Espnhl

[PecaFan]

Their is nothing worse than investing 3 hours of your evening and the game results in a tie.

Why?

Did you not see all the goals? The hits? The great plays? The fights shakehead but that's my personal opinion on that one, I know lots of people like them)

I will never understand this argument. Everything that happens in a win that's supposedly entertaining, happens in a tie.

If the result is all that is cared about, why are you there? Why not just read the score in the paper the next day?

 

[LordHelmet]

I understand all of the arguments against a shootout.. I actually agree with many of them..

But I've changed sides. I'll take it. When I go to minor league games, if the game is close, I've always got the shootout in the back of my mind. Fans are fairly quiet for the whole game, but when the shootout starts they go nuts.

Sure, hockey is a team game, but how many times do we hear about goalies "stealing" games? The fact that a hot goalie can win in spite of his teammates doesn't make hockey any less of a team game..

My reason for wanting it is because the sport needs to grow. I live in an area that's somewhat hockey-starved as far as people playing recreationally. Heck, my city has 250,000 people and the closest year round rink is 90 minutes away. Highlight reel goals and the excitement of a shootout would make more people watch the game and eventually want to play themselves..

The only condition that I have is that shootout stats should be kept separately from regular game stats. I don't want the league to crow about increased scoring because of shootouts..

 

[Hordichuk_24]

What a ****ing joke....

 

[no13matssundin]

I just replied to the ESPN Sportsnation about the "ESPNHL"... this is my post:

----

To Whom It May Concern.

This ESPNHL is, by far, the utmost stupidest thing I have ever read. I am, infact, dumber for reading and have wasted valuable time reading it that could have been used in more noble pursuits, such as picking my nose or taking a large dump on an ESPN THE MAGAZINE Subscription card. And it is just another reason why ESPN has absolutely and unequicably no business discussing anything to do with hockey ever anywhere at all period. You people would not good hockey if it tackled you and sat on your face. Wider nets? No fighting? Teams in Las Vegas and Atlanta, but not in Buffalo or Ottawa? Why dont you re-name it the XFL while youre at it, Vince McMahon. You people have once again proven that no one in your organization has any clue whatsoever about Hockey, nor should you be allowed to comment on it. ESPN telling the world how hockey should be run is like Gandhi telling me how to slow cook a good slab of beef. You people have no clue. You never will. Stick to College basketball, the NBA and Poker because (thankfully) youre uber-idiotic ideas will never ever be implemented. The ESPNHL? Thanks, but no thanks Jimmy McNoClue.

 

[no13matssundin]

Since "marketability" seems to be the overriding concern, let's just go all the way:

Addendum 1: Fans in attendance at games will be supplied with controller boxes, on which they can "vote off" players periodically by pressing a button ... fans watching at home can call in (for a $2.95 charge per call) and do the same ...

Addendum 2: Period intermissions will be filled with live episodes of "Desparate NHL wives," in which the players' significant others ***** and moan about each other while sporting the latest in Parisian fashion-wear ...

Addendum 3: On off-days, fans can collaborate with players in re-designing their rivals' arenas ...

Addendum 4: Every week, during prime-time on the WB, a new rule will be proposed and voted on, in a continuing effort to maintain "fan" interest ...

Addendum 5: Replace the post-OT shootout with a round of No-limit-Texas-hold-'em, to be played by whatever players remain at the end of the game, as per addendum 1, above ...

Addendum 6: Reflective (i.e. one-way-opaque) visors mandated for ugly players ...

... that oughta do it ...

:lol

Greatest. Post. Ever. :lol

 

[struckmatch]

If at the end of regulation there is a tie.. They should have a 5 min 3-on-3 OT. I know thats not the way hockey is supposed to be, but that would be highly entertaining.

I posted a suggestion for a new points system, which I think would help to eliminate the trap. (Which would help hockey IMO greatly.)

2 points for a win, and 1 point for every period that you win. So, basically ever period is a new game, and there are 5 points total. Now teams that are getting beat won't give up, and teams that are leading wont sit back.

There shouldn't be mini games within the games. Thats turning the league into a circus. A better way to improve the entertainment value of the game is to award an additional point in the standings for teams that score 4 or more goals in a game.

 

[jacketracket*]

I can't seem to locate the article at ESPN.com.

Did they even bother to give explanations for their selections of the 20 teams they've kept in their plan (and reasoning for the teams they've dumped)?

 

[Hordichuk_24]

I just replied to the ESPN Sportsnation about the "ESPNHL"... this is my post:

----

To Whom It May Concern.

This ESPNHL is, by far, the utmost stupidest thing I have ever read. I am, infact, dumber for reading and have wasted valuable time reading it that could have been used in more noble pursuits, such as picking my nose or taking a large dump on an ESPN THE MAGAZINE Subscription card. And it is just another reason why ESPN has absolutely and unequicably no business discussing anything to do with hockey ever anywhere at all period. You people would not good hockey if it tackled you and sat on your face. Wider nets? No fighting? Teams in Las Vegas and Atlanta, but not in Buffalo or Ottawa? Why dont you re-name it the XFL while youre at it, Vince McMahon. You people have once again proven that no one in your organization has any clue whatsoever about Hockey, nor should you be allowed to comment on it. ESPN telling the world how hockey should be run is like Gandhi telling me how to slow cook a good slab of beef. You people have no clue. You never will. Stick to College basketball, the NBA and Poker because (thankfully) youre uber-idiotic ideas will never ever be implemented. The ESPNHL? Thanks, but no thanks Jimmy McNoClue.

 

[Sinurgy]

Even the NBA markets Ben Wallace.

Hell, hes on the cover of ESPN's Video Game.

What are you trying to illustrate by pointing that out? Ben Wallace is definitely an exception not the rule. In fact if there is any league that promotes offense, it's the NBA. I should know, I'm a Suns fan.

 

[Street Hawk]

other sports..

Why shouldn't games be decided by penalty shots?

When MLB has a HR hitting contest instead of Extra Innings, then I will accept a shootout in the NHL.

When the NBA has a 3 point contest instead of playing OT, then I will accept a shootout in the NHL.

When the NFL has a FG kicking contest or that QB Challenge they do in Hawaii instead of OT, then I will accept a shootout in the NHL.

A tie is a viable outcome of a game.

As for the other stuff on ESPN, man, Las Vegas and Hartford, 2 cities without NHL teams or arenas are in their league? Enough said.

Removing helmuts for shootouts? I really don't understand why people say they can't recognize a player without his helmut? Maybe cause I'm a real hockey fan, but I simply don't get it. I mean, I watch the NFL a lot too, and outside of the QB, WR, RB and the top defensive players, I couldn't tell you what most of the other guys look like.

And eliminating fighting. I can live without it, but really, I would only support its elimination if the league could take care of the safety of its players better. Being proactive in reducing blows to the head, hits from behind, stick work.

 

[Steve L*]

When MLB has a HR hitting contest instead of Extra Innings, then I will accept a shootout in the NHL.

When the NBA has a 3 point contest instead of playing OT, then I will accept a shootout in the NHL.

When the NFL has a FG kicking contest or that QB Challenge they do in Hawaii instead of OT, then I will accept a shootout in the NHL.

A tie is a viable outcome of a game.

An NBA or NFL overtime will decide the vast majority of ties so its not really fair to compare them.

However, football is more comparable with the number ot ties and the low number of games decided in overtime and the football World Cup uses a shoot out to decide games, will you accept a shootout in the NHL?

 

[bleedgreen]

i like the stick rule. teams provide wooden sticks to the player. they can use what they want, but they have buy it.

 

[bleedgreen]

As for the other stuff on ESPN, man, Las Vegas and Hartford, 2 cities without NHL teams or arenas are in their league? Enough said.

Removing helmuts for shootouts? I really don't understand why people say they can't recognize a player without his helmut? .

point 1. the whalers played in the hartford civic center. its still there... its where the wolf pack plays, holds about 16,000. CT has built a football stadium for uconn, and a convention center downtown, and they kicked outthe govenor who let the whale leave. they would build a new one.
as for vegas, do you really think a casino wouldnt step up to build one, or someone else? they would have it done in six months.

point 2. they are trying to market these guys. you know, to people who dont already know who they are. most people couldnt tell an iginla from an iguana. put a face to the name for the average joe. not too hard a concept to grasp.

 

[Sinurgy]

I'd like to add why some of us 'poor helpless little Canadiens' as was put are saying the game is being Americanized, or that America is ruining the game. We say this because G. Bettman and his expansion and rule changes (including cracking down on or even excluding fighting) are changing a game we don't want to see changed for the purpose of gaining a lucrative American TV deal. We've read and been told repeatedly on programs like HNIC that these things are happening to appease the American fan and potential investors (TV contract). Seeing our game change, as well as losing both Quebec and Winnipeg to American cities, has bred animosity in Canadian fans such as myself toward our counterparts to the south. I hope you appreciate where I am coming from.

Hey now, you are being misleading by the way you cutout part of my statement and stuck the rest of it in quotes. I think it was obvious from my original post that I was merely being facetious. Anyway, yes I do appreciate where you're coming from, in fact you're preaching to the choir. I hope you can understand where I am coming from though in regards to blaiming Americans. Blame Bettman and blame owners but don't blame an entire country. It's not like there are tons of American's demanding to have hockey changed for their sake. It's the NHL internally that are causing these problems and I'm sure there are many Americans and Canadiens involved.

 

[JFPIV]

I am opposed to the shoutout. If you are going to change any aspect of overtime, eliminate the point for making it to overtime. That's garbage.

Also, Vegas makes no bloody sense to me. Put a team in Ottawa!

 

[NJD Jester]

An NBA or NFL overtime will decide the vast majority of ties so its not really fair to compare them.

However, football is more comparable with the number ot ties and the low number of games decided in overtime and the football World Cup uses a shoot out to decide games, will you accept a shootout in the NHL?

1. When it comes to the NBA, no, it isn't fair, because that's a game about scoring points. SOMEONE is eventually going to score one more than the other.

But the NFL plays a FULL EXTRA QUARTER of football in overtime before there's a tie. The NHL could play another 15 minutes, and more often than not in a 4-on-4 format you're going to have a goal. Five minutes just isn't long enough for things like fatigue to be a factor. You can claim television won't accept a longer overtime; I'd contend that TV will take anything that brings excitement to hockey. 15 minutes, 4-on-4, sudden death -- that's exciting.

2. Just because there are PKs in the World Cup of football/soccer doesn't make them right. The majority of soccer fans I've talked to feel the same way hockey fans do: That the shootout is a thrilling way to decide a game, but it really isn't the CORRECT way to decide a game because it has nothing to do with the previous 60/90 minutes that came before it.

<JESTER>

 

[Sanderson]

Interesting, I haven't met a soccer-fan who is against the shootout (in soccer that is), it belongs to the game.

The only ones who complain a bit are the ones that lose all the time (like England for example )

 

[PanthersRule96]

Some details on their plan:

Re-start with 20 teams, and then as financial stability is gained, start to slowly add more teams.

16 make the playoffs.

60 game schedule beginning in early November ending in late march/early April.

Rosters are 20 players, only 17 can dress (9-6-2)
Tag-up off sides
No-touch icing
No fighting
4-on-4 OT, followed bya shootout
Nets made bigger
Goalie rule similar to AHL
Mandatory helmets and visors
Restrictions on goalie equipment

Enhanced marketing
Olympics will be a staple
3 players and a coach will wear mics for every game
TV will have access to lockerrooms

Tieried luxury tax system, with the money going into league marketing initiatives


The 20 teams

Montreal
Boston
Toronto
Detroit
Hartford

Philly
New York
New Jersey
Atlanta
Miami

Dallas
St. Louis
Chicago
Minnesota
Denver

Los Angeles
Las Vegas
Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary

Plans to expand to the following cities: Phoenix, Seattle, Kansas City, Portland, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Baltimore/Washington and Columbus.


More details at espn.com

As long as it has Miami, it's all good.

 

[Steve L*]

Interesting, I haven't met a soccer-fan who is against the shootout (in soccer that is), it belongs to the game.

The only ones who complain a bit are the ones that lose all the time (like England for example )

yes, its bitter when you lose but:
A) its damn exciting (I think the hockey ones are too quick, the drama doesnt build up, no replays etc)
B) There is no other way.

If you want to decide hockey games in the regular season, the only way is a shootout. I just dont want to see a shootout win be worth as much as a regular win.

3 points for a win
2 for a shoot out win
1 for a shoot out loss
0 for a loss or OT loss

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

yes, its bitter when you lose but:
A) its damn exciting (I think the hockey ones are too quick, the drama doesnt build up, no replays etc)
B) There is no other way.

If you want to decide hockey games in the regular season, the only way is a shootout. I just dont want to see a shootout win be worth as much as a regular win.

3 points for a win
2 for a shoot out win
1 for a shoot out loss
0 for a loss or OT loss

No points for a loss. Put an end to loser points. I don't care whether you make it to the shootout, a loss is a loss. There's no bonus points in the playoffs for triple OT games. A loss there is still a loss. Place the onus on winning and be done with it.

3 points for a win
2 for a shoot out win
0 for a shoot out loss
0 for a loss or OT loss

 

[NJD Jester]

yes, its bitter when you lose but:
If you want to decide hockey games in the regular season, the only way is a shootout. I just dont want to see a shootout win be worth as much as a regular win.

So basically, you think a shootout win isn't worth as much as a regulation or overtime win.

They why have them? If they're just a circus act pretending to be part of hockey, why have them decide anything?

And if you want to decide a winner in the regular season, let me say it again: Four-on-four for 12 minutes is something I'd like to see tested before a shootout is.

<JESTER>

 

[Chili]

And if you want to decide a winner in the regular season, let me say it again: Four-on-four for 12 minutes is something I'd like to see tested before a shootout is.

<JESTER>

When regular season ot was brought in the average game was much longer. How about adding a few minutes of ot to see if it will reduce the # of ties? Most people like four on four so we would see more of it.

 

[Sanderson]

So basically, you think a shootout win isn't worth as much as a regulation or overtime win.

They why have them? If they're just a circus act pretending to be part of hockey, why have them decide anything?

And if you want to decide a winner in the regular season, let me say it again: Four-on-four for 12 minutes is something I'd like to see tested before a shootout is.

<JESTER>

A shootout win should never be worth as much as a regular win.
Else teams would sit back and wait for the shootout, because it would make no difference.
By giving one point less for a shootout win, you'd make teams pay for going in a shootout too often.

One teams managed to win in regular playing time, the other didn't, so why should they get the same amount of points?

 

[rt]

The ESPNHL is stupid.

Here is my proposal (the rtHL, if you will) :


1. Salary Cap
2. Call penalties by the book
3. Remove instigator rule
4. Automatic icing
5. 1 point for a win, 0 points for a tie, -1 point for a loss
6. Single, 5 minute, 5 on 5 OT in regular season games
7. 76 game regular season schedule
8. Tag up off sides
9. Effective performance enhancing drug testing
10. Cheaper tickets
11. Barry Melrose cuts off his mullet
12. Teams have to stop drafting 6'4'' pylons instead of talented 5'10'' players
13. We use last years standings and a new lotto to decide this years draft positions
14. ... I'm sure there are alot more but I can't think of them

 

[ti-vite]

The ESPNHL is stupid.

Here is my proposal (the rtHL, if you will) :


1. Salary Cap
2. Call penalties by the book
3. Remove instigator rule
4. Automatic icing
5. 1 point for a win, 0 points for a tie, -1 point for a loss
6. Single, 5 minute, 5 on 5 OT in regular season games
7. 76 game regular season schedule
8. Tag up off sides
9. Effective performance enhancing drug testing
10. Cheaper tickets
11. Barry Melrose cuts off his mullet
12. Teams have to stop drafting 6'4'' pylons instead of talented 5'10'' players
13. We use last years standings and a new lotto to decide this years draft positions
14. ... I'm sure there are alot more but I can't think of them

15. Free beer...