HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Pittsburgh Penguins
Notices

CBA Thread, Daniel Bryan Edition: The lockout is (tentatively) over!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-15-2012, 08:21 AM
  #551
ColePens
Global Moderator
Your Savior
 
ColePens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 32,107
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ColePens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Gotta fix something here... Ok, now I agree.

Both sides are in a nut kicking contest and look like children.
This week.. completely agree with you. I'm looking at this in sequence and see the NHL owners replying to the idiotic movement by the PA to decertify with their own idiotic movement to file a lawsuit. This was a lost week because neither of these things will work and are complete time wasters. This is where I disagree with both groups and think they are just ****ing over the fan.

What a complete joke this is. A complete joke.

ColePens is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 09:41 AM
  #552
Gooch
Registered User
 
Gooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Coeur d'Alene Idaho
Country: United States
Posts: 13,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandshakeLine View Post
The NHL owners filing suit against the union makes it pretty clear that this is not about a CBA or costs or anythign whatsoever. It's an attempt to break the union, pure and simple.

Support whichever side you want, but let's at least call a spade a spade. I'm tired of this high-and-mighty "Think of the owners" horse****. They're all wealthy beyond my imagining, the difference being one side gets hit for a living and the other side signs the checks.
As a fan of the sport first and foremost and a fan of the penguins a Fehr lead union needs to be broken. If this is what it takes, so be it. We gotta get past the petty class warfare crap and start looking at our own interests. They clearly coincide with the NHL winning out in this and not the players.


Last edited by Big McLargehuge: 12-15-2012 at 10:00 AM. Reason: Fully censored quote
Gooch is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 10:35 AM
  #553
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Fangorn
Country: United States
Posts: 25,403
vCash: 500
OK so I'll use Ogre's well written points to have my final clarification here so you guy don't think I hate southern hockey fans or something. Because I don't. If I thought they could be successful on the level that other cities (in the modern era not the 90s when everything was so screwed up), I'd be all for 3 extra S / SW teams not 3 fewer. But I don't believe that will ever be the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogrezilla View Post
I want the NHL to become popular enough that hockey becomes a sport top athletes want to play growing up. I want it to be a game that -- no matter where I may happen to live -- my future kids can find leagues and places to play. Ideally, the schools might even have teams to help keep the cost down a bit. I would love to talk about hockey with people who aren't die hard fans: even when its a down year.

Plus I'm just against taking teams away from the places that already have fans. We got our chance to prove we could support the team. Let them have theirs.

On your first point, I can totally understand that and agree with it, but it's a pipe dream. As someone alluded to earlier, the best athletes almost always come from poor neighborhoods, and hockey (like skiing and golf and a few other sports) is expensive. It doesn't have the excluding culture of golf per se, but it's just as expensive if not more so over time. Every time a kid breaks a composite stick, $80 out the window. Need new skates literally every year as the kid's feet grow? $200-$250 easy. New pads? New Pants? Rink fees when practicing on their own? $$$$! Hockey will NEVER be the sport that those poor kids want to play because their poor parents can't and won't foot the bill for it (understandably). I know that's a harsh attitude to take but until someone can make hockey not expensive, all over the country and not just in random pockets where someone like Mario or Sid opens up a charity to give players equipment, it's not going to happen.

Regarding the second point, I'm not 100% sure that having a few extra NHL teams scattered around the south or southwest, is the cause-and-effect required for "hockey rinks to be everywhere, so that no matter where I am there are places for my kid to learn and play". I think it's more complicated than that. A whole series of factors have to line up for the commercial validation of hockey on a community level (i.e. people willing to start businesses and open rinks / leagues in places where there were none previously), in a given state or region. It's a niche sport in this country and most likely always will be because it's not in the collective sports consciousness. American kids aren't told stories about the great Guy LaFleur or Bobby Orr the way they're told about Babe Ruth or Jim Brown or even Jerry West for cryin' out loud. In Canada, it's just the opposite. In Canada it IS the sports culture and as a consequence there are rinks in every single town no matter how small, just like there are baseball diamonds in this country, in every town, no matter how small. We can't undo history and adding NHL teams won't "make a new history" and turn us into "Canada Part II".

My friend and some of their neighbors are the perfect example. He loves sports, loves to play, loves to watch and we even used to skate some in HS. He lives in DETROIT... a place where hockey is a big deal. You know how many regular season Red Wings games he and his buddies watch (living in the one of a half dozen suburbs where people have enough money to pay for tickets and gear)? Like maybe 2, 3 on tv. Then, when the Red Wings get into the playoffs, they watch a little more, then if they get to the Conference Finals, suddenly they start caring and paying attention. And when it's over, they don't think about the Red Wings again until February of the following year. You know how many Lions games they'd watch even when the Lions sucked? All of them. A lot of NHL fans in the US are like this; they're into it when there's no football to watch and their team must be doing well. We're a niche to fill a void in this country, period. Sad but true.

He even has taught his kid to skate and shoot a puck, but do you know what will happen most likely? By the time the kid reaches 9th grade he won't be playing hockey anymore because he won't be able to hack it. The niche-fan parents who have taught their kids to breathe hockey since birth, are going to fill 100% of teh slots on that HS team. And that's the way hockey works and lives in the US. It lives BECAUSE it's a niche... because the people who love it, love it SO much more than other sports, that they constantly are involved with it, and pass it down through generations and entire neighborhoods keep it alive and going when the team isn't doing well.

Hockey is one of those things that some people, they just don't get it. They can't tolerate the randomness of the bouncing puck or the crossbar or the lucky off-skate goals. I have friends that watch hockey and they literally say "this is why hockey sucks; it's luck half the time." They just don't get it. They think ice hockey is air hockey. And they're never going to get it; watching the Winter Classic does not convince them. Watching the Cup does not convince them. They have a football / basketball mindset where total control of the object on the field is required to call it "a real sport". It's hard enough to get a hockey franchise to succeed in a more northern climate (where kids can actually skate more often if they choose to); in markets where people live and breath football from the time they're in pop-warner, it's much much more difficult.

NO I don't think watching and enjoying hockey should be reserved for everyone north of mason-dixon (that's the sarcastic part of my schpiel sometimes). Everyone should enjoy it if they want to. But that doesn't mean everyone should expect their city can support an NHL franchise. Most can't even viably support an AHL franchise south of the line.

I love hockey. I want hockey to be around forever. But I don't kid myself that it will ever be "everywher you go" like Visa or that it will ever enjoy status even remotely similar to the other big three. OR even the PGA. And I'm OK with that. If the league ends up being 20+ teams (whoever said that you were right although 20+ infers I think it would likely be more than 20 -- or "certainly no less than 20" -- hopefully you get that) and remains very healthy and few labor disputes and highly competitive, great. If it ends up being 30 teams and all of that same stuff (through relocation and better management of certain teams), great. What I care about is the quality of the game, not the expansion of it. Like I said, I don't care in 20 years hockey is still off the radar down south. Let them watch HS football instead of hockey. I don't give a ****, as long as the league is in good shape.

Hopefully that's more clear now.

Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 11:31 AM
  #554
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColePens View Post
This week.. completely agree with you. I'm looking at this in sequence and see the NHL owners replying to the idiotic movement by the PA to decertify with their own idiotic movement to file a lawsuit. This was a lost week because neither of these things will work and are complete time wasters. This is where I disagree with both groups and think they are just ****ing over the fan.

What a complete joke this is. A complete joke.
I've read from several writers I think highly of, that they have heard from many players and they would be happy if the NHL moved to six years on contract length and and slightly with the buyouts, etc.

It's so absurd that both sides can't work this out. I was actually laughing about it yesterday.

It is simply a nutsack kicking contest, but the fans and sponsors are the ones getting screwed.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 11:47 AM
  #555
SHOOTANDSCORE
Registered User
 
SHOOTANDSCORE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
OK so I'll use Ogre's well written points to have my final clarification here so you guy don't think I hate southern hockey fans or something. Because I don't. If I thought they could be successful on the level that other cities (in the modern era not the 90s when everything was so screwed up), I'd be all for 3 extra S / SW teams not 3 fewer. But I don't believe that will ever be the case.




On your first point, I can totally understand that and agree with it, but it's a pipe dream. As someone alluded to earlier, the best athletes almost always come from poor neighborhoods, and hockey (like skiing and golf and a few other sports) is expensive. It doesn't have the excluding culture of golf per se, but it's just as expensive if not more so over time. Every time a kid breaks a composite stick, $80 out the window. Need new skates literally every year as the kid's feet grow? $200-$250 easy. New pads? New Pants? Rink fees when practicing on their own? $$$$! Hockey will NEVER be the sport that those poor kids want to play because their poor parents can't and won't foot the bill for it (understandably). I know that's a harsh attitude to take but until someone can make hockey not expensive, all over the country and not just in random pockets where someone like Mario or Sid opens up a charity to give players equipment, it's not going to happen.

Regarding the second point, I'm not 100% sure that having a few extra NHL teams scattered around the south or southwest, is the cause-and-effect required for "hockey rinks to be everywhere, so that no matter where I am there are places for my kid to learn and play". I think it's more complicated than that. A whole series of factors have to line up for the commercial validation of hockey on a community level (i.e. people willing to start businesses and open rinks / leagues in places where there were none previously), in a given state or region. It's a niche sport in this country and most likely always will be because it's not in the collective sports consciousness. American kids aren't told stories about the great Guy LaFleur or Bobby Orr the way they're told about Babe Ruth or Jim Brown or even Jerry West for cryin' out loud. In Canada, it's just the opposite. In Canada it IS the sports culture and as a consequence there are rinks in every single town no matter how small, just like there are baseball diamonds in this country, in every town, no matter how small. We can't undo history and adding NHL teams won't "make a new history" and turn us into "Canada Part II".

My friend and some of their neighbors are the perfect example. He loves sports, loves to play, loves to watch and we even used to skate some in HS. He lives in DETROIT... a place where hockey is a big deal. You know how many regular season Red Wings games he and his buddies watch (living in the one of a half dozen suburbs where people have enough money to pay for tickets and gear)? Like maybe 2, 3 on tv. Then, when the Red Wings get into the playoffs, they watch a little more, then if they get to the Conference Finals, suddenly they start caring and paying attention. And when it's over, they don't think about the Red Wings again until February of the following year. You know how many Lions games they'd watch even when the Lions sucked? All of them. A lot of NHL fans in the US are like this; they're into it when there's no football to watch and their team must be doing well. We're a niche to fill a void in this country, period. Sad but true.

He even has taught his kid to skate and shoot a puck, but do you know what will happen most likely? By the time the kid reaches 9th grade he won't be playing hockey anymore because he won't be able to hack it. The niche-fan parents who have taught their kids to breathe hockey since birth, are going to fill 100% of teh slots on that HS team. And that's the way hockey works and lives in the US. It lives BECAUSE it's a niche... because the people who love it, love it SO much more than other sports, that they constantly are involved with it, and pass it down through generations and entire neighborhoods keep it alive and going when the team isn't doing well.

Hockey is one of those things that some people, they just don't get it. They can't tolerate the randomness of the bouncing puck or the crossbar or the lucky off-skate goals. I have friends that watch hockey and they literally say "this is why hockey sucks; it's luck half the time." They just don't get it. They think ice hockey is air hockey. And they're never going to get it; watching the Winter Classic does not convince them. Watching the Cup does not convince them. They have a football / basketball mindset where total control of the object on the field is required to call it "a real sport". It's hard enough to get a hockey franchise to succeed in a more northern climate (where kids can actually skate more often if they choose to); in markets where people live and breath football from the time they're in pop-warner, it's much much more difficult.

NO I don't think watching and enjoying hockey should be reserved for everyone north of mason-dixon (that's the sarcastic part of my schpiel sometimes). Everyone should enjoy it if they want to. But that doesn't mean everyone should expect their city can support an NHL franchise. Most can't even viably support an AHL franchise south of the line.

I love hockey. I want hockey to be around forever. But I don't kid myself that it will ever be "everywher you go" like Visa or that it will ever enjoy status even remotely similar to the other big three. OR even the PGA. And I'm OK with that. If the league ends up being 20+ teams (whoever said that you were right although 20+ infers I think it would likely be more than 20 -- or "certainly no less than 20" -- hopefully you get that) and remains very healthy and few labor disputes and highly competitive, great. If it ends up being 30 teams and all of that same stuff (through relocation and better management of certain teams), great. What I care about is the quality of the game, not the expansion of it. Like I said, I don't care in 20 years hockey is still off the radar down south. Let them watch HS football instead of hockey. I don't give a ****, as long as the league is in good shape.

Hopefully that's more clear now.
I think I'll wait for the kindle version


SHOOTANDSCORE is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:23 PM
  #556
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,721
vCash: 500
Chancellor, since you're back in the thread, would you mind answering my question from yesterday?

iamjs is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:47 PM
  #557
Superstar Shane
Registered User
 
Superstar Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandshakeLine View Post
The NHL owners filing suit against the union makes it pretty clear that this is not about a CBA or costs or anythign whatsoever. It's an attempt to break the union, pure and simple.
You can't be serious. The NHL would be grossly incompetent if they hadn't filed that lawsuit. Hell, they would have been a bunch of jackasses if they hadn't drafted the suit months ago. If the PA's strategy ended up being successful, the mandatory penalty would be triple the damages. The league would have to pay the players triple their lost salary for any games missed after the union's disclaimer of interest was finalized. How many teams do you suppose would be able to stay in business after that? Half of them maybe? Would Ron Burkle have any desire to stay in the league after paying the team triple their salary after at least one (but more likely two) lost seasons?

But no, you're right. The league probably shouldn't have done anything about it. Sitting back and waiting to see what happens is a much better strategy.

Superstar Shane is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 12:52 PM
  #558
JordanStaal#1Fan
Registered User
 
JordanStaal#1Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,650
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
I've read from several writers I think highly of, that they have heard from many players and they would be happy if the NHL moved to six years on contract length and and slightly with the buyouts, etc.

It's so absurd that both sides can't work this out. I was actually laughing about it yesterday.

It is simply a nutsack kicking contest, but the fans and sponsors are the ones getting screwed.
It is so ridiculous that I reached the point that I wish that it doesn't get resolved until at least January because I want to watch RNH, Huberdeau, Hamilton and Scheiffle play for Team Canada. I know I'll have to wake up at *** 4am, but that's better than this lock out bs.

JordanStaal#1Fan is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 01:08 PM
  #559
JWells16
Registered User
 
JWells16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,392
vCash: 500
On a lighter note, Crosby went to DekStar off of 279 last night and played goalie with a few of my friends... Apparently he got a shut out.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 61824_10151557566448082_1413628040_n.jpg‎ (21.8 KB, 27 views)

JWells16 is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 02:14 PM
  #560
Sour Shoes
lol u mad cam?
 
Sour Shoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: pgh-original 12 Team
Posts: 2,280
vCash: 500
Awesome. sucks, Up until last night, my team has had 3 consecutive Friday games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWells16 View Post
On a lighter note, Crosby went to DekStar off of 279 last night and played goalie with a few of my friends... Apparently he got a shut out.

Sour Shoes is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 03:19 PM
  #561
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordanstaal#1fan View Post
it is so ridiculous that i reached the point that i wish that it doesn't get resolved until at least january because i want to watch rnh, huberdeau, hamilton and scheiffle play for team canada. I know i'll have to wake up at *** 4am, but that's better than this lock out bs.
dvr.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 03:32 PM
  #562
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,084
vCash: 500
Set your watch/calender, in about 2/3 weeks a deal will be reached as they're fallowing the NBA pattern. Somewhat.

They'll get through the holidays, I'm sure most would love to be home for once.

*Stalling*

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 03:55 PM
  #563
Captain Hook
Olli Määttä
 
Captain Hook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 13,389
vCash: 500
Pretty sick of both sides. I still think they'll get a deal done and play at some point but I'll have a hard time getting excited for their half-assed season.

Captain Hook is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 04:13 PM
  #564
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,721
vCash: 500
Agreed. Even watching the replay of the 09 series against the Caps, the feeling for hockey in general (just not the NHL) just isn't there.

iamjs is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 04:13 PM
  #565
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColePens View Post
This week.. completely agree with you. I'm looking at this in sequence and see the NHL owners replying to the idiotic movement by the PA to decertify with their own idiotic movement to file a lawsuit. This was a lost week because neither of these things will work and are complete time wasters. This is where I disagree with both groups and think they are just ****ing over the fan.

What a complete joke this is. A complete joke.
If the league believes the NHLPA is going to disclaim of interest, they would have been stupid to not launch the pre-emtive suit/complaint. Neither these things mean the two will stop negotiating. It's exactly what happened in the NBA labour dispute last year. With that said, while I hope that both sides will be rational with this and eventually come to a deal, this really has the potential to blow up, especially being unsure of Fehr's endgame.

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 04:17 PM
  #566
penguins2946*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,889
vCash: 500
I don't know what I'm more disappointed in, the fact that there is a lockout or the fact that they are too stubborn/stupid to figure out how to end it.

penguins2946* is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 05:49 PM
  #567
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 31,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
OK so I'll use Ogre's well written points to have my final clarification here so you guy don't think I hate southern hockey fans or something. Because I don't. If I thought they could be successful on the level that other cities (in the modern era not the 90s when everything was so screwed up), I'd be all for 3 extra S / SW teams not 3 fewer. But I don't believe that will ever be the case.




On your first point, I can totally understand that and agree with it, but it's a pipe dream. As someone alluded to earlier, the best athletes almost always come from poor neighborhoods, and hockey (like skiing and golf and a few other sports) is expensive. It doesn't have the excluding culture of golf per se, but it's just as expensive if not more so over time. Every time a kid breaks a composite stick, $80 out the window. Need new skates literally every year as the kid's feet grow? $200-$250 easy. New pads? New Pants? Rink fees when practicing on their own? $$$$! Hockey will NEVER be the sport that those poor kids want to play because their poor parents can't and won't foot the bill for it (understandably). I know that's a harsh attitude to take but until someone can make hockey not expensive, all over the country and not just in random pockets where someone like Mario or Sid opens up a charity to give players equipment, it's not going to happen.

Regarding the second point, I'm not 100% sure that having a few extra NHL teams scattered around the south or southwest, is the cause-and-effect required for "hockey rinks to be everywhere, so that no matter where I am there are places for my kid to learn and play". I think it's more complicated than that. A whole series of factors have to line up for the commercial validation of hockey on a community level (i.e. people willing to start businesses and open rinks / leagues in places where there were none previously), in a given state or region. It's a niche sport in this country and most likely always will be because it's not in the collective sports consciousness. American kids aren't told stories about the great Guy LaFleur or Bobby Orr the way they're told about Babe Ruth or Jim Brown or even Jerry West for cryin' out loud. In Canada, it's just the opposite. In Canada it IS the sports culture and as a consequence there are rinks in every single town no matter how small, just like there are baseball diamonds in this country, in every town, no matter how small. We can't undo history and adding NHL teams won't "make a new history" and turn us into "Canada Part II".

My friend and some of their neighbors are the perfect example. He loves sports, loves to play, loves to watch and we even used to skate some in HS. He lives in DETROIT... a place where hockey is a big deal. You know how many regular season Red Wings games he and his buddies watch (living in the one of a half dozen suburbs where people have enough money to pay for tickets and gear)? Like maybe 2, 3 on tv. Then, when the Red Wings get into the playoffs, they watch a little more, then if they get to the Conference Finals, suddenly they start caring and paying attention. And when it's over, they don't think about the Red Wings again until February of the following year. You know how many Lions games they'd watch even when the Lions sucked? All of them. A lot of NHL fans in the US are like this; they're into it when there's no football to watch and their team must be doing well. We're a niche to fill a void in this country, period. Sad but true.

He even has taught his kid to skate and shoot a puck, but do you know what will happen most likely? By the time the kid reaches 9th grade he won't be playing hockey anymore because he won't be able to hack it. The niche-fan parents who have taught their kids to breathe hockey since birth, are going to fill 100% of teh slots on that HS team. And that's the way hockey works and lives in the US. It lives BECAUSE it's a niche... because the people who love it, love it SO much more than other sports, that they constantly are involved with it, and pass it down through generations and entire neighborhoods keep it alive and going when the team isn't doing well.

Hockey is one of those things that some people, they just don't get it. They can't tolerate the randomness of the bouncing puck or the crossbar or the lucky off-skate goals. I have friends that watch hockey and they literally say "this is why hockey sucks; it's luck half the time." They just don't get it. They think ice hockey is air hockey. And they're never going to get it; watching the Winter Classic does not convince them. Watching the Cup does not convince them. They have a football / basketball mindset where total control of the object on the field is required to call it "a real sport". It's hard enough to get a hockey franchise to succeed in a more northern climate (where kids can actually skate more often if they choose to); in markets where people live and breath football from the time they're in pop-warner, it's much much more difficult.

NO I don't think watching and enjoying hockey should be reserved for everyone north of mason-dixon (that's the sarcastic part of my schpiel sometimes). Everyone should enjoy it if they want to. But that doesn't mean everyone should expect their city can support an NHL franchise. Most can't even viably support an AHL franchise south of the line.

I love hockey. I want hockey to be around forever. But I don't kid myself that it will ever be "everywher you go" like Visa or that it will ever enjoy status even remotely similar to the other big three. OR even the PGA. And I'm OK with that. If the league ends up being 20+ teams (whoever said that you were right although 20+ infers I think it would likely be more than 20 -- or "certainly no less than 20" -- hopefully you get that) and remains very healthy and few labor disputes and highly competitive, great. If it ends up being 30 teams and all of that same stuff (through relocation and better management of certain teams), great. What I care about is the quality of the game, not the expansion of it. Like I said, I don't care in 20 years hockey is still off the radar down south. Let them watch HS football instead of hockey. I don't give a ****, as long as the league is in good shape.

Hopefully that's more clear now.
perfectly clear. I still completely disagree with you

When going on the assumptions that its a pipe dream that southern markets can be successful and that the best athletes come from poor neighborhoods, your points all make sense. I just don't agree with either of those assumptions. That's where we disagree.

I don't think there's nearly enough evidence to support the idea that most of the southern teams can't become good hockey markets. We've been over this quite a few times before so I'm not repeating it all.

Sure, more people will always be able to play cheaper sports because rich and poor people can play them. But more people playing hockey will increase the odds of great athletes playing hockey even if its just because more rich people are choosing it over other sports. Its not like being poor makes someone a better athlete. Rich kids play sports too and they can be just as good at them as poor kids.

Markets with NHL teams absolutely have more hockey rinks than markets with NHL teams. There is a very strong correlation there. The more popular the sport is to watch, the more popular it is to play. Allowing the game to grow in as many areas as possible will cause it to become more popular. It might not become Canada, but it will be better than it is now.

Really, I just don't get your mentality that hockey is and always will be a niche sport. Things change. But not by reinforcing the idea that hockey is canada's game by moving teams from the south back to canada or even northern USA. We just completely disagree about the foundation of this argument. Any tertiary points are meaningless to argue.

Ogrezilla is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 06:15 PM
  #568
KaylaJ
Honey Bun
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 13,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
Most can't even viably support an AHL franchise south of the line.
Cause y'know, no Northern location has ever lost an AHL team or had attendance problems ahem. For what it's worth Abbotsford is better, but still in the bottom 10 this season along with Connecticut and Albany while two teams from Texas once again sit in the top 10. AHL attendance just in case you'd like to brush up on that is here.

-Before you bring it up, OKC is a newer location (they're in their 3rd season) and because of where they are will take time to grow. I know this may come as a shock but eventually if things go well, they too can become a better location.

Also something I noticed in my personal experience, just cause you have NHL players during a lockout, it doesn't always help. People will say "but they have Hall and they have Eberle, and they have RNH" etc, but I remember during the last lockout when we had some pretty high prospects and it was just meh. What happens in the CBA negotiations really can hit the markets (some for the better) and keep people away. Like I said though, it doesn't have to be a long term thing and with a few winning seasons things can change.


Last edited by KaylaJ: 12-15-2012 at 06:27 PM.
KaylaJ is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 07:35 PM
  #569
Big McLargehuge
Moderator
Buff Drinklots
 
Big McLargehuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Germany
Posts: 53,583
vCash: 422
Let's face reality here, people.


__________________
“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent. If we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death, our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” - Stanley Kubrick
http://sprites.pokecheck.org/i/054.gif
Big McLargehuge is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 07:37 PM
  #570
penguins2946*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,889
vCash: 500
Okay who went full panda? Here's a Gary Bettman panda:


penguins2946* is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 07:52 PM
  #571
Burgs
Registered User
 
Burgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaJ View Post
Before you bring it up, OKC is a newer location (they're in their 3rd season) and because of where they are will take time to grow. I know this may come as a shock but eventually if things go well, they too can become a better location.
OKC is a strange case, though, in that they used to be a successful southern market - one that lost fans after moving up in league quality. The Blazers were a top CHL team in the '90s and '00s, averaging over 8,000 a game as recently as five years ago. They folded rather suddenly in 2009 and a year later the Barons started in the AHL, but in an older, smaller arena and at half their old attendance numbers. Two years later they've dropped to last in the league. Something can't be right there. Maybe ticket prices are too high because the team should be attractive to watch. They made the conference finals last season and now are middle of the pack with some top Oilers prospects.

Burgs is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 09:31 PM
  #572
KaylaJ
Honey Bun
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 13,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burgs View Post
OKC is a strange case, though, in that they used to be a successful southern market - one that lost fans after moving up in league quality. The Blazers were a top CHL team in the '90s and '00s, averaging over 8,000 a game as recently as five years ago. They folded rather suddenly in 2009 and a year later the Barons started in the AHL, but in an older, smaller arena and at half their old attendance numbers. Two years later they've dropped to last in the league. Something can't be right there. Maybe ticket prices are too high because the team should be attractive to watch. They made the conference finals last season and now are middle of the pack with some top Oilers prospects.
Oddly enough, a lot of what happened to them happened here in SA as well. We had the CHL Iguanas for about 7 seasons (non consecutively as the IHL was brought in during the middle) and while the crowds weren't huge, there was still a pretty good build up. It was almost like a niche thing and you knew certain people. When the Rampage were brought in not everyone was all that thrilled about it cause they felt the Iguanas were more local, cheaper, and just a better deal. It took a few years (AHL records only go back to the 05-06 season but that season and the next the Rampage were in the bottom 10 of league attendance til they started to move up) but I think once people saw the AHL had stability and the theme nights getting different people out you could see the change.

Also, last lockout we had Bouwmeester and Weiss, which now I know isn't like Hall, Eberle, and Hopkins, but because of the whole crap fans were going through, it wasn't as easy to go. The players are good, but not all of them who know they should be in the NHL are going to give it their all or will be too happy being there. Personally I was glad when Bouwmeester was loaned off to Chicago by the end of it.

Finally I think the Rampage really benefit from being owned by the Spurs. They play in the same arena and the Spurs have always been about getting the athletes out into the community and you can see that with the AHL & WNBA. While the Barons & Thunder arenas are pretty close I believe, there is nothing better when you can remind people to go to hockey games and get their stuff in the pro shop. Add into that the Rampage had rivals in Houston and eventually Texas, and while OKC could be a potential, it hasn't had time to really build up just yet.

Needless to say who knows what could happen in that situation. Their attendance does seem to be holding steady from last year to this year and maybe a few more winning seasons will help. It would be interesting to know from fans what the scene is really like and if it is growing or what.

KaylaJ is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 09:38 PM
  #573
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,721
vCash: 500
but....but hockey is only supposed to be in the north.

iamjs is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 09:42 PM
  #574
KaylaJ
Honey Bun
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 13,955
vCash: 500
Back to the CBA subject at hand though...


Let's see a panda do that!

But seriously who knows where we go from here. I know people like to bring up the NBA but keep the owners didn't want to lose their cash cow Christmas day. The NHL has no such date anymore. Also the players were divided on the next step as evidence from the MN team rep saying so. Needless to say when the NBA reps voted to begin the process and didn't even poll their membership, not all players were giddy.

Maybe they're continuing to talk behind closed doors and in a few weeks we'll get a Christmas gift, but I still think this is all about last time and I'll stay pessimistic.

KaylaJ is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 09:44 PM
  #575
Gooch
Registered User
 
Gooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Coeur d'Alene Idaho
Country: United States
Posts: 13,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burgs View Post
OKC is a strange case, though, in that they used to be a successful southern market - one that lost fans after moving up in league quality. The Blazers were a top CHL team in the '90s and '00s, averaging over 8,000 a game as recently as five years ago. They folded rather suddenly in 2009 and a year later the Barons started in the AHL, but in an older, smaller arena and at half their old attendance numbers. Two years later they've dropped to last in the league. Something can't be right there. Maybe ticket prices are too high because the team should be attractive to watch. They made the conference finals last season and now are middle of the pack with some top Oilers prospects.
I find lower leagues to be more enjoyable than the AHL. For one there is just too much player turnover in the AHL, also there isnt a full commitment to winning as a big priority is development of players. One of my greatest hockey fan experiences was when the UHL had a team in Danbury CT. The team was called the Trashers and the mascot was a freakin' trash can, how awesome is that? The players there were all non prospects and they were either bouncing around on different teams within the league itself but you didnt worry about the roster changing all that much. The team had it's own identity as well whereas the AHL team basically has more of an identity with it's parent club.

Gooch is online now  
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 10:31 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.