Revamping the NHL

lucifer_sam · 05-21-2009, 10:55 PM

some good suggestions here, some bad ones too.

i like the idea of combining both socal franchises into one, i was in Anaheim in '07 around this time and they don't give a shit about hockey at all. not only that, but most southern franchises are terrible places to host hockey to begin with (Washington being the only glaring exception).

i'm with Proggyman, Sharks over Blues for sure. St. Louis (like Detroit) is a dying town but (unlike Detroit) happens to sit on a horrendous hockey franchise and terrible fans to boot.

i'd also like to propose that the NHL revamp its policy towards calling penalties. there's been too many chippy calls and borderline "penalties" called, even in the playoffs, to such an extent that referees feel pressured to make even-up calls. it's stupid, they miss as many as they call wrongly and it's absolutely absurd to let a bad call ruin a game. let coaches get the option to contest a penalty once a game (using the timeout as collateral, much like the NFL), and send it to Toronto.

gotjuice · 05-26-2009, 04:24 PM

The problem the NHL has is that most of their franchises are in the United States, which, for the most part, doesn't give a **** about hockey. I think the rule changes enacted four years ago could have created more appeal for the average sports fan, but unfortunately, the average sports fan in the U.S. doesn't even know the NHL exists because all the games are on Versus, which nobody gets. We're in the conference finals of the playoffs and most of the games are still on Versus, if they're on at all. Some of my fondest memories growing up were staying up til 3 in the morning to watch Steve Levy call a 5OT playoff game on ESPN2. Those are pretty distant memories at this point. It's true that the lockout was a huge blow to the sport, but if they had shoved their ego and renegotiated the TV contract with ESPN, the country would have forgiven them.

It should be painfully obvious to the NHL, now, though, that they will never, ever, ever, ever surpass the NFL, NBA, or MLB in this country. It just won't happen. So I agree with the original poster's idea that the best way for the NHL to evolve is to contract, not expand.

There's no reason to have to eliminate St. Louis or San Jose, both of which are successful and important franchises. I'm not sure why the original poster has Toronto in the west, I'd move them to the East (where they are now). That'd give one division from each conference seven teams, and then San Jose could fill that other slot in the West. Other than that I really like that setup. I'd also like to see the two-line-pass rule changed back to be illegal, and to eliminate the shootout and go back to the W/L/T format. As stated before, it's painfully obvious those rule changes didn't create any broader appeal, and it's time for the NHL to reappeal to their base. I think both those rules are kind of gimmicky, so I'd like to see them go.

Son of JayJamJah · 05-26-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotjuice

The problem the NHL has is that most of their franchises are in the United States, which, for the most part, doesn't give a **** about hockey. I think the rule changes enacted four years ago could have created more appeal for the average sports fan, but unfortunately, the average sports fan in the U.S. doesn't even know the NHL exists because all the games are on Versus, which nobody gets. We're in the conference finals of the playoffs and most of the games are still on Versus, if they're on at all. Some of my fondest memories growing up were staying up til 3 in the morning to watch Steve Levy call a 5OT playoff game on ESPN2. Those are pretty distant memories at this point. It's true that the lockout was a huge blow to the sport, but if they had shoved their ego and renegotiated the TV contract with ESPN, the country would have forgiven them.

It should be painfully obvious to the NHL, now, though, that they will never, ever, ever, ever surpass the NFL, NBA, or MLB in this country. It just won't happen. So I agree with the original poster's idea that the best way for the NHL to evolve is to contract, not expand.

There's no reason to have to eliminate St. Louis or San Jose, both of which are successful and important franchises. I'm not sure why the original poster has Toronto in the west, I'd move them to the East (where they are now). That'd give one division from each conference seven teams, and then San Jose could fill that other slot in the West. Other than that I really like that setup. I'd also like to see the two-line-pass rule changed back to be illegal, and to eliminate the shootout and go back to the W/L/T format. As stated before, it's painfully obvious those rule changes didn't create any broader appeal, and it's time for the NHL to reappeal to their base. I think both those rules are kind of gimmicky, so I'd like to see them go.

I have Toronto in the West because they belong there, that's always where they were (following original expansion in the 1970's) until the NHL realigned them in the late 1990's. The Western (Campbell) conference needs one Original Six rivalry and Detroit\Toronto is a great one.

I don't see the need for San Jose, they draw well but it's not as if anyone would miss them. They are called the Sharks and the sport they place is on ice, that alone is stupid enough to get you contracted.

gotjuice · 05-26-2009, 05:38 PM

You don't have to be in the same conference to have a great rivalry. I think San Jose is a legit franchise also because San Jose/northern California really doesn't have much else in the way of sports competition, so I think they're a great market that the NHL can tap.

Son of JayJamJah · 05-26-2009, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotjuice

You don't have to be in the same conference to have a great rivalry. .

Yes you do. The only exception is sports history I can think of is Celtics\Lakers.

If they're not in the same conference they only play each other twice and will almost never meet in the playoffs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotjuice

I think San Jose is a legit franchise also because San Jose/northern California really doesn't have much else in the way of sports competition, so I think they're a great market that the NHL can tap

It's that kind of thinking that got us stuck with Nashville and Columbus. San Jose is a fine franchise, but 24 is the bets number for the sport and I don't see anyone else to cut that wouln't have a larger negative impact.

anticipation · 05-26-2009, 05:57 PM

to those who believe that the NHL should've renegotiated with ESPN, take a gander at this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by puckdaddy

With apologies to John Buccigross, Jack Edwards of NESN's Boston Bruins coverage and Versus is becoming the preeminent cult puckhead icon in U.S. hockey broadcasting.

Sure, he's polarizing; lord knows a guy who can't call a fight without making it seem like the Thrilla in Manila and who cackles like a mad man at the agitation of Philadelphia Flyers fans. But the dude's doing something right if he's inspired his own play-at-home bingo game, right?

What's endearing about Edwards is that he's an ESPN survivor: a former on-air personality for the World Wide Leader that can speak candidly about what ESPN didn't do for the NHL when it had the rights and whether he believes the League is better off rejoining the WWL when it's contractually able to.

In Part One of what should be a wide-ranging interview with Edwards, Steve Lepore of Puck The Media asks about Edwards's time on ESPN and follows up with two questions about its coverage of the game:

PTM: Following up, because of that, are you kind of glad that ESPN doesn't cover hockey anymore?

JE: Well, I think that all you need to know is - for those who wish that hockey was back on ESPN - last Saturday, which was probably the single most amazing night of the NHL season. Just in terms of teams switching places, dramatic things happening, crazy games, that kind of thing.

We went from Toronto to Philadelphia, we were in (Bruins radio play-by-play man) Dave Goucher's room, having a couple cold ones. Now, the Sweet 16 is going on in college basketball at the same time, the only hockey we saw in the entire sportscast of "SportsCenter" was about 45 seconds of the UNH-North Dakota game, which was the one UNH tied with one-tenth of a second to go, that went into Overtime. That was 56 minutes into the telecast. There was nothing on the NHL in the entire show.

So, for those of you that hope that hockey gets back on ESPN, that's what you're gonna' get.

That's where it belongs in ESPN's hierarchy, because there are some bozos sitting in the accounting department in a bunker in Burbank, California running Disney, who look at the numbers and completely ignore the passion of hockey fans. They say "Poker gets better ratings because we can attract more compulsive gamblers to the screen than we can passionate hockey fans, so just for the sake of that number, we're gonna' run poker instead of hockey. We're gonna run women's basketball instead of hockey."

We saw highlights of the Division II NCAA basketball championship, we didn't see a single NHL highlight in that entire "SportsCenter". Case closed.

PTM: Well Jack, you're gonna' be a big hero to a lot of hockey fans when this goes up...

JE: I'm not a hero, I'm just telling you the facts. I mean, that's what it is and you know, this whole idea that hockey will do better if you put it back on ESPN is a delusion. It is completely delusionary. It's more convenient, certainly. But it's not going to be better for the sport, because it's going to be behind golf, it's going to be behind women's basketball and, you know, I'm not dissing those sports.

Regarding ESPN's coverage of hockey, it's not too hard to figure out that the network is a self-referential whore, willing to put over any sport with which it has a monetary relationship and burying the competition. And if you think that isn't the case, then you must have forgotten the treatment the XFL received (before a single game was played) for daring to cast its lot with NBC.

Would that change if the NHL went back to ESPN? Potentially. The League is a much more marketable commodity than it was before the lockout, with breakout young stars like Alexander Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby, and with a television-friendly (though competitively corrupt) skills competition in overtime. The trap years are a dreary memory; ESPN could actually deliver on a promise of offense to the basketball fans in its audience.

That said, ESPN's current decision to ignore the NHL at nearly every turn is to its determent. The hockey coverage on ESPN has gotten so sparse, it's like a revelation when something is given prominent promotion; like waking up and finding the Blue Jackets on the cover of Time Magazine.

When's the last time Barry Melrose or Matthew Barnaby made waves in the puckhead community? When's the last time the world stopped because Scott Burnside wrote something mind-blowing? Pierre Lebrun does outstanding work for ESPN.com; but how often is he referenced in relation to, say, the TSN news breakers?

The point isn't that these people don't do quality work; it's that their network is training hockey fans to look elsewhere. It's a vicious circle: Hockey fans don't watch ESPN or visit ESPN.com for news because ESPN doesn't give them what they want; ESPN sees those numbers, and decides no one is intersted in hockey; they cut back coverage, leading to more fans becoming disenfranchised.

We're not blind to the huge readership we're blessed with here and on the NHL front page at Yahoo! Sports. That comes despite the intrinsic bias against hockey in general sports coverage but mainly because Yahoo! has made an effort to respect the NHL and its fans.

How other mainstream media can remain blind to the viewership, the attendance, the casual fan converts and all the other positive signs of hockey's growth is baffling. But, in the end, it's their loss. The newspapers are discovering what neglecting their audiences means in the long run. So will other media.

realistically, i believe that the NHL should eliminate atlanta, florida, tampa bay, dallas, phoenix, anaheim, san jose, and nashville, and then create teams in hartford, winnipeg, hamilton, seattle, maine, and maybe even north dakota.

pourmeanother · 05-26-2009, 07:24 PM

This thread is kind of a joke. I don't mean that to be a **** to JJJ, I just fail to see how any of these suggestions "revive" a sport that is, IMO, doing better than it has in years.

How will eliminating the Sharks do any good for the league? I don't see that being beneficial. You eliminate them because of their name and location... That's laughable. They have the strongest fan base of the California teams, a talented team, and players who will tell you that they love playing in California- you mean you can play hockey and live in a paradise that's not a tundra? Wild. In fact, the 3 California teams are usually average or above average in attendance figures.

Sharks may be a generic name, but it's one that fans have grown to love- you have the "Shark Tank", and I'm not sure there's a cooler PowerPlay intro than 'Jaws'. I don't even think teams need to be chopped at all. Just a few relocations.

Here's my suggestions:
-Move Atlanta, Nashville, and Tampa Bay to more financially viable locations. Canada and/or the Great Lakes area can support more teams DEFINITELY. The Southeast has shown they can't support hockey, and it was a poor choice to have teams settle there.
-Get rid of the *intent to blow the whistle* rule. That is terrible. "Oh, well, I was going to blow the play dead (even though I didn't) before the goal so... OVERTURNED!"
-Do something about the fighting at the drop of the puck. Fighting has changed into something different than in the past. It used to be more meaningful- now it's more like "Oh look, there's George Parros, and I'm Jody Shelley- he isn't doing anything but I like to fight him every game so I'm going to see if he wants to drop gloves at the start of the 2nd period". Let's get some honor back into fighting, but keep it around (I won't stand for the pussification of the league!)

Other than that I have no major complaints about the NHL right now.

Son of JayJamJah · 05-26-2009, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pourmeanother

This thread is kind of a joke. I don't mean that to be a **** to JJJ, I just fail to see how any of these suggestions "revive" a sport that is, IMO, doing better than it has in years.

How will eliminating the Sharks do any good for the league? I don't see that being beneficial. You eliminate them because of their name and location... That's laughable. They have the strongest fan base of the California teams, a talented team, and players who will tell you that they love playing in California- you mean you can play hockey and live in a paradise that's not a tundra? Wild. In fact, the 3 California teams are usually average or above average in attendance figures.

Sharks may be a generic name, but it's one that fans have grown to love- you have the "Shark Tank", and I'm not sure there's a cooler PowerPlay intro than 'Jaws'. I don't even think teams need to be chopped at all. Just a few relocations.

Here's my suggestions:
-Move Atlanta, Nashville, and Tampa Bay to more financially viable locations. Canada and/or the Great Lakes area can support more teams DEFINITELY. The Southeast has shown they can't support hockey, and it was a poor choice to have teams settle there.
-Get rid of the *intent to blow the whistle* rule. That is terrible. "Oh, well, I was going to blow the play dead (even though I didn't) before the goal so... OVERTURNED!"
-Do something about the fighting at the drop of the puck. Fighting has changed into something different than in the past. It used to be more meaningful- now it's more like "Oh look, there's George Parros, and I'm Jody Shelley- he isn't doing anything but I like to fight him every game so I'm going to see if he wants to drop gloves at the start of the 2nd period". Let's get some honor back into fighting, but keep it around (I won't stand for the pussification of the league!)

Other than that I have no major complaints about the NHL right now.

The sport is not doing okay though. Attendance figures are still down, several franchises are struggling and the TV ratings are below that of Full House reruns.

I love hockey and the reality is some teams need to be cut. Maybe San Jose should stay, but I think they need to cut at least 6 franchises and there needs to be more Canadian teams. Canada is a regional sport and places like LA, Dallas and the like are big enough markets to support a team even with only moderate interest.

I could be wrong, but everything I read suggests the Sharks following consists of the folks who go to the games and few others.

pourmeanother · 05-26-2009, 08:12 PM

They can survive without cutting teams if they relocate some. You turn a 3 or 4 dogs into viable franchises (financially) and that's a HUGE lift for the league. I don't have actual numbers, so I'm probably talking out of my ass, but I would argue that NHL revenues and market share is increasing.

By the way- I live in Northern California and I can tell you they have a strong fan base. The Sharks may not have national appeal (you won't see many Sharks fans in the Northeast, like you might see a Red Sox fan in California)- but regionally they are doing just fine.

ProggyMan · 05-26-2009, 09:59 PM

Yeah, anything but the Sharks! Really, the only reason I can see for a team being cut is if they can't pull their weight. The Sharks can.

05-21-2009, 10:55 PM	#11 (permalink)
lucifer_sam Unrepentant Ass-Mod Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,921	some good suggestions here, some bad ones too. i like the idea of combining both socal franchises into one, i was in Anaheim in '07 around this time and they don't give a shit about hockey at all. not only that, but most southern franchises are terrible places to host hockey to begin with (Washington being the only glaring exception). i'm with Proggyman, Sharks over Blues for sure. St. Louis (like Detroit) is a dying town but (unlike Detroit) happens to sit on a horrendous hockey franchise and terrible fans to boot. i'd also like to propose that the NHL revamp its policy towards calling penalties. there's been too many chippy calls and borderline "penalties" called, even in the playoffs, to such an extent that referees feel pressured to make even-up calls. it's stupid, they miss as many as they call wrongly and it's absolutely absurd to let a bad call ruin a game. let coaches get the option to contest a penalty once a game (using the timeout as collateral, much like the NFL), and send it to Toronto. __________________ first.am

05-26-2009, 07:24 PM	#17 (permalink)
pourmeanother Saaaad Panda Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 852	This thread is kind of a joke. I don't mean that to be a **** to JJJ, I just fail to see how any of these suggestions "revive" a sport that is, IMO, doing better than it has in years. How will eliminating the Sharks do any good for the league? I don't see that being beneficial. You eliminate them because of their name and location... That's laughable. They have the strongest fan base of the California teams, a talented team, and players who will tell you that they love playing in California- you mean you can play hockey and live in a paradise that's not a tundra? Wild. In fact, the 3 California teams are usually average or above average in attendance figures. Sharks may be a generic name, but it's one that fans have grown to love- you have the "Shark Tank", and I'm not sure there's a cooler PowerPlay intro than 'Jaws'. I don't even think teams need to be chopped at all. Just a few relocations. Here's my suggestions: -Move Atlanta, Nashville, and Tampa Bay to more financially viable locations. Canada and/or the Great Lakes area can support more teams DEFINITELY. The Southeast has shown they can't support hockey, and it was a poor choice to have teams settle there. -Get rid of the intent to blow the whistle rule. That is terrible. "Oh, well, I was going to blow the play dead (even though I didn't) before the goal so... OVERTURNED!" -Do something about the fighting at the drop of the puck. Fighting has changed into something different than in the past. It used to be more meaningful- now it's more like "Oh look, there's George Parros, and I'm Jody Shelley- he isn't doing anything but I like to fight him every game so I'm going to see if he wants to drop gloves at the start of the 2nd period". Let's get some honor back into fighting, but keep it around (I won't stand for the pussification of the league!) Other than that I have no major complaints about the NHL right now. __________________ Life is just blah, blah, blah You hope for blah And sometimes you find it, but mostly it's blah And waiting for blah And hoping you were right about the blahs you made And then, just when you think you've got the whole blah'd damn thing figured out And you're surrounded by the ones you blah Death shows up... anddd blah, blah, blah.

05-26-2009, 08:12 PM	#19 (permalink)
pourmeanother Saaaad Panda Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 852	They can survive without cutting teams if they relocate some. You turn a 3 or 4 dogs into viable franchises (financially) and that's a HUGE lift for the league. I don't have actual numbers, so I'm probably talking out of my ass, but I would argue that NHL revenues and market share is increasing. By the way- I live in Northern California and I can tell you they have a strong fan base. The Sharks may not have national appeal (you won't see many Sharks fans in the Northeast, like you might see a Red Sox fan in California)- but regionally they are doing just fine. __________________ Life is just blah, blah, blah You hope for blah And sometimes you find it, but mostly it's blah And waiting for blah And hoping you were right about the blahs you made And then, just when you think you've got the whole blah'd damn thing figured out And you're surrounded by the ones you blah Death shows up... anddd blah, blah, blah.

05-26-2009, 04:24 PM	#12 (permalink)
gotjuice Rose City til I die! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 366	The problem the NHL has is that most of their franchises are in the United States, which, for the most part, doesn't give a **** about hockey. I think the rule changes enacted four years ago could have created more appeal for the average sports fan, but unfortunately, the average sports fan in the U.S. doesn't even know the NHL exists because all the games are on Versus, which nobody gets. We're in the conference finals of the playoffs and most of the games are still on Versus, if they're on at all. Some of my fondest memories growing up were staying up til 3 in the morning to watch Steve Levy call a 5OT playoff game on ESPN2. Those are pretty distant memories at this point. It's true that the lockout was a huge blow to the sport, but if they had shoved their ego and renegotiated the TV contract with ESPN, the country would have forgiven them. It should be painfully obvious to the NHL, now, though, that they will never, ever, ever, ever surpass the NFL, NBA, or MLB in this country. It just won't happen. So I agree with the original poster's idea that the best way for the NHL to evolve is to contract, not expand. There's no reason to have to eliminate St. Louis or San Jose, both of which are successful and important franchises. I'm not sure why the original poster has Toronto in the west, I'd move them to the East (where they are now). That'd give one division from each conference seven teams, and then San Jose could fill that other slot in the West. Other than that I really like that setup. I'd also like to see the two-line-pass rule changed back to be illegal, and to eliminate the shootout and go back to the W/L/T format. As stated before, it's painfully obvious those rule changes didn't create any broader appeal, and it's time for the NHL to reappeal to their base. I think both those rules are kind of gimmicky, so I'd like to see them go.

05-26-2009, 05:38 PM	#14 (permalink)
gotjuice Rose City til I die! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 366	You don't have to be in the same conference to have a great rivalry. I think San Jose is a legit franchise also because San Jose/northern California really doesn't have much else in the way of sports competition, so I think they're a great market that the NHL can tap.

05-26-2009, 09:59 PM	#20 (permalink)
ProggyMan Reformed Jackass Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,964	Yeah, anything but the Sharks! Really, the only reason I can see for a team being cut is if they can't pull their weight. The Sharks can.