NHL 2009 Super Special Playoff Edition Megathread

[BrySmalls]

i dont hate basketball, i prefer the ncaa variety as opposed to the nba.

Why? NCAA basketball isn't good. I'll never get this. Having a pep band in the background doesn't make it any more fun to watch stiffs miss shots.

Found this to be kinda interesting while lurking on hfboards (as usual...I really need to register over there. )

Despite the impression of increased parity due to the salary cap, I found the following rather intriguing:

In a league where 16 of the 30 teams make the playoffs, only 1 of the top 12 teams in salary did not make the playoffs (#8 Dallas), and only 1 of the bottom 9 teams did (#22 Carolina).

The 16 playoff teams ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22.

That the Red Wings will keep rolling along for years to come has always been enough proof for me that the salary cap is a failure, but hey, this ain't bad either.

It's not necessarily a failure, just very smart and shrewd investing by the Wings. It also ensures each club spends their money wisely. Case in point, the Flames were so close to the cap maximum that they couldn't dress enough men for some games.

[charger77]

i dont hate basketball, i prefer the ncaa variety as opposed to the nba.

Why? NCAA basketball isn't good. I'll never get this. Having a pep band in the background doesn't make it any more fun to watch stiffs miss shots.

Found this to be kinda interesting while lurking on hfboards (as usual...I really need to register over there. )

Despite the impression of increased parity due to the salary cap, I found the following rather intriguing:

In a league where 16 of the 30 teams make the playoffs, only 1 of the top 12 teams in salary did not make the playoffs (#8 Dallas), and only 1 of the bottom 9 teams did (#22 Carolina).

The 16 playoff teams ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22.

That the Red Wings will keep rolling along for years to come has always been enough proof for me that the salary cap is a failure, but hey, this ain't bad either.

It's not necessarily a failure, just very smart and shrewd investing by the Wings. It also ensures each club spends their money wisely. Case in point, the Flames were so close to the cap maximum that they couldn't dress enough men for some games.

True. If I am correct the cap is a function of league revenue. The Wings spend but spend wisely, that can't be said for all teams.

-Dan

[twi]

Detroit is half way to an '08 rematch... Can the Penguins do the same tonight?

-Dan

No, they can't.

[charger77]

No game tonight I take it?

-Dan

[Seadragon76]

No game tonight I take it?

-Dan

Yeah. Game 2 of the Penguins-Canes series is tomorrow night in the Igloo.

As for Detroit: I may hate the city, I may hate on the Lions and the Tigers and the Pistons and the Red Wings, but I will admit that the Red Wings are probably the smartest team in all of sports in terms of how to effectively create a strong team with a salary cap in place.

[Don]

Myself, i dont hate basketball, i prefer the ncaa variety as opposed to the nba. i think puckheads do have an inferiority complex towards the nba and it stems from the treatment that espn gives hockey and the fact that the seasons intertwine, yet being the "worldwide leader in SPORTS" they cant seem to give equal footing to the sports. i know the argument, they show what gives them ratings, but dont you think if they broaden their horizons and show actual hockey highlights they might broaden their audience? i think we have an equally exciting product as the nba, but espn fails to give us proof of that because they just flat out ignore "the hockey".

YOU think "you" have as interesting of a product as the NBA, but the powers that be in both the sports and television industries don't share that opinion. It's not ESPN's responsibility to make the NHL interesting to the masses. Be more interesting, then they'll show you off. Television coverage is a privilege, not a right. "You" don't get to be on TV just because you're a professional league. TV networks are not in the broadening horizons business (if that's what you want, put the NHL on PBS or Discovery), they are in the possibly provide viewers a modicum of entertainment while making money business.

so let me get this straight: if you show hockey highlights it will shrink espns bottom line? im not even talking about getting the nhl back on espn. so missing out on an entire audience of hockey viewers will make espn more money? please do tell how tv networks make money on ignoring a certain product on their nightly highlight show.

[gingerbreadmann]

Myself, i dont hate basketball, i prefer the ncaa variety as opposed to the nba. i think puckheads do have an inferiority complex towards the nba and it stems from the treatment that espn gives hockey and the fact that the seasons intertwine, yet being the "worldwide leader in SPORTS" they cant seem to give equal footing to the sports. i know the argument, they show what gives them ratings, but dont you think if they broaden their horizons and show actual hockey highlights they might broaden their audience? i think we have an equally exciting product as the nba, but espn fails to give us proof of that because they just flat out ignore "the hockey".

YOU think "you" have as interesting of a product as the NBA, but the powers that be in both the sports and television industries don't share that opinion. It's not ESPN's responsibility to make the NHL interesting to the masses. Be more interesting, then they'll show you off. Television coverage is a privilege, not a right. "You" don't get to be on TV just because you're a professional league. TV networks are not in the broadening horizons business (if that's what you want, put the NHL on PBS or Discovery), they are in the possibly provide viewers a modicum of entertainment while making money business.

so let me get this straight: if you show hockey highlights it will shrink espns bottom line? im not even talking about getting the nhl back on espn. so missing out on an entire audience of hockey viewers will make espn more money? please do tell how tv networks make money on ignoring a certain product on their nightly highlight show.

Because that product has a relatively tiny viewer base compared to the products they do spend time on.

More time on NHL = Less time on NBA/NFL/MLB/NCAA

Less time on NBA/NFL/MLB/NCAA = Fewer viewers

Fewer viewers = Less $$

Inversely,

Less time on NHL = More time on NBA/NFL/MLB/NCAA

More time on NBA/NFL/MLB/NCAA = More viewers

More viewers = More $$

And of course, the most essential driving force of this whole model:

More $$ = More airtime.

Therefore,

     Sports Network $$ Vs. Time Spent Covering NHL 
  |\ 
  |  \
  |    \
$$|      \
  |        \
  |          \
  |____________\__
 0
     Time Spent on NHL

I don't know how much more plainly to put it.

(Of course this is extreme, ESPN still covers hockey on Sportscenter at least, but you get the point. Also, I think the coverage of the NHL will only go up. It's slowly getting more popular, and Carey Price was even on the cover of ESPN the Mag last year.)

[Jigga]

They don't IGNORE hockey. Hockey gets coverage. Hell, there are even TWO hockey analysts on ESPN. Dot com covers hockey just as it covers the other (more) major sports leagues.

Just because you don't think "you" get enough coverage doesn't mean "you're" ignored. It just means "you" don't justify more coverage...yet. Work on making "your" product better, more interesting, more exciting. Don't expect ESPN, NBC, or even Versus to do it for "you."

[JQK]

The NHL was never promoted, and thus died on ESPN. The NHL is actually now pulling "some" kind of numbers on a P.O.S. network that no one can find, because they are promoting the sport.

Now imagine if ESPN, a network basically no one is without, promoted the NHL with the same enthusiasm Versus did?

This isn't a case of which is the better sport, but how the sport is promoted.

[TFoA]

Well Versus promotes it like crazy because that's the BIGGEST sport that they have. I mean, this is a network that was once built around its coverage of the Tour De France. Them getting the NHL was like a godsend for that channel, so of course they're gonna promote it like crazy.

With ESPN, they didn't want to promote it. Why do that when most of the people that were viewing ESPN at the time really didn't care about the NHL?

But you are right; The NHL would be MUCH better off television-wise if it were on ESPN and promoted as heavily as the other 3 big sports leagues.

[Don]

The NHL was never promoted, and thus died on ESPN. The NHL is actually now pulling "some" kind of numbers on a P.O.S. network that no one can find, because they are promoting the sport.

Now imagine if ESPN, a network basically no one is without, promoted the NHL with the same enthusiasm Versus did?

This isn't a case of which is the better sport, but how the sport is promoted.

^this is pretty much what im trying to get at. hockey is a great game and its audience is growing. if the NHL learned to promote itself, alot more people would get interested. i think their web based content is having a great effect on demand of more television coverage.

and yes, espn has 2 hockey analysts, however when its not playoff time, the only time i see them is on espnnews. to me, the average sports fan (yes, i like more than hockey) the time you spend on the debate on whether LeBron or Kobe are the best players in the NBA, you could get a good debate going on whether Ovechkin or Malkin are the best players in the NHL one right after another.

[The_Admiral]

Work on making "your" product better, more interesting, more exciting.

Hockey is interesting and exciting. The NHL has been marketing-retarded for years, though. This isn't even the first time they've abandoned ESPN for a rival channel nobody had.

[BrySmalls]

Not having playoff hockey on tonight really sucks. Must be a slow hockey news day too.

[Your Name Here]

Hockey is interesting and exciting. The NHL has been marketing-retarded for years, though. This isn't even the first time they've abandoned ESPN for a rival channel nobody had.

The two cases are not comparable at all. SportsChannel was available to 1/3 as many homes as ESPN, OLN 2/3. SC was offering more money than ESPN, OLN was offering money, period. SC was the league's sole national television carrier in 1988, in 2005 they still had NBC. The way I see it, the NHL could stay off of ESPN and get insulted to their face or they could go back to ESPN and get insulted behind their back. If it were up to me, the league would make a deal with Turner or Universal.

[charger77]

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=279374

Interesting!

-Dan

[The_Admiral]

Opposite of interesting. I don't care what Selanne or the Niedermayers do. That 2007 offseason of Clemensian dithering was ridiculous.

[Jigga]

Work on making "your" product better, more interesting, more exciting.

Hockey is interesting and exciting. The NHL has been marketing-retarded for years, though. This isn't even the first time they've abandoned ESPN for a rival channel nobody had.

Hockey as a sport is quite exciting...however the NHL is NOT interesting on a grand scale. Sorry.

If the NHL is marketing-retarded, how is that ESPN's fault?

I think I'm going to give up here, our arguments are not really on the same points. And anything that I say will be construed as anti-hockey as a whole when I am simply combating this puckhead entitlement mentality.

[BrySmalls]

Work on making "your" product better, more interesting, more exciting.

Hockey is interesting and exciting. The NHL has been marketing-retarded for years, though. This isn't even the first time they've abandoned ESPN for a rival channel nobody had.

Hockey as a sport is quite exciting...however the NHL is NOT interesting on a grand scale. Sorry.

If the NHL is marketing-retarded, how is that ESPN's fault?

I think I'm going to give up here, our arguments are not really on the same points. And anything that I say will be construed as anti-hockey as a whole when I am simply combating this puckhead entitlement mentality.

Let's play devils advocate here. Other than the Winter Classic, Stanley Cup Playoffs, and fixing the TV contracts, how would you, Jigga, market the NHL so that their product would be "better, more interesting, and more exciting"?

[Jigga]

Oh, we're not doing that. That's for "your" fans and "your" league administration to figure out. I'm not fixing . The NHL could shrivel up and die as far as I care. I really couldn't give half a . "You" don't want me marketing "your" league. Trust me.

Besides, if I happened to be smart and talented enough to fix the NHL's issues, I sure wouldn't be wasting my time fixing the NHL's issues.

[BrySmalls]

Oh, we're not doing that. That's for "your" fans and "your" league administration to figure out. I'm not fixing . The NHL could shrivel up and die as far as I care. I really couldn't give half a . "You" don't want me marketing "your" league. Trust me.

Besides, if I happened to be smart and talented enough to fix the NHL's issues, I sure wouldn't be wasting my time fixing the NHL's issues.

Bummer, I was looking forward to "your" input.