I liked the skating and team play.
It is improving each olympic game.
The National Hockey League … how much do you care?
-
I hear ya dezrt … those experiences are the best. The Saddledome is quite warm, but most other rinks in Calgary are good and cold :) The outdoor ones are the best; good memories there. To me, it’s just not hockey if it’s not cold … but that’s my Canadian bias :-?
The cheap prices are always great, too. We’ve got the Hitmen (a junior team) and their tickets are $11 for students. It’s great hockey, a lot of fun to watch … I’ve got some of my best memories from those guys (sitting in the front row in a sold-out Saddledome when they won the League championship!) Of course, my absolute best memories are from the Flame’s playoff run … <sigh>Fortunately, except for the Flames sports in Calgary are quite affordable (and relative to the rest of the NHL, the Flames really aren’t that bad at all!) The Stampeders (Canadian Football League) charge as low as $100 for a season ticket - $10 a game. My season’s cost $140 … $14 a game is a helluva deal! The Roughnecks (NLL - you a ‘Sting’ fan?) charge $25.50 per game … which I think is a bit much given that it’s a relatively new and less popular sport in Calgary, but what are you gonna do. Personally, I think the value I get for CFL games is incredible. Great football, low price!</sigh> -
And jamitjames, unfortunately I am disputing your claim of being the only one happy about the lockout ;) The League is SO incredibly screwed up - it’s truly beyond repair, apparently - that a lockout is the only thing possible to get the NHL even remotely back on track. You and I share the same greatest fear - that a crappy deadline deal, worse than the original, would be signed for the sole purpose of salvaging some of the season. Thankfully, that hasn’t happened yet (knock on wood).
Thats good to hear your on the same page :)
-
Completely … I’m more than willing to go a season without the NHL (I love the Flames, and I love the Canadian teams in general, and I love hockey … but I hate the NHL, because it’s so screwed up) if it means a deal that will fix the League - ie, allow survival and competitive ability of the franchises that matter the most to the League, ie, those in traditional areas, and those that support the sport the most. If a few of the non-traditional cities are lost, that’s OK too ;)
I think contraction is necessary for this to be a GOOD league. To me, the problem with the NHL is that it’s a (relatively) small league, trying to be a big one. It’s trying to be something it’s not, and, surprise, it’s not working. If it was to admit that it’s not going to be able to compete with the NFL, NBA and MLB (which is fine), then it will be more than successful for its size. There is nothing wrong with being a smaller league. Players can take a huge cut in salary and still be the best-paid hockey players in the world (easily). I love using the CFL as an example. True, it’s had some tough times - but currently, it’s sticking to its roots and not trying to grow beyond its means. As a result, it is thriving in Canada.
I suggest a smaller League - 20 teams or so. Get out of the South, except for MAYBE LA and Dallas (I’m not sold at all on whether Dallas can support a team, but they seem to be doing alright … LA has shown they can support the Kings). So, there’s two teams. Keep Colorado, Detroit, Chicago, Boston, the Rangers, Philly, Minnesota, and either Pittsburgh or one other from the New York area (Islanders, Devils, Sabres). My personal choice would be the Sabres. I wouldn’t mind seeing a team in Seattle. Of course, keep the current 6 Canadian teams, and ideally add teams in Quebec City and Winnipeg again, and perhaps Hamilton.
That’s about 20 teams … easily two conferences of 10, four divisions of 5. Each team could play a 64-game schedule: 6 games against each divisional opponent, 4 games against each team in your conference’s other division, and 2 games against each team in the other conference.
6 or 7 teams from each conference could make the playoffs (6 teams: division winners get byes; 7 teams: conference champion gets a bye). Of course, series would still be 4/7.
This would increase the talent in the League, make each game more meaningful, tire the players out less (hence better hockey) and be good for the game all-around.
As for the game itself, dump the OT loss point, and DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT INTRODUCING A SHOOTOUT. I hate the shootout idea. It’s another gimmick to entice the non-hockey fan, in order to make an extra buck. A shootout gives NO justice to one of the most important concepts in hockey: teamwork. A goalie can have an off-night, but if his defence hangs in there, they can still come out with the win. However, if there’s a shootout, the goalie is hung out to dry, and his entire team is saddled with a loss.
I’m alright with 4-on-4 OT, but I’d rather they bring back the 5-on-5. How to make the two teams fight it out for a win, instead of settling for a tie? Make a win worth 3 points. Soccer did the change, and it worked out great. Tie is one point; loss (in OT or not) is 0 points.
For everyone who would complain about the old records for most points in a season being gypped, well, they really already are thanks to that lovely “OT loss” crap …
Keep the 2-line-pass offside. Move the nets back. Allow the goalie to play the puck!!! That’s part of the game!!! Make a crease that surrounds the net - and if the goalie plays the puck outside of that, he’s fair game to be hit. Simplify the offside rule (tag-up). And so on …
Geez … I hate the NHL. ;) It better improve itself. Still love the Flames … hate the NHL.
-
I am generaly only interested in games I’ve played. And I have no I dea how to play Lacrosse and as of now have no interest. Allthough the was I time I wasn’t interested in Baseball either.
-
You know CK - as long as we are building a fantasy “it would be nice but prolly won’t happen” league, why not give Atlantic Canada a team? Heck - i’d go to Halifax just to party, nevermind to see a hockey game. Also i think that if you built an areana equidistant between S-toon and Regina, you’d capture a massive, rabid/fanatical hockey market (look at how well the Roughriders do in getting fans into Regina).
I am generaly only interested in games I’ve played. And I have no I dea how to play Lacrosse and as of now have no interest. Allthough the was I time I wasn’t interested in Baseball either.
Hockey/Lacrosse - violent Canadians beatting the crap out of each other while carrying sticks and trying to get a small object into a (relatively) small net.
Baseball - boring Americans beating the crap out of a small object while trying to get it as far away from everyone else as possible, while the others think about post-game drinking. -
@cystic:
Baseball - boring Americans beating the crap out of a small object while trying to get it as far away from everyone else as possible, while the others think about post-game drinking.
What’s boring about that? Beating the crap out of stuff and drinking, two of my favorite past times. ;)
-
You know CK - as long as we are building a fantasy “it would be nice but prolly won’t happen” league, why not give Atlantic Canada a team? Heck - i’d go to Halifax just to party, nevermind to see a hockey game. Also i think that if you built an areana equidistant between S-toon and Regina, you’d capture a massive, rabid/fanatical hockey market (look at how well the Roughriders do in getting fans into Regina).
That would be ideal … it would be much more unlikely than teams in Winnipeg, Quebec and Hamilton, but it would be sweet nonetheless. I’m sure a team in Saskatoon would do pretty well on its own (I’m not sure what else there is to do in Saskatchewan other than watch sports and drink, anyway!) I think Regina and Saskatoon are about 3 hrs away from each other … Did you know that in '83, the Blues were sold to a group from Saskatoon, but the NHL rejected the sale? … the Saskatoon Blues … interesting ;)
Ah well … I was focusing on cities that have had teams, or could very likely support one … but it would be incredible if there was a team in every province from BC to Quebec, and a team for the maritimes, too.
Which reminds me … Quebec has one team, florida has two; Ontario has two teams, california has three … ???
-
i have not examine these for content
for those of you interested in hockey fights:
-
According to former NHL players living in Boston, Pittsburgh and Dallas, the NHL lockout gets hardly any mention down in the States. Apparently hockey doesn’t get much coverage in Dallas anyway; now that there’s no hockey, well, there’s basically no coverage. In the New England area - even before the NFL playoffs - there would be some short “NHL report” once a week - and that’s it. In Pittsburgh, again - no mention of the lockout. Players who live in the States and came up to Calgary to play in a little 3-on-3 pond hockey tournament learnt more about the lockout in 6 hours than they have all year (it’s a quote in the Calgary Herald). Meanwhile, in Canada, the lockout continues to dominate sports news.
This is why I complain about American teams in the NHL … look how passionate Canada is about (lack of) NHL - there is daily news on the lockout. And yet, in the States, it appears as if it would make no difference to them if there were no NHL or not. So why is the NHL wasting its time down there while simultaneously depriving Canadians of better hockey?
-
i just whant to ask a question
how much are chances that the players and clubs agree on contracts
and we see nhl this season
i am also sad why this thing gone too far
personali i am a fan of ottawa senators i dont know the situation in their lines but i am familiar with that some players simply exagarated with the money they asked
-
how much are chances that the players and clubs agree on contracts
and we see nhl this season
As much as the media keeps saying otherwise, theres still about a 50-50 chance of a season.
-
CanucKev,
I root for the Blues because they are in my State, though we are VERY far apart. KC and St. Louis are literally on the West and Eastern boarders respecitivly. My Brother and I have thought about taking the drive to watch a game, but really that will probablly not happen. We are too old for the rode trip idea anymore. I did attend a Scouts game when I was a very little boy. They left when I was like in 3rd grade as I recall. If we had a team I would support it.
When the playoffs roll around I try and pick a team to support so I can get pleasure in watching it. I was a fan of the Great one of course, so I watched his swan song with the Kings pretty religiously. Heck loosing Gretzky hurt hockey more than the lockouts IMO.
If we get a team again I would think very seriously about getting season tickets, so I hope it comes back and I hope a team gets dropped in our (brand new) stadium. -
Hey Amon-Sul,
Looks like the owners and the players are going to meet up again sometime this week - although time is quickly running out. If they don’t strike a deal by the end of January, there will very likely not be a season. It’s possible that they’ll figure something out as the “deadline” approaches, but I think both Bettman and Goodenow are too bone-headed to agree on anything.
I saw a comic in the Herald the other day … it had Bettman and Goodenow standing behind a podium saying, "Well, no, we haven’t made any progress in the labour talks but on the plus side, we did resolve all the problems in the Middle East … "
Lizard, it looks like you and I have something in common … although Gretzky never played for our hometown, he did play in our province/state (me Edmonton, you St Louis). … Lucky for you, the team he played for is one you like … Flames fans and Oilers fans were mutually exclusive in the 80’s (now, one will root for the other if the “enemy” is in the playoffs, and your team isn’t).
Gretzky did a LOT for hockey in the South - look where he took the Kings. Now, without him, hockey is left without a visible face in the States.
A man who recently died in Ottawa asked for his obit to say that Bettman and Goodenow are skunks for not letting him watch the NHL in his last days, and that Gretzky should take over as NHL commissioner.
Gretzky would be good for the League. At least he knows hockey - because Bettman sure doesn’t …
-
Gretzky did a LOT for hockey in the South - look where he took the Kings. Now, without him, hockey is left without a visible face in the States.
Thats exactly the problem right now. There is not one single major “celebrity” star in the NHL. Sure, Iglina or Forsberg or Brodeur or Lidstrom may be the best players, but no one has the combination of skill and charisma that Gretzky had.
Hockey needs that charismatic figure. Unfortunately young guys like Kovalchuk or Ovechkin or Heatley don’t really appeal to American audiences too much. Even a guy like Rick Nash doesn’t have the charisma to become a media star.
Michael Jordan and Gretzky both had the charisma to take their stardom from the arena to the TV cameras.
I actually think that Sidney Crosby has that kind if charisma. Now we just need to make sure he doesn’t turn out to be another Daigle.
I also think that the next star is going to come out of New York. You have no idea how much the NY media can hype a player. One of the reasons that hockey hasn’t been getting much TV coverage lately is the lack of a decent Rangers team. As always, blame the Rangers :)
Theres no doubt that Gretzky as commish would be great on the public relations front, but I wonder of he can handle the business side of the game. I’d be much more in favor of Ken Dryden.
-
A Toronto radio station is reporting that the newest, and possibly final, round of meetings between the NHL and the NHLPA will take place the 26th in Toronto. The radio station reports that the NHL will offer a hard card/luxery tax combination with increased revenue sharing. The new system would be:
35 million minium payroll per club.
At 40 million penalties start (draft picks taken away, luxery tax)
Clubs cannot excede 50 million.If this is true, the players will likely accept and we’ll have a season.
-
I suppose the $35M minimum is to appease the players … though I still can’t see how a minimum needs to be included ;)
The owners getting off the hard cap is a must for the players to accept anything, it seems.
But I maintain I will ONLY be happy - and guardedly optimistic - if the new deal allows hockey to easily and healthily survive in the markets where it matters the most to the fans - and those markets tend to be small markets.
I’d prefer it if this came about by moving some teams out of the markets that have no fan appreciation into the markets that do … or if there was contraction (I think it’s a necessity, since you can’t turn back the clock and stop expansion at 24 teams) … however, that’s a pipe dream …
If the new deal is going to allow teams like Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Buffalo, and, sadly, even Montreal to keep floundering under huge burdens, (and helping teams that are going nowhere off the ice to survive), then I will be even more pissed off than I am now (and I’m sure you can tell I’m pretty bitter!) … and I can’t see the NHL continuing on if that’s the case.
Admittedly, I do miss being able to easily watch hockey. And I know once mid-April rolls around, I’ll feel a huge emptiness what with lack of playoffs. (It already hurts to think of!) But any deal that they do sign has GOT to be the right one. This isn’t such a big deal to the Rangers as it is to the Flames … know what I mean?
(btw, I’m all for blaming the Rangers ;) … how much was Gretz hyped when he played for them? I think it was in '97 they almost made it to the Final … how was that down there?)
-
A man who recently died in Ottawa asked for his obit to say that Bettman and Goodenow are skunks for not letting him watch the NHL in his last days, and that Gretzky should take over as NHL commissioner.
Gretzky would be good for the League. At least he knows hockey - because Bettman sure doesn’t …
I kind of like Gretzky where he is… :P
-
Yeah, I can see how you would be OK with the status quo ;)
Yanny, you bring up a great point - Dryden as commish would be ideal. Lawyer, politician AND former player (for the Habs no less … no bias, really!) … how much better does it get? Usually, “former player” is mutually exclusive from the other two …
Also, what happens if a club exceeds $50M? It can’t be a “weak” penalty like loss of a draft pick … the Rangers will probably gladly pay any luxury tax, and buy any draft picks anyway ;) How about your team loses one point - ie, a point gained from winning or tying a game - for every $1000 you’re over? THAT would prove incentive to keep salaries down!
However, with a salary cap, another (major) issue is full disclosure of contracts. A big problem in the CFL is although most teams submit salary info to the League that is low enough to remain under a cap, a lot of players are paid incentives otherwise … I’m not sure how, but it’s basically income that the team decided not to include when telling the League how much they’re paying so-and-so … hence, the salary cap is useless.
-
According to what I read, it’s a 50 million hard cap.
-
However, with a salary cap, another (major) issue is full disclosure of contracts. A big problem in the CFL is although most teams submit salary info to the League that is low enough to remain under a cap, a lot of players are paid incentives otherwise … I’m not sure how, but it’s basically income that the team decided not to include when telling the League how much they’re paying so-and-so … hence, the salary cap is useless.
usually cars, university/private school fees, houses, etc.
Suggested Topics
