So we get to see the new jersey designs next week (RBK)

[kurt]

Uh, this is the same reaction fans had to the cooperall pant of the early 80s(?). That was a hideous departure from hockey tradition and it was quickly reversed precisely because of the reaction you describe as ignorant, reactionary and idiotic. Hockey uniforms and equipment have certainly evolved, to use your term, but they have done so through a process of intelligent design (ID) that was informed by the game's traditions. ID is not something that should be brushed aside by evolutionary hockey biologists such as yourself. If you do, you risk getting struck by a lightning bolt in the face, or a horde of locusts ruining every picnic you ever have, for eternity.

best post in the thread.

Sure, the Cooperall idea was a flop, and likely never should have gone into the game on a large scale (what ever happened to focus groups, surveys, pilot projects, etc?). However, I applaud their willingness to try something new in an effort to push the game forward. 99% of the people in this thread are willing to quash RBK's effort to improve the game, before they can even see the product, or the benefits of the changes. It's absolutely ridiculous. Sure, the decisions to add, then remove the red line, remove the "rover" position, change offside rules, add the icing rule, etc, were made in accordance with "the game's traditions," but they were also made to improve the game, especially improving its appeal to fans. What better way to address the tradition of the game than to raise the game's profile? Perhaps new, higher performance uniforms will contribute to a better product.

Also, which tradition are we obligated to "be informed by?" If I chose to be painfully argumentative, I could say that your notion of "intelligent design" was grossly violated when people decided to put blades on their feet and play hurley on ice. I'm certainly happy with the 200+ year old product of that idea though.

Lastly, in a universal context, I sincerely hope that you don't refute the evolutionary model in favour of "intelligent design", as they certainly don't conflict in any way.

 

[kurt]

To lighten things up a little, my response was the 100th reply!

 

[Metallian*]

Perhaps new, higher performance uniforms will contribute to a better product.

 

[JV]

I echo that confusion.

Perhaps fewer games will produce a higher caliber product? The NHL should lean towards the NFL, where games start to become crucial in week 4. A 64 game schedule would to this, and would have a much greater impact on the quality of regular season play than a new light-weight, friction-coefficient reduced anti-drag body suit....

Now that player salaries are (substantially) under control, the NHL should look to it's own pimping activities, and the undisciplined (not to mention irreverent) effort to squeeze ever more cash out of the game.

 

[GWhale*]

Fewer games would be better for hockey. It would be a huge plus for international hockey, as teams like Canada and the USA wouldn't just be thrown together right before a tournament. Perhaps there could be a full time coach and more international games. Also, 80 games plus playoffs is just way too much for players and for fans' wallets.

But since the owners have so many fans on this board, somebody will probably point out that the owners won't make as much money that way, and consider that a bad thing.

 

[Metallian*]

fewer games = less exposure = less revenue = worse for hockey

 

[GWhale*]

I've yet to see a soccer league play more than 40 games a season, and those leagues from Europe are the ones that are gaining popularity, not the NHL.

 

[Murphy*]

They'll ruin the game!!!! It's horrible! OH No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sherlock]

I've yet to see a soccer league play more than 40 games a season, and those leagues from Europe are the ones that are gaining popularity, not the NHL.

But isn't Soccer basically a religion in Europe? Hockey -- especially in the US -- has basically been relegated to a second class sport. I think it can use all the exposure it can get.

 

[Metallian*]

They'll ruin the game!!!! It's horrible! OH No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i agree

 

[EventHorizon]

I'm going to wait until I actually see these new uniforms to comment, but I do have one question.

Why would you change the hockey uniform, which is the best looking uniform in all of sports, just so teams can score .08 more goals per game? Seems a bit silly to me.

 

[Steve L*]

I've yet to see a soccer league play more than 40 games a season, and those leagues from Europe are the ones that are gaining popularity, not the NHL.

Successful teams play over 60 (maybe even more) games a season when you count domestic and European cups.

 

[JV]

fewer games = less exposure = less revenue = worse for hockey

I Disagree.

I think it's like this:

Fewer games = more intensity = better television product = better for hockey

The NFL's freakish popularity is due in some measure to the drama. A team is 4-5 going into week 10. That is a must win game. It's do or die.

If the NHL had a 60 game schedule, each game would be worth that much more. By November or December we'd be talking about games being crucial, especially intra-conference games. My own preference would be a 50 game sched, but that's just not going to happen. 64 might work.

Bettman (for one) already understands that the games future economic prosperity depends on TV revenue. TV revenue depends on the number of viewers. The number of viewers goes up when the product is better, rather than simply because there are games on all the time....

 

[NYR1724]

What about a 72 game season?

I know that the NHL thought of cutting down to 72 before the lockout.

I think 72 is easier to pull off because owners would only lose revenue from 5 home games instead of 9 if they switched to 64.

 

[GWhale*]

Successful teams play over 60 (maybe even more) games a season when you count domestic and European cups.

Likewise, the Stanley Cup playoffs can add many games to that 80. Too much and no room for international games. Canada and USA both could've used a camp, some friendlies, etc. But they didn't have that, and you can see the pathetic results of that for those teams in the Olympics.

 

[GWhale*]

But isn't Soccer basically a religion in Europe? Hockey -- especially in the US -- has basically been relegated to a second class sport. I think it can use all the exposure it can get.

I meant outside of Europe. Many of those leagues have become much more popular in North America and Asia in the last 10 years. In Asia, they adopted those leagues as their own. So they added many fans to those leagues, all over the world. The NHL has not gained fans, probably lost a lot.

My point was the long schedule is not necessary.

 

[Easton]

I think what most people are upset with is the new designs not so much the material or how they fit..

If they change the Blackhawks design, there will be a major up-roar by fans and management. Even Dollar Bill will refuse to have his team wear them if the design is changed.

Yeah, I'm not too bothered by the fit of the jerseys as I don't mind the ones worn in the Olympics, but the socks are pretty horrendous.

Blackhawks design is cool but it's got to go along with every other racist sports logo (including my Atlanta Braves'), however, I would not let the league decide as to what the new logo should be. That shouldn't be their ground.

 

[Pantokrator]

I Disagree.

I think it's like this:

Fewer games = more intensity = better television product = better for hockey

The NFL's freakish popularity is due in some measure to the drama. A team is 4-5 going into week 10. That is a must win game. It's do or die.

If the NHL had a 60 game schedule, each game would be worth that much more. By November or December we'd be talking about games being crucial, especially intra-conference games. My own preference would be a 50 game sched, but that's just not going to happen. 64 might work.

Bettman (for one) already understands that the games future economic prosperity depends on TV revenue. TV revenue depends on the number of viewers. The number of viewers goes up when the product is better, rather than simply because there are games on all the time....

Yes, this is the solution. The reduction in games would add to better games due to intensity and drama et al.

 

[Millions Livio]

This is why I'm buying a new Blue Jackets third jersey now. Because I don't want one of these nasty new replica Rebook ones.

 

[Metallian*]

I Disagree.

I think it's like this:

Fewer games = more intensity = better television product = better for hockey

The NFL's freakish popularity is due in some measure to the drama. A team is 4-5 going into week 10. That is a must win game. It's do or die.

If the NHL had a 60 game schedule, each game would be worth that much more. By November or December we'd be talking about games being crucial, especially intra-conference games. My own preference would be a 50 game sched, but that's just not going to happen. 64 might work.

Bettman (for one) already understands that the games future economic prosperity depends on TV revenue. TV revenue depends on the number of viewers. The number of viewers goes up when the product is better, rather than simply because there are games on all the time....

it wont make a difference.

the NFL works because its one game a week, like a reality television show

even with 62 games, it wouldnt have the same effect as a 16 game schedual

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I Disagree.

I think it's like this:

Fewer games = more intensity = better television product = better for hockey

The NFL's freakish popularity is due in some measure to the drama. A team is 4-5 going into week 10. That is a must win game. It's do or die.

If the NHL had a 60 game schedule, each game would be worth that much more. By November or December we'd be talking about games being crucial, especially intra-conference games. My own preference would be a 50 game sched, but that's just not going to happen. 64 might work.

Bettman (for one) already understands that the games future economic prosperity depends on TV revenue. TV revenue depends on the number of viewers. The number of viewers goes up when the product is better, rather than simply because there are games on all the time....

When the NBA and MLB cut their seasons back, I'll consider it. Until then, the owners now have cost certainty like they wanted; they know that as all things equal, they can make a profit. There would have to be a huge bump in TV revenues gained by a shorter season to offset the money they'd lose by shortening the season to 50 games. If chopping 32 games meant $7 million in profits disappeared and the TV contract only gave them $5 million, they'd be silly to take less.

And I don't see the next TV contract (or any contract on the forseeable horizon) giving them that kind of money. The network has ad spots to fill to make up for the money they're paying in rights, and no network is going to pay a lot of money unless *they* think they can make it up in ad revenues.

 

[Roughneck]

I've yet to see a soccer league play more than 40 games a season, and those leagues from Europe are the ones that are gaining popularity, not the NHL.

There are league games, league cup games, cup games, european competition, international fixtures that all run concurrently in European soccer which makes it dffucult to have a longer season, you can have one team playing upwards of 60 games a year, and another that plays less than 35.

For example, Liverpool has already played more games in all competitions (League, League Cup, FA Cup, World Club Cup, Champions League) than Tottenham will play all year, and if Liverpool keeps advancing in their cups, they could play almost 70 games this season. That doesn't include all the international players that had the African Nations or World Cup Qualifying to deal with.

So even though there aren't as many league games on, there is essentially a soccer game on every day of the year in Europe.

 

[Resolute]

Likewise, the Stanley Cup playoffs can add many games to that 80. Too much and no room for international games. Canada and USA both could've used a camp, some friendlies, etc. But they didn't have that, and you can see the pathetic results of that for those teams in the Olympics.

And the NHLers in the Czech Republic, Russia, Finland and Sweden found time for a camp, when?

What a ridiculously bad comparison. Completely invalid cause and effect here.

 

[GWhale*]

Are you saying those teams are 100% NHL players like USA and Canada?

 

[Resolute]

Did I say they were 100% NHLers?

Why dont you answer the question instead of trying to dodge it?