Hockey Renaissance?

[Spungo*]

I'll say it right now. Mark my words. There *will* be a hockey renaissance. The NHL will be bigger 5 years from now than it ever has been.

If the CBA deal that's been reported is signed, sealed and delivered on July 1, I am beyond excited about the new NHL. This first post-lockout NHL season especially should be one of the more exciting pro sports seasons in history.

Throw in the new rules, the acceptance of hockeys stodgy higher-up's that there was a problem with the game itself and a willingness to *finally* fix it, the fact that for the first time since the 1980's every team will, more or less, be on a level playing ground, the hundreds and hundreds or free agents making this summer a "fantasy off-season" for us hockey nuts, the unprecedented commitment to winning fans back, and my expectations are through the roof for this league.

Let's also mention they new crop of young guns that haven't been this exciting since the early 90's with Roenick, Jagr, Belfour, etc. We have Nash, Kovalchuck, Heatly, Ovechkin, Richards, Crosby, Spezza, Luongo, etc. I firmly believe this lockout is the best thing to happen to the NHL since Wayne Gretzky first stepped on Edmonton ice in 1979.

Agree or disagree?

Click to read more...

 

[EricBowser]

until I see what NHL owners get in the deal and what they give to the players, I'm not confident of a new age of NHL hockey.

The players are not accepting linkage and other system issues that reduce the earning power unless they get some bones thrown into the deal.

Be it reduced free agency and profit sharing.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Has nothing to do with the CBA, it's the game on the ice that the question is about. So don't even know why it's even on these boards.

But I'll say that the bottom line of an owner is not the reason people watch hockey. As long as they fix the rules and make the game more exciting, the CBA could be anything.

 

[Spungo*]

Has nothing to do with the CBA, it's the game on the ice that the question is about. So don't even know why it's even on these boards.

But I'll say that the bottom line of an owner is not the reason people watch hockey. As long as they fix the rules and make the game more exciting, the CBA could be anything.

Couldn't disagree with you more. Fans don't care if their team can compete on an even playing field??? Yikes. Go to Edmonton and ask Oilers fans if they agree with you. Then go to Pittsburgh and ask Penguins fans if they care about the fact that their team is at the bottom of the financial heap every year.

Better yet, go to Green Bay and ask those fans if the NFL CBA has nothing to do with the popularity of the NFL. The CBA is the bedrock of any league and for too long the NHL was built on faulty ground.

 

[GKJ]

There has to be a good marketing team in place in order to do this. They need to have celebrities show up at games. Commercials. Advertising. etc.

 

[DevilsFan]

I am excited about the next few months along with you, but regardless of the details of the CBA, the new faces, rule changes, and marketing initiatives, the future success of the National Hockey League will all come down to the development of a true partnership between players and owners. If that doesn't happen, and both sides seek to screw each other financially, this league will become a fringe sport. If they do push ahead with this along with a sincere deisre to do the things you mentioned, I do think this league will be spectacular for the hardcore fan, and will definitely draw more and more casual fans. Here is to cautious optimism . . .

 

[Kritter471]

...the fact that for the first time since the 1980's every team will, more or less, be on a level playing ground...

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the 60s, 70s and 80s the zenith of the dynasties? If single teams are winning four to eight Stanley Cups a decade, that, to me, signals a competitive imbalance much more than competitive balance...

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

When the Stanley Cup finals have better ratings than an ESPN program featuring a bunch of high NFLers going bowling, then maybe we can talk about the sport's renaissance.

 

[Weary]

Throw in the new rules, the acceptance of hockeys stodgy higher-up's that there was a problem with the game itself and a willingness to *finally* fix it,

I guess they were selling broken goods before. How do you expect to find new customers when you have a reputation for selling crap? "Hey -- I know we were selling crap before -- but now we fixed the crap!"

 

[Injektilo]

Throw in the new rules, the acceptance of hockeys stodgy higher-up's that there was a problem with the game itself and a willingness to *finally* fix it,

That's assuming they'll actually fix it and not make it worse.... something I have no faith in the league to actually do.

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

I'd like to think that we're going to be entering a better time for hockey but it's not going to happen. You can blame the players for the lack of scoring and slow pace but it's the coaches and they're not going anywhere.

 

[Resolute]

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the 60s, 70s and 80s the zenith of the dynasties? If single teams are winning four to eight Stanley Cups a decade, that, to me, signals a competitive imbalance much more than competitive balance...

Level financial playing field. Throughout the mid-late 80s, teams dreaded the Alberta road trip and were overjoyed if they escaped with a single point. Edmonton, the Islanders, The Canadiens - all smaller market teams these days - made up the dynasties. The Flames were fantastic. The Penguins won two cups right before the market exploded. The Maple Leafs sucked. The Red Wings sucked.

Long term success was determined by how good a team you built, not how many dollars you spent.

 

[equipe]

I'm still not convinced that hockey will regain any of its former glory. Maybe if the NBA has a lockout and the new rules create a faster game, there might be a chance. But it won't last long.

If there is a renaissance it will still be a few years off, when grassroots hockey in some of the smaller markets mature and start producing more players. The American audience needs home grown talent for them to give a damn.

 

[blamebettman*]

you can't force the game into a renaissance

 

[ResidentAlien*]

yawn

 

[nyrmessier011]

kick all the lawyers out of the sport...then yes

 

[Spungo*]

yawn

What a waste of time reading this responce was. I want the 2 seconds of my life back that you just stole.

 

[SPARTAKUS*]

What a waste of time reading this responce was. I want the 2 seconds of my life back that you just stole.

I am with you spungo, 5 years from now the nhl will better, stronger, and more exciting that never before. NBA and MLB watch out because the NHL is coming back with a vengeance.

 

[Wisent]

I'll say it right now. Mark my words. There *will* be a hockey renaissance. The NHL will be bigger 5 years from now than it ever has been.

If the CBA deal that's been reported is signed, sealed and delivered on July 1, I am beyond excited about the new NHL. This first post-lockout NHL season especially should be one of the more exciting pro sports seasons in history.

Throw in the new rules, the acceptance of hockeys stodgy higher-up's that there was a problem with the game itself and a willingness to *finally* fix it, the fact that for the first time since the 1980's every team will, more or less, be on a level playing ground, the hundreds and hundreds or free agents making this summer a "fantasy off-season" for us hockey nuts, the unprecedented commitment to winning fans back, and my expectations are through the roof for this league.

Let's also mention they new crop of young guns that haven't been this exciting since the early 90's with Roenick, Jagr, Belfour, etc. We have Nash, Kovalchuck, Heatly, Ovechkin, Richards, Crosby, Spezza, Luongo, etc. I firmly believe this lockout is the best thing to happen to the NHL since Wayne Gretzky first stepped on Edmonton ice in 1979.

Agree or disagree?

First of all, there was no equal chances in the 80s, look at the Islanders and the Oilers. I don't think it was coincidence that they had the cup all the decade nearly.
Second, lets wait until we see what rulechanges they are actually implememting. Reduce goalie equipment is not really radical.
Third. Nearly all of the "young guns" you are talking about have been playing before the lockout and are in some cases not that young anymore. If they failed to bring the renaissance before, why should they bring it now?

 

[Spungo*]

First of all, there was no equal chances in the 80s, look at the Islanders and the Oilers. I don't think it was coincidence that they had the cup all the decade nearly.
Second, lets wait until we see what rulechanges they are actually implememting. Reduce goalie equipment is not really radical.
Third. Nearly all of the "young guns" you are talking about have been playing before the lockout and are in some cases not that young anymore. If they failed to bring the renaissance before, why should they bring it now?

Firstly, I didn't say anything about "equal chances", I said every team will be on a level playing ground, more or less, for the first time since the 1980's. The Oilers and Islanders won cups because they were well managed teams, not because they could outspend all their rivals.

Secondly, reduced goalie equipment is the single greatest rule change they ever could implement. You think these Michelin Man goalies have nothing to do with fewer goals?

Third, I believe the very oldest is under 25. That's young by anyones standards. Most are 18,19,20,21 (still a bunch of kids). They haven't brought about the renaissance yet because none have entered their primes. They are the *future* of the NHL, not the present. There haven't been this many good young players entering their primes since the early 90's.

I guarantee NHL revenues will be at all-time highs in 5 years. The sport will be bigger than it's ever been.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

What a waste of time reading this responce was. I want the 2 seconds of my life back that you just stole.

How about the 15 seconds you wasted replying?

 

[Spungo*]

How about the 15 seconds you wasted replying?

That was by choice. And it only took 12.64 seconds.

 

[HockeyCritter]

It depends on the rule changes and whether or not the League will stick with them.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Couldn't disagree with you more. Fans don't care if their team can compete on an even playing field??? Yikes. Go to Edmonton and ask Oilers fans if they agree with you. Then go to Pittsburgh and ask Penguins fans if they care about the fact that their team is at the bottom of the financial heap every year.

Better yet, go to Green Bay and ask those fans if the NFL CBA has nothing to do with the popularity of the NFL. The CBA is the bedrock of any league and for too long the NHL was built on faulty ground.

But are more people going to watch Oilers games now because they are more financially competative? I doubt it.

Some of the cheapest teams over the years have had the best attendances.

Fix the rules, get out the clutch and grab, get more speed and flow to the game and more fans will watch no matter what the CBA is.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Does anyone remember the old Nike hockey goalie commercials? With the French Canadian Habs goalie yelling diiiiiiiiiiiiie maple leafs diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiie and writing sundin like abba in the lockeroom. They also had ones with the Panthers goalie robbing a bank, and a couple others. People were talking about marketing and I have a few of these commercials on tape and I think theyre like the best hockey commercials ever. I dunno this really has no point to anything, but Nike always has amazing marketing and sweet commercials, and the NHL needs to market itself with sweet and humourous commercials like that. I remember the "hockey on ESPN" commercials with guys on a factory line making BOXES, WORST COMMERCIALS EVER, they need to get guys to come up with some genuinely creative stuff.