Can you imagine if the lockout was last season? We'd still be waiting for a cup.
Who's losing out on a cup this year? There's a lot of really good teams that haven't won in a while, and the lockout is potentially robbing their fanbase of a championship.
Can you imagine if the lockout was last season? We'd still be waiting for a cup.
Who's losing out on a cup this year? There's a lot of really good teams that haven't won in a while, and the lockout is potentially robbing their fanbase of a championship.
Yeah I know I gave you a hard time before but it is basically up to the user to decide what they want to believe and what they don't. As I said before, and no disrespect meant, but I'll believe there is a resolution to this when there are NHL players on the ice. Until then, I don't care what anyone says because to me it is meaningless until hockey is actually being played.
Just like the old Eklund spiel, people can choose to believe what they want and if they don't like it, don't read it. They are entitled to disagree but there is no reason to attack anyone especially when there are people interested in reading what you have to say.
The same goes for the players on twitter. I don't care what their opinion of the matter is. Quite frankly, I agree with the guytwo posts above me (HockeyCA )who I've disagreed with during the course of this. It is beyond ridiculous that we are on the verge of losing another season and ALL of us should really vote with our wallets when this is eventually resolvd. We all need to make a statement that makes them think next time a CBA expires and make them all regret they did this. I know this is a lot of hot air (errr.. keystokes) but I'm sticking to my word. Zero dollars will be spent on the NHL when it returns for a full season. It is a matter of principal at this point. What really sucks is seeing fans argue with each other over somethnig none of us have a stake in. I think Tikkanen said it best when he said he is a hockey fan and doesn't care about the business side. I don't care what is right and what is wrong because i have no dog in the fight other than the game. I don't care if the players get 2% of the revenue. Boohoo! I don't care if the owners are bleeding money. Figure this **** out or become irrelavant. Seems like they are choosing the latter over the former.
No troubles Buddy at all. You and I have a solid history and you would have to flat out tell me we had a problem before I would know.
I always assume that everyone is just having fun or letting off steam until they make it clear that they aren't.
I would also say that I haven't been wrong on the info that I have posted yet. Nothing happens in a vacuum and I have no control of the outcome of anything that I am passing along here. Its just stuff I hear in passing and post here.
This is a tuff situation but like I said last week (and also over the past couple of days) when the PA passes the DOI (and the decertification vote) it will only hasten a deal.
I remain optimistic both because of what I know personally and what I hear.
Take that with a boxer rebellion sized pasle of salt and two hail Mary's (or whatever else you hail) but that is what I have said all along and will say until they say otherwise.
Here's to hoping I am write about the league and the PA being smart enough to know that anything other than a resolution will end this entire thing forever for allot of people. Fans players owners and more.
I know that allot of us here will think that the league canceling games through to the 14th of January looks like it will cause an end to the season and preclude them from starting play any sooner and you may be right but, this is also a way to force negotiations and not only had been discussed and reported as a probability (prior to the NHLPA announcing their vote in favor of a DOI or more which should come along asap) over the last several days.
The NHL is aware that the NHLPA has the vote that they needed and did what they could do to try and place as much pressure as possible on the PA as expected.
Quote:
Several players have confirmed to TSN that the NHL Players' Association's membership voted 706-22 on Friday to give the union the power to file a disclaimer of interest by Jan. 2.
Why would you not vote for something the guy you hired , say's will get you a deal faster ?
The 700 yes votes are not a shocker, the 22 no votes are.
I was surprised at the 22 also as I had heard it was a unanimous decision. I guess that large of a majority sounds like it is but really, 22 no's as really interesting to me.
People are posting a short list of names around but I haven't heard rather or not it is true or accurate.
Next up is Bettman's drop dead date to get this deal done.....the sooner that happens, the better.
I agree axl.
Hey I have a question for you, you seem to think that our Kings are or were "streaky" this past season and I pointed out by posting factual statistics to support my position that we weren't a together team until we a, got a new coach who brought in a more open system and b, made a significant deal that brought us a greater amount of offencive threat and one that has speed enough to force opposing D to have to play back zone pressure systems (can't just stand up at the blue line like they could when we were a slower team) which also forced them (our opponents) to have to spread out their D giving all of our players a better opportunity to create offence.
That is why I believe that Dustin Brown scored 8 of his 22 goals and 15 of his 32 assists in 16 games that Carter played in and was responsible for his resurgence.
I didn't see your response to my post which admittedly wasn't as detailed as this one but I did post the stats and believe that my position was implied (sorry for not posting in further depth).
I am curious to what your response to this would be?
Is this relevant to the lock out? I think so in that it shows the way that each of us see the team, its structure and the manner in which it is run on the ice and if we understand each other on that aspect of the game then maybe we can better understand each other in other areas.
I will be interested to see your take on this.
Last edited by TonySCV: 12-22-2012 at 01:24 PM.
Reason: quoting of a deleted post removed.
globehockey 11:23am via dlvr.it
Why a short NHL season isn’t a sham http://t.co/zFINQRpJ #hockey
mirtle 11:43am via TweetDeck
As @HockeyLegends points out, NHL would be smart to play 50 games and hope to maybe somehow get a 50-in-50 chase out of it.
I still think that we will see a 42 games season but the popular numbers are 50 and 48 for obvious reasons. The clock is definitely ticking though. These two are interesting reads.
This lockout has not been about the cap, at all actually. It has been about the split of revenues, and now its about player contracting rights. The NHL already has a pretty hard cap. A soft cap is the NBA approach, which allows you to go over, but you are taxed punitively.
Which is a main reason the NBA contines to suck.
It's just class warfare and a tiered system, 75% of the teams just go thru the motions of playing a season.
game. set. match....
Honestly how exciting is the nba?
League revenues, and popularity in the United States, is at an all time high for the NBA. You are arguing a minority position... Which is fine, I like the NHL better than the NBA too, obviously. But to say the NBA model is broken, or worse, is ludicrous. In fact the NHL would be wise to borrow some of the positions taken by the NBA, in terms of league marketability, and the Television personalities on it's nationally televised broadcasts. Have you seen the guys who run the intermission reports on NBC sports, and NBC during the playoffs? I think I could do a better job, makes the NHL look like a Mickey Mouse League. That is just my own personal opinion, however.
League revenues, and popularity in the United States, is at an all time high for the NBA. You are arguing a minority position... Which is fine, I like the NHL better than the NBA too, obviously. But to say the NBA model is broken, or worse, is ludicrous. In fact the NHL would be wise to borrow some of the positions taken by the NBA, in terms of league marketability, and the Television personalities on it's nationally televised broadcasts. Have you seen the guys who run the intermission reports on NBC sports, and NBC during the playoffs? I think I could do a better job, makes the NHL look like a Mickey Mouse League. That is just my own personal opinion, however.
The NBA is nowhere near as popular right now as it was in the 80's and 90's. They might be making more $$$ now, but that's because everything is more expensive. TV ratings now are dwarfed by those in the late 80's and 90's.
Personally, I think their financial model sucks. The haves and have nots are obvious before the seasons even start. But, I would love for the NHL to pickup some marketing tips from the NBA. There is great visibility and they do everything they can to push their telecasts. If there is one thing to be taken from the NBA, it's definitely the marketing.
The NBA is nowhere near as popular right now as it was in the 80's and 90's. They might be making more $$$ now, but that's because everything is more expensive. TV ratings now are dwarfed by those in the late 80's and 90's.
Personally, I think their financial model sucks. The haves and have nots are obvious before the seasons even start. But, I would love for the NHL to pickup some marketing tips from the NBA. There is great visibility and they do everything they can to push their telecasts. If there is one thing to be taken from the NBA, it's definitely the marketing.
Bigger markets will always have an inherent advantage over every other market. That is never going to change. Television ratings I would argue are now a misnomer. They are down across the board, because of both the internet and DVR recordings.
I would also say their financial model is quite sound. How many teams do we hear about that needs an infusion of cash, needs to be relocated, or is under the threat of contraction? I would say at this point in time, that answer would be zero.
I haven't been closely following the lockout, but I was wondering - do the owners and players still talk about their "partnership"? Regardless of the answer, what they're doing hardly seems to be any kind of genuine partnership.
Why does our society insist on only using one basic business model, that being one of constant adversarial conflict? One side versus the other. Win or lose. How hard could it possibly be to devise a system where all involved equally share responsibility, financial and otherwise, for the benefit of everyone.
Bigger markets will always have an inherent advantage over every other market. That is never going to change. Television ratings I would argue are now a misnomer. They are down across the board, because of both the internet and DVR recordings.
I would also say their financial model is quite sound. How many teams do we hear about that needs an infusion of cash, needs to be relocated, or is under the threat of contraction? I would say at this point in time, that answer would be zero.
Not many people watch on the internet, and Nielsen has been taking DVR's into account for a while now. Even then, the ratings were way higher, not just a little. Nearly double. Also, in the 80's not everyone had cable or a dish, so you could argue that the ratings would have been even higher. I will say Basketball is starting to grow in popularity again, but it's still has a long way to go to get close to how popular it was 20 years ago.
A sound financial model? In the last 10 years, one NHL franchise has relocated. Over the same time period, four NBA franchises have relocated, one this year.
Not many people watch on the internet, and Nielsen has been taking DVR's into account for a while now. Even then, the ratings were way higher, not just a little. Nearly double. Also, in the 80's not everyone had cable or a dish, so you could argue that the ratings would have been even higher. I will say Basketball is starting to grow in popularity again, but it's still has a long way to go to get close to how popular it was 20 years ago.
A sound financial model? In the last 10 years, one NHL franchise has relocated. Over the same time period, four NBA franchises have relocated, one this year.
Not to mention soon here another one will as well.
Cause Seattle is going to get an NBA team back, and I don't think they will expand.
Going to be the Hawks,Bucks, or Kings.
The NBA has a better model now, but it's still not ideal.
MLB has an awful model, that's why fans have never returned pretty much.
MLB will be the first sports bubble ever to pop. If the Yankee's/Redsox+(top Five teams) ever have a bad Financial stretch....That league is screwed.
Last edited by damacles1156: 12-22-2012 at 11:07 PM.
Not many people watch on the internet, and Nielsen has been taking DVR's into account for a while now. Even then, the ratings were way higher, not just a little. Nearly double. Also, in the 80's not everyone had cable or a dish, so you could argue that the ratings would have been even higher. I will say Basketball is starting to grow in popularity again, but it's still has a long way to go to get close to how popular it was 20 years ago.
A sound financial model? In the last 10 years, one NHL franchise has relocated. Over the same time period, four NBA franchises have relocated, one this year.
The NBA last year had 5 billion dollars in league revenue, an all time high. I am not going to argue about whether in "society" the NBA was more popular in the 1980's.. That is much more abstract, although I may agree that was the case. I am talking dollars and cents, and even adjusting for inflation, the NBA has never made more money. I also think it would be very difficult to argue that the NBA, generally, is in a worse place than the NHL, as the NHL has now threatened to cancel two entire seasons due to franchises who are supposedly in dire financial conditions.
ALSO, the franchises that have moved in the NBA did so because, in part, because they were unable to secure new home Arena contracts with their respective cities. I am talking about Seattle, and potentially Sacramento, as both of those cities had/have die hard fan bases. New Orleans and Vancouver may have been a different story. Anyways, my point is the NBA is in a relatively sound financial place, and if we want to believe what Gary Bettman and collective ownership keep relaying to us there are a bunch of NHL franchises that are not.. Supposedly.
The NBA is a league where the stars are marketed because they play 40+ minutes per game. The superstars is what makes the NBA popular.
For the NHL to be successful the game must be marketed. The NHL needs to follow the NFL blueprint. While the NFL has its stars, the concept of on any given Sunday any team can win is the main thing.
Competition is what people really want to see in team sports IMO.
Can't follow the NFL model, they have things figured out perfectly. Perfect level of supply with high demand for it, they have found a way to turn a weekly game into a weekly event. Short of chopping games from the schedule, not possible for any league to recreate.
I don't think there's any way to make the NHL a more popular league, rather than let evolution take place. Hockey will take fans from baseball over time, until then, the NHL is going to have financial problems and a revenue shortage in comparison to other leagues. That's the reality of the situation. Honestly, short of forcing rules upon the league that create a more high scoring game, there's not a lot you can do. Most people prefer instant gratification, which comes in sports that have game changing plays happen at a rapid pace, whether those be sacks, dunks, touchdowns, three pointers, first downs. There's nothing that can be brought to hockey to make that happen in our game, nor should the game be changed to accommodate that.
Can't follow the NFL model, they have things figured out perfectly. Perfect level of supply with high demand for it, they have found a way to turn a weekly game into a weekly event. Short of chopping games from the schedule, not possible for any league to recreate.
I don't think there's any way to make the NHL a more popular league, rather than let evolution take place. Hockey will take fans from baseball over time, until then, the NHL is going to have financial problems and a revenue shortage in comparison to other leagues. That's the reality of the situation. Honestly, short of forcing rules upon the league that create a more high scoring game, there's not a lot you can do. Most people prefer instant gratification, which comes in sports that have game changing plays happen at a rapid pace, whether those be sacks, dunks, touchdowns, three pointers, first downs. There's nothing that can be brought to hockey to make that happen in our game, nor should the game be changed to accommodate that.
Agree with everything you said except hockey taking fans from baseball...they don't overlap in league play enough for this to happen.
Agree with everything you said except hockey taking fans from baseball...they don't overlap in league play enough for this to happen.
I mean that in the sense of younger fans not gravitating to baseball as they did in the past are going to go somewhere. Hockey, as with every other sport will take their share.
I mean that in the sense of younger fans not gravitating to baseball as they did in the past are going to go somewhere. Hockey, as with every other sport will take their share.
Not just younger...I have totally lost my interest in baseball due to its boring nature and I have no idea who is juicing anymore.
