HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

NHL plans to reinvent itself after lockout

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-22-2004, 01:35 AM
  #51
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,924
vCash: 500
Um, some of you folks do know that it's only a recent event that all NHL rinks are the same size, right? Folks are talking about how terrible this would be, when in fact it was the way it was for decades during the glory years.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 02:13 AM
  #52
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marconius
Bbut teams change their style over time. Pittsburgh might be run & gun now, so they go with the larger ice surface. But in 5 years they may adopt a more trap-like approach, do they insert/remove rows each season depending on the team philosophy.

I think the better idea would be to make a standard ice size and ensure that every owner complied with it. It blows me a way actually, can you imagine if NBA baskeball courts could be any random size?

but teams Gm's will know what team to build and what team to draft for in those years

no, you cannot switch ice surfaces based on your team

CP would draft for offense while NJ would draft for physical defensive players

it would create a strategy for GM's like in baseball

look at PNC park for example

it it a left handed batters park so Dave Littlefield has been drafting left handed power hitters...it makes sense...

likea is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 09:10 AM
  #53
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
I, personally, don't like the European size rink. It's cuts down on physical play and the goal looks like a postage stamp. That being said, the sad fact is that ALL the playing surfaces in our major sports are too small. The NFL end zone should be 15 yards deep and many rules changes, kicking off from the 30, etc., have been implimented to compensate, the NBA bucket needs to raise up 2 feet. Every time baseball gets in trouble with fans, they juice the ball, bring in the fences and shrink the strike zone.

But the NHL had a chance to rectify the rink problem in the 80's and 90's when they rebuilt almost every rink in the league. Again, they were smitten by a lack of vision at the top. If you remember, in the 80's they were so hungry for an extra half mil, they virtually took themselves off American TV by signing with SportsChannel America instead of ESPN. The league is still essentially run by Huckleberrys who decided to go get a New York lawyer to get them out of their idiotic troubles.

I sincerely do hope some of them, if they can read, take a survey of these boards before making their next move. There's a fairly reliable thread of opinion I've found here that reflects much of the good thinking I've seen on a wide range of NHL ills.

Cudos to all of you!
-HckyFght

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 11:44 AM
  #54
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Same problems that need to be fixed is too much obstruction, too much hacking and wacking. I don't mind the low scoring games, and I would hate for the NHL to regress back to the 80's free flying 12 goals a game. I like games that are 4-3, hard hitting and exciting to the finish, but more offensive chances less obstruction will be welcomed.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 12:01 PM
  #55
Boilers*
 
Boilers*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,165
vCash: 500
Hmm a mini cam every 4 feet giving matrix-like veiws every once in awhile. Oh and ref headcams, I always want to see what the refs are really looking at when they make those calls.

Boilers* is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 12:08 PM
  #56
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seven_Nation_Army
go back to the 1 referee system for crissakes and move the goalcrease back 3 or so feet to where it used to be...eliminate the instigator...and add 7.5 feet of width to the rinks
The obvious solution is the one that should have been adopted in the first place. Get the second ref off the ice and put the orange arm band on all three on-ice officials. There is no reason a 3 ref system couldn't work in hockey.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 12:12 PM
  #57
hb6947
Hooked Since '78
 
hb6947's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Bellmore, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,065
vCash: 500
With some kind of cost certainty, there are many ways to open the rinks without losing revenue, IMO,this is one of the reasons the owners are holding out for a cap. With the newer gigantic arenas playing to 85 to 90% capacity, there is room to reconfigure pricing on seats. There are also other options, one of the more interesting examples being the NY Islanders plans to upgrade their building by dropping the ice surface 5 feet in order to add more seating and luxury boxes to the lower bowl without breaking the bank. Given the ability to prevent lost revenue by reconfiguration or with a similar renovation, the owners might jump at the opportunity to make the game better for fans and players while keeping equal or increasing their revenue.

But in order for anything to happen (bigger ice surfaces, lower or frozen ticket prices, shortened seasons, ect.), the owners have to be able to keep a larger portion of revenues to stabalize the values of their franchises. As a counter to this pro owner stance, I think there needs to be a clause linkng the amount of revenues owners recieve under any form of a new CBA/Salary cap and the amount they must put back into the team. This would attempt to avoid what is happening in MLB where money recieved through revenue sharing often winds up lining owners pockets.

hb6947 is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 12:49 PM
  #58
rekrul
Registered User
 
rekrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: bittersville,ca
Country: United States
Posts: 1,581
vCash: 500
here in san jose the sharks have season ticket holders in for Q &A every few months with the Pres and GM Doug Wilson, sometimes the coach too. at one meeting they were asked about the cluching and grabbing thing and the enforcement of the rules. Remember when they tried that before last year and aperantly some 10 GMs were barking back no sooner than one month into this because their coaches couldn't handle losing so many games, the NHL brass caved and word got to the refs that to go back and stop making so many calls. They went on to say that alot of teams have outstanding 3-4th line guys that can shut down the flow of the game much better than 15-20 years ago, guys getting bigger and faster has made the 4th line checker very effective.

rekrul is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 12:56 PM
  #59
rekrul
Registered User
 
rekrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: bittersville,ca
Country: United States
Posts: 1,581
vCash: 500
the whole "taking the most expensive seats outs" argument against the larger surface is not logical, you simply take the remaing seats and charge acordingly, your only going to lose the cheapest seats.

rekrul is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 02:12 PM
  #60
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Fix the game. Not the tv resolution.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 02:39 PM
  #61
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
Fix the game. Not the tv resolution.
Theres nothing wrong with the game just a few problems here and there, if they could illegalize the trap like the NBA did with the Zone before it would be good. The refs need to take a harder stance on obstruction, competition comittie, and some other rule changes. I heard Mark Cuban say it also HDTV would do miracles for the NHL, so people could enjoy it much more.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 03:39 PM
  #62
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bling
He is saying that the big markets should have more star players than the small or medium sized markets...unless I am not comprehending this?
That's how I read it. No idea how you'd implement something like that, and it's quite boneheaded anyway. People will follow stars (and their teams) no matter WHAT market it is. It's not the smaller teams' fault that NHL stars aren't marketed properly, that's an overall League failing.

Glad to see the League is actually thinking about some of this stuff. It's way overdue.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 04:29 PM
  #63
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotnos
That's how I read it. No idea how you'd implement something like that, and it's quite boneheaded anyway. People will follow stars (and their teams) no matter WHAT market it is. It's not the smaller teams' fault that NHL stars aren't marketed properly, that's an overall League failing.

Glad to see the League is actually thinking about some of this stuff. It's way overdue.
It is a boneheaded concept.
Three of the NBA's biggest draws - Lebron James, Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan - are located in small markets.
The same goes for two of highest profile players in the NFL, Brett Favre and Peyton Manning.
Somehow those leagues manage to survive without them all playing in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 04:29 PM
  #64
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 643
vCash: 500
While I am all for the NHL making positive changes, I am very skeptical of this. It seems most changes made under Gary Bettman's watch have worked out bad for hockey. I don't want to see a whole bunch more bad changes as the NHL "re-invents" itself.

Slightly off topic question, doesn't the article sound a bit like the suits in the Itchy and Scratchy boardroom on the Simpsons when they decide to add the character of Poochy to the show?

CH is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 05:24 PM
  #65
Marconius
Registered User
 
Marconius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
but teams Gm's will know what team to build and what team to draft for in those years

no, you cannot switch ice surfaces based on your team

CP would draft for offense while NJ would draft for physical defensive players

it would create a strategy for GM's like in baseball

look at PNC park for example

it it a left handed batters park so Dave Littlefield has been drafting left handed power hitters...it makes sense...
But essentially what would happen is that a team would have to make a single decision about the type of team they would build and they could never stray from it. What would happen if the makeup of the game changed or the makeup a division? Teams would be locked into a style of play they may have decided upon before realizing that the current years draft pick was the next offensive superstar.

I'm not sure if I disagree with the idea that NHL owners could choose their ice surface, but I think basing such a decision on the team's CURRENT building plans would be foolhardy as team philosophy can change from year to year.

Marconius is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 05:39 PM
  #66
Digger12
Gold Fever
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back o' beyond
Posts: 16,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Slightly off topic question, doesn't the article sound a bit like the suits in the Itchy and Scratchy boardroom on the Simpsons when they decide to add the character of Poochy to the show?
If you remember the Poochie 'focus groups', I can totally envision the NHL Board of Governors meetings being like that.

"OK, quick show of hands: Who among you would like to see a hipper, rawkin' NHL where the red line is abolished, shootouts are implemented, fights are scored on the 10 point must system, each player has their own theme song, establish a zero tolerance level for neutral zone impediment that we'll stick to this time and the games are all high scoring regardless of the quality of the play?"

(The majority raise their hands in avid agreement)

"All right! Now, one more time: Who among you would like to keep the red line in, keep shootouts out, get rid of fighting, go back to the old style organ music, let them "decide the game on the ice" by easing up on the excessive number of power plays, and emphasise game flow instead of goals scored?"

(The majority raise their hands in avid agreement)

"I quit."

If there's one sport that's been focus grouped to death, it's the NHL.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 06:05 PM
  #67
The Old Master
Registered User
 
The Old Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: burgh
Country: United States
Posts: 7,114
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkboy

I like the idea in theory, but there are unfortunately too many logistical issues. I still think the #1 thing they have to do before they try anything else, is just get the damn refs to call EVERY single obstruction penalty. Get rid of the clutching and grabbing. If the refs they have now don't have the balls to do it, get new refs. I'm certain that will open up the game...
BINGO get rid of the cluching and grabing, and let the boys play hockey.

The Old Master is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.