Your 2012 National Hockey Lockout Thread

[FiddySicks]

Bettman makes Stern look like a :censored:ing patron saint. This is just sad, he's killing hockey with his unreasonable crap. If the NHL loses another season and Bettman isn't fired, I hope someone starts up a real hockey league without crooked owners and funny money that people can follow.

Well, there's the KHL, though I've heard the efforts of certain teams have had some trouble getting off the ground.

Too soon?

I was actually just about to ask if that was intentional, or just a poorly placed coincidence. Either way, pretty harsh.

[ElwoodCuse]

If there is a lockout it'll be the third under Bettman's watch, with the last two not even being a decade apart.

I don't see how you justify keeping him on with that track record.

You justify keeping him around because league revenues have tripled since he took the job and to the people that he answers to (the owners), that's fabulous.

Gary Bettman does not have radical ideas of his own. Gary Bettman does not answer to the players or the fans. Gary Bettman owes no duty to "the sport" or something like that. He is the single public face of what the owners of the 30 NHL franchises want, and the second he did something that didn't jive with what the owners wanted, he'd be out on his ass and replaced with someone who would fall in line. Just ask Fay Vincent.

[The_Admiral]

Speaking of Fay Vincent, the loss of commissioner as something more than an owners' representative is a pretty big one. I can't speak for the NHL, but in the case of baseball, you could perhaps make a salient case that the antitrust exemption requires a leadership figure whose interests transcend those of the leagues' owners.

[NJTank]

Ok how about this even Bud Selig an Owner who became Commissioner has had 18 years of labor peace, what he is doing right. Bettman is just an ass who never considers the health of the sport or the fans when he makes his decisions.

[rams80]

Bettman makes Stern look like a :censored:ing patron saint. This is just sad, he's killing hockey with his unreasonable crap. If the NHL loses another season and Bettman isn't fired, I hope someone starts up a real hockey league without crooked owners and funny money that people can follow.

Well, there's the KHL, though I've heard the efforts of certain teams have had some trouble getting off the ground.

Too soon?

I was actually just about to ask if that was intentional, or just a poorly placed coincidence. Either way, pretty harsh.

Shoot, I had forgotten about the crash. I was going to make a point about the lack of defibrillators and ambulances at arenas instead. Crap...I never thought Rollerball was a documentary.

[The_Admiral]

By the way, the problem with "the league's making lots of money, ergo, Bettman is a success" is that the money being made is not being made with anything so much as resembling equal distribution across thirty teams. Canada accounts for a disproportionate amount of team revenues, and it's Canada whose leaguewide television contract

Hopefully we've dispelled once and for all that Winnipeg couldn't join the league because "the Canadian teams would split TV revenue seven ways instead of six." The CBC and TSN negotiate with the entire NHL and cover the entire NHL, not some subdivision thereof; that they focus on coverage of Canadian teams is strictly editorial.

brings in the real money. From there, you have your northeastern/Great Lakes markets which bring in a lot, but beyond that, you have some very low-revenue teams dragging everyone else down.

I'm fairly confident that the range from Toronto to Phoenix is the greatest revenue disparity of the big four. Even if it's not, the other leagues have such generous revenue sharing by virtue of such generous leaguewide contracts that they can afford to pull up the stragglers. The NHL cannot. Without being a TV show that people watch like sheep like football, or our national pastime like baseball, or an international game like basketball, there's never going to be that mythical mountain of money coming from the TV networks in any way commensurate with the three leagues that are bigger than the NHL is. The Comcast contract is nice, but doesn't compare with the other three. So what you're left with is a fundamentally local^

Food for American thought: how many hockey fans do you know who, despite some pretty serious devotion to their team, kind of peace out for the year once their own team is done? It's hard to be "an NHL fan" the way one can be "an NBA fan" or "an NFL fan." Chalk this up to a weakness in the fantasy sports department, or the weak national contract making it hard to get a feel for the whole league, or the lack of singular stars who transcend the game like the NBA has, or (my theory) that hockey fans tend to be the most geographically provincial and the most passionate about their respective teams, such that once their team is out, the whole year has wound up being so emotionally taxing that shuttin' 'er down for the rest of the season is all you can do to keep your head while some other jerkweeds are out winning the Cup you thought your team was supposed to win.

and regional sport. There's money to be made out there in hockey, just not for everyone, and good luck getting the teams who already carry the water as is to do even more for the stragglers with their precious parking/concession/ticket/RSN money. If we can't have anything resembling economic parity with only the meager revenue sharing that the business model can allow, then we can't have thirty teams, at least not in these thirty markets, and to cling to this model represents bad leadership.

[TimEOBrien]

It's hard to be "an NHL fan" the way one can be "an NBA fan" or "an NFL fan." Chalk this up to a weakness in the fantasy sports department

This is very true. I tried to start up a fantasy hockey league this past season (so I'd watch more non-'Hawks games) and while it took a near-herculean effort to find 10 owners, by week 6-8 I stopped writing my weekly updates and by week 10 even I stopped paying attention and updating rosters.

It was a complete failure. Even the people who are diehard hockey fans had trouble understanding things like why penalty minutes were a good thing. Nothing - sadly - compares to the thrill of fantasy football. With 2-3 days of games a week and only 17 weeks of action, it truly is the perfect fantasy sport.

[The_Admiral]

Nothing compares to the thrill of fantasy football.

I don't know about that one. I had a terrific bowl of oatmeal for breakfast this morning!

[rams80]

Nothing compares to the thrill of fantasy football.

I think reality football does. Better yet, defenders are actually meaningful in reality football and running backs aren't overrated!

[Still MIGHTY]

It's hard to be "an NHL fan" the way one can be "an NBA fan" or "an NFL fan." Chalk this up to a weakness in the fantasy sports department, or the weak national contract making it hard to get a feel for the whole league, or the lack of singular stars who transcend the game like the NBA has, or (my theory) that hockey fans tend to be the most geographically provincial and the most passionate about their respective teams

Or that people aren't force-fed NHL information in the same way there's the constant stream of NBA/NFL/NBA minutiae.

It's also really not that hard to be a NHL fan. Is it harder to be a NHL fan than NBA/NFL/MLB? Sure, but only if you're not up to making one/two more clicks on the internet or "painstakingly search high and low across the guide" (OMG WHUR IS DIS CHANNEL!?! ) for NBCSN/NHL Network. It really isn't all that hard. It's a convenient excuse for people to put down the NHL, but it's really not that hard in today's age.

But I guess I say that as a hockey/NHL fan and will also go along with your angle that hockey fans are the most passionate about their respective teams. So much so that good hockey fans will go that extra mile to find the information. If you're a hockey fan, you know where to go and where to find the info you want, but it is a little harder for outsiders to grasp on.

[TimEOBrien]

I don't know about that one. I had a terrific bowl of oatmeal for breakfast this morning!

I think reality football does. Better yet, defenders are actually meaningful in reality football and running backs aren't overrated!

I meant no other fantasy league sports compare, asshats...

[njmeadowlanders]

[H]ockey fans tend to be the most geographically provincial and the most passionate about their respective teams, such that once their team is out, the whole year has wound up being so emotionally taxing that shuttin' 'er down for the rest of the season is all you can do to keep your head while some other jerkweeds are out winning the Cup you thought your team was supposed to win.

This, a million times over. And if you don't get it, you're probably not a hockey fan.

I watched the cup finals don't get me wrong, but with a ginormous feeling of emptiness and the "well, at least if my team lost the Devils didn't win it all either but I would've loved a crack at the Kings" angle.

[wildwing64]

Food for American thought: how many hockey fans do you know who, despite some pretty serious devotion to their team, kind of peace out for the year once their own team is done? It's hard to be "an NHL fan" the way one can be "an NBA fan" or "an NFL fan." Chalk this up to a weakness in the fantasy sports department, or the weak national contract making it hard to get a feel for the whole league, or the lack of singular stars who transcend the game like the NBA has, or (my theory) that hockey fans tend to be the most geographically provincial and the most passionate about their respective teams, such that once their team is out, the whole year has wound up being so emotionally taxing that shuttin' 'er down for the rest of the season is all you can do to keep your head while some other jerkweeds are out winning the Cup you thought your team was supposed to win.

Forgive me for not being American and sharing my thoughts anyway

I'm primarily (read: only) a hockey fan as far as sports go, but all of that above actually makes a lot of sense. I may be completely wrong here but I'm under the impression that there are a lot more, how should I put it: "player fans" for the NBA and NFL than there are for the NHL. By that I mean fans of the former two leagues will tune into any old game because Lebron James or Tim Tebow or Brett Favre is playing, as opposed to NHL fans who mainly prefer to watch their favourite team. Me for example, I'm generally reluctant to watch any game that doesn't involve the Ducks unless it's something like the Winter Classic or the Stanley Cup Final (and like njmeadowlanders said there's that empty feeling when your favourite team isn't in the playoffs and the league's making it feel like the Biggest Playoffs Ever while your team just happens to be left out of it all). And while the NHL tries to market guys like Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin as the league's game-transcending superstars, for the most part we don't seem to care that much because they're not playing for our favourite teams. And while not a superstar-calibre player I liked Samuel Pahlsson when he played for Anaheim, but I've completely lost track of him since he went to Columbus.

[The_Admiral]

It's hard to be "an NHL fan" the way one can be "an NBA fan" or "an NFL fan." Chalk this up to a weakness in the fantasy sports department, or the weak national contract making it hard to get a feel for the whole league, or the lack of singular stars who transcend the game like the NBA has, or (my theory) that hockey fans tend to be the most geographically provincial and the most passionate about their respective teams

Or that people aren't force-fed NHL information in the same way there's the constant stream of NBA/NFL/NBA minutiae.

It's also really not that hard to be a NHL fan. Is it harder to be a NHL fan than NBA/NFL/MLB? Sure, but only if you're not up to making one/two more clicks on the internet or "painstakingly search high and low across the guide" (OMG WHUR IS DIS CHANNEL!?! ) for NBCSN/NHL Network. It really isn't all that hard. It's a convenient excuse for people to put down the NHL, but it's really not that hard in today's age.

But I guess I say that as a hockey/NHL fan and will also go along with your angle that hockey fans are the most passionate about their respective teams. So much so that good hockey fans will go that extra mile to find the information. If you're a hockey fan, you know where to go and where to find the info you want, but it is a little harder for outsiders to grasp on.

I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in matters of the NHL beyond my own team, and I can objectively appreciate games in which I have no dog in the fight, but the vast-vast-vast majority of my interest in the league comes from the fortunes of my favorite team, and I think that pie chart is one that can't be matched by other teams/leagues. I don't want to resort to "hockey's just different, man," but it's been a long day, and I'm not at my most articulate.

Looking back to 2011, I don't think I watched a minute of the playoffs between the Blackhawks' exit and Final Game 7. Two straight years that I've watched far more NBA playoffs than Stanley Cup. It's not that I don't like hockey, because I do, but that whole thing just took a lot out of me, y'know? My sports-related synapses were burnt to a crisp.

[ElwoodCuse]

I actually saw a really good article comparing NBA and NHL playoff TV ratings not long ago. The theory was that basketball fans will keep watching because they like basketball. Hockey fans, meanwhile, are more likely to quit watching once their team is out, because watching your team get eliminated is so much more draining to them.

[Eye]

It's hard to be "an NHL fan" the way one can be "an NBA fan" or "an NFL fan." Chalk this up to a weakness in the fantasy sports department, or the weak national contract making it hard to get a feel for the whole league, or the lack of singular stars who transcend the game like the NBA has, or (my theory) that hockey fans tend to be the most geographically provincial and the most passionate about their respective teams

Or that people aren't force-fed NHL information in the same way there's the constant stream of NBA/NFL/NBA minutiae.

It's also really not that hard to be a NHL fan. Is it harder to be a NHL fan than NBA/NFL/MLB? Sure, but only if you're not up to making one/two more clicks on the internet or "painstakingly search high and low across the guide" (OMG WHUR IS DIS CHANNEL!?! ) for NBCSN/NHL Network. It really isn't all that hard. It's a convenient excuse for people to put down the NHL, but it's really not that hard in today's age.

But I guess I say that as a hockey/NHL fan and will also go along with your angle that hockey fans are the most passionate about their respective teams. So much so that good hockey fans will go that extra mile to find the information. If you're a hockey fan, you know where to go and where to find the info you want, but it is a little harder for outsiders to grasp on.

I'm actually "not up to making one/two more clicks on the internet" because of how my life is structured. I know what channel NBC Sports is, though and did watch as much of the playoffs as I could, after watching minimal regular season action (but the most regular season action I've seen in a long time). I generally won't watch hockey's regular season, unless I could have the time to watch Ovechkin or Crosby on a nightly basis, because the season just drags on while in the end letting a bunch of mediocre and possibly bad teams into the playoffs. For years I haven't listened to sports radio, mainly because I figured it sucks. I'm still sort of right in that assertion, I suppose, but I do listen to sports radio when a drive nowadays, and after all that, here is my point. Sorry for the preamble.

After work, hanging out with friends, doing hobbies or going through any mundane activity (doing laundry, cleaning the house, whatever), I'm usually tired and don't want to put any effort into finding out what's going on with a league which is why TV coverage goes a long way; I just want to sit back and unwind. I don't want to be on the computer in the corner of the room in a chair that isn't as comfortable as my bed to hear what is going on. Radio coverage helps, too; when they primarily talk about football, baseball and basketball, I have a much better grasp about what's going on in those sports during my 20-40 minute drive to and from work every day or whenever I need to use the car.

Bring the scores, news, highlights and pre/postgame shows to me because I'm too wrapped up what I have to do to have enough time in the day and/or energy to come to you. This is the biggest reason, to me, as to why I don't watch the NHL. Because of some of my friends, and also perusing through the NHL thread every now and then, I pick up about what is going on, but shows that debated NHL offseason news like you see with football, baseball and basketball would help the league enormously; however, I don't get any place that talks about the NHL as often as the other sports. This reason doesn't really tie into my point, but I figure I might as well tack it on at the end, even though it's late; hockey is the sport that is most hurt by not being there in person. The difference is staggering.

[Kramerica Industries]

It's hard to be "an NHL fan" the way one can be "an NBA fan" or "an NFL fan." Chalk this up to a weakness in the fantasy sports department, or the weak national contract making it hard to get a feel for the whole league, or the lack of singular stars who transcend the game like the NBA has, or (my theory) that hockey fans tend to be the most geographically provincial and the most passionate about their respective teams

Or that people aren't force-fed NHL information in the same way there's the constant stream of NBA/NFL/NBA minutiae.

It's also really not that hard to be a NHL fan. Is it harder to be a NHL fan than NBA/NFL/MLB? Sure, but only if you're not up to making one/two more clicks on the internet or "painstakingly search high and low across the guide" (OMG WHUR IS DIS CHANNEL!?! ) for NBCSN/NHL Network. It really isn't all that hard. It's a convenient excuse for people to put down the NHL, but it's really not that hard in today's age.

But I guess I say that as a hockey/NHL fan and will also go along with your angle that hockey fans are the most passionate about their respective teams. So much so that good hockey fans will go that extra mile to find the information. If you're a hockey fan, you know where to go and where to find the info you want, but it is a little harder for outsiders to grasp on.

I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in matters of the NHL beyond my own team, and I can objectively appreciate games in which I have no dog in the fight, but the vast-vast-vast majority of my interest in the league comes from the fortunes of my favorite team, and I think that pie chart is one that can't be matched by other teams/leagues. I don't want to resort to "hockey's just different, man," but it's been a long day, and I'm not at my most articulate.

Looking back to 2011, I don't think I watched a minute of the playoffs between the Blackhawks' exit and Final Game 7. Two straight years that I've watched far more NBA playoffs than Stanley Cup. It's not that I don't like hockey, because I do, but that whole thing just took a lot out of me, y'know? My sports-related synapses were burnt to a crisp.

In many ways, I think it also depends on the way in which your team exits the playoffs, as in the round, the quality of the series, length, and expectations.

To wit, I don't get to see the Lightning in the playoffs too much, because they are a historically awful franchise. Yet, in 2006 and 2007, those were two years where they really weren't all that good a team, but had the starpower to abuse the shootout to get the cheap wins they needed to get low playoff seeds. #8 in 2006 against a loaded Ottawa team, and #6 in 2007 against a Devils team that put up over 100 points. I didn't expect much of those teams, and so watching the playoffs beyond that, in general, wasn't hard. The real reason I didn't watch much of the 2006 playoffs, if anything, is because my hockey interest still hadn't returned from the lockout - I casually followed, not intently, and wouldn't again until January 2007, or so.

OTOH, the only reason I watched the 2011 Cup Final was out of some self-belief that I had to, as a hockey fan. It was hard for me to watch, knowing that the Lightning would've had a really good chance of being Vancouver for the Cup. As far as I'm concerned, the ECF was the real championship round that year. Both were seven game series', but the goal differential between Tampa and Boston was 0 - between Vancouver and Boston was +15 in favor of the Bruins. I expected the Lightning to exit in the 2nd round that year, but between their surprise sweep of the Caps, and the great battle it was for the Prince of Wales trophy, that is the type of series that guts me.

May have only been the first round, but the '11 'Hawks/'Nucks battle is another excellent example, obviously. I would've thought Chicago had that series after the SHG with under two minutes left. Chris Campoli had other plans.

[CS85]

Pro Hockey Talk farted out a rumor that the Blackhawks offered the Canucks Dave Bolland as part of a trade for Luongo. I'm hoping that was simply for the lulz.

[NJTank]

How is Roberto Loloung going to handle being a BLackhawk when every time he hears Chelsea Dagger he pisses his pants and starts drooling in the corner?

[TimEOBrien]

How is Roberto Loloung going to handle being a BLackhawk when every time he hears Chelsea Dagger he pisses his pants and starts drooling in the corner?

Fortunately he'd have time to recover since that would mean his teammates scored.