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

LeBrun: 10 ways to recover from lockout

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-26-2012, 11:53 PM
  #51
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Well the quality hockey can be demonstrated immediately, once play begins. And certainly that would be the best remedy.
As for avoiding further labor lockouts, the fans would need to wait to see about that; unless the League and players could manage to come up with a formula to directly state to the fans that future lockouts won't happen because such and such a formula will be used until a deal is established. What such a formula would be, which wouldn't disadantage one side or the other during the negotiation time, I can't imagine what it could be.
You're overthinking it.

The solution is simple. The short term remedy is good high quality hockey, getting the storylines going again, everything that brought people in to begin with, *will* bring the lion's share of them back. Stability over multiple years will bring the rest back and more.

I think a lot of hard core fans overestimate the impact of labor disputes TBH. Yes there's a fair sized short term impact most of the time, but recovery within in a few years is the exception rather than the rule. The only time I've ever seen a strike really cripple a league is when Don Fehr cost MLB its playoffs because they decided to play without a CBA. That was a killer because of the lost playoffs, not necessarily because of the labor dispute.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:04 AM
  #52
Baby Punisher
Registered User
 
Baby Punisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 2,745
vCash: 500
I'm really not a fan of the shootout. I would rather see a 10 minute 5/5 sudden death OT.

Baby Punisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:48 AM
  #53
Hull and Oates
Registered User
 
Hull and Oates's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 80
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post

I'd prefer the divisions go back to their old names, too. Smythe, Patrick, Adams and Norris.
This, this, a thousand times this. The names may be slightly arcane to the casual fan, but it's one of those things that made the game we all love unique.

I'm also in favor of anything that limits the number of shootouts. 3 on 3 may be a gimmick, but it's still much more exciting than the equivalent of ending a baseball game with a home run hitting contest.

Hull and Oates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 04:34 AM
  #54
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 508
1. the BofG fires Bettman and PA fires both Fehrs
2. both sides hires someone with the mandate to forge a relationship of cooperation. and
3. they are told that, with the new position, they are to adopt the philosophy that NOT PLAYING THE GAMES IS AN ABJECT FAILURE ON YOUR PART AND GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL!!!!!

this is the root of the problem with this league. all parties involved do not see a lockout or strike as a failure. it is simple a tactic to get what you want.


there is not much they can do other than have a length CBA agreement, and just ride out the tough times. they are in for a rough ride, at least for this year, and beyond if they gas the season in 2 weeks. there is going to be alot of boos, nasty signs and ice litter

Up the Irons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 04:42 AM
  #55
Fat Jughead
Registered User
 
Fat Jughead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Milbury
Country: United States
Posts: 1,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucky_Hoyt View Post
Lots of ideas to ponder but probably just more 'copy' for LeBrun than any real and practical thought put into changing the game.

Re-alignment is a no-brainer and others I see with 'some' feasibility are:

Challenge Play. 1 per game, per team asking for instant video review on a specific play that can be rescinded. Have an eye-in-the sky cam like they do for goal judges.

Need this 1. Too much stuff gets messed up not to have at least 1 challenge.

Suspensions. Especially for late hits/dangerous conduct on ice. Concussions are crippling the game and it has to be curbed as best as possible. Maybe even matching time off for the culprit or not being paid or even booting them out of the league. No Union = no guaranteed salary during suspensions.

Shanahan was on the right path when he started, but his stance significantly softened as the season went on. Some of the same old problems started cropping up, particularly in the playoffs; like stars not being subject to the same disciplinary measures as the rest of the league. That will never change until an outside 3rd party is put in charge of disciplining the players. The league has too much to lose, therefore should not be in charge of disciplining it's talent.

The players really do have to make this easier on themselves though. I don't know why they refuse to take any responsibility in all of this. They'd rather just play hard and let someone else worry about it I guess. Hockey players have never been real bright, but this generation has some real meat heads flying around at top speed in full body armor. Maybe taking some of that body armor away will smarten em up a bit. Get smart, or get hurt and then get smart.

Overtime. Has become a gimmick since the whole 4 on 4 idea came through all those years ago. Personally, I liked Win/Loss/Tie stats and am tired of 3-point games. 5-10 minutes of regular 5 on 5 OT was fine. Not likely they revert back to WLT (as it has helped pad declining goal stats) but I think OT will be re-visited in some way, hopefully not with even more gimmicky crap like 3 on 3 or maybe they just call tie after 3 periods? Personally, I would love it if they had a full 4th period of sudden-death. Probably would discourage teams gunning for ties.

I don't really have a problem with O.T. and the shootout as it stands. I remember what O.T. used to look like, and this is definitely better. At least it's an ending in a timely fashion. Some of us can't or don't want to stay out all damn night watching a prolonged trap fest.

If anything, I'd like to see them award 3 points for regulation wins, and then 5 min O.T. winner gets 2 points, or just end the game at a tie after 60 min. The season's already too damn long, and the last thing I want to see is my team have to play a full O.T. period right in the middle of a long road trip.

Screw it. I don't have a problem with a tie if that's how they want it. Just don't try and make me watch extra time where both teams just turtle up and protect their point. They're already going to do that half way threw the 3rd, lol! No thank you on longer O.T.

Net Sizes. Probably no change for now but considering drop-off in goals (even with gimmicks like OT padding goal stats) maybe it is time to look at widening them a little bit. Equipment has evolved for players and the game is much faster than 30 years ago. Pitchers mounds have changed, 3-point lines have been established and moved. Red and Blue lines have been adjusted in the NHL too. Let's increase nets to match increase in goalie padding and see if goal numbers increase a bit.

Agreed. Everything else is changing. Why not this?

International Play. Winter Olympics is closest thing to a true World Cup for hockey. Best exposure the game gets internationally. Yes, it extends a season but dump the ASG or Winter Classic those years. IMHO, no one cares about the ASG and it seems to get dropped every 8 years now anyway due to labor disputes :-). Maybe dump ASG all-together or put it on at the end of the year like the NFL does and mix ASG with Awards as no one cares about the Awards either.

Can't stand ASG. But it's for kids, so what the hell...

If they ever want to make it so grownups want to watch it, they need to somehow make the players want to play the game the right way. As it stands, they don't have any incentive whatsoever to go out there and bring it, aside from a game bonus which amounts to a drop in the bucket to most of these guys. Maybe taking the NHL players out of the game altogether is the answer. Give the game to players who actually need that game bonus. Maybe combine the ASG weekend to incorporate all levels of hockey, and let the AHL guys or the Juniors go out there and hammer on eachother for 50k (or whatever that bonus amounts to). Keep the big boys around for the skill competition, and that's it.

Season length. Again, not likely to be changed. Would have preferred it never went to 82 and unlikely to reduce but at least re-tweaked for start/finish times. Training Camp/Preseason Sept. 1st - Sept 30th. Reg. Season Oct 1st - Mar 31st. Playoffs April 1st - May 31st. Max of 8 pre-season games. Reg season would mean 13.66 games per team/month. Reg Season could end mid-April and playoffs mid-June in Olympic years as it already does now.

That would help keep the players a little more fresh. Good luck convincing owners to eat more operating costs to facilitate what amounts to a longer season for them.

Labor Negotiations. Assuming bargaining remains collective, set for 8 year intervals with a set negotiation window (end of year 6 to end of year 7). Have agreement Auto-renew unless new arrangement is made by end of negotiation window. AND, instigate that there will be NO WORK STOPPAGES going forward by either players or owners.

In a perfect world my friend, in a perfect world. Too bad our world is run by lawyers and other slime who have figured out how to profit from these disputes.
Multi quote is too hard for Blackberry to run apparently

Fat Jughead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:08 AM
  #56
JmanWingsFan
Your average Jman
 
JmanWingsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere
Country: United States
Posts: 4,467
vCash: 500
Another idea that makes OT more exciting... Get rid of the loser point. Teams are forced to play for the two points or go home empty handed.

JmanWingsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:16 AM
  #57
IkeaMonkey*
HF Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: derderderderderderde
Country: Sao Tome e Principe
Posts: 12,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JmanWingsFan View Post
Another idea that makes OT more exciting... Get rid of the loser point. Teams are forced to play for the two points or go home empty handed.
I've always said this. The main retort from the other side is, "BUT THEY DIDN'T LOSE THE GAME IN REGULATION!!@121".

It's just like, WTF, they didn't win it either, so why do we give them anything? We live in a pathetic "everyone gets a medal" society.

IkeaMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:18 AM
  #58
JmanWingsFan
Your average Jman
 
JmanWingsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere
Country: United States
Posts: 4,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
One of the worst realignment proposals I've ever seen

I personally like having 4 8-team divisions and divisional playoffs. I grew up with that in the 80s ... when divisions meant something.

Smythe
1 Vancouver
2 Edmonton
3 Calgary
4 Winnipeg
5 Minnesota
6 Chicago
7 Detroit
8 Colorado

Patrick
1 Philly
2 Pittsburgh
3 Columbus
4 Washington
5 Carolina
6 Florida
7 Tampa


Adams
1 Montreal
2 Ottawa
3 Toronto
4 Boston
5 Buffalo
6 Rangers
7 Islanders
8 Devils

Norris
1 San Jose
2 Los Angeles
3 Anaheim
4 Phoenix
5 Dallas
6 St. Louis
7 Nashville


I'd prefer the divisions go back to their old names, too. Smythe, Patrick, Adams and Norris.
Replace Vancouver and Colorado with Nashville and St. Louis in their respective divisions and you're good... Though I'd prefer to keep the current playoff format...

JmanWingsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:20 AM
  #59
pfp
Registered User
 
pfp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Punisher View Post
I'm really not a fan of the shootout. I would rather see a 10 minute 5/5 sudden death OT.
Definitely ditch the shootout.
They way they handle OT in the playoffs works just fine for me.

And please get rid of the darn 3 point games. A game should be worth a set number of points.

pfp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:50 AM
  #60
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfp View Post
Definitely ditch the shootout.
They way they handle OT in the playoffs works just fine for me.

And please get rid of the darn 3 point games. A game should be worth a set number of points.
Be much simpler if every game could be a 3 point game. That would make a great deal more sense with the shootout/overtime formula. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an overtime or shootout win, 1 point for an OTL or shootout loss. Something to fight for in OT, while at the same time, fighting to break the deadlock in a tie game is something that would happen because of the extra point at stake.

Couldn't you just see a team fighting for its life in the stretch run, pull the goaltender with 2 minutes to go in a tie game because they NEED that third point to hold position in the standings? Talk about excitement, that'd be 2 minutes of life and death hockey with an entire region holding its breath.

And I like making sure overtime has a definite end. Some of those freakshow games in MLB that go into the 22nd inning are fun as a historical curio, but I hate myself the next morning when I feel I need to try and watch them.

The shootout really is the best way to make sure the game ends on some kind of timely basis. At least it's a tiebreaker based on some kind of individual hockey skills. I consider it both practical and interesting -- and in order to keep it both, the tiebreaker point needs to be awarded.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:53 AM
  #61
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Punisher View Post
I'm really not a fan of the shootout. I would rather see a 10 minute 5/5 sudden death OT.
I'd take it even further: play OT's until there is a winner. Is this a manly man's sport or not? They allow fighting, but oh no, the poor players might get too tired and injured if we ask them to play for another 5 or 10 minutes. Screw that, play til there is a winner.

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:58 AM
  #62
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
I disagree when it comes to the regular season. The playoffs is another animal, and I'm glad they'll never put the shootout in the playoffs, but I'm glad it's there in the RS.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 11:18 AM
  #63
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan98 View Post
Why don't you change the east west format to a north south format instead? Why not require Boston to travel to Vancouver? Why not let Toronto be in a division with the Avalanche.
Your geography is ridiculous..... You might want to look at a map.
Do You have any idea of the idea of how far the travel is in your Dallas, Nashville, chicago, Calgary Anaheim?

and your division Bw..... has teams in the eastern, pacific and central time zone....
Yea, pretty much does suck, doesn't it. I thought about it more, about how to eliminate that 4-TZ Division while still keeping the general idea, but it just can't be done. The West really doesn't offer a lot of options for realignment. Anyway, if you wish to continue this discussion, let's go to a realignment thread:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1298393&page=6

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:11 PM
  #64
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosehead81 View Post
Pretty good article but given the way the NHL treats its fans likely not very doable-
1. NHL would never provide "Center Ice" free of charge; they'll have enough issues making any money once they return without giving up this service
4. World Cup and Olympics- love it but the owners don't like breaking up the season and don't like a better quality product being show-cased once every two years.

6. Shorten the pre-season- see 1. above. Players don't get paid for pre-season games and owners won't want to give up this cash cow.
The way I see it.
1. They typically have the first month free anyway (or at least my Cable provider does). Extend that to 2 months, in the hopes of someone getting used to seeing their team play... might increase exposure and sales.

4. Olympics and WC only help the NHL. They bring a MASSIVE increase in exposure to the best players in the world. Even if it is a better product (it is - to an extent), it doesn't hurt the NHL at all due to how infrequently they play.

[edit: If they were to hold the WC every 4 years in Toronto/New York/Montreal (or some other top venue), and find some way to split the profits between the IIHF and the NHL (going to central revenue) it would actually help the NHL - however I can't find actual revenue numbers for the 04 WC to prove it. One suggestion I read was to limit the NHL participants to those under 23 (maybe even change that to 25?), and do not interrupt the NHL season for the Olympics. Then hold the WC mid NHL season every 4 years (nix the all star game that year). Hold it in NA (sorry Europe) so that scheduling around the NHL is less of an issue, and that they can maximize revenues in Canada and the US. By limiting Olympic participation, the WC suddenly matters again as it'll be the best on best - like the idea behind the world championships... except that it'll have the NHL's blessing, and won't only include the best players NOT playing in the playoffs.]

6. The pre-season isn't a cash cow for the NHL. According to Daley when they cancelled the pre-season this year, it was ~100m in revenues. That's 3% of the leagues revenue. It's a drop in the bucket. I think the majority of the players benefit from the pre-season more than the owners. This is where younger players, rookies and AHL types get a shot to shine without hurting the club.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."

Last edited by Riptide: 12-27-2012 at 12:34 PM.
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 03:17 PM
  #65
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
1. They typically have the first month free anyway (or at least my Cable provider does). Extend that to 2 months, in the hopes of someone getting used to seeing their team play... might increase exposure and sales.

4. Olympics and WC only help the NHL. They bring a MASSIVE increase in exposure to the best players in the world. Even if it is a better product (it is - to an extent), it doesn't hurt the NHL at all due to how infrequently they play.

[edit: If they were to hold the WC every 4 years in Toronto/New York/Montreal (or some other top venue), and find some way to split the profits between the IIHF and the NHL (going to central revenue) it would actually help the NHL - however I can't find actual revenue numbers for the 04 WC to prove it. One suggestion I read was to limit the NHL participants to those under 23 (maybe even change that to 25?), and do not interrupt the NHL season for the Olympics. Then hold the WC mid NHL season every 4 years (nix the all star game that year). Hold it in NA (sorry Europe) so that scheduling around the NHL is less of an issue, and that they can maximize revenues in Canada and the US. By limiting Olympic participation, the WC suddenly matters again as it'll be the best on best - like the idea behind the world championships... except that it'll have the NHL's blessing, and won't only include the best players NOT playing in the playoffs.]

6. The pre-season isn't a cash cow for the NHL. According to Daley when they cancelled the pre-season this year, it was ~100m in revenues. That's 3% of the leagues revenue. It's a drop in the bucket. I think the majority of the players benefit from the pre-season more than the owners. This is where younger players, rookies and AHL types get a shot to shine without hurting the club.
"The pre-season isn't a cash cow for the NHL" ... then why are my bosses club seats at canuck games 158 each for 4

great nhl game going on in davos right now too by the way

mr gib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 03:24 PM
  #66
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr gib View Post
"The pre-season isn't a cash cow for the NHL" ... then why are my bosses club seats at canuck games 158 each for 4
Supply and demand. I would bet that Toronto and New York has expensive tickets too. That doesn't change the fact that the preseason only accounts for ~3% of their revenues.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 09:43 AM
  #67
Tekneek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,388
vCash: 500
One of the biggest problems with placing franchises in Europe might be compliance with EU labor laws. Things operate a little bit differently over there than the NHL is accustomed to.

Only way I have NHL Gamecenter for a shortened season is if it is free. Actually, I'm not sure I'll ever pay for it or Center Ice again.

I don't care about NHL players in the Olympics. I would rather have the World Cup of Hockey be permanent.

I don't mind draws, so I wouldn't care if they dumped overtime for regular season games completely. Coming up with yet another contrived method for giving away extra points only complicates the standings. If you've got to have a winner, by whatever novelty means available, then zero points to the loser. Under this proposal, I would like to see 4 points for regulation win, 3 for 4-on-4 win, 2 for 3-on-3 win, 1 for shootout win, and 0 for losing.


Last edited by Tekneek: 12-28-2012 at 09:49 AM.
Tekneek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:09 AM
  #68
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 19,595
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JmanWingsFan View Post
Another idea that makes OT more exciting... Get rid of the loser point. Teams are forced to play for the two points or go home empty handed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IkeaMonkey View Post
I've always said this. The main retort from the other side is, "BUT THEY DIDN'T LOSE THE GAME IN REGULATION!!@121".

It's just like, WTF, they didn't win it either, so why do we give them anything? We live in a pathetic "everyone gets a medal" society.
I don't want to get off topic and want to stay on the business of the topic, so I ask:
How does this in anyway help the NHL recover in a business sense when all it will do is create less parity which will lead to less ticket sales?

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:42 AM
  #69
JmanWingsFan
Your average Jman
 
JmanWingsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere
Country: United States
Posts: 4,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
I don't want to get off topic and want to stay on the business of the topic, so I ask:
How does this in anyway help the NHL recover in a business sense when all it will do is create less parity which will lead to less ticket sales?
Screw the artificial parity this league is trying to create. This makes OT more dire and exciting than "Oh noes, OT... Well at least we got a point so losing isn't that bad." When you have a win or die league, it pretty much moves towards the direction of parity because teams are forced to compete or lose money... Getting rid of the cap floor also helps because it allows poorer teams to work within their budget instead of being forced to spend boatloads on 3rd and 4th liners. If you look at the MLB, over half the league is capable of an over .500 record. If that's not parity, then I don't know what is. You have to drop the whole "league needs parity". Not it doesn't. Not the artificial crap that's been forced upon us. Look, you are always going to have teams that are miserable or can't or won't spend as much money as other teams can. Forcing them to spend money makes them more expensive losers.

JmanWingsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:44 AM
  #70
IkeaMonkey*
HF Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: derderderderderderde
Country: Sao Tome e Principe
Posts: 12,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
I don't want to get off topic and want to stay on the business of the topic, so I ask:
How does this in anyway help the NHL recover in a business sense when all it will do is create less parity which will lead to less ticket sales?
I don't get how it creates less parity really? I never understand the rationality that certain situations benefit teams. Like Overtimes or 4v4s or Shootouts. Every team is still playing with the same puck and the same nets. Columbus has just as good of a chance to win/lose in regulation as they do in overtime or shootouts. It's not like there's a hidden variable involved that says, "+10 Win Chance" to the Kings because the game goes to OT. The puck still bounces the same way...

I think the loser point is what turns a lot of casual observers away from the NHL, really. At least those I've talked to.

IkeaMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 11:21 AM
  #71
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Supply and demand. I would bet that Toronto and New York has expensive tickets too. That doesn't change the fact that the preseason only accounts for ~3% of their revenues.
Still 3% of tens of millions of dollars. I'd call it a cash cow.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 11:24 AM
  #72
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IkeaMonkey View Post
I don't get how it creates less parity really? I never understand the rationality that certain situations benefit teams. Like Overtimes or 4v4s or Shootouts. Every team is still playing with the same puck and the same nets. Columbus has just as good of a chance to win/lose in regulation as they do in overtime or shootouts. It's not like there's a hidden variable involved that says, "+10 Win Chance" to the Kings because the game goes to OT. The puck still bounces the same way...

I think the loser point is what turns a lot of casual observers away from the NHL, really. At least those I've talked to.
There is no loser point and there never was a loser point. The point for finishing overtime with a tie has been here for decades. It's just that they used to call the game a tie and leave it at that.

What there is, is an extra "winner point" for a skills competition tacked on to the end of the game.

The "extra" point is the winner point. Not the loser point. Get it?

So if you want to dispense with the extra point in overtime games, go back to ties after the first overtime in the regular season.

Now with that said, I'd be fine with eliminating the third point for an overtime loss that did not go to the shootout, since historically that's how I recall it working back when they had ties. But the shootout is here to break ties, that implies there was a tie to break, and that means that both tying teams get one point.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 11:36 AM
  #73
Roomtemperature
Registered User
 
Roomtemperature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,272
vCash: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Still 3% of tens of millions of dollars. I'd call it a cash cow.
Quote:
In business, a cash cow is a product or a business unit that generates unusually high profit margins: so high that it is responsible for a large amount of a company's operating profit. This profit far exceeds the amount necessary to maintain the cash cow business, and the excess is used by the business for other purposes.
Courtesy of wikipedia

Roomtemperature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 11:38 AM
  #74
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
I don't see which part of that definition doesn't apply to preseason games, given that player expense are not a factor and tickets still sell.

Considering that many of these franchises aren't operating at a profit at all, or if they are it's relatively minor, I'd call the extra revenue granted by preseason games a pretty significant part of the revenue picture.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 11:39 AM
  #75
IkeaMonkey*
HF Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: derderderderderderde
Country: Sao Tome e Principe
Posts: 12,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
There is no loser point and there never was a loser point. The point for finishing overtime with a tie has been here for decades. It's just that they used to call the game a tie and leave it at that.

What there is, is an extra "winner point" for a skills competition tacked on to the end of the game.

The "extra" point is the winner point. Not the loser point. Get it?

So if you want to dispense with the extra point in overtime games, go back to ties after the first overtime in the regular season.

Now with that said, I'd be fine with eliminating the third point for an overtime loss that did not go to the shootout, since historically that's how I recall it working back when they had ties. But the shootout is here to break ties, that implies there was a tie to break, and that means that both tying teams get one point.
Either go back to ties or eliminate points for not winning games.

It is a loser point. If you lose the game in overtime/shootout, do you or do you not advance in the standings because of it? You lost the game. You didn't win. However, you still move up in the standings. It's a loser point.

I do believe it creates an artificially generated "parity", which is not needed in sports. Everyone shouldn't get a medal. Like I said, a lot of extreme casual observers hate it and I do too. I mean, to explain a standings table to someone not familiar with the sport shouldn't take more than 15 seconds.

IkeaMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:13 PM.

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.