Your 2012 National Hockey Lockout Thread

[njmeadowlanders]

That's why I get so mad at people who try to claim that this is the greatest sport in the world. It's really not at all, not most of the time.

At the same time though, when it is good, oh goddamn.

Let's say there was never another NHL game ever played. That doesn't make the game of hockey itself any less awesome.

The league and the sport itself are not one and the same.

[The_Admiral]

They might as well be. I mean, you can enjoy major-junior on some level, and you can have fun at an AHL game and check out your prospects, but the game at what ought to be its highest level is what really matters.

At the same time though, when it is good, oh goddamn.

Oh, absolutely, and therein lies the problem. The game itself intrinsically slouches toward garbage, though, and the league isn't vigilant enough in correcting this. I mean, right now, I maintain that teams are at a disadvantage for having elite players. If the game can be dragged down to the lowest common denominator of obstruction and shells, both teams can theoretically play that game, but a team of foot soldiers that's just thankful to be there will be more adept at this strategy than a team that aspires to more than that. Square peg, round hole, and before you know it, you've bounced a veritable All-Star Team (the Sedins, Kesler, Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Krejci, Seguin, Crosby, Malkin, Thornton, Havlat, Alfredsson, Karlsson, Spezza) in the first goddamn round of the playoffs. People would be howling with discontent if hacking and zone defense knocked out every good NBA team right from the chute, but here it's "good team effort." Maybe we don't deserve to have the game this year.

[Eye]

That's why I get so mad at people who try to claim that this is the greatest sport in the world. It's really not at all, not most of the time.

At the same time though, when it is good, oh goddamn.

Let's say there was never another NHL game ever played. That doesn't make the game of hockey itself any less awesome.

The league and the sport itself are not one and the same.

It does for me. The only hockey I ever watch regularly is the NHL playoffs.

[The_Admiral]

Zach Bogosian out six months with a torn wrist ligament. Big blow to Winnipeg's defense, but there probably won't be a season anyway.

Oilers lock up Jordan Eberle through 2019 at a $6MM cap hit, to go along with Hall through 2020 at the same hit. So much for "noone wants to play in Edmonton herp derp"

[HedleyLamarr]

Zach Bogosian out six months with a torn wrist ligament. Big blow to Winnipeg's defense, but there probably won't be a season anyway.

Yeah....one less guy that turns the puck over.

He and Ron "Capt. Turnover" Hainsey were a defensive pairing from hell. On the bright side, they're the opposing team's top assist men....

[Brass]

That's why I get so mad at people who try to claim that this is the greatest sport in the world. It's really not at all, not most of the time.

At the same time though, when it is good, oh goddamn.

Let's say there was never another NHL game ever played. That doesn't make the game of hockey itself any less awesome.

The league and the sport itself are not one and the same.

It does for me. The only hockey I ever watch regularly is the NHL playoffs.

Because if there's one person the NHL should aim to please....

[Eye]

That's why I get so mad at people who try to claim that this is the greatest sport in the world. It's really not at all, not most of the time.

At the same time though, when it is good, oh goddamn.

Let's say there was never another NHL game ever played. That doesn't make the game of hockey itself any less awesome.

The league and the sport itself are not one and the same.

It does for me. The only hockey I ever watch regularly is the NHL playoffs.

Because if there's one person the NHL should aim to please....

Actually, I forgot to mention, any game with Ovechkin in it I'll watch. Other than that...

Trying to please one person wouldn't work, but I'll humor you here. A 60 game regular season would get me to watch more regularly, not that anyone here would necessarily care about that, and more importantly I think would be better for the league, but as it is right now, 82 games is way too much because it just drags on, and unlike baseball where you need 162 games to determine who is the best due to the randomness, you don't need 82 to determine who is a contender and who isn't. Limiting the playoffs to 4 teams in each conference would help too, because we don't need another marathon after the marathon that is the regular season, coupled with the fact that for my liking, far too many 7 and 8 seeds have made deep runs into the playoffs because "they got hot at the right time" or for some other reason. I'm aware that none of this would happen because of money.

[The_Admiral]

They'll never shorten the season (without a work stoppage), but I get where you're coming from. I know so many people just adore the whole conceit of "you can forget the regular season ever happened, it's the Stanley Cup Playoffs now, baby!", but if you're playing 82 goddamn games over six months, I'd like it if a few of those games actually meant something. Perhaps this is why the NHL struggles to sell its broadcasting rights!

"Crosby! Ovechkin! In a game that will determine nothing whatsoever because it's all out the window in the Stanley Cup and shame on you for desiring otherwise don'tyougetwhatmakesourgamegreat!"

I think you can still have 82 games and 16 teams, it would just take some massaging of salary cap dynamics and officiating to make sure we have the proper stratification between contenders, longshots, and cannon fodder.

[Magnus]

I am more of a hockey fan than a fan of other pro sports, but I also think the 82-game season makes individual games less important overall to watch. Combine that with the fact that hockey is #4 in fandom in the States compared to #1 up here, and I can understand why some teams are struggling. I have often thought that a way to fix this problem and potentially pull in more revenue due to TV rights is to make the schedule shorter, and therefore make each individual game more important. In order to fix the dilemma of having less ticket revenue due to playing fewer games, I submit that the arenas the games are played in should be larger to compensate. This is certainly what the NFL does, and it seems to work pretty well for them.

An aside: I don't think I have ever come close to watching a full season of baseball, even when the Blue Jays were contenders. The season is just too long, and I don't know how anyone can devote that much time each year to watching a sport.

[The_Admiral]

No. You can't have a 70,000-seat stadium for a 200'x85' playing field (other than the Winter Classic stunt). Why would you have fewer games with more bad seats when you could play more games and sell good seats more often? Your comparison makes no sense.

THE NUMBER OF GAMES IS NOT A PROBLEM. It's certainly not a problem for the Original Six, Other Canadian Five, Flyers, Sabres, or Penguins, because they either sell lots of tickets, get lots of television viewers, or both. The problem is that the games are devalued by a byzantine standings system that inflates everyone to a false sense of supra-mediocrity, and the ever-increasing prevalence of risk-averse gameplay (which itself can be traced back to the standings system). You could have a season of one game or a hundred, and it wouldn't matter if everyone's just playing not to lose.

[Magnus]

Well, I agree, the points system has made things a little silly. And I'm not entirely sure about 70,000-seat stadiums either, but something in the neighbourhood of 30,000 shouldn't be that bad for sightlines. IIRC most CFL and lower-capacity NCAA football stadia are in and around that level. As long as potential scheduling conflicts could be avoided, I think it's a possibility.

A quick calculation tells me that 20,000 seats x 41 home games = 820,000, whereas 30,000 seats x 30 home games would be 900,000. That seems like a potential improvement, to me.

[The_Admiral]

There is no infrastructure present to play NHL games in NHL markets using 30,000-seat football stadiums. Also, that is not an improvement because most of those seats, inasmuch as they are not in a hockey arena, will not be very good, to say nothing of the fact that luxury suites will be either worse or nonexistent. Furthermore, why would a team that owns its real estate then choose to stage its games not at its own premier indoor multi-purpose facility, but rather at someone else's CFL stadium or D1AA football stadium? I understand thinking outside the box, but you're not even in the same room as the box. Work with what we have.

[dfwabel]

I am more of a hockey fan than a fan of other pro sports, but I also think the 82-game season makes individual games less important overall to watch. Combine that with the fact that hockey is #4 in fandom in the States compared to #1 up here, and I can understand why some teams are struggling. I have often thought that a way to fix this problem and potentially pull in more revenue due to TV rights is to make the schedule shorter, and therefore make each individual game more important. In order to fix the dilemma of having less ticket revenue due to playing fewer games, I submit that the arenas the games are played in should be larger to compensate. This is certainly what the NFL does, and it seems to work pretty well for them.

An aside: I don't think I have ever come close to watching a full season of baseball, even when the Blue Jays were contenders. The season is just too long, and I don't know how anyone can devote that much time each year to watching a sport.

No league is going to garner more in national TV rights, especially in the USA, when the inventory of possible games is lessened by 25%. 'the admiral' is correct that you now have more bad seats to sell in a larger, outdoor venue plus you are more apt for people not to go because they do not want to sit out in the cold.

Well, I agree, the points system has made things a little silly. And I'm not entirely sure about 70,000-seat stadiums either, but something in the neighbourhood of 30,000 shouldn't be that bad for sightlines. IIRC most CFL and lower-capacity NCAA football stadia are in and around that level. As long as potential scheduling conflicts could be avoided, I think it's a possibility.

A quick calculation tells me that 20,000 seats x 41 home games = 820,000, whereas 30,000 seats x 30 home games would be 900,000. That seems like a potential improvement, to me.

Your typical university has issues with parking on game days, so those days would increase by 300%, and 2/3s of those games would be during the week, when night classes are ongoing. Factor in that while most schools possess a liquor license, most facilities refuse to sell alcohol inside their venues and thus impacts the revenue which the team and host would split.

[Magnus]

There is no infrastructure present to play NHL games in NHL markets using 30,000-seat football stadiums.

Then how did the Heritage and Winter Classics get staged? I realize that they were one-time events, but they still happened. If you're talking about permanent structures, I understand your point, but I think a rink setup could be constructed and stored in a special area of a football stadium, then rolled out for hockey when needed.

I am more of a hockey fan than a fan of other pro sports, but I also think the 82-game season makes individual games less important overall to watch. Combine that with the fact that hockey is #4 in fandom in the States compared to #1 up here, and I can understand why some teams are struggling. I have often thought that a way to fix this problem and potentially pull in more revenue due to TV rights is to make the schedule shorter, and therefore make each individual game more important. In order to fix the dilemma of having less ticket revenue due to playing fewer games, I submit that the arenas the games are played in should be larger to compensate. This is certainly what the NFL does, and it seems to work pretty well for them.

No league is going to garner more in national TV rights, especially in the USA, when the inventory of possible games is lessened by 25%. 'the admiral' is correct that you now have more bad seats to sell in a larger, outdoor venue plus you are more apt for people not to go because they do not want to sit out in the cold.

Firstly, I disagree that people would not want to sit out in the cold to watch hockey when they do it for football already. Secondly, as far as the TV rights are concerned, perhaps trying to market hockey to all areas in the States is the wrong tactic, for the same reason the people in some areas don't want to buy tickets to the games in those cities - it doesn't appeal to them. In order to garner more TV revenue, the games need to be able to attract fans overseas on a regular basis. I realize that European fans wouldn't want to be up at 6 am local time watching a team from Vancouver take the ice, so a reasonable compromise in the start time would have to be figured out; but I think it could be, especially if games were staged mostly on Friday and Saturday nights.

Well, I agree, the points system has made things a little silly. And I'm not entirely sure about 70,000-seat stadiums either, but something in the neighbourhood of 30,000 shouldn't be that bad for sightlines. IIRC most CFL and lower-capacity NCAA football stadia are in and around that level. As long as potential scheduling conflicts could be avoided, I think it's a possibility.

A quick calculation tells me that 20,000 seats x 41 home games = 820,000, whereas 30,000 seats x 30 home games would be 900,000. That seems like a potential improvement, to me.

Your typical university has issues with parking on game days, so those days would increase by 300%, and 2/3s of those games would be during the week, when night classes are ongoing. Factor in that while most schools possess a liquor license, most facilities refuse to sell alcohol inside their venues and thus impacts the revenue which the team and host would split. Also, that is not an improvement because most of those seats, inasmuch as they are not in a hockey arena, will not be very good, to say nothing of the fact that luxury suites will be either worse or nonexistent. Furthermore, why would a team that owns its real estate then choose to stage its games not at its own premier indoor multi-purpose facility, but rather at someone else's CFL stadium or D1AA football stadium? I understand thinking outside the box, but you're not even in the same room as the box. Work with what we have.

Why would they choose to do that? Again, I point to the Winter Classics, even if they are only intended to be one-time events. It's already happening. I don't think it's too outside the box to envision the expansion of hockey arenas to include more seating, either. If it works in locations with lousy infrastructure, there is incentive to make regular, dedicated NHL arenas larger to more comfortably accommodate a larger crowd in future games.

Have you ever known me to think inside the box?

[rams80]

The Winter Classic works BECAUSE it is a once a season thing. The novelty makes up for the whole "freezing your ass off while watching hockey played with poor sightlines" problem. Make it a regular thing, the novelty goes away.

-------------------------

Football is not a good example, since football is already on a borderline "novelty event" status with regards to attendance. (Few games, etc.) Additionally, the really ing cold games only make up a fraction of your Northern teams' schedules.

[The_Admiral]

The Winter Classic is a one-shot novelty for which people are willing to forsake sightlines and creature comforts for the sake of being part of a capital-letters Special Event. By and large, people like to go to hockey games the way they've always gone to hockey games. As for the logistics of maintaining an ice sheet on a football field, no, you don't just roll it in and out like a tarp. Maintaining the ice at a building designed to maintain ice is expensive and labor-intensive; how do you suppose they would run

We shouldn't be discussing this. We do smarter sports talk here than this.

[dfwabel]

Honestly, I have no clue on who you are or how you think. However, attendance generally is not the issue with teams. Income is. DAL was bankrupt for two plus years as Hicks did not want to fund the team. Glendale is, well Glendale.

As for European rights, NHL owners seemed to pull a Sportschannel America deal again and take more cash for less household penetration until 2016.

Wouldn't it be more advantageous for them to have a smaller capacity, but more high-end/luxury experience? The tickets are already higher than the NBA.

Plus, outdoor rinks for competition are still difficult for them to do.

[BigBubba]

Gabriel Landeskog is the Avs' new captain, the youngest in NHL history.

[Funky Bunky]

Landeskog is awesome!

[RevNet]

KHL seeking to capitalize on potential NHL lockout

The Russians are ready.

With time ticking down until the NHL is expected to lock out its players, KHL teams and executives are bracing for a windfall. The Russian-based league will open its arms to NHL players who wake up Sept. 16 without a place to play because it believes it can capitalize while arenas go dark around North America.

"Mainly I think it's going to be a lot of additional marketing potential for the league and hockey itself as a game," KHL vice-president Ilya Kochevrin told The Canadian Press on Tuesday. "The stars bring additional attention ... to a lot of people who probably don't consider hockey the sport of choice.

"I think as a marketing tool it's a great opportunity."

Most of the top Russian players are expected to quickly make their way home if the NHL and NHL Players' Association are unable to reach a new collective bargaining agreement by Sept. 15. Evgeni Malkin, Alex Ovechkin, Pavel Datsyuk and Ilya Kovalchuk have already been linked to KHL teams ? as have Sergei Gonchar, Nikolai Kulemin and others.

http://www.cbc.ca/sp...ey-players.html

That isn't all...

via @dchesnokov:

#KHL's changes: any team can sign up to 3 #NHL players regardless of their nationality for the duration of the lockout (via @plysenkov).