The National Hockey League is now in a lock-out :cry: — Forum Archive

17 Sep 2004, 11:56

Alright, it's done, there won't be a new hockey season, and the fastest we can have one is January 2005...

Seriously, this is a madness, strike or lock-out in sports, it already killed baseball in Montréal, now it's going to kill hockey for sure.

Let's be honest, Hockey is managed by a bunch of idiots that didn't understand that hockey is a winter sport, and that it should be played in places that actually HAVE a winter. By adding 9 teams over the last, him, 15 years? they have changed hockey, adding 270 new players that weren't NHL level back them, fortunately for them, european players came here to fill the gap.

Seriously though... wouldn't it be time to let the NHL die and start over? Despite what Jeff thinks, it's not natural to have hockey in Dallas ;) and the latest World Cup tournament was on ESPN2... not even on ESPN or a national network (which obviously was the case in Canada), and I heard that poker tournament have better audiences than hockey in the US.

So I'd say screw this and build a new world league that have teams in cities that care... Canada of course, and Sweden, Finland, Germany, Czeck Republic, Slovakia and Russia just to name a few.

2 "Associations", "East" and "West", but being Europe and America... should they play together in the season? Hum, maybe like the baseball system, I can't say... but why not.. though flying from Vancouver to Koln would take a while...

Now, with THAT concept, you would have an audience.. not half-empty arenas in Carolina for instance, or Nashville, Columbus... even Tampa Bay who won the Stanley Cup can't fill their arena.

Step 2, drop a few teams! right now, if you drop 4 teams, all 4th lines in the league will disappear, meaning all 3rd liners will become your worst players. I'd personally go for 22 teams, but I guess it's impossible, so lets settle for 28, because you have to have an even number in each association. 14 vs 14, 8 will do the playoffs.

14 teams in Europe? Why not... in North America, my call would be a Canadian division and a US division:

Canadian division:

Montréal/Québec/Toronto/Vancouver/Calgary/Edmonton/Ottawa/Winnipeg

Here you have your canadian division!

American division:

Boston/New York/Detroit/Chicago/Denver/Minnesotta/Philadelphia/St-Louis

That would be the "West Association", the original 6 are all there, why 3 teams in New York anywas...

The East Association would be something like:

Helsinki/Turku/Oslo/Stockholm/Prague/Bratislava/Moscow/Koln

Now for the 8 other teams, there are places in Italy (Torino), Switzerland (Berne) that hockey is very popular, and other places in Germany, Sweden, that can fill a 18,000 people arena without any problem.

Now THAT would be interesting...

But then again, you have to make sure each team run with the same budget.. that's a MUST... otherwise, money will always be the reason why you win... the budget should be based on the money generated by the league, then split by the amount of teams, a fixed percentage should go to the players, and it's normal that the owners actually do a little profit... otherwise, let the players own themselves!!

Well, this is dreaming in color, but that would be, IMHO, the best solution....

17 Sep 2004, 12:11

Can teams in Turku and Bratislava be financially profitable? Will they get the ticket sales? Will they get the merchandise sales? NO

An international league would not be feasible.

The NHL has too many teams, too little talent, and no salary cap.

If hockey really wanted to make a financial splash in cities in Phenix, Atlanta, Miami, then the NHL should open up ice rinks in neighborhoods and provide cheap skating lessons. In high schools there really are no winter sports in Southern CA, and rightfully so. The NHL needs to try to sponsor ice skating sports in neighborhoods in the US in order to breed a new generation of hockey fans.

Teams that should be eliminated: Atlanta, Phoenix, Florida, Carolina, Columbus, (Ottawa should be moved because of the poor market for an NHL team there)

Also why are there no teams in Seattle or Portland?? IMO those would be ideal areas for an NHL team. It would be nice for a team to be in Anchorage

18 Sep 2004, 10:38

the only way to save hockey is to put teams in des moines, iowa, bloomington, indiana, and one in puerto rico. oh put one in chicago too. blackhawks don't count :)

dont care much for hockey, but this is sad. the nhl needs to get their shit together. spotnick for commish of nhl and tristan in charge of getting rid of teams. that'll save hockey.

18 Sep 2004, 10:59

Originally posted by kamar the only way to save hockey is to put teams in des moines, iowa, bloomington, indiana, and one in puerto rico. oh put one in chicago too. blackhawks don't count :)dont care much for hockey, but this is sad. the nhl needs to get their shit together. spotnick for commish of nhl and tristan in charge of getting rid of teams. that'll save hockey.

Ooh ooh can I move teams also? I want to switch the blackhawks and the red wings.

18 Sep 2004, 11:03

you would make my friend dave a happy man. his favorite team is detroit redwings but he lives in chicago.

18 Sep 2004, 15:44

Well, the NHL won't be able to save itself until it realizes it is not the NFL, NBA, or MLB. I love hockey, but if they keep trying to operate like the other "big" sports in North America, they are DOOMED!!!

They will never get the TV revenue that those 3 sports get. Therefore, they can't afford to keep trying to pay their players like the players in those sports. And why is the NHLPA so dead set against a salary cap? The NBA and NFL both have one! And it doesn't seem to have hurt those two leagues.

I don't think you really need to look at eliminating teams, we need to look at making sure that everyone begins living within their means. It does piss me off that the owners keep crying about losing money, but they keep overspending for players. I'd love to have a Porsche, but I can't afford one. So what do I do, I drive something less expensive. As long as the owners are stupid enough to shell out too much money for players, I can't say I feel sorry for them. Of course, if we did have the salary cap, their hands would be somewhat tied. The only thing that worries me about a salary cap is, if the owners can no longer cry about the players salaries, will they start to reduce ticket prices, or will they simply be out to line their pockets?

I can't afford to go to as many matches as I used to. The common fan has been priced out of the market. But this is the double edged sword that is a capitalist economy. Everybody is out to make as much as they can, and they aren't always concerned about the long term, as long as they can make a buck today.

I love the game, but the dynamics are starting to disgust me. Just how many millions of dollars do the athletes need? And that goes for the owners, GMs...and what not...

18 Sep 2004, 17:50

I love going to see the Des Moines Bucaneers. Tickets are cheap as is the beer. BFD not NHL but they have a decent fan base, the arena is packed for home games and the community supports them.

Minor league sports really have much to offer without any of the overpaid primadonnas and high ticket prices.