks this is better for tv and as much as i hate to say it it is better for most of the younger american public as they don't have the patience level (ok maybe im overstating the general public of the states but im close. )
And that explains the lack of four-on-four, OT points and shootouts for the first 90 years of hockey how?

As i stated before there was a issue due to travel commitment in the original 6 Most of the travel was done by train. There was also things like curfews for town I belive you couldnt have any game go past midnight (at least i remember being told this by my uncle when i was a kid) due to issues with churches or something like that Trains we also public transportation back then so they had to stick to schedules.

Top two games are from the 30's. Assuming they started at 7 pm local time, they would have lasted WAY past midnight.

If you add a player the cap and floor would go up thats nothing to figure out as it raises and this year fall every year not a big detail to work out to me. With 6 outdoor games this year you know its going up for sure next year.
I'm not referring to 'figuring it out.' I'm referring to the fact there are teams, like the Islanders for example, trying to keep costs down as is. As if they are going to support adding another player to the payroll. NHLPA aside, you needed I believe 24 of 30 teams to support the CBA last time, do you think 25 of 30 teams will approve a change adding another player to their payroll? I don't. Not to mention most low payroll teams won't support any increase to the cap since it only hurts them to give their opponents more cap space.

3on 3 would also be hard imo to get the nhl to agree to As its cutting down on the number of actual players on the ice. Its not hockey to me then its more of a pond game. sorry just the way i feel .
LMAO. Really? The NHL approved the shootout, but approving 3-on-3 is a no go? Three-on-three is immensely better than the shootout, 'pond hockey' or not.

kingsfan is offline   Reply With Quote