New Rules, Schedules, Changes Etc...
Posted 7:02 PM ET | Comments 0
This is a bit of a dated issue seeing as meetings have already come and gone with nothing all that new. However, it still lingers in the mind since owners and GMs are constantly trying to make hockey more widely accepted to more novice fans around the world. There have been many new ideas to change rules, schedules, and various other things so hockey is easier to watch and enjoy.
One of the ideas that is presented every year is the widening of the net to infuse a great amount of scoring. More scoring is a bit of an attractive addition. But, why would people watch hockey more to see more goals scored? It just doesn't add up. It would be a slap in the face to the fans that have made it through the years of hockey in it's more plain tastes. In my opinion, there is nothing better than a game 0-0 in the third period. Knowing that the next shot could be the determining factor between a loss or a win is exciting. It's also in my opinion that it would be a mockery of the record books. If you widen nets or dumb down goalie pads significantly, you will most definitely see way over 50 goal seasons. Are we looking for someone to catch Gretzky easier? Look at the way baseball fans have declared Barry Bonds a cheater and illegitimate. If young Sidney Crosby catches the tail of Howe and Gretzky due to an ease of scoring, what would that prove? I like seeing hockey the way it is as far as scoring. I don't want to see scored like 15-10 every night. The good ol' barn burners are great on the occasion. (See Buffalo vs. Philly last year) But, do we really want to see that every night? More importantly, what does the NHL do when 15-10 scores become dull again? Extend the goal net further? This idea just seems a bit far-fetched and one with limitations.
Another common gripe is the schedule. Whether it be that you have to wait to see Crosby or Ovechkin every three years or be it that the season is just too friggin' long. My stance on the three years to see an opposite conference opponent depending on the division is that it's horrible. I live in the Dallas-Fort Worth area now since 1995. Born and raised in Philly area. Before the "rivarly" type scheduling I could count on seeing the Flyers head down to Dallas every year or every other. Three years is just too long. Is it fair that Philly gets four visits from Crosby (not that we want him, as far as playing against him) when, let's say the L.A. Kings, only get to see him once every three years? You could fly to another arena or go to Pittsburgh to see Crosby, but isn't hockey supposed to be more fan friendly in that aspect? I see the point of playing your divisional teams more frequently and all, but if you're looking for better marketing, it makes sense to see all teams.
As far as long schedules, I see no reason to change them. I love hockey, so seeing all 82 games on TV is a treat. I'm sorry it's not a short 16 game venture with a week or two between games like the NFL. That's what makes hockey so great. These guys go out every other night, sometimes, and beat each other up just as bad as hockey. Football is more of a grind, I understand, but I don't believe that a short schedule is the reason for football having such mass appeal. You want a sport with too many games? Baseball. 162 is such a glare. I don't believe 82 is so bad. It's an experience to get to ride your team through 7 or 8 months of a season. The Flyers were terrible last year, and it still felt like the season was just burning through so quickly. The true fans of the NHL have hard enough time, for some of us, with the ticket prices. Can you imagine how much money the league with lose if you cut games? It'll come down to $50 nose bleed tickets. The NBA has better television ratings then the NHL. The playoffs are similar as well as the season structure. What does football do better? Well, it's been embedded in your mind since middle school. Football in high school, as well as in college. Women, no gender stereotype here, seem to like football too from the days of Friday Night High School football, as well as I guess you could call it a bonding point with a woman and a man in some cases. The rules are more easier for a novice fan of football than hockey. It mostly comes down to hit man with ball, get ball, and bring ball over opponent's line. Yeah, sure you have neutral zone crap, pass interference, and safety rules that are there, but they are still easier to understand. I don't know how many times I have to explain icing to novice fans. I don't think they are even comprehending a thing I am saying to be honest. The two line pass was also another one, but I commend the NHL for getting rid of that. A last argument for football is how overblown the Super Bowl can be. It's not like hockey which takes a week or two to finish the final decision. It's over in one night. It has hype. I just don't think America has a long enough attention span to take to a game for that long.
As I have mentioned, the rules and concepts of hockey confuse the novice and unfamiliar. Icing, neutral zone trap, offsides, break-out pass, etc. Just too much that's meant for the hockey savvy. It's just not dumbed down enough. It's no insult to football, I love the game, but football can be extremely dumbed down. It's one play at a time. Hockey just has too much action, non-stop for a great amount of time at points, that it's hard to keep up with. I think this should be left up to the television network to make bring a medium for hockey broadcasting. There has to be a way to make hockey easier and more attractive without changing the game itself while still catering to the advanced hockey fans.
Renown is another aspect. If you ask the common, street-walking person who Tom Brady was or Peyton Manning even you'll find that they atleast know who that person is. If you ask them who Peter Forsberg are or Sidney Crosby is, they likely wouldn't know. I'd say Gretzky but that man is known by all thankfully. The point is, people know current football players better than hockey players. I believe they could market hockey a bit better. Versus is great, but unless you know hockey, you wouldn't know that channel very well. It's good to have NBC still as you are more likely to pass over that channel than Versus...losing ESPN hurt ratings. Atleast from my stand point. Look at football, it's on two local channels, ESPN, and it's own channel all Sunday long. It's more accessible. Once we make hockey more accessible, I believe more fans and followers will come as well.
Just a few opinions that I hold. Feel free to add on.
One of the ideas that is presented every year is the widening of the net to infuse a great amount of scoring. More scoring is a bit of an attractive addition. But, why would people watch hockey more to see more goals scored? It just doesn't add up. It would be a slap in the face to the fans that have made it through the years of hockey in it's more plain tastes. In my opinion, there is nothing better than a game 0-0 in the third period. Knowing that the next shot could be the determining factor between a loss or a win is exciting. It's also in my opinion that it would be a mockery of the record books. If you widen nets or dumb down goalie pads significantly, you will most definitely see way over 50 goal seasons. Are we looking for someone to catch Gretzky easier? Look at the way baseball fans have declared Barry Bonds a cheater and illegitimate. If young Sidney Crosby catches the tail of Howe and Gretzky due to an ease of scoring, what would that prove? I like seeing hockey the way it is as far as scoring. I don't want to see scored like 15-10 every night. The good ol' barn burners are great on the occasion. (See Buffalo vs. Philly last year) But, do we really want to see that every night? More importantly, what does the NHL do when 15-10 scores become dull again? Extend the goal net further? This idea just seems a bit far-fetched and one with limitations.
Another common gripe is the schedule. Whether it be that you have to wait to see Crosby or Ovechkin every three years or be it that the season is just too friggin' long. My stance on the three years to see an opposite conference opponent depending on the division is that it's horrible. I live in the Dallas-Fort Worth area now since 1995. Born and raised in Philly area. Before the "rivarly" type scheduling I could count on seeing the Flyers head down to Dallas every year or every other. Three years is just too long. Is it fair that Philly gets four visits from Crosby (not that we want him, as far as playing against him) when, let's say the L.A. Kings, only get to see him once every three years? You could fly to another arena or go to Pittsburgh to see Crosby, but isn't hockey supposed to be more fan friendly in that aspect? I see the point of playing your divisional teams more frequently and all, but if you're looking for better marketing, it makes sense to see all teams.
As far as long schedules, I see no reason to change them. I love hockey, so seeing all 82 games on TV is a treat. I'm sorry it's not a short 16 game venture with a week or two between games like the NFL. That's what makes hockey so great. These guys go out every other night, sometimes, and beat each other up just as bad as hockey. Football is more of a grind, I understand, but I don't believe that a short schedule is the reason for football having such mass appeal. You want a sport with too many games? Baseball. 162 is such a glare. I don't believe 82 is so bad. It's an experience to get to ride your team through 7 or 8 months of a season. The Flyers were terrible last year, and it still felt like the season was just burning through so quickly. The true fans of the NHL have hard enough time, for some of us, with the ticket prices. Can you imagine how much money the league with lose if you cut games? It'll come down to $50 nose bleed tickets. The NBA has better television ratings then the NHL. The playoffs are similar as well as the season structure. What does football do better? Well, it's been embedded in your mind since middle school. Football in high school, as well as in college. Women, no gender stereotype here, seem to like football too from the days of Friday Night High School football, as well as I guess you could call it a bonding point with a woman and a man in some cases. The rules are more easier for a novice fan of football than hockey. It mostly comes down to hit man with ball, get ball, and bring ball over opponent's line. Yeah, sure you have neutral zone crap, pass interference, and safety rules that are there, but they are still easier to understand. I don't know how many times I have to explain icing to novice fans. I don't think they are even comprehending a thing I am saying to be honest. The two line pass was also another one, but I commend the NHL for getting rid of that. A last argument for football is how overblown the Super Bowl can be. It's not like hockey which takes a week or two to finish the final decision. It's over in one night. It has hype. I just don't think America has a long enough attention span to take to a game for that long.
As I have mentioned, the rules and concepts of hockey confuse the novice and unfamiliar. Icing, neutral zone trap, offsides, break-out pass, etc. Just too much that's meant for the hockey savvy. It's just not dumbed down enough. It's no insult to football, I love the game, but football can be extremely dumbed down. It's one play at a time. Hockey just has too much action, non-stop for a great amount of time at points, that it's hard to keep up with. I think this should be left up to the television network to make bring a medium for hockey broadcasting. There has to be a way to make hockey easier and more attractive without changing the game itself while still catering to the advanced hockey fans.
Renown is another aspect. If you ask the common, street-walking person who Tom Brady was or Peyton Manning even you'll find that they atleast know who that person is. If you ask them who Peter Forsberg are or Sidney Crosby is, they likely wouldn't know. I'd say Gretzky but that man is known by all thankfully. The point is, people know current football players better than hockey players. I believe they could market hockey a bit better. Versus is great, but unless you know hockey, you wouldn't know that channel very well. It's good to have NBC still as you are more likely to pass over that channel than Versus...losing ESPN hurt ratings. Atleast from my stand point. Look at football, it's on two local channels, ESPN, and it's own channel all Sunday long. It's more accessible. Once we make hockey more accessible, I believe more fans and followers will come as well.
Just a few opinions that I hold. Feel free to add on.