NHL - Printable Version

+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: NHL (/showthread.php?tid=7091)

---

- das_hips - 01-24-2007

Call me a purist, but I think the whole four on four approach would basically destroy the game. We're talking complete travesty. As a fan of the adjustments that were made, including the dead red line, and the extra two feet of space in the offensive zone, I reluctantly found the game more accessible then before. Of course, these were only minor adjustments introduced to the game to provide that element of fast-paced gameplay that was decidedly lacking; it didn't completely change the format of the game.

Regarding the possible expansion of the league, I think it is damn fine idea. If Las Vegas and Kansas City want to dump cash into the pockets of the league, bring their own local television contracts to the table, and increase the awareness of the game in two of the country's larger markets, how could that possibly hurt the game? I think expansion into Kansas City would be a brilliant move, attracting a market that has virtually no winter sports attraction (except for the Chiefs and their bi-weekly game on home soil, and that ends, generally, in late December). Likewise, I thought that the proposal to bring each conference to two divisions instead of three was a great idea (in which case, two extra teams would be required to even out each division to an even eight), mostly because it would partially eliminate the divisional rankings that can potentially play out unfairly (such as the case with Calgary and their third place ranking and their seventh place point tally). If the game is suffering in the United States, why not push it into more markets? The NBA has teams playing in 28 US markets, the MLB has teams playing in 26 US markets, while the NHL has teams in 22 US markets. While we are talking about five or six of the smaller (large) markets, I tend to believe that any increase in market coverage is just that.

---

- grimes - 01-24-2007

cferneyh Wrote:And as for your other post, Rutherford claims that travel isn't a material issue, but he "he wants the full three year rotation of this format to be played out before considering alternatives". That's rich. I imagine his vote against it has absolutely nothing to do with an alternative schedule meaning Ovechkin would be playing in Carolina less often. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

I agree - it's another example of a team voting based on its interests and not looking at the big picture. I was merely pointing out that when asked about the costs of travel, he said it was not a factor, as it would be a minimal expense increase - $50,000 was the number he said I believe.

---

- grimes - 01-24-2007

das_hips Wrote:Call me a purist, but I think the whole four on four approach would basically destroy the game. We're talking complete travesty. As a fan of the adjustments that were made, including the dead red line, and the extra two feet of space in the offensive zone, I reluctantly found the game more accessible then before. Of course, these were only minor adjustments introduced to the game to provide that element of fast-paced gameplay that was decidedly lacking; it didn't completely change the format of the game.

Regarding the possible expansion of the league, I think it is damn fine idea. If Las Vegas and Kansas City want to dump cash into the pockets of the league, bring their own local television contracts to the table, and increase the awareness of the game in two of the country's larger markets, how could that possibly hurt the game? I think expansion into Kansas City would be a brilliant move, attracting a market that has virtually no winter sports attraction (except for the Chiefs and their bi-weekly game on home soil, and that ends, generally, in late December). Likewise, I thought that the proposal to bring each conference to two divisions instead of three was a great idea (in which case, two extra teams would be required to even out each division to an even eight), mostly because it would partially eliminate the divisional rankings that can potentially play out unfairly (such as the case with Calgary and their third place ranking and their seventh place point tally). If the game is suffering in the United States, why not push it into more markets? The NBA has teams playing in 28 US markets, the MLB has teams playing in 26 US markets, while the NHL has teams in 22 US markets. While we are talking about five or six of the smaller (large) markets, I tend to believe that any increase in market coverage is just that.

To each his own - I find that the 4 on 4 currently played in overtime, or in situations with coincidental penalties to be the most exciting hockey being played in the NHL today. It's a faster-paced, more open style of game. I don't see how it would destroy the game, if anything it would be going back to the game's roots.

Regarding your second paragraph - my problem with that logic is that of the 22 US markets they're currently in, they're doing well in what, maybe 10 of them? If that? I think you have to fix the problems you've got before you think about moving to more non-traditional hockey markets. If you not then all you're doing is spreading the mediocrity.

---

- tth_fan - 01-24-2007

das_hips Wrote:Regarding the possible expansion of the league, I think it is damn fine idea. If Las Vegas and Kansas City want to dump cash into the pockets of the league, bring their own local television contracts to the table, and increase the awareness of the game in two of the country's larger markets, how could that possibly hurt the game?

How about bringing back some teams back to Canada, who are in need of a team (ie: Winnipeg), who actually want the teams, and who deserve the teams!? Screw the states, the game should be played where it belongs, in the Great White North!

---

- tragicallymike - 01-24-2007

tth_fan Wrote:

das_hips Wrote:Regarding the possible expansion of the league, I think it is damn fine idea. If Las Vegas and Kansas City want to dump cash into the pockets of the league, bring their own local television contracts to the table, and increase the awareness of the game in two of the country's larger markets, how could that possibly hurt the game?

How about bringing back some teams back to Canada, who are in need of a team (ie: Winnipeg), who actually want the teams, and who deserve the teams!? Screw the states, the game should be played where it belongs, in the Great White North!

I disagree. More U.S. expansion is the only way to make this sport more financially viable. Nobody in the states gives two shits about Winnepeg.

---

- laliber - 01-24-2007

tragicallymike Wrote:I disagree. More U.S. expansion is the only way to make this sport more financially viable. Nobody in the states gives two shits about Winnepeg.

Winnepeg! --- how many time do I have to tell folks that the provisional government traded that first e for an i back in ole 1870

---

- tragicallymike - 01-24-2007

laliber Wrote:

tragicallymike Wrote:I disagree. More U.S. expansion is the only way to make this sport more financially viable. Nobody in the states gives two shits about Winnepeg.

Winnepeg! --- how many time do I have to tell folks that the provisional government traded that first e for an i back in ole 1870

You canadians spell Center, "Centre". I happen to spell Winnepeg with and "e". Sorry but it those little differences that we are going to have to live with. :mrgreen:

---

- tth_fan - 01-24-2007

tragicallymike Wrote:

tth_fan Wrote:

das_hips Wrote:Regarding the possible expansion of the league, I think it is damn fine idea. If Las Vegas and Kansas City want to dump cash into the pockets of the league, bring their own local television contracts to the table, and increase the awareness of the game in two of the country's larger markets, how could that possibly hurt the game?

How about bringing back some teams back to Canada, who are in need of a team (ie: Winnipeg), who actually want the teams, and who deserve the teams!? Screw the states, the game should be played where it belongs, in the Great White North!

I disagree. More U.S. expansion is the only way to make this sport more financially viable. Nobody in the states gives two shits about Winnepeg.

Nobody in Canada, or the U.S. hockey markets give two shits about Nashville, Florida, Columbus, Phoenix...

---

- Lizard King - 01-24-2007

If you want hockey to be extremely competitive and full of rivalry, I say break away from the NHL and start a league with only Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Quebec, Chicago, Detroit, NY Rangers, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Minnesota and Boston.

Only keep hockey in the cities that really want it and need it, bigger doesn't always mean better. It will never happen of course but it would solve alot of problems and make the game alot better.

Or you could create an A-League and B-League and so on, adopt a similar format as English Soccer, the bottom A teams drop, the top B teams go up, one division. That might be far fetched too, but Im just shooting out ideas as they come to me here, just for the sake of discussion more than anything.

---

- farmerdan - 01-24-2007

LizardKing51 Wrote:If you want hockey to be extremely competitive and full of rivalry, I say break away from the NHL and start a league with only Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Quebec, Chicago, Detroit, NY Rangers, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Minnesota and Boston.

Only keep hockey in the cities that really want it and need it, bigger doesn't always mean better.

What's funny is that two of the "Original 6" (Boston/Chicago) have some of the worst attendance so far this year...how much do they really care (unless they're winning)?


<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2007">http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2007</a><!-- m -->

---

- Lizard King - 01-24-2007

farmerdan69 Wrote:[What's funny is that two of the "Original 6" (Boston/Chicago) have some of the worst attendance so far this year...how much do they really care (unless they're winning)?

Thats true, but its hard not to include teams that have been around so long, especially Boston. Plus in the new league I dreamed up they both would be much improved and interest would surely go up. You have to figure all the teams would have tremedous depth and be cup contenders every year for the most part.

I guess the only other flaw in the system would be the glut of leftover players and up and comers, if there was a Super League, there would definitely have to be another one on a smaller scale, possibly made up of the rest of the cities left out, and each SL team would need a B-team to carry young stars and reservists of course.

Hmm not sure whats got into me this morning, Im usually not this crafty at this time of day..lol.

---

- cferneyh - 01-24-2007

farmerdan69 Wrote:

LizardKing51 Wrote:If you want hockey to be extremely competitive and full of rivalry, I say break away from the NHL and start a league with only Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Quebec, Chicago, Detroit, NY Rangers, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Minnesota and Boston.

Only keep hockey in the cities that really want it and need it, bigger doesn't always mean better.

What's funny is that two of the "Original 6" (Boston/Chicago) have some of the worst attendance so far this year...how much do they really care (unless they're winning)?


<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2007">http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2007</a><!-- m -->

Well, I can hardly blame the fans of those teams for not showing up. Both of those organizations are owned by notorious jackasses who are way, WAY more concerned with lining their pockets than putting a half decent team on the ice. Yeah, I know every franchise is there to make money, but most teams seem to understand that being a winning franchise is actually the best business strategy.

I mean for crissakes - in Chicago home games aren't even broadcast on TV! How frickin' retarded is that?!?

---

- ryan93 - 01-24-2007

Anybody wanna take Darius Kasparaitis off our hands?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=193421&hubname=">http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=193421&hubname=</a><!-- m -->

He's only been dressed for 24 of the 48 games this year...making him a very pricey 7th defensemen.

---

- cferneyh - 01-24-2007

ryan93 Wrote:Anybody wanna take Darius Kasparaitis off our hands?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=193421&hubname=">http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=193421&hubname=</a><!-- m -->

He's only been dressed for 24 of the 48 games this year...making him a very pricey 7th defensemen.

My rec league team is pretty thin on D, but we're not THAT desperate.

---

- tigerthelion - 01-24-2007

Isn't the schedule great? Detroit and Nashville get to beat up on Columbus eight times a year while Vancouver, Edmonton, and Calgary battle each other and fight for every point. Not to mention the amount of games Detroit plays against St Louis.

Regarding Kasparaitis, he's no worse than Rory Fitzpatrick or, gulp, Wade Belak. hock:

---