Why do soooooooo many people want to ruin the NHL by turning it into International Hockey?????
Keep the Olympic game in Europe and leave my NHL alone!
I hate to say it, but the NHL has done a pretty good job of ruining the game all on their own.
I'm a HUGE hockey fan, but it's tough to enjoy the game now. Little or no flow, and very limited quality scoring chances. I enjoy a 0-0 game if there are plenty of scoring chances and great goaltending. But now most games seem to be based around not making a mistake. Defenseman bang it off the glass at the first sign of pressure, and almost the whole game is played slogging through the neutral zone with guys waterskiing behind their opponents.
I'm not certain what the revenue impact would be of losing the additional seating, but something needs to done, or the NHL is in for some serious trouble long term.
And Van, just trying to make a point about the Devils or the Wild. I live in Chicago, and don't have season tickets because I'd be forced into buying tickets to watch the Wild and the Preds (no offense meant to fans of either team). Boring hockey is bad for the sport. It might be great for Lemaire's job security (and he coaches that way to keep his job), but it sucks for the sport as a whole. Most people love hockey for the speed and the skill - that's what seperates it from other sports IMO, and when that goes, so does the NHL.
Why do soooooo many people have trouble understanding that people want 80's hockey, not European hockey????
Why do soooooo many people subscribe to the misconception that more flow means less physical play (See: 1980-1990) ????
Sorry, but goals DOES NOT MEAN GOOD HOCKEY.
This sport has become sanitized since the early 1990's. Gretzky always said how fighting had to be removed from the sport while skating with Dave Semanko or Marty McSorely.
Player will put sticks on super stars without fear of reprisal. No one in this league is ever held responsible………If you watched hockey 20 years ago people used to talk about “unwritten rules”. When was the last time you’ve heard that phrase used in hockey???
I began watching hockey in the late 70’s because of the Warriors that were in this game. The game was played with an edge. It was graceful violence. That was what I loved about Hockey. You never knew what was going to happen, and if you got beat, “Then you sent a message for the next game”. The edge is COMPLETELY gone from hockey these days. Now we pay homage to the guys who wear the visors………….The game is being ran into the ground by the neuvo-hockey fan who wants to see the skill and not the grit. But the fact of the matter is you can’t have one without the other and in the leagues attempt to remove one, they removed both.
You can't have more flow when players do not respect other players......Period.
Why do think there is such an emphasis on big players these days......20 years ago a 5'8 or 5'10 player was common. Because skilled players got respect from other players and If they didn't they're was a price to pay. There is no Price to pay in todays NHL it began when Mario was slashed on the wrist and it has gotten worse every single year!
I'm telling you guys like Denis Savard could never have made it in this NHL, And we are worse off for it.
Theres hardly anymore fan involvment in the game anymore like for instance there was always players from another team that the fans truly hated or villains now fans may boo an occasional holdout or player that requested a trade. Dont get me started on lack of rivalries between teams its a joke and a mockery compared to what was in the past.
The main reason that it is the case is because the NHL left the divisional playoff format. When you played the same 2 or 3 teams for 10 straight years in the playoffs, you really HATE those teams.
This is exactly the reason I've been saying for a few years now that the league needs to return to a 4 division alignment (even though they'd be unbalanced) and return the playoff system to where the 1st two rounds are within the division.
The main reason that it is the case is because the NHL left the divisional playoff format. When you played the same 2 or 3 teams for 10 straight years in the playoffs, you really HATE those teams.
This is exactly the reason I've been saying for a few years now that the league needs to return to a 4 division alignment (even though they'd be unbalanced) and return the playoff system to where the 1st two rounds are within the division.
The problem with that though is teams like say Calgary this season may end up with 94 points just say. In your scenario a team like Chicago with maybe 78 points would go on to play the Wings while Calgary finishing last in their Division misses.
The way the format is not is almost complete... just get rid of the division winners and rank the teams 1-8 based on points earned period. Play each confrence foe 5 times a season and the rest the Eastern teams.
The problem with that though is teams like say Calgary this season may end up with 94 points just say. In your scenario a team like Chicago with maybe 78 points would go on to play the Wings while Calgary finishing last in their Division misses.
That's because you're looking at 6 divisions. With 4 divisions of 7 or 8 teams you'd rarely get a bad team making the playoffs. You might get one or two different teams than you're getting right now, but if the concern is getting the teams with the most points in the playoffs then why don't we just get rid of the conferences and rank 1-16 and bracket them like the NCAA BB Tourney?
Quote:
The way the format is not is almost complete... just get rid of the division winners and rank the teams 1-8 based on points earned period. Play each confrence foe 5 times a season and the rest the Eastern teams.
If you're goal is to decrease rivalries even more, then this would be the plan to go with.
The problem with that though is teams like say Calgary this season may end up with 94 points just say. In your scenario a team like Chicago with maybe 78 points would go on to play the Wings while Calgary finishing last in their Division misses.
There would have to be "wild card" rules that allow that better last-placed team to get that playoff spot...
For example....last year's WHL West final standings...
BC Division
x-Kelowna - 109
x-Kamloops - 84
x-Kootenay - 83
x-Vancouver - 61
x-Prince George - 57
US Division
x-Seattle - 94
x-Spokane - 62
x-Portland - 51
Tri City - 48
Prince George got the 4th playoff spot in the US Division and played the first round against Seattle.
This sport has become sanitized since the early 1990's. Gretzky always said how fighting had to be removed from the sport while skating with Dave Semanko or Marty McSorely.
Player will put sticks on super stars without fear of reprisal. No one in this league is ever held responsible………If you watched hockey 20 years ago people used to talk about “unwritten rules”. When was the last time you’ve heard that phrase used in hockey???
I began watching hockey in the late 70’s because of the Warriors that were in this game. The game was played with an edge. It was graceful violence. That was what I loved about Hockey. You never knew what was going to happen, and if you got beat, “Then you sent a message for the next game”. The edge is COMPLETELY gone from hockey these days. Now we pay homage to the guys who wear the visors………….The game is being ran into the ground by the neuvo-hockey fan who wants to see the skill and not the grit. But the fact of the matter is you can’t have one without the other and in the leagues attempt to remove one, they removed both.
Again as was said awesome post. If we Get the Tough guys forum back up you should check it out you would enjoy it.
1. Widen the ice surface. The couple of rows of seats that go are the first rows. It's a relatively small number of seats. Repaint a few seats elsewhere and you'll get back 50% or more of the lost revenue. More fans will be closer to the action. The game will improve (flow, skating) and more people will tune in. There will be more money in the long run, not less.
2. Touch up offsides. This is so obvious it hurts.
3. Ditch the instigator rule. Allow the players some room to police themselves. They did it for 8 decades and it seemed to work.
4. Automatic icing call. Drop the puck in 15 seconds.
I'd have no problem with doing all 5 of those... though I'm not a big proponent of no touch icing.
BUT, I don't think the only lost cost of widening the surface is the loss of seat revenue. I don't know anything about what goes on under that ice surface, but I bet make the surface bigger would require a decent amount of construction.
I'd have no problem with doing all 5 of those... though I'm not a big proponent of no touch icing.
BUT, I don't think the only lost cost of widening the surface is the loss of seat revenue. I don't know anything about what goes on under that ice surface, but I bet make the surface bigger would require a decent amount of construction.
It's not that big a deal. It would take a couple of weeks (at most) to do, and would involve an extension of the pipe system they use to pump the gasses that keep the ice cold. I recall one estimate for doing the work in Montreal (at the Bell Center) as being in the range of half a million dollars. When you consider whatthe Habs are paying Patrick Traverse, Karl Dykhuis and Donald Audette NOT to play in the NHL, it's just not that much money.
It's too bad, really, because this could've been done 13 years ago. A lot of people saw this coming in the early 90s, which is when the new buildings started going up. If the league had simply passed a by-law requiring any new buildings to have wider (but not necessarily Olympic sized) ice surfaces, something like 97% of the teams in the league would have them. I would think 205 x 95 would have done the trick. An extra 10 feet of width would create 2000 square feet of additional ice. It would really help.
Well you see, the prime dollar seat wont be effected at all. They would simply be pulled back. It would, most likely only effect the end/last rows, in the lower bowl's. It can be done.
depends if the lost lower seating could be reconfigured,most arenas its just not possible
where do put the seats you lost to the bigger surface?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JV
1. Widen the ice surface. The couple of rows of seats that go are the first rows. It's a relatively small number of seats. Repaint a few seats elsewhere and you'll get back 50% or more of the lost revenue. More fans will be closer to the action. The game will improve (flow, skating) and more people will tune in. There will be more money in the long run, not less.
having worked at an arena its not that easy,and most teams will pass the cost on the consumer,joe fan.the seats aren't easily replaced or moved to higher bowls.
2. Touch up offsides. This is so obvious it hurts.
3. Ditch the instigator rule. Allow the players some room to police themselves. They did it for 8 decades and it seemed to work.
4. Automatic icing call. Drop the puck in 15 seconds.
5. Drop the two line pass rule.
not likely on the seating,its not like adding chairs to the christmas table.
Why do soooooooo many people want to ruin the NHL by turning it into International Hockey?????
Keep the Olympic game in Europe and leave my NHL alone!
Considering that you're in the states you are probably unfamiliar with international hockey because you do not get the World Junior Championships nor the World Championships on TV where you live. Like many Canadians, I look forward to these tournaments because I find the play too be faster and more exciting. It is a nice break from the NHL.
In fact, if I was in the US I would rather take in a US college game than an NHL game.
Considering that you're in the states you are probably unfamiliar with international hockey because you do not get the World Junior Championships nor the World Championships on TV where you live. Like many Canadians, I look forward to these tournaments because I find the play too be faster and more exciting. It is a nice break from the NHL.
In fact, if I was in the US I would rather take in a US college game than an NHL game.
I watch alot of College Hockey (Undergard: Northeastern and some Grad at BU)
I enjoy NCAA hockey but I enoy it from a totally different perspective than the NHL. It is not nearly as fast, the plays aren't very crisp but there is something special about amature sports in general.
I also like college football but I wouldn't want that game brought to the NFL.
A good piece by William Houston of the Globe and Mail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The world junior hockey championship, under way in Finland, could affect the way the National Hockey League plays its game in the future.
Here's how: So far, the competition at the tournament has been entertaining and full of action -- and the games have been played on a sheet of ice 94 feet in width.
Last week, on CBC's Hockey Night In Canada, analyst John Davidson raved about the offensive style of hockey played on a surface that is nine feet wider than the 85-foot standard North American sheet, but six feet narrower than the 100-foot European rink.
Davidson suggested the NHL increase the breadth of its ice -- not to 100 feet, but something in between -- and he was supported by the two hockey writers on the panel. The lone dissenter was host Ron MacLean, who said something about Finland and Sweden playing a trapping game on European ice.
Wider ice is a good idea and the media can make a impact on an issue such as this.
Two years ago, commentators praised the two-hour games at the Salt Lake Olympic hockey tournament. The league responded by bringing in quick line changes.
As well, Davidson has close ties to the NHL and, when he talks, the suits in New York probably listen, at least a little. If Canada and the United States play for the gold medal Monday and put on a spectacular offensive show, it could be difficult for the NHL to ignore the result.
There are other reasons for the league think seriously about increasing the width of the ice. If the idea is to give the skilled player more room, a wider surface is a better idea than Toronto Maple Leafs director Ken Dryden's crusade for four-on-four hockey, which takes hitting out of the game and fundamentally changes the sport. Can you imagine baseball dropping one of its fielders?
But the best argument is simply to compensate for the increased size and speed of today's athlete.
When the league started in 1917-18, the average height of players on the Toronto club, then called the Arenas, was 5 feet 9½ inches. The average weight was 174 pounds. The current Leafs team has a average height of 6 feet 1½ inches and a weight of 201 pounds. That's an overall increase in size of 11 per cent.
If you widen the North American ice surface by the same percentage, you get 94 feet.
if the trap isplayed correclty, it should be creating offensive chances for the team that keeps interecpting the puck, but thats not even heppening.
That was how it was working in all those years the Devils were among the league leaders in scoring. However, teams have 'adapted' to the dangers of trying to thread a risky pass through a positional trap, and they don't even try to anymore. They just dump the puck to the boards and then grind for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
There would have to be "wild card" rules that allow that better last-placed team to get that playoff spot...
For example....last year's WHL West final standings...
Prince George got the 4th playoff spot in the US Division and played the first round against Seattle.
IMO, that's perfect. The CFL uses a similar system - if the 4th place team in the West has more points than the third place team in the East, the 4th-place West team makes the playoffs in the East bracket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob
Like many Canadians, I look forward to these tournaments because I find the play too be faster and more exciting. It is a nice break from the NHL.
The play is faster and more exciting more because (Sweden and Finland excepted) these players haven't been taught any sort of system, and because these youngsters frequently make mistakes (and mistakes = scoring chances). It's not the rules or the dimensions, it's the players and systems. Move the IIHF rules into the NHL and you'll still have systems and far-less-mistake-prone defensive players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob's quote of William Houston of the Globe and Mail
So far, the competition at the tournament has been entertaining and full of action
Exciting? 10 shutouts, 12 games decided by 3+ goals. To me, hockey that isn't even close is seldom exciting. But I'd suppose a lot of people find 14-1 games 'exciting', provided they're rooting for the team that scored 14.
As I stated above, the WJC is "full of action" primarily because of mistakes and a lack of attention to defensive play. Not because the rink is 9 feet wider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan
But now most games seem to be based around not making a mistake.
I think right there is the summation of the difference between the NHL and the WJC. It's true. NHL play is centered around not making mistakes. The only way to change that would be... what, to mandate mistakes? It's true in every sport. In football, the team that commits the most turnovers usually loses. In basketball, steals, blocks, and defensive rebounds are usually indicative of a winning team - capitalizing on the other team's mistakes. The best way to win at ANY sport is to make the fewest mistakes. Defensive systems win because it's easier to reduce the number of mistakes you make than increase the number of mistakes the other team makes.
The problem with the trap is the players playing aren't playing it to generate chances... they play ti to prevent getting scored on.
On a rare occasion Minny or NJ will go on an offensive outburst, but the norm in the NHL is to not go for the win, but prevent as many goals as possible.
The problem with the trap is the players playing aren't playing it to generate chances... they play ti to prevent getting scored on.
On a rare occasion Minny or NJ will go on an offensive outburst, but the norm in the NHL is to not go for the win, but prevent as many goals as possible.
And in any sport there are sucessful teams whose primary focus is the prevention of points against them. Why is this considered so abhorrent in hockey, but not when a football team has a good set of DL, LB, and DB's, or when a baseball team has an ace pitching staff and gold-glove fielders? You don't hear football fans crying and demading rule change because the superbowl isn't always Offense #1 versus Offense #2.
The trap originally was made to generate chances. And it changed the game, because other teams no longer did the things that led to these chances (IE, try to pass through it). But teams aren't going to simply 'stop playing the trap' because other teams aren't coughing up the puck as much anymore. It still wins.
Why? The coaching has evolved to the point where something needs to be done. It happens in every sport and every sport does what they have to do to allow the sport to reach its full potential.
When Baltimore won the Super Bowl by beating teams 9-3 during the regular season, what did the NFL do?
With some NBA teams averaging under 90 points per game, what is the league doing?
When baseball produces a bunch of boring 6-2 games every season, what does it do to make the games more competitive?
The answer to all three is nothing. The games take care of themselves. Some of them will suck. Others will be great. The bottom line is that some fans expect the NHL to blow up the sports to appease those people who can't simply wait for the next evolution in offense.
But the best argument is simply to compensate for the increased size and speed of today's athlete.
When the league started in 1917-18, the average height of players on the Toronto club, then called the Arenas, was 5 feet 9½ inches. The average weight was 174 pounds. The current Leafs team has a average height of 6 feet 1½ inches and a weight of 201 pounds. That's an overall increase in size of 11 per cent.
This argument never made sense to me.
Are their arms longer?
Is that extra size in the width of their bodies, to the point where the neutral zone is clogged up by a bunch of barrell-stomached oafs?
Even if the ice surface is increased, won't these big strong players (who, by the way, are faster on average than anyone in 1917) simply play the same sufficating defense between the blue lines and clutch and grab in the defensive corners?
