HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Changes when the NHL re-emerges

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-14-2004, 10:31 PM
  #26
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg
I guess it would clear out the neutral zone, I didnt think of it that way. However, it would drastically cut down on the odd-man rushes which create a lot of excitement.

A few rows won't hurt? Hahaha, tell that to the accounting department. At MSG, it would be so bad as they have space between the first row and the ice, the other arenas do not. The other problem is the arena structure. After they remove the seats, they would have to flatten the area to ice level. Removing the steps that come with each row. That would be awfully costly and might be impossible in some arenas.
It certainly would be annoying to have to redo the 5-8 feet behind the boards, but if people can figure out how to build these arenas I'm sure they'll figure out a decent way to adjust a small area. And anyway not that much money will be lost because price levels will just move back 5 rows, or whatever is the best way to do it for each franchise. Just because you take out the first 5 rows doesn't mean you lose 5 rows of $120 seats. A first row seat will still be first row, it will just be a different place. Most teams will figure out a way to lose 5 rows of 20 or 40 dollar tickets. That's a loss that's plenty worth it if it means a bigger ice.

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 12:16 AM
  #27
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,137
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovy274Hart
Ok... now correct me if I'm wrong. But doesn't The Mall seat around 16,500 - 17,000?


If you have a competitive team, you're telling me fans won't come out to support them?

I am friendly with someone who used to go to Whaler games. And they were terribly mismanaged for almost the final decade they existed there. That definitely contributed to the attendance going down.

Plus they sold it to Karmanos, who was looking for any reason to leave unless he got a brand new arena. From what I was told, he hardly gave fans a chance before deciding to bolt.

Also, are you saying there shouldn't be any small markets in the NHL? That it should only be big markets. Don't you think that's part of the problem today?

If you want to eliminate all small markets, then I guess they should get rid of almost every Canadian team. Doesn't make sense.
First, it's pretty clear Fletch meant 15,000-20,000.

Second, you'll have to define "small market team" better if you think that most of the Canadian teams are in small markets. I come from New York City, so every city is pretty small to me, but even a homer like me would agree that Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto are major cities by any definition and Ottawa is not far behind.

Also, there are plenty of places where being a small market doesn't mean small numbers of hockey fans. It's clear that Calgary and Edmonton have more than enough fans to support a hockey team--it's a question of economics whether teams will be profitable there given the exchange rate and the fact that sports teams are taxed more heavily in Canada weighs quite a bit on their balance sheets.

And there are small(er) markets in the United States that have plenty of hockey fans and a history of supporting ice hockey. Buffalo and Pittsburgh both have long traditions and have both suffered through owners that have nearly killed the franchises by extreme fiscal mismanagement and outright fraud. The newer franchises in Minnesota and Columbus both seem to have plenty of support and are growing an energic fan base. However, there are other small markets where hockey is, was and always will be secondary to other sports. Having lived in the "research triangle" in North Carolina, I can guarantee you that the Hurricanes are among them.

Hartford, however, is an "in between" spot. It's in between Boston and New York--both original six franchises with long traditions. It's also suffered a serious economic decline over the last 15 years and has lost part of its economic base forever. Yes, there were over 9,000 people at the game on Saturday night (and I wonder if they had a "guarantee win night" or other major giveaway) but, that's one of the largest crowds they had in a while and they don't regularly pull that many. Plus, they probably benefited from the fact that there is no hockey anywhere else (except Bridgeport) to conflict with. How many of those people would have stayed home if Boston and the Rangers were playing?

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 09:20 AM
  #28
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Thanks BR...

yeah, the $25 should've been $15, which is why it went from $25-20. If there is a competitive team, there would be support. If there is a season or two of noncometitiveness, it may go bankrupt.

And no, never said there shouldn't be small market teams. But there is a point of saturation. There are the Rangers at one end, Boston at another, Buffalo at an extreme, and the Isles and Devils near the same market. There comes a point at which you just don't add another club. I personally haven't been to Hartford in a while, but from what I hear, it ain't so pretty these days.

And the fans are one thing, what about corporate sponsorhip? Who's going to buy the boxes? What TV channel will cover the 'Whalers' and what sponsors will come, as they may be on the same system as Boston, or the Rangers/Devils/Islanders. I like the idea of Hartford a heck of a lot more than Carolina, but that doesn't mean it makes economic sense (although admittedly it does make more sense than Carolina).

Fletch is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 10:58 AM
  #29
Papadice
Registered User
 
Papadice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Papadice
As much as I don't agree with the whole contraction issue, I think moving a couple of teams wouldn't hurt... My first move would be to move Carolina to either Portland or Winnipeg... I know Winnipeg isn't the first choice of the NHL due to the size of the market and the fact that their new arena is too small to support an NHL team (they'd need more seats and A LOT more boxes)... But Winnipeg is a GREAT hockey city and I'd love to see them given another shot... I'd also move either Florida or Anaheim... Either to Winnipeg or Portland...

Now, here is my 21 point plan to fixing the NHL via rule changes... Listed are various ideas I've heard people talk about and whether or not I think they should be implemented (with reasons supporting my decision)... Also, I've listed a couple of issues that I myself have with the game as it is and how I'd fix it...

Rule Changes Ideas:

1) Shootouts - HELL NO! Let's all decide the games by pulling out one of those shoot to win boards and putting it in the net and giving each team 5 chances to shoot it into the tiny little hole... Most goals wins... sound entertaining eh? Come on people... Deciding a hockey game by a shootout is like deciding a football game by getting quarterbacks to throw the ball through a tire... It's isolating a minute portion of the game and seeing who's best at that... Yes, it may be exciting, but it's not a fair way to finish a game... I'm floored that this is even an issue... Since the inception of 4 on 4 overtime with the guaranteed point I have seen some of the most exciting hockey I've ever seen... So, why on earth do we need a shootout? Find ways to fix the first 60 minutes of the game, not the finish of the game... that's the best part...

2) Tag up offsides - HELL YES! Bettman's biggest mistake ever was taking this out... It's a shame it took him so many years to realize his mistake... put it back in...

3) Goaltenders fair game while playing the puck - HELL YES! and this is coming from a goaltender... I've always felt that if a goaltender ventures out of his net to play the puck he should be fair game for a hit... IF HE'S PLAYING THE PUCK!!!! It'll make goaltenders think twice about it... I see way too many times a goaltender go behind the net to play the puck and not even worry about being hit... They actually take their time and shield the puck with their body because they know they can't be hit... Make them fair game when playing the puck and you'll see goaltenders staying in their nets more when the play will be close... BUT, if a goaltender is outside of his crease getting ready to play a shot, he IS NOT fair game... that's interference because he does not have control of the puck...

4) Instigator Rule taken out - HELL YES! I am fed up of seeing some 5'8 punk take someone's eye out with a high stick and not get beat on... In the old days if you did something stupid the other team's enforcer beat you silly and you learned not to do it anymore... no matter who you were... these days, if you do something stupid, the other team's enforcer can't touch you without taking a penalty... so instead of you learning your lesson from the beating you take, your enforcer steps up and fights the other enforcer instead... and what do you learn? nothing... so you high stick someone the next night... Let the players police themselves... take out the instigator rule...

5) No Touch Icing - OUCH... hmmm.... I love tough icing because of the excitement it generates.... BUT I think I'll have to go with the players on this one and say that no touch icing should be put into the game... It would be a shame for some guy to lose his career because of a stupid incident racing for an icing just so I can get my little piece of excitement... keep the players safe and make no touch icing part of the game...

6) Calling the game by the rulebook - HELL YES! This one is obvious... the hooking and holding has to be called... not for 20 games at the start of the year... for the whole year!!! the game has to get opened up again to bring fans back...

7) Bigger Ice Surface - HELL YES! Obviously the owners don't like taking out seats from the rink, but I think larger ice surfaces will help speed up the game and it will also help reduce injuries... Players have grown a great amount throughout the years but the rinks haven't... there's less room now than ever and more injuries than ever... I wouldn't go to Olympic sized rinks, but maybe about half way between an NHL sized rink and an international sized rink...

8) Take out two line pass - YES! said with a little less vigor than the other ones... I'm not convinced that it would open up the game that much because it could force the defense to drop back, but at the same time, i'm not convinced that it won't and it would be an interesting trial to see if it works... it would certainly cause more breakaways and it might open up the neutral zone some...

9) Reduce goaltender pad width - Sure, why not... I think it could help... BUT until we find a way to reduce the size of upper body equipment on goaltenders I don't think that we'll have the answer... you look at a wirey bodied guy like Giguere and then look at him with his upper body on and you realize the problem... he is HUGE with it on... you cannot logically tell me that it is for protection... we need to get equipment back to being for protection and not for stopping the puck... I also think that pad height should be limited ABOVE THE KNEE... a standard max pad length is not helping... a 5'7 goaltender can where a 38" pad... that is not right... it is very rare now that you see a shot being tipped and it going through the goaltenders legs because now they all have the huge thigh rise on the top of the pad that covers the five hole when they have their legs extended... that needs to be limited... they'll complain about protection but screw them... that thigh rise was never there in the past and they had enough protection... they are only protecting a place on the leg that is already protected by the pants anyways...

10) Limit Goaltenders from playing the puck - I don't think this is necessary if goaltenders are fair game... HOWEVER, if goaltenders do not become fair game outside of the crease when playing the puck then I think they should not be allowed to make a forward pass from behind the goal line...

11) Two Referee System - Get rid of that DAMN second referee... This system has been a complete failure... just ask the players... they don't know what will be called from one end of the ice to the other...

12) Move the nets back - I agree... It would create more space in front of the net in the offensive zone... plus, nowadays when a guy goes behind the net the defensemen just stay out front and tie a guy up, creating less room out front... initially it was brought in to give guys like Gretzky more room to set up and make his move... defensemen would rush him and he'd make them look silly by hitting an open man out front with a pass... but now there are no open men left out front...

13) 3 Points for a Win - HELL NO NO NO NO NO! This is the most indiotic suggestion I've ever heard... Why not give everyone minus one point for a regulation loss while we're at it... come on... leave the rankings as they are...

14) Full 2 Minute Penalties - Yes! I like this idea... If a team takes a penalty make it really hurt them... Players will either become accountable or they will become AHL players when their coach gets fed up enough... The only problem is that this COULD cause referees to be more lenient on calls because a penalty would REALLY hurt a team... As long as the refs still call a penalty when it happens I support this idea...

15) Divisional winner getting a top 3 spot - HELL NO! Take this stupid rule out... I don't see the logic behind rewarding the winner of a weak division with a top 3 conference seed... Take a look a couple years ago... The Leafs had something like 101 points and Carolina got the 3rd spot simply because they won their division... BUT, they had far fewer points... Sure, guarantee them a playoff spot, but don't give them a top 3 spot unless they earn it points wise...

16) Reseed Final Four in the Playoffs - HELL YES! I love this idea... Once down to four teams, reseed them 1 through 4 for the conference finals... that way out of the final four, you should get the best two teams in the finals... I've seen too many years where the top two teams meet in the conference finals instead of the Stanley Cup finals... I would rather watch two teams from the same conference play in the finals if they are the most deserving than watch a team from each conference play in the finals while the 2nd best team is sitting on the sidelines because they lost in the semis...

17) Increase Size of Nets - HELL NO FOR THE LOVE OF GOD IF THEY EVER DO THIS I WILL QUIT WATCHING THIS GAME THAT I LOVE SO MUCH!!!! HELL NO!!!! Leave the nets as they are... If you decrease the size of the upper body equipment on goaltenders and do away with the large thigh rise on the pads, combined with opening up the game, you will see more scoring... don't touch the nets... this isn't soccer... sure a larger net will maybe work for long shots and stuff but for a breakaway it would SCREW the goaltenders....

18) Wider Blue lines - I don't see much gain in this really... It's an amusing concept but I don't see much benefit from it in the limited AHL experiment... I wouldn't waste my money on the extra paint... Seams useless...

19) Composite Sticks - BAN THEM! Just like baseball with the aluminum bats, it is a huge expense for the teams and it an unfair advantage for players... The sport is supposed to be about athletic ability, not who has the best equipment... If the goaltenders are limited with the size of their equipment, I think it's only fair that as a trade off the players lose the composite sticks...

20) Diving - Needs to be called MUCH stricter... And only the diving call... I'm fed up of seeing refs call a guy for a hook and also call the guy for a dive... the guy doesn't learn his lesson... JUST CALL THE DIVE! When his team is scored on while short handed because of his dive, he'll learn his lesson eventually... This is necessary, especially if teams have to serve the full two minutes for a penalty...

21) 72 Game Season - I'm all for it.... Sure, less games to watch for us... BUT, the players will be better rested and less injured, therefore the games will be much more entertaining... No more seeing a team give a half @ssed effort because they are plyaing their 3rd game in four nights... We'll get to see less games but the quality of those games will be MUCH better...

Papadice is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 10:59 AM
  #30
Papadice
Registered User
 
Papadice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Papadice
WOW!!! I didn't realize how long that was until I hit submit and saw it in the forum... Sorry about the book guys...

Papadice is offline  
Old
11-15-2004, 04:41 PM
  #31
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,137
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgallant
WOW!!! I didn't realize how long that was until I hit submit and saw it in the forum... Sorry about the book guys...
We've got time.... :mad:

Brooklyn Ranger 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 11:52 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.