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
12-14-2012, 08:41 AM
  #526
Shady Machine
Registered User
 
Shady Machine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogrezilla View Post
CV, I know we've discussed this before. You seem to want the NHL to keep teams in markets which will build a large fan base very quickly and keep that fan base when struggling. I don't know if I've ever gotten an answer to this question. Which teams quickly built a huge fan base without a successful team AND kept the huge fan base when the team stopped being successful? I'm pretty sure its a very short list. Pittsburgh sure as hell isn't on it.

I still think you are being very short sited on this topic. Would Pittsburgh be such a good hockey town if we had never had guys like Lemieux, Jagr, Crosby and Malkin? It certainly wasn't a hockey town before those guys showed up. And it was much less of a hockey town in the gap when the team wasn't doing well. And I don't know how you can blame management for us and then dismiss the Atlanta situation as just a bad hockey market. That was one of the most poorly managed teams to ever exist. I have no problem with the move, but I don't think there should be any more moves to Canada. The population just isn't there.
Answer: hell no.

When I first started playing at age 7 in 1992, the only rinks that were within 30 minutes of me (that I remember) were Kirk S Nevin in Greensburg and Golden Mile in Plum. There was also that huge old rink where the Mon Valley Lightning played, Johnstown, and like 1 or 2 others on the eastern side of the city and surrounding areas. That year and the subsequent 2 years all 3 bladerunners facilities opened up. The one in Harmarville was the first 2 rink facility in the Pittsburgh area. Since that time, Center Ice Arena in Delmont was added in 1997 followed by many other facilities. Add to that Neville Island and Ice Castle and the growth of high end, accessible arenas exploded since the Lemieux era.

The main point is, without the Penguins, and Lemieux had a HUGE part in that, hockey in Pittsburgh would not be what it is today. The notion that Pittsburgh is a hockey town because of it's location or the type of people is really silly. There are additional barriers to southern markets due to traditions and weather does play some part, but I truly believe consistent winning will bring fans and success.

Shady Machine is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:10 AM
  #527
Gooch
Registered User
 
Gooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Coeur d'Alene Idaho
Country: United States
Posts: 13,884
vCash: 500
Pro teams are essential in these untapped markets to grow the sport. They have youth reachout programs and start many junior teams. It gets people playing a sport that never realized it as an opportunity. It's done that way because those teams know that youth playing the sport will become fans and often drag their parents with them. This process takes a very long time so it's laughable that fingers are being pointed now as if to indicate any sort of success. Southern California had a team for a very long time but it took really until Gretzky to get it off the ground there and it produced 2 1st round draft prospects a couple years ago largely due to it. To turtle back to Canada with the league will only doom it to small revenues and niche status.

Gooch is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 11:26 AM
  #528
Big McLargehuge
Moderator
Buff Drinklots
 
Big McLargehuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Germany
Posts: 53,473
vCash: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooch View Post
Pro teams are essential in these untapped markets to grow the sport. They have youth reachout programs and start many junior teams. It gets people playing a sport that never realized it as an opportunity. It's done that way because those teams know that youth playing the sport will become fans and often drag their parents with them. This process takes a very long time so it's laughable that fingers are being pointed now as if to indicate any sort of success. Southern California had a team for a very long time but it took really until Gretzky to get it off the ground there and it produced 2 1st round draft prospects a couple years ago largely due to it. To turtle back to Canada with the league will only doom it to small revenues and niche status.
Not to mention that Pittsburgh didn't see a home grown and trained kid make in the league until Ryan ****ing Malone.

The high and mighty tone is laughable and wrong. Growing the sport is important to it's long-term survival...now there are some things that do need to change, the Phoenix experiment was an abject failure, but still. We're better off for having hockey in California and Texas than we would be having a team in bleeping Saskatchewan.

__________________
“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
12-14-2012, 11:48 AM
  #529
Gooch
Registered User
 
Gooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Coeur d'Alene Idaho
Country: United States
Posts: 13,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big McLargehuge View Post
Not to mention that Pittsburgh didn't see a home grown and trained kid make in the league until Ryan ****ing Malone.

The high and mighty tone is laughable and wrong. Growing the sport is important to it's long-term survival...now there are some things that do need to change, the Phoenix experiment was an abject failure, but still. We're better off for having hockey in California and Texas than we would be having a team in bleeping Saskatchewan.
I don't see Phoenix as a failure unless you go by gate receipts alone. There are youth hockey leagues there that are largely because of the Coyotes. Growing new fans is always worth more than catering to existing ones. Having additional teams in canada doesnt create any new fans, it stagnates the growth of the sport. With the sport ranking a very very distant 4th in popularity there certainly is a lot of room for growth. Even the NFL is still looking to grow the sport by considering London as an option, the idea that the NHL is going to call it a day with its current pathetic 4th ranking is just laughable.

How much money Phoenix or any of the expanded markets lose is sort of irrelevant to me and somewhat silly when people bring it up. Those franchises arent and shouldnt be judged by how much money they bring in now, it's how much they'll bring into the league in the future. TV deals are where the money is at with professional sports, not gate receipts. The more eyeballs watching the product in large markets leads to a larger TV deal.

Gooch is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 12:04 PM
  #530
SHOOTANDSCORE
Registered User
 
SHOOTANDSCORE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,286
vCash: 500
IMO, some of the points brought up in this discussion about growing the sport makes player comments about fighting for future players all the more laughable.

If that is really what they were fighting for then they would be most interested in growing the sport by supporting the weaker franchises and even expansion. Long term, more viable teams leads to more fans, leads to more revenue, not to mention more jobs.

SHOOTANDSCORE is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 12:53 PM
  #531
Gallatin
A Banksy of Goonism
 
Gallatin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooch View Post
I don't see Phoenix as a failure unless you go by gate receipts alone. There are youth hockey leagues there that are largely because of the Coyotes. Growing new fans is always worth more than catering to existing ones. Having additional teams in canada doesnt create any new fans, it stagnates the growth of the sport. With the sport ranking a very very distant 4th in popularity there certainly is a lot of room for growth. Even the NFL is still looking to grow the sport by considering London as an option, the idea that the NHL is going to call it a day with its current pathetic 4th ranking is just laughable.

How much money Phoenix or any of the expanded markets lose is sort of irrelevant to me and somewhat silly when people bring it up. Those franchises arent and shouldnt be judged by how much money they bring in now, it's how much they'll bring into the league in the future. TV deals are where the money is at with professional sports, not gate receipts. The more eyeballs watching the product in large markets leads to a larger TV deal.
This....

People are so short-sighted. Although I am not sure Phoenix can survive a mediocre team, and a porely sited Arena.... They will need the city to bend over on the Arena, and some good management and player procurement to save that team.

What a shame Atlanta was so poorly run. Could have been a goldmine....

Gallatin is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 01:00 PM
  #532
BrunoPuntzJones
Biscuit Scorer
 
BrunoPuntzJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Tucson, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 2,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOOTANDSCORE View Post
IMO, some of the points brought up in this discussion about growing the sport makes player comments about fighting for future players all the more laughable.

If that is really what they were fighting for then they would be most interested in growing the sport by supporting the weaker franchises and even expansion. Long term, more viable teams leads to more fans, leads to more revenue, not to mention more jobs.
Wasn't revenue sharing on of their key issues early on? I thought they convinced the league to up its revenue sharing totals.

BrunoPuntzJones is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:39 PM
  #533
Superstar Shane
Registered User
 
Superstar Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,910
vCash: 500
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411653

Quote:
The executive board of the NHL Players' Association voted Thursday night to give players a vote on whether they should authorize the board with the choice to proceed on a disclaimer of interest.
Well this is great news. Apparently the union leadership will let the players vote to blow up the season, but they won't let them vote to get back on the ice.

Superstar Shane is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:10 PM
  #534
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Lesshaus > Morehaus
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Fangorn
Country: United States
Posts: 25,369
vCash: 500
Season is over IMO. Time to move on unless there's a drastic development in the next few days.


Regarding "league expansion" and short-sightedness, I really don't get the sentiment some of you have.

What's more successful: a hockey league with a very high level of talent across all teams, putting a higher quality product on the ice every night, but limited to non-southern markets and the biggest revenues from northern markets / traditional markets. And maybe even less gross revenues overall...

..or a league that is spread thin into markets where there is minimal interest in hockey (you're right it does take a very long time -- which is why it fails in places where it's not part of the sports culture on any level), which always has a few teams struggling to sell tickets, but higher gross revenues?

Are you guys fans of the GAME (played on the ice), or fans of NHL revenue counting and franchise expansion? Who GIVES A RIP (as a fan) how many "forced markets" the league is in?? Will hockey disappear if it leaves Miami, Phoenix, and even TB and Anaheim (LA has enough money and history and SJ too probably that they can survive). Are you hurt by a league not achieving a certain amount of revenue? Does it prevent you from watching and enjoying it?

What if there were only 24 teams and there were no scrubs on any of those teams and the level of competitiveness was substantially higher even than what we have now? What if every playoff race were close? What if there was no such thing as a boring matchup, but the league pocketed $500M less a season because of fewer teams?

SO WHAT GUYS?! What are we looking for here, a case-study in sports league expansionism, or the best possible product on the ice with the best possible chance for every franchise to have sustained success as a business entity? To me, the more hockey teams are in die-hard, sure-fire markets, and the less the talent is diluted per team... the better. I am a fan of hockey and watching hockey. Not a business analyst for ESPN or Forbes.

It doesn't bother me when these southern teams fail because they're not required to maintain the health of the league, only the EXPANSION of the league. I don't need the NHL to become the NFL / the most popular sport in America. I don't CARE what millions of people who miss out on hockey think. I truly don't. I feel no need for the league to educate them or "spread the addiction", assuming they have 20+ very healthy teams and fan bases.


Last edited by Darth Vitale: 12-14-2012 at 04:20 PM.
Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:09 PM
  #535
KaylaJ
Honey Bun
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 13,900
vCash: 500
The one and only time the NHL had 24 team was the 92-93 season. Maybe it is just me but I do not exactly recall all that competitiveness before that. I do recall several dynasties, scrubs, and teams like the Penguins & Kings spending far too much money to try and keep up, which eventually led them to several problems. Maybe if you really want a "healthy league" (though the NHL has had problem teams throughout) and only care about the game, maybe you should hope to go back to an original 6 league (or maybe 7 with Philly). I mean let's be honest sure we can point at the Southern expansion this time around, but last time it was teams like Buffalo, Ottawa, and Pittsburgh. Scrap em off if they can never compete with the likes of the Habs & Rangers and go from there. Have fun with it.


Oh, and thanks for making another thread on HF about North v South when it doesn't have as much to do with this CBA as you think. It's really enjoyable...


Last edited by KaylaJ: 12-14-2012 at 06:17 PM.
KaylaJ is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 07:18 PM
  #536
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Lesshaus > Morehaus
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Fangorn
Country: United States
Posts: 25,369
vCash: 500
I didn't say it had anything to do with this dispute or CBA... it was just a tangential subject that got blown out of proportion. (see my Rusky hat post). I'm not blaming southern teams for the lockout or any of that. I'm simply saying, in an arbitrary sense... this idea that fans have that the league is not healthy unless the league is everywhere, and we have to try no matter what to make teams work in places where 99% of fans don't give a **** about hockey, is craziness. In theory the league could be perfectly healthy with 24 or 26 or 28 teams.

And there's a lot skill in the league now (on the whole guys are stronger, faster, better trained as kids), more than there was in 92-93, even if the biggest superstars are not as big as Mario and Wayne were then. If you literally cut six teams worth of guys, the depth and competitiveness on every team in this league would take a big jump. That's 36-40 scoring line players looking for a home, that's some great D looking for a home, some solid goalies looking for a home. It would obviously improve the talent from top to bottom on every team. It's just an example in any case, not a wish list or anything.

All I'm saying is, as fans, it shouldn't make a whole lot of difference to us whether there are teams in teh south or SW or not... as long as the quality of the product is good and the teams that are there are healthy.

Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 07:19 PM
  #537
HuskerTornado
RIP UW AlwaysBelieve
 
HuskerTornado's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Parts Unknown
Country: United States
Posts: 12,267
vCash: 500
It ain't over 'till it's over.

But, yeah, things aren't looking great.

HuskerTornado is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 07:21 PM
  #538
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Lesshaus > Morehaus
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Fangorn
Country: United States
Posts: 25,369
vCash: 500
NHL filed in court today in NY, in advance of Union likely decertifying or disclaiming interest. IMO it's over. This isn't the NBA. The players will find that out quick.

Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 08:14 PM
  #539
eXile59
Shirts on.
 
eXile59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 16,155
vCash: 500
What a mess.

eXile59 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 08:46 PM
  #540
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
Season is over IMO. Time to move on unless there's a drastic development in the next few days.


Regarding "league expansion" and short-sightedness, I really don't get the sentiment some of you have.

What's more successful: a hockey league with a very high level of talent across all teams, putting a higher quality product on the ice every night, but limited to non-southern markets and the biggest revenues from northern markets / traditional markets. And maybe even less gross revenues overall...

..or a league that is spread thin into markets where there is minimal interest in hockey (you're right it does take a very long time -- which is why it fails in places where it's not part of the sports culture on any level), which always has a few teams struggling to sell tickets, but higher gross revenues?

Are you guys fans of the GAME (played on the ice), or fans of NHL revenue counting and franchise expansion? Who GIVES A RIP (as a fan) how many "forced markets" the league is in?? Will hockey disappear if it leaves Miami, Phoenix, and even TB and Anaheim (LA has enough money and history and SJ too probably that they can survive). Are you hurt by a league not achieving a certain amount of revenue? Does it prevent you from watching and enjoying it?

What if there were only 24 teams and there were no scrubs on any of those teams and the level of competitiveness was substantially higher even than what we have now? What if every playoff race were close? What if there was no such thing as a boring matchup, but the league pocketed $500M less a season because of fewer teams?

SO WHAT GUYS?! What are we looking for here, a case-study in sports league expansionism, or the best possible product on the ice with the best possible chance for every franchise to have sustained success as a business entity? To me, the more hockey teams are in die-hard, sure-fire markets, and the less the talent is diluted per team... the better. I am a fan of hockey and watching hockey. Not a business analyst for ESPN or Forbes.

It doesn't bother me when these southern teams fail because they're not required to maintain the health of the league, only the EXPANSION of the league. I don't need the NHL to become the NFL / the most popular sport in America. I don't CARE what millions of people who miss out on hockey think. I truly don't. I feel no need for the league to educate them or "spread the addiction", assuming they have 20+ very healthy teams and fan bases.
So let me get if I understand this right? You want to contract down to 20 teams? No room for expansion (as evidenced by the "I feel no need for the league to educate them or spread the addiction" quote)? So dump 200 player positions? That's really gonna work? You don't think the NHLPA would say anything about it? There's a slight difference between ownership folding a team for financial reasons and the league saying "Eh, we decided to go down to 20 teams. Deal with it."

But if we're looking at dumping teams, I'm assuming you mean the ten worst teams in attendance since they don't draw. Since not all arenas aren't the same size, I'm gonna try something and do something by percentage, starting with the post 2004-05 lockout.

2005-06: Carolina, Phoenix, Atlanta, Anaheim, Nashville, New Jersey, St Louis, Washington, Chicago, and NYI. I see two O6 teams in that one, two that would eventually go on to win the Cup and yes, there is a Cup champion from that season in the bottom 10. You would also lose Washington, which as much as we heckle them for being a bandwagon team, have done nothing but play to capacity for the last 3-4 years. Ditto St Louis.

2006-07: Nashville, Atlanta, Phoenix, Boston, Florida, NYI, Washington, New Jersey, Chicago, and St. Louis. We have Boston and Chicago making the list again, including Chicago drawing an amazing 62.1% in paid attendance (nice stat to keep on standby when somebody points out the Pens' 2003-04 season: even the Pens drew 70% that season ) Washington also making a 2nd appearance on this list, as is St. Louis with an equally amazing 59.6% in season attendance.

2007-08: Boston, Nashville, Atlanta, Phoenix, St. Louis, NYI, Washington, Chicago, Columbus, Florida. Yes, Boston and Chicago making a third appearance on this list. I'm well aware of what both of these teams were going through at the time, but if we're sticking to the point of removing teams that don't draw, they have to be included. Chicago's attendance did rise to 82% this season. However, even the worst team in the league in attendance (Florida) was only 80.2%.

Why do I keep bringing up these two teams? Because they were two teams deep with NHL tradition, yet couldn't draw regardless of reason (bad ownership, bad trades, failed prospects, etc.) Chicago even had a ten year run where attendance not just fell off, but plummeted by about a thousand fans a game annually. This is even with the United Center being freshly built.
Chicago: http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendan...h.php?tmi=5218

Had this same topic been held in 2008, would you have pulled the plug in two traditional cities because they couldn't draw at the gate?

iamjs is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:22 PM
  #541
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Lesshaus > Morehaus
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Fangorn
Country: United States
Posts: 25,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamjs View Post
So let me get if I understand this right? You want to contract down to 20 teams?
No. Read what I said more carefully.

I never in fact used the number 20 (24 a couple times, 26, 28, and 30), but the larger point is the whole thing is a hypothetical exercise to understand why people are so hung up on this idea that it's terrible if we ever were to lose a couple of these southern / SW franchises. Why it's more important for the league to be "big" than more competitive potentially and more financially stable from year to year.

I don't get it. But in lieu of what I just found out (shooting), I don't give a **** about any of this stuff right now. There are bigger things in the world to worry about.

Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:29 PM
  #542
KaylaJ
Honey Bun
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 13,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
No. Read what I said more carefully.

I never in fact used the number 20 (24 a couple times, 26, 28, and 30), but the larger point is the whole thing is a hypothetical exercise to understand why people are so hung up on this idea that it's terrible if we ever were to lose a couple of these southern / SW franchises. Why it's more important for the league to be "big" than more competitive potentially and more financially stable from year to year.

I don't get it. But in lieu of what I just found out (shooting), I don't give a **** about any of this stuff right now. There are bigger things in the world to worry about.

The North Stars, Jets, Whalers, and Nordiques were all moved when there were 26 teams in the league. The Kings declared bankruptcy when there were 26 teams and the Penguins did when there were 27 though they had $ issues for years before. Doesn't exactly sound like things were totally financially stable with 26 teams either. Would you have agreed to moving more teams out of Canada when they were having troubles because you wanted a more healthy league?


Maybe, just maybe it has to do more with economics outside of the hockey world than how many teams are involved.

KaylaJ is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:33 PM
  #543
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
No. Read what I said more carefully.

I never in fact used the number 20 (24 a couple times, 26, 28, and 30), but the larger point is the whole thing is a hypothetical exercise to understand why people are so hung up on this idea that it's terrible if we ever were to lose a couple of these southern / SW franchises. Why it's more important for the league to be "big" than more competitive potentially and more financially stable from year to year.

I don't get it. But in lieu of what I just found out (shooting), I don't give a **** about any of this stuff right now. There are bigger things in the world to worry about.
You didn't?

Quote:
I feel no need for the league to educate them or "spread the addiction", assuming they have 20+ very healthy teams and fan bases.
Yes, and my question was also a hypothetical question as to whether you would contract an O6 team in a "traditional" market.

iamjs is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:33 PM
  #544
AZPenguins
Registered User
 
AZPenguins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Country: Zimbabwe
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post

All I'm saying is, as fans, it shouldn't make a whole lot of difference to us whether there are teams in teh south or SW or not...
Unless you know, you happen to live there .... But I always forget, hockey is only for those of you that get ****ing snow.

AZPenguins is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:39 PM
  #545
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZPenguins View Post
But I always forget, hockey is only for those of you that get ****ing snow.

iamjs is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:15 PM
  #546
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 31,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
Season is over IMO. Time to move on unless there's a drastic development in the next few days.


Regarding "league expansion" and short-sightedness, I really don't get the sentiment some of you have.

What's more successful: a hockey league with a very high level of talent across all teams, putting a higher quality product on the ice every night, but limited to non-southern markets and the biggest revenues from northern markets / traditional markets. And maybe even less gross revenues overall...

..or a league that is spread thin into markets where there is minimal interest in hockey (you're right it does take a very long time -- which is why it fails in places where it's not part of the sports culture on any level), which always has a few teams struggling to sell tickets, but higher gross revenues?

Are you guys fans of the GAME (played on the ice), or fans of NHL revenue counting and franchise expansion? Who GIVES A RIP (as a fan) how many "forced markets" the league is in?? Will hockey disappear if it leaves Miami, Phoenix, and even TB and Anaheim (LA has enough money and history and SJ too probably that they can survive). Are you hurt by a league not achieving a certain amount of revenue? Does it prevent you from watching and enjoying it?

What if there were only 24 teams and there were no scrubs on any of those teams and the level of competitiveness was substantially higher even than what we have now? What if every playoff race were close? What if there was no such thing as a boring matchup, but the league pocketed $500M less a season because of fewer teams?

SO WHAT GUYS?! What are we looking for here, a case-study in sports league expansionism, or the best possible product on the ice with the best possible chance for every franchise to have sustained success as a business entity? To me, the more hockey teams are in die-hard, sure-fire markets, and the less the talent is diluted per team... the better. I am a fan of hockey and watching hockey. Not a business analyst for ESPN or Forbes.

It doesn't bother me when these southern teams fail because they're not required to maintain the health of the league, only the EXPANSION of the league. I don't need the NHL to become the NFL / the most popular sport in America. I don't CARE what millions of people who miss out on hockey think. I truly don't. I feel no need for the league to educate them or "spread the addiction", assuming they have 20+ very healthy teams and fan bases.
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.


Last edited by Ogrezilla: 12-15-2012 at 06:25 AM.
Ogrezilla is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 04:02 AM
  #547
Atren
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
NHL filed in court today in NY, in advance of Union likely decertifying or disclaiming interest. IMO it's over. This isn't the NBA. The players will find that out quick.
This is why nuclear weapons been responsible for global peace in the world -- if you use one then you will be retaliated in kind. To me it reads exactly that.

Atren is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 06:49 AM
  #548
HandshakeLine
is probso trolling u
 
HandshakeLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 18,053
vCash: 500
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.


Last edited by Big McLargehuge: 12-15-2012 at 10:00 AM. Reason: Fully censor.
HandshakeLine is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 06:58 AM
  #549
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 31,311
vCash: 500
or to play devil's advocate, one side plays a game for a living and the other takes on all of the financial risk and responsibility of a multi-billion dollar business.

at this point I really don't like either side. screw em both


Last edited by Ogrezilla: 12-15-2012 at 07:31 AM.
Ogrezilla is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 07:36 AM
  #550
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogrezilla View Post
or to play devil's advocate, one side plays a game for a living and the other takes on all of the financial risk and responsibility of a multi-million dollar business (while ****ing taxpayers to land sweetheart arena deals that allow them to print cash, simply because they own NHL teams)

at this point I really don't like either side. screw em both
Gotta fix something here... Ok, now I agree.

Both sides are in a nut kicking contest and look like children.

Mr Jiggyfly 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 05:27 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.