NHL plans to reinvent itself after lockout

[gerbilanium]

What's with this big market ****. How about getting a good management in the big markets first.

Also, the NFL which brings in these big dollars all these greedy people are lusting after, doesn't even have a team in L.A. The teams in New York perpetually suck with little to no star power. The star players are everywhere under forces dictated by management decisions not market size or TV deals.

 

[X0ssbar]

What would you all think of this:

I feel part of the problem in the NHL is the amount of space on the ice...its declining as players get bigger. Now a ton of teams just built new arenas and will not want to expand the ice space because that would take out seats, so the NHL cannot force owners to expand the ice space BUT

why not place a min. and max. for ice space and allow teams to choose which they play on.

The Penguins, who are known for their offense and skill (and they hate the trap) could play on the larger olympic ice surfaces

NJ, who loves the trap style of hockey could choose to play on the smaller surface.

teams that have just built arenas could choose which they would want to play on also.

This would make the reg. season games more meaningful, esp. the seeds in the playoffs.

Home advantage would mean alot more and teams would realize this. NJ's system would struggle on a big ice surface while the Pens system or how they are used to playing at home would struggle on a smaller surface.

Bigger ice would be more entertaining for the fans, and teams can choose...

I kinda liken this to baseball and hitter vs. batter ball parks.

what do you think???

I'm sure people will shoot holes in this but I think you've got a helluva an idea here.

 

[Dave is a killer]

I say give the home teams a choice of International, Hybrid(in between NHL & International) Ice and NHL Ice dimensions ... its the teams choice, no one else's, imo

 

[two out of three*]

I say give the home teams a choice of International, Hybrid(in between NHL & International) Ice and NHL Ice dimensions ... its the teams choice, no one else's, imo

I disagree.. Everybody should play on the same ice. Why should the other team get to choose which ice? Each team has their own strategies, and their own style of play, and if you can't execute on the ice surface right now, then get a new plan.

 

[Morbo]

Okay, I will correct you. You are misguided in your perception of how you get a major TV contract.

To get a major TV contract you have to have multiple markets that have interest in the game. This is why the NFL is so damn successful and why it is so widely watched. Teams have a chance to win and every game is interesting. The league is not rulled by six markets, but is wide open field where every game can be great (or bad) and that makes tuning in worth while.

Just because New York has a great pool of talent does not mean that they are going to make for good TV. It does not mean they are going to have broad appeal. It means that New York will have a good market in New York, but frankly they are not going to sell in Phoenix. If you want to have a healthy market in Phoenix and have viewership you have to have the fans knowing that they have a chance for a playoff spot coming out of the gate. The way the economics of the game are set up you know that there are usually nine teams fighting for two spots, and when Christmas rolls around you have a good idea who is going to be in the mix. Interest wanes even in the markets that know they are in the playoffs and isn't rekindled until the playoffs start again. That is the weakness of the model the NHL is using and why it is headed where it is.

You want to get a big TV contract? Then improve the product in every market and stop focusing on the big markets. Get the league to the point where every team can compete and is able to generate interest in the team for the full season. Once you get local interest you will get a ground swell of national interest. But if you only have a half dozen large markets that rule the game and are the only ones competitive, well no one is going to want to tune in and watch teams they don't know. Every team has to be appealing and every team has to have a chance to win. The fact that the Canadian teams are not well known south of the border is part of the problem. No exposure equals no knowledge equals no interest which equals no TV contract.

Actually, I think it's you who doesn't understand how TV contracts work.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Actually, I think it's you who doesn't understand how TV contracts work.

Okay, maybe I do. Feel free to explain it to me and educate on the err in my ways. Explain away the NFL, the most popular sport in North America by a vast margin. No franchise in Los Angeles. Two franchises in New York, but neither one of them a very good team (the Jets are having a decent season, but where are the stars that the major markets HAVE to have?) and not a big draw on TV. Explain that. Also explain why the Canadian market generates massive numbers for any hockey game, and the major markets in the States only generate any numbers when their team is playing. And that's just on the fan interest side. Then maybe go into advertisers and why advertisers won't pay for the production (go back to little national interest, or local interest unless the local team is playing). Maybe work on those and tell me how I have this all so wrong. I'm waiting.

 

[HckyFght*]

One way to make the ice bigger would be to take away one of the refs...
-HckyFght!

 

[I in the Eye]

This is great news... IMO, it's great to take the time to see the forest, and not always just the trees...

Depending on the length of time there is no hockey, I'm planning to re-invent myself after the lockout as well:

From a long time, paying regular game goer to a non-paying fan who watches hockey on TV... The natural evolution of a disgruntled, die hard fan...

To quote NIN, I am becoming...

 

[me2]

How?

I think he makes a valid point. How is what he said inaccurate?

The league needs a new TV deal badly, but it's going to institute an economic system that will make sure that teams in bigger markets have, on average, no more star talent than a small or medium market. Please correct me if you feel this is not true.

Edmonton with Gretzky and Pitts with Mario should never have been allowed. How dare those small market teams get stars that should have been sent to NYR and TO.

 

[me2]

What would you all think of this:

I feel part of the problem in the NHL is the amount of space on the ice...its declining as players get bigger. Now a ton of teams just built new arenas and will not want to expand the ice space because that would take out seats, so the NHL cannot force owners to expand the ice space BUT

why not place a min. and max. for ice space and allow teams to choose which they play on.

The Penguins, who are known for their offense and skill (and they hate the trap) could play on the larger olympic ice surfaces

NJ, who loves the trap style of hockey could choose to play on the smaller surface.

teams that have just built arenas could choose which they would want to play on also.

This would make the reg. season games more meaningful, esp. the seeds in the playoffs.

Home advantage would mean alot more and teams would realize this. NJ's system would struggle on a big ice surface while the Pens system or how they are used to playing at home would struggle on a smaller surface.

Bigger ice would be more entertaining for the fans, and teams can choose...

I kinda liken this to baseball and hitter vs. batter ball parks.

what do you think???

I like it. Min size NHL, Max size international. Or anything in between.

 

[me2]

better idea : extra point if you score 4 goals or more. That way, each team will build their teams for scoring. Also, if ever the game is to get more offensive, blow-outs really make the game boring. So if you're team is down 5-2 after two periods, you can hope they'll score two. Imagine a 3-3 tied game going in over-time? That will be really entertaining. Or if your team leads 3 to 1 in third period, I'm pretty sure they'll open the game to score that extra goal.

If we can OTL points I can't see why we can have this. Certainly favours the brave over the defensive.

 

[Marconius]

better idea : extra point if you score 4 goals or more. That way, each team will build their teams for scoring. Also, if ever the game is to get more offensive, blow-outs really make the game boring. So if you're team is down 5-2 after two periods, you can hope they'll score two. Imagine a 3-3 tied game going in over-time? That will be really entertaining. Or if your team leads 3 to 1 in third period, I'm pretty sure they'll open the game to score that extra goal.

What happens if a team is losing 6-1 going into the 3rd though? They have absoulety no reason to play any kind of defence, they've already essentially lost the game and might take crazy risks to at least salvage a point. You could then see a final score of 10-2, which imo, is just as bad as a 1-1 game

 

[Marconius]

What would you all think of this:

I feel part of the problem in the NHL is the amount of space on the ice...its declining as players get bigger. Now a ton of teams just built new arenas and will not want to expand the ice space because that would take out seats, so the NHL cannot force owners to expand the ice space BUT

why not place a min. and max. for ice space and allow teams to choose which they play on.

The Penguins, who are known for their offense and skill (and they hate the trap) could play on the larger olympic ice surfaces

NJ, who loves the trap style of hockey could choose to play on the smaller surface.

teams that have just built arenas could choose which they would want to play on also.

This would make the reg. season games more meaningful, esp. the seeds in the playoffs.

Home advantage would mean alot more and teams would realize this. NJ's system would struggle on a big ice surface while the Pens system or how they are used to playing at home would struggle on a smaller surface.

Bigger ice would be more entertaining for the fans, and teams can choose...

I kinda liken this to baseball and hitter vs. batter ball parks.

what do you think???

Bbut teams change their style over time. Pittsburgh might be run & gun now, so they go with the larger ice surface. But in 5 years they may adopt a more trap-like approach, do they insert/remove rows each season depending on the team philosophy.

I think the better idea would be to make a standard ice size and ensure that every owner complied with it. It blows me a way actually, can you imagine if NBA baskeball courts could be any random size?

 

[LazRNN]

The problem with widening the ice surface is that you'd have to remove 2-3 rows of seats... the on the glass seats no less. I've never been lucky enough to sit on the glass so I don't know the average ticket price, but lets just say you are removing 200 $150 seats, that's $30,000 a game. That's $1,230,000 a season, not counting the playoffs. And frankly, my estimate is probably kind of low. You know the owners won't put up with that... so the solution would be raising ticket prices.

I like the idea in theory, but there are unfortunately too many logistical issues. I still think the #1 thing they have to do before they try anything else, is just get the damn refs to call EVERY single obstruction penalty. Get rid of the clutching and grabbing. If the refs they have now don't have the balls to do it, get new refs. I'm certain that will open up the game...

 

[LazRNN]

Actually, on second thought... if they would lose approximatly $30,000 a game, it would only take about a $1.50 ticket increase on the rest of the tickets to cover that cost... Hell it would be worth it to me! Maybe it's not such an illogical idea after all. There are probably other problems... still, the officiating is the first thing they need to deal with.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

Two words: Midget Referees.

Not only does the NewNHLâ„¢ reach out to fans of the Little People persuasion, but by reducing the physical size of the on ice officials, you free up ice.

 

[Marconius]

The problem with widening the ice surface is that you'd have to remove 2-3 rows of seats... the on the glass seats no less. I've never been lucky enough to sit on the glass so I don't know the average ticket price, but lets just say you are removing 200 $150 seats, that's $30,000 a game. That's $1,230,000 a season, not counting the playoffs. And frankly, my estimate is probably kind of low. You know the owners won't put up with that... so the solution would be raising ticket prices.

I like the idea in theory, but there are unfortunately too many logistical issues. I still think the #1 thing they have to do before they try anything else, is just get the damn refs to call EVERY single obstruction penalty. Get rid of the clutching and grabbing. If the refs they have now don't have the balls to do it, get new refs. I'm certain that will open up the game...

Yeah, but as soon as the rink is expanded the previously listed 3rd or 4th row become those glass seats. The only tickets you're losing are the 3 or 4 rows in the back.

 

[Marconius]

Two words: Midget Referees.

Not only does the NewNHLâ„¢ reach out to fans of the Little People persuasion, but by reducing the physical size of the on ice officials, you free up ice.

Midgets: The great uptapped source of revenue that will solve this dispute

 

[LazRNN]

Yeah, but as soon as the rink is expanded the previously listed 3rd or 4th row become those glass seats. The only tickets you're losing are the 3 or 4 rows in the back.

Good point. Widening the surface is definitely something to consider...

 

[I in the Eye]

Two words: Midget Referees.

Not only does the NewNHLâ„¢ reach out to fans of the Little People persuasion, but by reducing the physical size of the on ice officials, you free up ice.

And one-armed goalies... You can have a stick hand... or a glove hand... but not both...

 

[Dave is a killer]

Two words: Midget Referees.

Not only does the NewNHLâ„¢ reach out to fans of the Little People persuasion, but by reducing the physical size of the on ice officials, you free up ice.

go back to the 1 referee system for crissakes and move the goalcrease back 3 or so feet to where it used to be...eliminate the instigator...and add 7.5 feet of width to the rinks

 

[Lard_Lad]

Two words: Midget Referees.

Not only does the NewNHLâ„¢ reach out to fans of the Little People persuasion, but by reducing the physical size of the on ice officials, you free up ice.

Think bigger (or would it be smaller?): replace the players with midgets. Nobody bigger than four feet tall allowed to play. Not only would it guarantee TV ratings, it'd solve the salary problem! Well, unless the Rangers go nuts and offer Mini-Me a three year, $30-million deal just for the name value.

 

[Steve L*]

I like it. Min size NHL, Max size international. Or anything in between.

Wouldnt all teams just have the current size rinks to maximise revenue? I think all NHL teams would have to be forced into Olympic rinks for that to happen as I dont see anyone throwing money away to do it voluntarily.

 

[Steve L*]

Good point. Widening the surface is definitely something to consider...

And if they get their salary cap, they could afford to lose those extra rows of seats.

 

[me2]

Wouldnt all teams just have the current size rinks to maximise revenue? I think all NHL teams would have to be forced into Olympic rinks for that to happen as I dont see anyone throwing money away to do it voluntarily.

I think it would vary from team to team.

TO are old and not very well suited to big ice. They sell out every game at big ticket prices. There is no reason they would change given the market and their team make up.

An offensive team like the Nucks could probably use the wider ice well but wouldn't because they sell out every single game anyway.

A stuggling like Florida might go for the wider ice because it makes life more difficult for visiting teams to adapt. They get a home ice advantage while providing an up tempo game. They won't lose tickets since they don't sell out anyway.

It might not hurt Edmonton to open up the ice, they've got good wheels and like to play a more wide open style.

Calgary like to bang so they won't would open the ice for free wheeling hockey.

A skillful team like Tampa that is stuggling to sell out every game gets both a performance boost and a hometown advantage. It won't hurt to them open up the ice and lose a few seats. You get more seats at the glass to help compensate a little. A great young, exciting offensive team with wider ice might provide a better incentive for Tampa fans if the games are more exciting.