mikeylips

It seems over time now that the NHL is getting less and less popular among sports fans. To me it is one of the most exciting sports but this season I haven't even watched one game. I'm a Blackhawks fan and I usually go to a bunch of games per year but this season I haven't. I don't know if it's just due to the fact that I don't have a lot of time to watch as I did in years previous, but it just seems overall that hockey isn't what it used to be. Also, a buddy of mine mentioned that many teams are going bankrupt because of the lack of ticket sales among other things.

Spartak

A salary cap oughtta hold those S.O.B's

__________________
I can read your mind... looking at you... I can read your mind...

gov135

The NHL is in a world of financial trouble.

Sports all revolve around television money - and you have to generate ratings to get the big television contracts. Hockey is an exciting game to watch - live. It simply doesn't translate well to television.

The NHL is getting beat in the ratings by golf tounaments without Tiger Woods. NHL playoff games last year received less than one percent shares.

I was reading that when Rich Gannon was in his NFL MVP season, he was making less than half of what big name NHL players were making. The point there is that while the NHL teams are bringing in less, they are paying out more.

The NHL is in trouble. Some say they need to downsize, others say they need rule changes to make the game more exciting. I think the NHL really needs to try locking their overpaid athletes out until they agree to salaries more in line with league revenues. Only then will the league be in a financial position to better market and develop itself.

djtestudo

There is likely going to be a lockout before next season, because of the players' demands.

There are several big problems. The Canadian teams are doing terribly because of the fact they get their income in Canadian money, yet have to pay their salaries and such in American. The league has overexpanded, meaning that cities that aren't hockey areas have teams, like Miami, Atlanta, Nashville, etc. This also waters down the talent coming into the league.

My dad has told me about the time when a city like Baltimore could draw 12,000+ for an AHL game when the NHL only had 6 teams (and even after the early expansion) and the talent level was higher then probably most NHL teams today.

The fact that hockey is considered to be much better live then on TV doesn't help the situation either. The league is lucky to have a national TV contract right now.

The regular season is almost meaningless, and once you get to the playoffs all you need to do is play D and have your goalie get hot and you can make a run.

I think that to survive they need to:

1) Eliminate at least 4 teams, and move some more to better locations.

2) Eliminate a couple playoff spots. This encourages teams to want to improve to make the playoffs, and makes the regular season mean something.

Now, I'm not a hockey expert, but I think that these would go a long way to helping the survival of the sport.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

tinfoil

The NHL is most certainly in trouble. Cap salaries (no athlete is worth 6 mil a year), drop a couple teams and for god sakes go back to one ref, get rid of the red line and make icing instant.

And what the hell is up with all the high-sticking lately? They can suspend Sundin for not being in control of his stick (deserved) but they can't even penalize the moron that put Nolan out for atleast a month? Gah.

Ref's need to be held accountable and perhaps the guys upstairs should be allowed to call penalties as well, seeing as they have cameras all over the place.

__________________
Get off your fuckin cross. We need the fuckin space to nail the next fool martyr.

FleaCircus

I agree there's a lot of inconsistency in how the ref's call the game, especially with the obstruction/interference calls.

What bothers me most is the neutral zone trap. I know it's an outgrowth of a particular strategy for the game, but, damn, games can get awful boring like that. Especially seeing one of those games live.

My suggestions:
1. Move the goal line back to 10 feet from the end boards (from the current 13). Makes more room in the offensive zones.

2. When you have matching penalties for fighting, play 4 on 4 (instead of 5 on 5). Opens up the ice a little.

3. End overtime with a shoutout, like in the Central Hockey League. In the standings: 2 pts. for a win, 1 for a OT loss, 0 for a regulation loss.

That OT penalty shot by Hejduk against the Lightning in Tampa was heartsopping. It was probably one of the most exciting games I've seen.

4. I'm still not sure about this, but maybe eliminate the red line. This means icing happens when the puck is shot from inside the defensive zone, instead of just on the other side of the red line. It also eliminates the two line pass (but not the offsides pass).

Any one else have any suggestions for change?

__________________
"We must have waffles. We must all have waffles, forthwith. Oh, we must think.
We must all have waffles and think, each and every one of us to the very best of his ability."
-- Professor Goldthwait Higginson Dorr, Ph.D.

Spartak

I heard something about the commissioner considering awarding 3 points for a win. I think that could open up the game somewhat.

__________________
I can read your mind... looking at you... I can read your mind...

FleaCircus

I don't think that 3 point wins will do much to eliminate the trap, but it will keep teams playing late in the third, instead of treading water to get the guaranteed 1 point and a shot at overtime.

__________________
"We must have waffles. We must all have waffles, forthwith. Oh, we must think.
We must all have waffles and think, each and every one of us to the very best of his ability."
-- Professor Goldthwait Higginson Dorr, Ph.D.

splck

Some like the trap...lord knows why. Watching a talented team get bunged up in the center is a terrible game to see.

I'm assuming you mean shootout. I don't mind ties if they are a well played game. It gives both teams a score to settle next time they paly.
What about playoff hockey? I think the commissioner would be shot if he implemented that.

__________________
nice line eh?

FleaCircus

I did mean shootout. And you're right, it wouldn't work in the playoffs; they'd have to stick with the 20 minute OT periods until the game was resolved.

Honestly, I'd be okay if the league went back to the 20 minute OT period format, and if it's a tie after that, so be it.

But to have 5 minutes of 4 on 4 where losing doesn't really hurt seems like a crappy way to end what you rightly called "a well played game."

__________________
"We must have waffles. We must all have waffles, forthwith. Oh, we must think.
We must all have waffles and think, each and every one of us to the very best of his ability."
-- Professor Goldthwait Higginson Dorr, Ph.D.

ledhead

i am going to have to agree with whoever said the league is getting washed out. it is great to see that they are trying to expand the league and expose it to more people, but it might just be happening to fast. i mean 20 years ago who would of thought there would be 2 teams in florida, a team in tennessee, one in arizona and 2 in the la area.

__________________
"If you can count the number of cylinders on one hand....it is NOT a race car." big bubba

"Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way"

silent_jay

With this many teams in the NHL, they employ a vast majority of players thatdon't deserve to be there, the league is wattered down talent wise, the majority of the 3rd and 4th line players would be lucky to get an ECHL contract let alone and NHL one. I have played the game for 22 of my 26 years and have played all over Ontario and Quebec and even in the USA. Hockey has been in a steep decline since the instigator rule came in and now tough guys don't know if they should protect their players or get kicked out of the game.

As for taking away the redline, can you imagine how many candyassed NHLer's would sit in the neutral zone and wait for the puck because they are afraid to hit. I believe they are called cheerypickers

The NHL wants to expand the neutral zone by 2 feet and the easiest solution is to move the net's back 2 feet where they were before and all is solved.

Refferee's need to be held responsible for missed calls fines or something must be given out. I hate Roenick but now respect the shit out of him for doing what he did. About 11 years ago that ref Angus gave me a shitty holding penalty and i shot the puck at him got him in the shins, i got suspended but hey it shows he's always been a shitty ref.

Just wanted to put in my 2 cents thanks

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Serpent

What i would do to help the nhl? well i'd get rid of two line passes.

The instant iceing thing is a good idea but to save players the extra hit they sometimes take trying to beat the other team to the puck.

I'd definatly put a salary cap in and reduce the players pay.

I'd get rid of 4 on 4 over time and goto a 5 man shoot out.

The ref situation i don't think would be helped by going down or up in refs, but to fine the refs for missing calls would be better.

As another person said hte instigator rule sucks, so does the third man in rule as sometimes the little guy gets picked on too much..

Would i get rid of some teams? No, i'd let them fall out if they couldn't pay their players, but if they get a salary cap in that shouldn't matter. Plus once the cap is in talent will be spread out more around the league.

drown_with_me

As a lifelong Pittsburgh Penguins fan, I say DEFINITELY.

Talent is pooling into those few teams that can afford it. I pray the salary cap will bring a NFL-like competition leveling to the league.

__________________

"I wanna see the movies
of your dreams..."

- Built to Spill

silent_jay

Getting rid of 2 line passes would just bring about people sitting at the oppositions blue line and waiting for the pass(this would be great for forwards who don't know what back checking is) but horrible for the game.

A 5 man shootout would also not be good because people don't like shootouts, what does it prove that one team can get luckier on break-aways than another.

Making the refs responsible for bad calls is a really good idea because the 2 ref system was supposed to eliminate or at least reduce mised calls but with all the missed calls lately it isn't really helping. One ref is the better choice, the game was fine with 1 ref for years so why fix what wasn't broken.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Jephree

Ever since 'The Great One' left, I too have noticed a decline in the popularity of the sport. I still love it! For me, hockey was everything growing up. Played for 10 years and want to start up again.

__________________
When's the next good swell in SoCal?

ToiletDuck

Id like to see the NHL use European dimensions for a season and see what happens. Yeah, the Euros dont pound like the Nhl'rs, but do they fly and show thier talent on that huge surface.

silent_jay

The large ice doesn't fit with the N. American game. Where in Europe the game is speed and finesse(sp) in N. America it is hitting and grinding in the corners. I have played on International ice surfaces before and the only real advantage is to the forward trying to beat a defenceman to the outside. That will just result in more penalties.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

forecheck

There are just too many teams. Reduce the league by about 8 teams. Spread that talent onto the rest of the teams.

silent_jay

If you reduce the teams you suddenly have an influx of high price players on your hands and no way to pay them, because ticket prices will have to be raised in order to pay these new players, and fans are not paying the prices now so a price raise will put more strain on an already fragile relationship between fans and the NHL.

If the CBA is not resolved and there is a lockout next year then the NHL will have even worse attendance than now.

I say put the game back to the way it was in the old days, no instigator rule, one referee, move the nets back (because there is no need for that much room behind the nets, look at Gretzky), fine referees for missed or bad calls much like the NFL, and for god sakes quit trying to change the game, every supposed improvement ruins the worlds greatest game that much more.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

FleaCircus

Problem with that is most NHL arenas weren't built to accomodate the larger rinks.

__________________
"We must have waffles. We must all have waffles, forthwith. Oh, we must think.
We must all have waffles and think, each and every one of us to the very best of his ability."
-- Professor Goldthwait Higginson Dorr, Ph.D.

FishKing

The NHL is here to stay. They will raise ticket prices and do what ever they can to get money out of the working man..

They are going through a change just like any other company. They will restructure and will rebound. To much interest and money invested to let it fail.

silent_jay

That is the problem change will be the downfall of this league

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Radio Monk33

The tickets are already too expensive...

I think the better solution is just lower the salaries. Theres no way to justify some of these multi million dollar salaries. The players win out majorly, the owners lose out, and so do the fans having to spend over a hundred dollars for 2 hours of entertainment.

If every owner agreed to not pay their players over 2 million, then the stars would have to accept that.

__________________
"Punk rock had this cool, political personal message. It was a bit more cerebral than just stupid cock rock, you know"
-Kurt Cobain

djtestudo

Actually, the players would take the owners to court, where they would be found guilty of collusion, and forced to pay the players what they are owed.

The real solution is a salary cap and salary floor. That way teams have to spend a certain amount to keep their team competetive, but can't buy everyone they want.

Give teams a couple years to get below the salary cap/above the floor, and I think everything will be fine.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

bigbad

Gonna be a lockout next year, and players are going to have to cave on a whole bunch of conditions or the league may fold :\

silent_jay

The league won't fold but there may be a lockout which is almost as bad.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

skysooner

I almost never see hockey broadcast anymore. Frankly the game has gotten so defensive minded that it isn't that fun to watch.

Cubby

I'd have to agree with most of the posts here but here's my take. First off, salary cap is a must have. Reducing by a few teams would be good as well. Introduce a profit sharing scheme so that the NYR type teams don't get to keep all the over priced talent. That will deal with the financial aspect.

In terms of the game, I'd like to see the league go to a Euro ice surface. Players are much bigger than they were in the past and the ice is just too cluttered. (They'll have to raise the net in bball too soon if the players keep getting taller!). Unfortunately this will never happen because in order to do this, teams will lose probably 3-4 rows of the most expensive seats in their buildings.

I like the idea of moving the nets back a little to give more room in front of the net. And personally I like the idea of removing the centre line. I don't care if there would be cherry-pickers, it would help eliminate the effectiveness of the trap by opening up the space available for players to pass to.

Overtime, well I think it is fine the way it is..4 on 4 for 5 mins. I agree however, that players are probably playing more for the guaranteed point and then possible two points in overtime (look at the Canucks). I do like the idea of getting a point if you get to over time though because if you lose the single point then overtime is pretty much just a defensive game to protect the single point (which is why they changed it in the first place).

Perhaps (and I haven't thought this through yet though) 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for overtime win and 1 point for over time loss. Then the incentive is there to win in regulation AND in overtime.

Just some thoughts....

__________________
Don't be irreplaceable - if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted!

silent_jay

if the ice is too cluttered simply go back to the 1 ref system. If you eliminate the red line not only will there be cherrypickers but the obstruction will rise again.








i

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

jcookc6

Get rid of Bettmann to start with. He is the one who has screwed up Hockey. Hockey has gone down hill since Gretsky played. He was such a pussy who couldnt protect himself, that they had to bring in players to protect him. Get rid of the second man in rule, and stop trying to legislate fighting out of the game. If you don't like the rough stuff, go to a college or high school game. Let the players protect themselves and stop having one or two players on a team whose only job is to fight.

silent_jay

Do you even know what you're talking about? First to say the game has been going downhill since Gretzky is ridiculous. The man is the all time leader in everything give me a break. Enforcers protecting star players were around long before Gretzky so you're wrong there too. The rule is the third man in rule not the second. Are you saying to go to high school or college instead of playing in the NHL because if you are you have proven your ignorance about the game, this isn't basketball kids don't make it right out of high school hockey. Do you have any experience in hockey, or an even better question do you actually watch the game? Not trying to flame but when i see a ridiculous statement like the one above i must question the person.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

cactus_bangers

im only a casual hockey fan, but the one thing i hate is tie games. nothing worse than sitting through a game to have it end up in a tie....wheres the resolution? id say go with a shootout, but then it mostly comes down to which team has the better shooters, and not necessarily the best players. maybe OT1 starts as 4 on 4, and OT2 goes down to 3 on 3 or something like that.

its gotta attract TV viewers and casual fans, and that means a little more scoring. what to do to up scoring? hell, i dunno....chuck out the 2 line pass call....introduce no-touch icing...make more penalties penalty shot worthy..??

Tirian

You gotta have a salary cap. That way teams that draft players and develop them through their systems stand a chance of holding onto them for years to come. This would encourage fan support if your team has an up and coming star player and he continues on your team for a long career fans will be more loyal. I hate the fact that right now some teams seem to be development teams for teams which have more $$$$ to purchase these players and pay them way more than they are worth. I feel that there are many fans who feel this way.

Also there is a certain begrudgement of a game in which you know the player is earning more money that night than you will make forever. Who wants to pay their hard earned money for a seat, or an NHL product when they know it's just going into the pocket of an over-rich spoiled ego-head.

A salary cap may also help bring ticket prices to a level where people can afford to go to games, and fill the seats. People who get to a couple of games a year are more likely to turn on the TV to watch the remainder of the games.

re: Rules - DO NOT EVER INTRODUCE A SHOOTOUT!

I think I was clear on that wish as a hockey fan. The game of hockey is a TEAM sport, and the TEAM as a unit must win or loose the game. A shootout devalues the team concept in my opinion, and would offend the real hockey fans.

I don't think that 2 refs is so bad. They don't get in the way much, and I think it has helped so that the ref has less of a factor in the games outcome. When there is one ref, that one guy alone had so much control, he could really change a game. It seems more even and fair to me since 2 were introduced. I kind of liked the idea mentioned above about letting the video judge call certain penalties. If it was just to confirm a high stick or something that would be acceptable to me. Nothing worse than when your guy gets a penalty and it was actully not his stick that made contact (I've see that happen).

Let's hope the NHL executives have a team of forum browsers so that threads like this can get back to them.

silent_jay

With the 2 ref system they are more of a factor in the game because both have different views of what a penalty is and both have the freedom to call what they want. Why would you want to give the video replay judge a chance to call penalties hockey is not a game of hindsight and letting the replay judges call penalties is just silly, bad calls are part of the game 1 ref was sufficient i played hockey for 22 years with 1 ref and it was fine.

I strongly agree with the shoot out it is useless and a game should not be decided on luck.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder