NHL on path for a major collapse

[rh71]

It figures this would happen in the year my Caps were going to pick the most exciting player in the last 20 years thru the draft... it just friggin figures...

NHL On Path For Major Collapse


By Thomas Boswell

Thursday, June 3, 2004; Page D01

The NHL is not just in danger of a long labor lockout or a lost
season. Professional hockey, though it seems oblivious to its mortal
risk, may be on the brink of losing its place as a major team sport.

Last week, after a 2 1/2-hour meeting with the head of the NHL Players
Association, Commissioner Gary Bettman was asked if the NHL would open
training camp for next season without a new labor agreement. "We cannot
live under the collective bargaining agreement for any longer than its
term," Bettman said.

That's not an announcement of a lockout by NHL owners for next season.
But it's about as close as you can get.

"While there was candid discussion, it would be misleading to suggest
that there was any progress made or to characterize our discussions as
productive," said Ted Saskin, the union's senior director. No more
talks are scheduled.

At about the same time, washingtonpost.com, the Post's Web site, ran
an online poll asking which teams would be in the Stanley Cup finals.
The largest response -- 42 percent of users -- was: "Didn't realize the
NHL playoffs were going on." The NHL just doesn't get it. Both the
owners and players are living in a parallel universe of complete
delusion. Because they love hockey, they think everybody cares about
it. Because they can't imagine a world without the NHL, they don't
realize the majority of sports fans care little whether the NHL even
exists.

If you doubt it, check the TV ratings for the Finals From Nielsen Hell
between the Calgary Flames and Tampa Bay Lightning. If the Weather
Channel had a power outage, its ratings would still crush the NHL's
numbers.

In almost every respect, the fight between the NHL's owners and
players mirrors the battle in baseball that led to the strike of 1994
and the cancellation of the World Series. The financial issues,
long-standing personal animosity and hard-line rhetoric could hardly be
more similar.

However, there is one huge difference.

Baseball is America's national pastime. Hockey is Canada's national
pastime. Yet the NHL is counting on American fans and American dollars
to come back to the NHL the way they came back to baseball. What
business would take such a bet-the-industry risk? What union would
tempt such career suicide for its members?

No one should doubt the seriousness of both sides, certainly not the
owners who are already firing team employees or not replacing those who
quit. Teams including Washington, Carolina, Dallas, Florida, Edmonton,
St. Louis, Anaheim and Phoenix have laid off or plan to lay off a
substantial number of employees. At last count, the Caps had fired four
people in hockey operations, while seven people in other departments
had quit.

After a lockout and a lost season, which is currently considered the
highest probability outcome, there would certainly still be an NHL in
some form. But what form would that be? How many teams would it
contain? What would its attendance be? Just because baseball is in
excellent health after a fundamental breach of trust with its
customers, that should not serve as some sort of subliminal message to
hockey's owners and players.

Here's the kicker, the wild card, the enormous factor the NHL seems
not to have considered. The imminent danger for hockey is that if it
does anything as destructive as baseball did in '94-'95, the NHL may
lose its status alongside the NFL, MLB and NBA as a major professional
team sport.

"Major" is a vague but invaluable distinction conferred in the public
mind. Some sports, some events, are major. Some aren't. There's no
election, no referendum. Nobody calls to tell you on the day you move
from one category to the other. But, over time, it happens. And for
years hockey has been slipping back toward "minor." In its most recent
TV contract, the NHL accepted terms that were comparable to the Arena
Football League.

Once a major sport falls back into the pack of wannabes, it never
recovers. Once, prize fighting and horse racing were huge national
sports, far bigger than hockey has ever dreamed of being. Does hockey
understand that if it shrinks in popularity as much as boxing and horse
racing that it will not just be small, it will almost be invisible? Can
you say, bowling? Actually, that would be an insult to bowling with its
large participant base.

Hockey's owners think they can freeze the sport for a year to save
money, then thaw it out in a wonderful new world with a hard salary
cap, a docile union and a fan base that will gradually forgive
everybody. Hockey players apparently think it's smart to call this
bluff. Perhaps only those in an insular culture like hockey could
believe this.

The awful TV ratings for the Stanley Cup may, in a bizarre way, serve
as a wake-up call. Before the finals, the NHL's ratings were one-fourth
that of the NBA. Now, the Lightning and Flames, two small-market teams,
are further shrinking those figures. Games 1 and 2 tied for the lowest
Cup ratings on cable since 1990. Games 3 and 4 were two of the lowest
for hockey since broadcast network numbers began.

Aside from dedicated hockey fans, how many know the Flames' best
player, and perhaps the best player in the whole sport, is Jarome
Iginla?

And how many realize he's the first black captain of an NHL club? The
NHL has many nice stories like this that are worth sharing with a wider
world.

But, after a lockout, how many will still care?

Pro hockey better realize what many of us understand intuitively.

Most people can do without the NHL. The sport survives off the
adoration of a relatively small hard core. After a lost season, plenty
of fans might express a preference for a less cluttered sports scene in
which the NHL came back as a much less visible game.

Sometimes a slap in the face is useful. The NHL needs to understand
that, if it goes away for a year, the sports public -- which has so
many games, seasons and athletes -- may discover it prefers a world
with far fewer pro hockey highlights on TV or NHL stories in newspapers
and magazines.

With a year to think about it, we might ask whether we really needed
to know so much more about the NHL than we do about women's golf or
college lacrosse or pro soccer or NASCAR or who knows what?

Why, we might ask, is the NHL covered like a major sport? What's so
important about it? If few missed it when it was gone, why treat it as
a major sport when it comes back?

So, NHL, do you feel lucky? Go on, take a season off.

Make our day.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Some hockey players have taken one too many pucks to the head. Maybe you grow more stupid each time you lose a tooth?

 

[m2kewl]

blah, hockey's not my cup of tea. but good luck to them working a solution.

 

[SP33Demon]

What does NHL stand for again? National Holy League? Must be a bunch of religious fanatics or something, from the information given in the article. Although I don't understand why they keep comparing it to other sports, religion is supposed to be nonprofit.

 

[rh71]

So many haters... I'd like to know why people dislike hockey. It's fast paced, hard hitting, and the action doesn't stop every 15 seconds (like baseball or the end of a basketball game). Hockey fans and players worship the game. It's true. What the article pointed out - we think it's an obvious choice for one of the best sports out there... you can base that on skill alone if you had to. But there are those who don't like it simply because they can't follow the black puck on the white ice.

 

[m2kewl]

Originally posted by: rh71
...But there are those who don't like it simply because they can't follow the black puck on the white ice.

why you gotta get racial??? :|

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: rh71
So many haters... I'd like to know why people dislike hockey. It's fast paced, hard hitting, and the action doesn't stop every 15 seconds (like baseball or the end of a basketball game). Hockey fans and players worship the game. It's true. What the article pointed out - we think it's an obvious choice for one of the best sports out there... you can base that on skill alone if you had to. But there are those who don't like it simply because they can't follow the black puck on the white ice.

So true.


:heart: hockey.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: rh71
So many haters... I'd like to know why people dislike hockey. It's fast paced, hard hitting, and the action doesn't stop every 15 seconds (like baseball or the end of a basketball game). Hockey fans and players worship the game. It's true. What the article pointed out - we think it's an obvious choice for one of the best sports out there... you can base that on skill alone if you had to. But there are those who don't like it simply because they can't follow the black puck on the white ice.

Nah, I actually like hockey alot, if the Flyers had made it to the Cup Finals I bet ratings would have been decent since Philly is US's third largest city... it's probably a variety of things like, there's no "Micheal Jordan" or "Barry Bonds" of hockey. Why should we watch when most of the players are close in skill level? When there's no enigmatic, American/Canadien/English speaking player to watch? Also, their marketing sucks. MLB and NBA have great marketing campaigns, and you see their superstars in commercials for shoes, hamburgers, gatorade, and even shampoo. When's the last time you saw a hockey player in a commercial *cough*Gretzsky*cough*. Now do you see the problem? America doesn't have anyone to love in the NHL, for the most part it's just a bunch of foreigners hitting a little black puck around, America does not care about this!! They'd much rather watch Shaq throw down on little guys, Bonds/Sosa terrorize pitchers, or watch Favre/Vick/McNabb/McNair rip through opposing defenses. To prove this point, baseball ratings are close to an all time high even with the Sammy Sosa corked bat and steroid allegations. NHL, we need someone to love!!! Get some PERSONALITY ALREADY!

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: rh71
So many haters... I'd like to know why people dislike hockey. It's fast paced, hard hitting, and the action doesn't stop every 15 seconds (like baseball or the end of a basketball game). Hockey fans and players worship the game. It's true. What the article pointed out - we think it's an obvious choice for one of the best sports out there... you can base that on skill alone if you had to. But there are those who don't like it simply because they can't follow the black puck on the white ice.

People dislike hockey because there are so many games and not enough scoring. The same argument can be made for baseball, but since baseball was in the mainstream first it is still watched. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that baseball ratings are on a nice, steady decline right now.

What is it that draws people to football? Every game counts in a way that you can actually put your finger on. Every game counts in baseball and hockey, but it's a lot harder to get really worried about your team if they drop a game early in the season.

I'm a sports fan. To be honest though I only watch hockey, basketball, and baseball during the postseason. I watch football all the way through.

 

[CChaos]

Part of the reason that I think I'm not much of a hockey fan is lack of exposure to it while I was growing up. We played a bit on the pond in our neighborhood when it would freeze up, and we were friends with a pair of brothers who played organized hockey growing up. Of course, they had to drive 45 minutes or so to do it. Countless basketball, baseball, football, hell even soccer games took place in my front yard over the years and there's no doubt it increased my appreciation for the games. Also, I could shoot some hoops by myself, or play catch with a football/baseball, but the times we played hockey it was a much bigger operation in regards to the number of people and equipment we required. My brother is a big hockey fan, probably because he went to see a good friend of his play (up to semi-pro iirc).

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: rh71
So many haters... I'd like to know why people dislike hockey. It's fast paced, hard hitting, and the action doesn't stop every 15 seconds (like baseball or the end of a basketball game). Hockey fans and players worship the game. It's true. What the article pointed out - we think it's an obvious choice for one of the best sports out there... you can base that on skill alone if you had to. But there are those who don't like it simply because they can't follow the black puck on the white ice.

People dislike hockey because there are so many games and not enough scoring. The same argument can be made for baseball, but since baseball was in the mainstream first it is still watched. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that baseball ratings are on a nice, steady decline right now.

What is it that draws people to football? Every game counts in a way that you can actually put your finger on. Every game counts in baseball and hockey, but it's a lot harder to get really worried about your team if they drop a game early in the season.

I'm a sports fan. To be honest though I only watch hockey, basketball, and baseball during the postseason. I watch football all the way through.

You're wrong, baseball ratings are UP. From the LA TIMES:

Despite Itself, Baseball Is Getting Big League Ratings
May 25th, 2004
Mike Penner

Knowing what we think we know about Major League Baseball circa 2004, a quick round of word association:

National pastime: past its time.

Home runs: steroids.

Barry Bonds: BALCO.

Roger Clemens: See, it's a sport for old people.

Randy Johnson: See, it's a sport for old people.

On base: Spider-Man.

Cracker Jack: Gone from Yankee Stadium.

Peanuts: Baseball TV ratings.

Not so fast on that last one.

In a country supposedly gone NASCAR-mad, in the heart of the NBA playoffs, baseball, despite several well-aimed attempts to shoot itself in both feet, heads into the last week in May without a limp, without crutches, but with a surprising hop in its step.

The Angels' ratings on Fox Sports Net are up 78% over last year.

The Dodgers' ratings on Fox Sports Net 2 are up 17%.

Across the Fox Sports Net regional map, statistics more startling than Derek Jeter's .190 batting average can be found.

In Chicago, the Cubs' regional television ratings are up 101%.

In Seattle, the Mariners' TV numbers have jumped 97%.

Houston? Up 45%. Milwaukee? A 42% bump. Even in Detroit, where one of the worst teams to ever fumble with a uniform zipper lost 119 games last season, ratings have increased 59% over 2003.

Nationally, baseball ratings on Fox Sports Net have risen 20% from last season, from 3.2 in 2003 to 3.9 so far in 2004.

This from a sport supposedly in such bad shape, so desperate to broaden its audience, that it approved putting "Spider-Man 2" ads on its bases, at least for a couple of days, before the voice of angry fans began to drown out "Take Me Out to the Ball Game," a song that recently required a rewrite for accuracy's sake inside Yankee Stadium.

Buy me some peanuts and Crunch 'n Munch

I wonder how many players had steroids for lunch

Last weekend, the national Fox network aired its first Saturday baseball telecast of the season, with four games filling the time block on a regional basis: Dodgers at Braves, Cardinals at Cubs, Diamondbacks at Marlins, Yankees at Rangers. Fox reported an average overnight rating of 3.5 for the four games, a 17% improvement over the network's opening weekend from 2003.

Steve Simpson, Fox Sports Net West vice president and general manager, said he "can't explain the resurgence of baseball, the way it's coming across now, across the country, especially on the heels of all you're hearing about steroid abuse and 'baseball's in turmoil.' All of a sudden, across the country, attendance is up, ratings are up, and in Southern California, we're enjoying that.

"I can't explain it. But it's a good thing."

Simpson, however, ventured a few theories as to why the Angels' Fox Sports Net ratings are up nearly 80%, from 1.3 in 2003 to 2.3 today, and why the Dodgers' have climbed from 1.5 to 1.7.

First, he pointed to the standings. The Angels lead the American League West by three games and the Dodgers are in a virtual tie for first place in the National League West.

"Winning cures all," he said.

A high-profile off-season, during which the Angels acquired big-name talent such as Vladimir Guerrero and the Dodgers changed ownership, also helped spark early-season interest in the local teams.

"The Angels made some great acquisitions," Simpson said. "[Owner] Arte Moreno's done some great things. And the Dodgers got a lot of publicity up front about new ownership, albeit not great. It kept them in the light, and it kept us and the media focused on them."

Fox Sports Net President Bob Thompson believes the ratings are partly residue from a well-watched postseason in which the long-suffering Cubs and Boston Red Sox fell just short of the World Series in dramatic fashion.

"My belief is that the biggest reason for the increase is the result of the tremendous postseason that occurred," he said. "I mean, the numbers were up across the board, not just in the divisional [playoffs] and the NLCS and ALCS, but even the World Series was good. It was an exciting World Series ?.

"I think people really rediscovered the excitement that exists around baseball. Also, it didn't hurt having so many major-market teams involved."

Thompson said baseball ratings in April and May 2003 were affected by the public's interest in the initial stages of the war in Iraq.

"That drew a lot of viewers' attentions early on in the year," he said. "So when you're comparing at this point, from a year to date, you're comparing apples to apples, same time period versus last year, you're picking up a little bit of effect from that. The news channels aren't getting quite the viewership they had been a year ago."

And so far, Thompson said, "If there is fallout from the steroid thing, we're not seeing it. Who knows what the future will bring? I don't know that I can sit here and rightfully predict that, because my feeling is the steroid thing still has a way to go.

"But I also think there's been some great stories in baseball, the Bonds home-run chase. All those type of things have really helped the ratings."

On Fox Sports Net, baseball's average rating of 3.9 this season is higher than the 2003-04 regular-season ratings for the NBA (2.5) and NHL (1.1) combined.

"Baseball, to me, is a great sport," Thompson said. "It's an American institution. I don't know that it was ever 'broke' to the extent a lot of people said it was."

And, worth mentioning to Commissioner Bud Selig, people are watching with Casey Kotchman at first base for the Angels and Alex Cora at second base for the Dodgers. Evidently, Spider-Man's presence is not required.

I watch baseball more than any other sport, besides football, but they're in different seasons so it doesn't matter. Baseball will probably always be the second biggest sport behind football...

 

[Fingolfin269]

You're wrong

Heh, it's not the first time!

 

[spacejamz]

I have been a Dallas star season ticket holder for the past 6 years, but did not renew my tickets for next year.... (the biggest reason though was my apartment two blocks away from their arena. Bought a house 25 miles away, so the convience factor is no longer there)...

i still find it hard to understand why these two sides won't budge knowing what is on the line...each time one of the major sports gets into this situation where a strike looms and they know that the fans will get pretty pissed, it is just #%%@ up that they cant reach a mutual agreement...

 

[dquan97]

If there's a players lock-out, I'm volunteering to play for free!!!!!

 

[SALvation]

I'm one of those hardcore hockey fans and I have my fair share of opinions on how to fix hockey.

First, get rid of Bettman. He has been a cancer that has turned the sport into what it is today. Get an actual hockey guy in there like Gretzky or Howe or Dionne. Next, bring back the old conference names (Campbell, Wales, Norris...). The cool division names gave the sport personality. Next, align the teams so that old rivalries are back. Who the hell decided to break up Toronto-Detroit or other great original six matchups?

Also, widen the rinks to European size. This gets rid of the trap defense and also hooking/holding/interference penalties are less common.

Instead of a salary cap do a luxury tax. This way the owners that have the fan base to support a high salary team and the tax can spend as they want, and the lower teams get a nice break and some extra cash from the taxes.

Don't encourage fighting, but don't discourage it either. When a fight breaks out their isn't an ass left in the seats. If people want it, don't stop it.

Those are just a few opinions. Hopefully some of these come through.

 

[ElFenix]

On Fox Sports Net, baseball's average rating of 3.9 this season is higher than the 2003-04 regular-season ratings for the NBA (2.5) and NHL (1.1) combined.

damn, that is impressive.

 

[bigalt]

Originally posted by: rh71
But there are those who don't like it simply because they can't follow the black puck on the white ice.

I think you pretty much hit the nail right on the head, for me.

As a casual sports fan, I can tune into a basketball game and pretty much immediately identify who the good players are watch their stats go up as shown during the pauses in the game.

The only reason I have any understanding of hockey is because of NHL '94 and some dummy's guide to faceoffs during one all-star game i watched. I can't tell where the puck is, most of the time when a goal is scored the only reason I know it is because players are raising their arms in the air, and I have no idea what makes one player better than any of the rest. Hockey has great highlight reels but is just inaccessible for those who don't love it, so I can't really see it living much longer.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

On Fox Sports Net, baseball's average rating of 3.9 this season is higher than the 2003-04 regular-season ratings for the NBA (2.5) and NHL (1.1) combined.

damn, that is impressive.

I find that believable though...

But, I'm a little skeptical about some of the other numbers quoted for baseball.... a bunch of teams with twice as much viewership?

Nationally, baseball ratings on Fox Sports Net have risen 20% from last season, from 3.2 in 2003 to 3.9 so far in 2004

Could that be because they picked the "right" games to televise? (or do they televise all of the games? I don't know, I quite watching baseball when everyone else said they'd quit watching ('86?) during the strike/lockout thing.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: rh71
So many haters... I'd like to know why people dislike hockey. It's fast paced, hard hitting, and the action doesn't stop every 15 seconds (like baseball or the end of a basketball game). Hockey fans and players worship the game. It's true. What the article pointed out - we think it's an obvious choice for one of the best sports out there... you can base that on skill alone if you had to. But there are those who don't like it simply because they can't follow the black puck on the white ice.

Almost the same thing can be said about soccer. I think a lot of it has to do with not enough offense. With the exception of baseball (national pasttime - arguably), fans like lots of offense and scoring.

 

[ThaPerculator]

The whole problem with hockey is that most Americans have a pre-constituted hatred towards all things Canadian. It doesn't help that every time you watch hockey, there are so many "pro-canadian" commercials on TV that it is impossible to forget it originated in Canada. If they want American money, they have to drop the whole "Canada rules" thing (Molson CANADIAN, CANADIAN tire, etc.). Most of the time I bring up hockey to non-fans, all I hear is "yeah, whatever, screw Canada".

Hockey has more expression, emotion and straight up energy than just about every sport out there. You can tell by things like watching the Pistons, and seeing Rip Hamilton wear that stupid clear face mask. If it was hockey, you better belive that the damn thing would look like Hannibal Lecter or at least be decorated in some way.

What IS going to help hockey...

The adaptation to widescreen tv's in the future. If they broadcasted in widescreen, people could see more of the length of the ice and actually see how defensive units are setting up, etc. HD would help too for the morons who can't follow the puck <i still don't get this excuse, especially from people who play video games all day.... I used to watch tons of hockey when I was young and the picture sucked and never had a problem.>

Also, they need to bring back fighting in the NHL. With this stupid instigator rule, people like Ville Niemenen can constantly take cheap shots at people and skate happily off the ice smiling their asses off without getting beat to a bloody pulp. I'm sorry, but if you get suspended for deliberately trying to injure a goalie, and within the first minute of the 1st game back you make a run straight at him, and then for the next 6 games make at LEAST 1 attempt to injure the goalie every game, you should not be allowed in the league. People like him wreck the sport of Hockey by abusing its 'honor code' and not getting reprimanded for it old time hockey style.

You say hockey needs a spokesperson? I remember seeing big commercials with Jeremy Roenick (speaks english fine), Joe Thornton (ditto), Anson Carter (ditto, and hey he's black) and since I'm from Detroit, practically every commercial for a car dealership has some Red Wing in it, let alone small commercials for other stuff (Mickey Redmond for hair transplants, etc.). Outside of the major markets, these have no appeal, just as a commercial with Alex Rodriguez would have no appeal to me because I quit watching baseball after the strikes.

Basically what has stopped people from watching hockey is small markets, teams like Washington that decide to get rid of everybody to save money (which shows its all about money which noone wants to remember for any sport). These small market teams need to spend more cash on a deeper lineup so that if their star gets injured thay can stay competitive.

Everybody claims hockey needs a salary cap, when in reality that is the #1 thing that could hurt it. People rip on Detroit because it has so many big name players, when in reality they are probably the smartest team in the league. Buy the big names, recuperate the costs in merchandise/ticket sales, win fans over by giving them somebody to identify with, and retain fans by doing so for a long time. Most teams don't realize that the backbone of the wings is not even close to being their star players. People look at the roster and don't realize the kind of depth the team has with its 3rd/4th lines filled with no-name players that would generally be 1st/2nd line players in other markets. Most of them were brought up within the system, and could make better money elsewhere, but prefer to stay around because the fan base is so good around here. Some examples of them leaving and taking a bigger role: Martin LaPointe, Mike Knuble, Keith Primeau. They are star players in their respective hometowns now, but weren't even close to the biggest people on the team while they were in Detroit.

Ok, I'll quit rambling because I just saw how long my post is lol... :beer:

 

[Anubis]

id rather watch hockey then the sh!tty NBA

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Anubis
id rather watch hockey then the sh!tty NBA

Ditto. How long can the NBA teams drag out the final two minutes of a game with all of the goddamn time-outs they have? It's ridiculous. Not to mention all of the ego trips from NBA players.

I am really going to miss hockey if it's gone next season. I really wish it were a more popular sport here in the US.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: ThaPerculator
Basically what has stopped people from watching hockey is small markets, teams like Washington that decide to get rid of everybody to save money (which shows its all about money which noone wants to remember for any sport). These small market teams need to spend more cash on a deeper lineup so that if their star gets injured thay can stay competitive.

Ok... I'll bite on this one... (good post for the most part)... as a die-hard Caps fan since '91 who's never left NY... I've watched this team through mediocrity. The best thing they ever did was get a new owner who was willing to open up his wallet. Jagr's $11mil/yr signing and Lang's $5mil/yr FA contract were sweet. I thought we finally had a winner. 3 years into it... they did CRAP for the team. Their numbers were great, but it didn't help THE TEAM. So seeing no reason to keep a high payroll while bottoming out in the standings, Ted Leonsis (AOL executive dude) decided to plan ahead for a potential cap. He's not cheap by any means. He was positioning himself to be able to sign a star or two even after the cap, seeing as they've loaded up on young talent from the trades (and Ovechkin to come) already. I can definitely live with it.

My point is... dropping players for financial reasons (if you can call it that in this case) isn't a reason fans stop watching... they stop watching when these players don't produce for the good of the team. Money doesn't buy standings in the NHL. Hell... look at the two teams fighting for the cup right now. Vinny and Jarome who ?

As Ted says to us fans on the Caps message boards... give him the formula for success and he'll make it happen... cause it certainly wasn't $$$.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: Anubis
id rather watch hockey then the sh!tty NBA

I cant stand the NBA, but I love NCAA. No real huge names. No huge egos. No "team" based on a single player.

I love hockey, and even if the NHL goes away, I'll continue to play. I've watched my beloved Penguins turn into an utter joke, even with the return of the man that got me interested in hockey. I've watched the 'wonder boy' Jagr jump from team to team and end up where so many other has-beens go, the Rangers.

I still find it hard to place any reliance in a team that changes players like trading cards. I enjoy watching the same players, wear the same colors, play with the same lines.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: ThaPerculator
The whole problem with hockey is that most Americans have a pre-constituted hatred towards all things Canadian. It doesn't help that every time you watch hockey, there are so many "pro-canadian" commercials on TV that it is impossible to forget it originated in Canada. If they want American money, they have to drop the whole "Canada rules" thing (Molson CANADIAN, CANADIAN tire, etc.). Most of the time I bring up hockey to non-fans, all I hear is "yeah, whatever, screw Canada".

Hockey has more expression, emotion and straight up energy than just about every sport out there. You can tell by things like watching the Pistons, and seeing Rip Hamilton wear that stupid clear face mask. If it was hockey, you better belive that the damn thing would look like Hannibal Lecter or at least be decorated in some way.

What IS going to help hockey...

The adaptation to widescreen tv's in the future. If they broadcasted in widescreen, people could see more of the length of the ice and actually see how defensive units are setting up, etc. HD would help too for the morons who can't follow the puck <i still don't get this excuse, especially from people who play video games all day.... I used to watch tons of hockey when I was young and the picture sucked and never had a problem.>

Also, they need to bring back fighting in the NHL. With this stupid instigator rule, people like Ville Niemenen can constantly take cheap shots at people and skate happily off the ice smiling their asses off without getting beat to a bloody pulp. I'm sorry, but if you get suspended for deliberately trying to injure a goalie, and within the first minute of the 1st game back you make a run straight at him, and then for the next 6 games make at LEAST 1 attempt to injure the goalie every game, you should not be allowed in the league. People like him wreck the sport of Hockey by abusing its 'honor code' and not getting reprimanded for it old time hockey style.

You say hockey needs a spokesperson? I remember seeing big commercials with Jeremy Roenick (speaks english fine), Joe Thornton (ditto), Anson Carter (ditto, and hey he's black) and since I'm from Detroit, practically every commercial for a car dealership has some Red Wing in it, let alone small commercials for other stuff (Mickey Redmond for hair transplants, etc.). Outside of the major markets, these have no appeal, just as a commercial with Alex Rodriguez would have no appeal to me because I quit watching baseball after the strikes.

Basically what has stopped people from watching hockey is small markets, teams like Washington that decide to get rid of everybody to save money (which shows its all about money which noone wants to remember for any sport). These small market teams need to spend more cash on a deeper lineup so that if their star gets injured thay can stay competitive.

Everybody claims hockey needs a salary cap, when in reality that is the #1 thing that could hurt it. People rip on Detroit because it has so many big name players, when in reality they are probably the smartest team in the league. Buy the big names, recuperate the costs in merchandise/ticket sales, win fans over by giving them somebody to identify with, and retain fans by doing so for a long time. Most teams don't realize that the backbone of the wings is not even close to being their star players. People look at the roster and don't realize the kind of depth the team has with its 3rd/4th lines filled with no-name players that would generally be 1st/2nd line players in other markets. Most of them were brought up within the system, and could make better money elsewhere, but prefer to stay around because the fan base is so good around here. Some examples of them leaving and taking a bigger role: Martin LaPointe, Mike Knuble, Keith Primeau. They are star players in their respective hometowns now, but weren't even close to the biggest people on the team while they were in Detroit.

Ok, I'll quit rambling because I just saw how long my post is lol... :beer:

Yes, either the small market teams need to spend more or they need to cease to exist. Trim the league back down to 15-20 major teams, with most of the teams located near a major city. This way, talent wouldn't be thinned out...

Next, somehow Americanize the sport. What that means, is do something that we can identify with like Perc said. Allow fighting (but no cheap shots), change the rink so teams can't trap, and trim the number of games down to half so there aren't as many injuries. Blitz America with a new marketing campaign, have star players do charity events more and get more exposure. Bring back the laser beam on the puck if you have to. Penalize teams that don't have high attendance by axing the franchise, and letting all the players become free agents. Hey small market teams, IF you want your OWN team, then GO TO THE FRICKING GAMES! If not, then you're just contributing to the thinning of talent in the league. And last but not least, widen the goal by 4 inches on each side and top, so there is more scoring.