HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Contraction

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-03-2010, 04:23 PM
  #1
bobbyfour
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Contraction

I`m an oldtimer [mid 50`s] and I`ve seen a lot of hockey. Over the last few years I have come to the conclusion that the league has become too watered down. Mediorcre players have salaries that tie up most teams cap space. I have the NHL package, and it stuns me when I see the amount of empty seats in many arenas.[ Don`t forget, it`s only the rinkside seats we see empty, imagine what the upper decks look like]
Great hockey markets strive to make the playoffs to please their fans every year, thus ensuring themselves low draft choices. Lesser markets collect their revenue sharing and wait for failure to restock their teams.
Giving 1 point for an overtime loss has led to Bettman claiming parity in the league, but what he should be claiming is mediocrity.
How does Bettman and his marketing team try to change this? NBC on selected Saturdays will show a Penguins game! [hopefully against the Capitols]
Forget about the Phoenix fiasco that went on forever this past season which has been used to blame for the empty seats there. They are a succesful team that should have drawn fans.
Hockey will only be accepted in selective markets in the south. Until this is understood by the powers that be, we in the fervent hocket markets will shovel our driveways and wait for next year

bobbyfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2010, 04:38 PM
  #2
Kensai Akatsume Ryu
Registered User
 
Kensai Akatsume Ryu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Alma,Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Kensai Akatsume Ryu
Back to the OP, good text. I believe you have good points out there, especially when you speak about salaries vs. talent. Although, I'd say that most of this situation should be pointed towards the dumb GMs who can't analyse the post-lockout situation properly. Actually, the NHL seems to go for an elite top-6, weak bottom-6 situation. Salaries have to be important, but not the way they are now. Detroit is a good example of a competent GM who can get contracts right. Canadiens are not.


Last edited by Darz: 02-03-2010 at 06:14 PM. Reason: qdp
Kensai Akatsume Ryu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2010, 04:41 PM
  #3
E = CH²
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 16,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kensai Akatsume Ryu View Post
Seriously such arrogance is totally unacceptable. This OP posted a very good text which deserve respect. With you attitude bro, you seriously have no business here.

Back to the OP, good text. I believe you have good points out there, especially when you speak about salaries vs. talent. Although, I'd say that most of this situation should be pointed towards the dumb GMs who can't analyse the post-lockout situation properly. Actually, the NHL seems to go for an elite top-6, weak bottom-6 situation. Salaries have to be important, but not the way they are now. Detroit is a good example of a competent GM who can get contracts right. Canadiens are not.
Holy ****, you live in Alma ? I also live there.

Maybe we know each other hehe

And I fully agree with you.

However, I still feel the league is watered down and contraction would help. At the moment, some cities simply don't have the capacity and interest to have NHL teams (I'm looking at you Florida and Phoenix).

E = CH² is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2010, 04:41 PM
  #4
gee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kensai Akatsume Ryu View Post
Seriously such arrogance is totally unacceptable. This OP posted a very good text which deserve respect. With you attitude bro, you seriously have no business here.

Back to the OP, good text. I believe you have good points out there, especially when you speak about salaries vs. talent. Although, I'd say that most of this situation should be pointed towards the dumb GMs who can't analyse the post-lockout situation properly. Actually, the NHL seems to go for an elite top-6, weak bottom-6 situation. Salaries have to be important, but not the way they are now. Detroit is a good example of a competent GM who can get contracts right. Canadiens are not.
relax its only the internet its not like i spray-painted it on his garage.

anyway the post was deleted so let's try this again.

i agree to some extent. but to me the biggest difference is how watered down the national broadcasts have become. in the past audiences were able to develop a connection with the league through the teams over the television, historically in canada the leafs and canadiens. now the national broadcasts like TSN are typically a mishmash of whoever is playing on tuesdays.

perhaps the league should realign to 8 team conferences and sell broadcasting rights by conference in a pattern similar to the nfl. therefore fans might be able to build a connection with the players in a pattern similar to ye-olden days.

gee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2010, 05:38 PM
  #5
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gee View Post
relax its only the internet its not like i spray-painted it on his garage.

anyway the post was deleted so let's try this again.

i agree to some extent. but to me the biggest difference is how watered down the national broadcasts have become. in the past audiences were able to develop a connection with the league through the teams over the television, historically in canada the leafs and canadiens. now the national broadcasts like TSN are typically a mishmash of whoever is playing on tuesdays.

perhaps the league should realign to 8 team conferences and sell broadcasting rights by conference in a pattern similar to the nfl. therefore fans might be able to build a connection with the players in a pattern similar to ye-olden days.
That only makes sense if you don't live in an NHL market (blackout rules) and if a network was willing to pay for those rights (which they aren't).

Better players = better teams = more exciting games = better ratings. The "old timer" has it right.

shutehinside is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2010, 05:50 PM
  #6
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gee View Post
relax its only the internet its not like i spray-painted it on his garage.

anyway the post was deleted so let's try this again.
Why did you trash him if you agreed to some extent? Your story doesn't add up.

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2010, 05:55 PM
  #7
PyrettaBlaze
Registered User
 
PyrettaBlaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gee View Post
relax its only the internet its not like i spray-painted it on his garage.

anyway the post was deleted so let's try this again.

i agree to some extent. .
You're not making much sense... First you disrespect him and pretty much call him an idiot, and now you're agreeing with him?

__________________
...Unemployed Black Astronaut...
PyrettaBlaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2010, 06:01 PM
  #8
Habsfanatical
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 787
vCash: 500
I agree with contraction and the tv rights!! One question I have always had about tv rights tho.. Why are there blackouts? Why are the Canadian teams playing at home blacked out? But yet they still televise the games with half filled arena's, isn't that a bit hypricritcial?

Habsfanatical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2010, 06:15 PM
  #9
justsomeguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
I was born in Alma and I'm an old guy so I guess I should comment.

Parity and mediocrity go hand in hand. Parity means the peaks get filed off to fill the valleys. Mediocre teams lose as often as they win. Salary caps and floors mean teams can not buy a title anymore, nor can they hold on to more than a few stars. We go on about how the Rangers kept trying to buy a Cup but often choose not to remember the days when the Habs payroll was significantly higher than the league average, the benefit of being a "have" team in an unfettered free market.

Eliminating the overtime and shootout gets rid of three-point games. Trimming the league down by getting rid of several of the money pits and transferring others to places where snow tires are a good idea this time of year would probably yield a better brand of hockey overall but the matter of parity and mediocrity will remain at least as long as the present salary paradigm does.

May go on for longer than that. Even in the six-team NHL there were perrenial doormats. Detroit, Toronto and Montreal were pretty much guaranteed a spot in the postseason when the puck dropped in the fall. Boston, New York and Chicago fought it out for the fourth and final slot.

One excellent team per year, two pretty good, a couple mediocre and one that was awful. Muliply that by five and you get five excellent squads, ten pretty good, ten mediocre and five that absolutely suck. Sound familiar?

Maybe it has more to do with math than money

justsomeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2010, 06:17 PM
  #10
Darz
Registered User
 
Darz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Where's the ANY key?
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,424
vCash: 500
Contraction has been the answer for many years now, but you will never get the players to agree to it, and i doubt you could get enough owners to support it as well.

Both sides that make the rules (players/owners) care more about the bottom line than if the league is watered down or not.

__________________
Hey look, it's Duffman; the guy in a costume that creates awareness of Duff!
Darz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2010, 06:20 PM
  #11
InglewoodJack
Registered User
 
InglewoodJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Châteauguay
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
I agree ^ contraction and bringing the league down to under 20 teams would up the talent and level of the game, but many people would lose a lot of money, and many players would be stuck in the minors.

InglewoodJack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2010, 06:59 PM
  #12
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,252
vCash: 500
Why do we need more talent per team than we have now? There's a lot of good young players coming into the game. I see no need for contraction.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2010, 04:23 AM
  #13
jiboy
Patience
 
jiboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: RN
Country: Canada
Posts: 866
vCash: 500
contraction would not hurt good young talents at all it would be great to them

because right now a lot of players on the third and fourth lines are just defensive checkers or hard hitting useless guys

this mean the hockey in the NHL is more physical and less about skills

and now because we got so many beefs they got the NHL to some unreal standards about size and height

you pretty much gotta be 6"00 and up to play in the NHL now..

less player means less tasteless "system" player and more of the unique, creative players

jiboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2010, 07:05 AM
  #14
Kensai Akatsume Ryu
Registered User
 
Kensai Akatsume Ryu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Alma,Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Kensai Akatsume Ryu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1337 View Post
contraction would not hurt good young talents at all it would be great to them

because right now a lot of players on the third and fourth lines are just defensive checkers or hard hitting useless guys

this mean the hockey in the NHL is more physical and less about skills

and now because we got so many beefs they got the NHL to some unreal standards about size and height

you pretty much gotta be 6"00 and up to play in the NHL now..

less player means less tasteless "system" player and more of the unique, creative players
That would be wonderful Although, the NHL would never do this since they'd lose many millions by losing concession rights...

Kensai Akatsume Ryu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2010, 07:31 AM
  #15
Agalloch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lachute, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Why do we need more talent per team than we have now? There's a lot of good young players coming into the game. I see no need for contraction.
Agree. People to make up their mind, they are never going to contract teams. I actually like 30 teams... but no more than that. Personnally, I think there is one too much team in the NY area but that's about it.

Agalloch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2010, 07:32 AM
  #16
Agalloch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lachute, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1337 View Post
contraction would not hurt good young talents at all it would be great to them

because right now a lot of players on the third and fourth lines are just defensive checkers or hard hitting useless guys

this mean the hockey in the NHL is more physical and less about skills

and now because we got so many beefs they got the NHL to some unreal standards about size and height

you pretty much gotta be 6"00 and up to play in the NHL now..

less player means less tasteless "system" player and more of the unique, creative players
Less teams could also means less bad players so it's more difficult to score (better goalies and better defensive/complete players).

Agalloch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2010, 07:52 AM
  #17
jiboy
Patience
 
jiboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: RN
Country: Canada
Posts: 866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agalloch View Post
Less teams could also means less bad players so it's more difficult to score (better goalies and better defensive/complete players).
theres more forwards then defenseman in the league so I believe the game would improve more on the offensive side then on the defensive side


I mean if you look at the 500~ players in the NHL and you cut it to 300 you will take out a lot of the lapierre, pyatt type of player

even if you do not notice an increase in the goals scored the play itself will be nicer to watch..

with the talent level now and the salary cap you really need to have a system wich is good for the team but not really letting good players show their talent..

you look at most third lines in the league and you know that when those guys are on the ice nothing really interesting will happen most of the time..maybe a big hit if you're lucky..

basically the way I see it, if there was a good contraction of the league it would be like taking out the 4th line of every team..third line becoming 4th line..

more interesting and skilled play and less system/dumping/chasing plays..

just like cutting the useless fat out of nhl's body

jiboy 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 03:04 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.