Espnhl

[John Flyers Fan]

This ESPNHL business sounds like the equivalent of the "XFL" on ice. They can keep their stupid ass gimicks. We don't need 'em!

No fighting in hockey? LOL.....suuure.

The Hockey News has been trying to get rid of fighting for more than a decade now.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

But again the NHL seems focused on catering to 'casual fans'. For once, it would be nice if the league listened to the longtime fans.

Could not agree more.

 

[Chili]

I'm against removing fighting as well.

I'm not pro fighting but I'm anti cheap shot. If you've played in a league with no fighting before you may be able to relate to that.

 

[Sanderson]

No Fighting = Many more Bertuzzi type incidents

I don't think so.
Fighting doesn't stop these kind of incidents. Moore fought Cooke in the game, but Bertuzzi still went after him.

As long as penalties are called correctly, followed by extremely harsh suspensions, there won't be more cheap shots.

(Not that I would get rid of fighting in hockey...)

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Fighting should not be outlawed but limits to to how many a player can have during a period of time.

This idea is truly a gimmick league, they Americans are taking our game and making it into there own little circus.

The shoot out should not come into play, the tie has been around and it is a natural ending for any regular season game. The NHL will not attract a huge new audience with a shoot out. Does the NFL have a Qb throwing contest at the end of OT, does Basketball bring in the racks of balls and go to a 3 pt contest to decide a tie. The Shootout only works in a round robin tournament. Hockey is a marathon and a shootout should never decide the ending of a game.

What they need to focus on is making the game more free flowing, and less obstruction, and rule changes. They need the competition comittie formed who can review rules and look at way of changing the game for the better after each year. Hockey will never regress back to the 8-7 days as much people want it to, its just fine the way it is with the 3-2 games, its just natural that this has happened since players have gotten bigger, stronger, and thougher, and the playing surface has remained the same size. Back in the 80's the players were not so big and strong, the ice looked bigger, goalies didnt look like the tire man, and players didnt dress up so big.

 

[Guest]

Instead of going with a shootout, I still prefer the idea to drop the currents standings point system and just go with a wins-based standings. If you don't win the game, it does help you, a tie should not be rewarded. If a game starts tied (0-0) and ends tied, nothing has been decided, there is no winner and no loser. If you add value to the wins by making them the only category to be successful for, you'll change the mindset of coaches and players. The current and proposed NHL standings systems just promote finding ways to pull points out of games without actually winning them.

Theoritically, a team that never wins a game can end up with 82 points in a season, if they lose all of their games in OT. Is a team that goes 0-0-0-82 really the same as a team that goes 41-41-0-0?

In the NHL standings, all of these teams are said to be equal.

W-L-T-OTL
41-41-0-0
30-30-22-0
0-0-82-0
0-0-0-82

That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[HckyFght*]

Just curious, why are you all against shootouts?

Would you want a home run derby in the top of the 10th to determine a baseball game?
Or a field goal competition to determine football?
It's about the game, baby!
-HckyFght!

 

[Steve L*]

Does the NFL have a Qb throwing contest at the end of OT, does Basketball bring in the racks of balls and go to a 3 pt contest to decide a tie.

No but the biggest competition on the world, The World Cup of football is decided by penalties.

 

[Lard_Lad]

No but the biggest competition on the world, The World Cup of football is decided by penalties.

And it's a bad idea there, too.

 

[JohnnyRyall]

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 ...

 

[Steve L*]

That doesn't make sense to me.

If you want to take it to extremes, a team who hasnt won all season could be level with an unbeaten team all season if you only get points for a win.
W-L-T
0-0-82 = 0 points
0-82-0 = 0 points

Now that doesnt make sense to me.

 

[Steve L*]

And it's a bad idea there, too.

The fans, players and FIFA dont seem to think so.

 

[i am dave]

I don't agree with many of the cities they propose, but I don't disagree with a 20-team league. I don't want to get into a war of ideology over who is responsible - the franchise or the market - but some franchises just aren't working out in some of the markets.

I think most of the rest of the ESPN proposal is crap. I agree with touch-up offsides, maybe some of the goalie/net proposals. That's about it.

Enhanced marketing? Isn't that part of the problem? Microphones on the ice... yeah that's what the game is missing.

I would also like to see the Olympics go back to the amatures. It seems to mean a little more that way. At least it does to me.

 

[AM]

Yes....

No but the biggest competition on the world, The World Cup of football is decided by penalties.

But thats because soccer is a viciously physical sport where guys start to die after playing more then 2 hours.

 

[Slats432]

And I thought the whole point of the post was....

NHL is on the front page of ESPN.com

 

[chiavsfan]

In their 20 teams they don't include one of the teams selling out every game, playing great hockey, and making money...the Avs. Why would Colorado never be considered??? Just curious

(never mind, I need to learn how to read...it was under there as Denver...dumb a**)

 

[Go Flames Go*]

No but the biggest competition on the world, The World Cup of football is decided by penalties.

It makes sence in Soccer, but the final game should never be decided by penatlies. I still remeber Itlay loosing to Brazil in 94 ahhh great memories.

 

[Hasbro]

I can deal with the shootout in regular season play, but one advantage hockey has over the other sports is playoff OT, there is nothing as intense.

 

[I in the Eye]

Instead of going with a shootout, I still prefer the idea to drop the currents standings point system and just go with a wins-based standings. If you don't win the game, it does help you, a tie should not be rewarded. If a game starts tied (0-0) and ends tied, nothing has been decided, there is no winner and no loser. If you add value to the wins by making them the only category to be successful for, you'll change the mindset of coaches and players. The current and proposed NHL standings systems just promote finding ways to pull points out of games without actually winning them.

IMO, overtime should be viewed as 'extra time' - with a winner in overtime getting 2 points, a loser getting 0 points... a tie being 1 point each...

But in my ideal overtime, it would be 4-on-4 continuous hockey for 5-minutes - not sudden death... Scoring should go up (potential for multiple goals with 4-on-4 play for a full 5-minutes), and overtime should be very exciting... If a team goes down a goal, they'd be going on all gears to try and even it up again (as the losing team would not want to end up with 0 points for their efforts - they'd be trying hard to earn at least 1 point)...

 

[ScottyBowman]

Would you want a home run derby in the top of the 10th to determine a baseball game?
Or a field goal competition to determine football?
It's about the game, baby!
-HckyFght!

And how many ties are their in football? I won't comment about baseball because I hate that game. Their is nothing worse than investing 3 hours of your evening and the game results in a tie.

 

[X0ssbar]

And how many ties are their in football? I won't comment about baseball because I hate that game. Their is nothing worse than investing 3 hours of your evening and the game results in a tie.

Agreed. - and why is it no one is bringing up college football "shootouts" to decide a game. Yes it is a shootout - each teams gets 4 tries to put the ball in the end zone. No different than each hockey team getting 5 tries to put the puck in the net. A bit gimmicky, yes, but they are exciting to watch, the translate to TV well and fans love it.

 

[Chili]

Agreed. - and why is it no one is bringing up college football "shootouts" to decide a game. Yes it is a shootout - each teams gets 4 tries to put the ball in the end zone. No different than each hockey team getting 5 tries to put the puck in the net. A bit gimmicky, yes, but they are exciting to watch, the translate to TV well and fans love it.

Do they have the same number of players on the field as the first 4 quarters?

If yes, then it is definitely different.

 

[OpinionatedMike]

If you can't stand a game that ends tied after 3 hours and you leave all upset....Then stop watching.

Not a sole was complaining about ties in 1983....or 1993...

So why now? Because everyone and their mom has a "new cool idea" to make hockey better. There is nothing wrong with the game, what's wrong with the game is everyone thinking there is something wrong with the game.

Bring on shootouts, and see how quick and crap they become after you see 40 of them.
Idiots.

 

[Hire Sather]

9 fowards :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[s7ark]

And how many ties are their in football? I won't comment about baseball because I hate that game. Their is nothing worse than investing 3 hours of your evening and the game results in a tie.

Wow, you and I are totally different. I tend to watch the game for the game, not the result. Who cares if it is a 2-2 draw that was end to end action with hits blocked shots and fights. A real barn-burner. Those can be the greatest games to watch as two titanic teams play their hearts out and leave absolutely everything out on the ice. Those are the games I live for, not the 8-1 drubbings over the Pens or something.

Ties can still be entertaining games. The issue is that a lot of ties nowadays aren't like that and are wild-duck snoozefests. But that is an issue with the product on the ice, not the end result. It they get rid of the redline, stop stick infractions and basically play the way the WJC was, the excitement level of the game would skyrocket. People forget that up till 94 hockey was on the rise big time in the US and it wasn't until the trapping slowdown of the game that the fans turned away. Get the game exciting again and revenues go up and with a CBA with cost-certainty everybody makes out like bandits. If the players want to see some real money they should sign a 56% or 58% revenue/player cost agreement and get the game to be exciting again. Then they can start looking at the money the BIG sports throw around. The 120 million 7 year contracts and the like. All this fighting over some pretty small time (in proportion to the NBA, NFL and MLB) money is stupid.

Hockey is the most exciting game to watch in the world when it is played properly and could easily rival the American big 3. So stop all this stupid bickering and get back on the #$@#$%# ice!!! This lockout isn't helping anyone!

[/RANT}