I was commenting on Rage's post. He said its pointless to have OT. Does not mention anything about playoffs or regular season. I feel that the system that is in place is perfect. Its rewards teams that try to win and makes it exicting.
Shootouts is a gimmick and there is no need for it at all. Ties are just part of the game, deal with it. International hockey only uses the shootout on sudden death games and not round robin games. Its a poor way to judge who won the game or not. If its a tie, then it means both teams played eqaully and there is not clear cut winner.
And after the OT rule change in the NHL, i rarely see teams playing for the tie.
Shootouts are like adding a home run contest in baseball if extra innings go over the 15th innning. Or 3 point contest in basketball after the first OT quarter. How bout a field goal kicking contest after the first OT quarter in NFL.
I HATE the analogies that you used. The three point contest, field goal kicking and what ever else.
If you throw in "Playing your best defender on their best three point shooter while he tries to make the threes" then, I'd agree.
I have no comment for the football analogy because there is no way to compair...
Anyway, who wants ties? Not new fans, that's for damn sure. And guess what, unfortunatly this whole thing isn't about what you, I, or any other hardcore hockey fan "wants", it's about what the marketable public wants. And, the marketable public is a helluva lot bigger than the current fans.
The public wants lots of scoring, amazing skill(Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin are going to help that for the next 15 years), and breathtaking plays. They want drama and, what better drama than 1v1 to score the game winner?
As I said, the NHL probably won't lose it's mind completly(For our sport's sake, I hope not) by taking shootouts to the playoffs. If they do, I'll riot along with you as I do not agree with it. But, ties are boring, ties are dull...No person in the WORLD that is a casual hockey fan wants to see a 4 on 4 where they skate to the red line, dump, chase...Then, it repeats when the current team loses posession. They want finality, they want a winner by any means necessary.
Besides, playoff OT and regular season OT is nowhere near compairable. The same two teams in the playoffs are a million times more exciting than in the regular season. Yet another reason to shorten the season to maybe 41 games...More excitement. In the NFL, every game counts so, they play every second to win.
There are many ways to increase scoring, amazing skill and breathtaking plays instead of using shootout's.
The reason why NFL has only 16 games is because of how the sport is played. Its not because they want every game to mean something. Its unrealistic to have somebody play 40 games of football. They will be dead. Buts its realistic to play 60 to 82 games in hockey. They players only average at the most 20 minutes a game.
Soccer only uses shootouts for sudden death games. In league play, friendlies and qualifying matches for big events (Euro Cup,World Cup and others) go to tie.
Boring ass game? What other sports have fighting (thats allowed), huge hits and amazing skill on ice and the toughest players in any sport? If thought it was boring, why do you care what happens to hockey?
i always thought the shootouts happened in quater finals and semi finals and finals in international tournaments like (Euro cup and world cup) and they also use shootouts in league cups such as FA cup or European cup) ... they dont have penalty shootouts in regular league matches or in friendlies.....
Yeah, as i said any sudden death game has the shootout.
The reason the majority of Americans dont watch hockey is because they dont understand it. Unlike Canada, their alot of geographical areas that never get below freezing enough to actually have alot of snow. Its similar to why most Europeans don't like America Football. They dont understand it at all. Including a shootout wont bring any more viewers in.
Last edited by Smasandian on Jan 6th, 2005 at 04:44 AM
Yeah, there are ways to increase what we talked about and it's called enforcing the rules. But, they're too damn stupid to do that.
The NFL plays a game a week. They could play 20 regular season games if they wanted with that schedule but, they don't...
Anyway, I'll take the 60 games before I take the 82. Don't get me wrong, I watch every single Penguins game during the regular season but, the players just don't play with anywhere near as much heart or passion during games 30-50 or even up to 60(read: a maximum of 30 games). They just look dead, going through the motions.
20 minutes of game? I'd like to know effort wise how much the average NFL player plays. I bet that the NHL is greater than the NFL. I know that for sure, I'm dead after a game of hockey. And yeah, I play.
Yes, boring ass game. I say this because I do care what happens to hockey. Don't act like just because you're Canadian, you are high and mighty on the hockey knowledge scale, I've seen it FAR too often.
If we don't do something to save our sport(READ: make it more marketable), it will be dead(NHL will be dead, the sport will never die) within a few more years. We can't go on with this "TV" contract that we have with ESPN/ABC(TSN is included in that) and no TV station is going to want to feature a game that is as boring to watch as the neutral zone trapfest that I watch 8 times per year called New Jersey vs Pittsburgh.
Change SOMETHING. Enforce SOMETHING. Make SOME kind of salary cap! Soft or hard, I don't care, just get them on the ice before the season is officially canceled.
Of course! We don't understand hockey, that's why we don't like it! [/ignorant American text]
BS if I do say so myself. For the average viewer to sit through a game that involves two teams playing the Neutral Zone trap or even the Left Wing Lock would be impressive...But, it won't happen.
The fact is that Americans can sit through boring events if they think that something exciting will happen...Hell, look at NASCAR, it's the most boring thing on Television but, there are crashes so, people watch it.
I'll watch hockey until I can't see anymore and play it until I can't skate but, to ask my next door neighbor to come over to watch the game is highly unlikely.
Listen, I know that Canadians think they "know it all" when it comes to hockey and Americans know nothing but, I do know one thing. America is the target market and where the big bucks come from, that's undisputable. If they don't make hockey more exciting by promoting goal scoring and much freer playing(by enforcing obstruction penalties), hockey is in for a hurtin'. They better address this after the CBA meetings, not this season but, next.
In fact, you used huge mid ice hits and fights as one of your selling points. If the NHLPA agrees to reducing the Roster size by 3 players per team(and, they might), most goons will be taken out of the equation as teams will want to keep skilled players over them.
Also, because the game has become so structured, the Darius Kasperitis' and Ulf Samuelsson's of the NHL(and hockey in general) are becomming dinosaurs. Teams now-a-days want defensemen that won't fly around, looking for the big ice hit because it really puts the team in danger of an odd man rush. And, there isn't enough offense to be able to make too up for many defensive mistakes.
NFL players cannot play 20 more games in a regular season.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I do agree something has to changed and I personally want something to change also. But adding a shootout at the end of the game won't help hockey. Taking away the red line, adding no touch icing, keep goalie pads down and enforcing obstruction will make the game more marketable and exiciting.
If they add a salary cap or some sort cost certainity, that will remove teams with small bugest to stop playing the trap or any other defensive minded system. That's why they play the trap in the first place.
Your welcome for pointing out the obvious, high and mighty Canuck! Obviously, you don't know the obvious because you keep preaching that the game is fine as it is and, it's obviously not. Shrinking goalie pads and taking out the red line are both moot points because they won't work.
If we remove the red line, teams will end up sticking a d man around where it once was as backup for cherry pickers, eventually though...It will turn into a 4 on 5 each time teams go into the offensive zone. I think it would be cool if it turned into 4 on 4's with both teams having a man at the redline- one offensive and one defensive player to fight 1 on 1 when the outlet pass comes out...But, that won't happen, the NHL today is defense first, offense second. Look at the past few Cup Champs. Vote no on removing the red line.
No touch icing will have the reverse effect of excitement. How many times in your life have you seen a speedy winger beat the d-man down the ice and make a pass from behind the net only to get smashed into the boards? That's hockey! That's what I, you, and the rest of the public want to see- Speed, grit, determination, and no fear. Vote no on no touch icing.
Kicking down the goalie pads a few inches will definatly improve scoring. Once all the starters in the league are in the hospital, the backups will have an even rougher time stopping pucks because of 2 reasons:
1. They aren't as good.
2. Fear
Vote no on reducing goalie pad size.
Your final point to shoot down, I don't understand how a salary cap is going to change how teams play the game. The neutral zone trap is going to exist until teams find a definate way to beat it, no matter the salary cap. If you're saying that a salary cap is going to push teams like Pittsburgh out of the NHL, you're wrong. That's why they are going to put it in, so that we can compete with you(I'm guessing you're from Toronto because...Mainly of your attitude.)
What will work?
Like you said, enforce obstruction penalties. Heck, I think we should even adapt a "three strike policy". If a player is called for that penalty(or any penalty) three times in one game, they're out of the game. Players would learn FAST. Plus, how many times have you seen a player in the box 3 times in one game overall, not just for the same thing? I haven't seen it many times...It would be there "just in case".
Touch up offsides-Touch up offsides are the best thing ever invented, we need to use it. I've seen it work in the ECHL and, work well...They have touch up offsides to speed up the game but, their auto icing rule almost slows it back down again...Not much, but a little...
Move the nets back!-Move them back to where they were before, give the players more room to create in front of the net not just behind it. This would also keep the goalies in the net(where they belong) and reduce the amount of times that a goaltender plays the puck, adding a flow to the game.
Double the size of the lines!- What would this do? Give players more room yet again. It's only 6 more inches in each zone(each line is 6 inches...) but, it would mean alot...It would shrink the Neutral zone, giving less room for the trap...Overall, I like this idea.
I'm using international hockey as an outline for changing NHL. Its removies the redline, has no-touch icing and touch up offsides. Watch Olmypic hockey, juniors or world championships, there generally more exciting hockey games than the NHL. Thier not exciting because of the importance of the game, but because of the rules. With no red line, its allows players to attack.
Ok, how many times have you seen a team dump the puck from the own line because of offensive pressure is too much to handle. THe puck slowly goes all the way down the line until A, the goalies gets, or B, a defenseman has trod all the way down to get it for an icing. Wow, that sure is fun. It is true that sometimes a person beats out the defenseman, but that happens rarely. Also, it protects the player.
Smaller goalies pads wont kill goalies. Goalies were big pads so they have an easier time stopping pucks. Look back in the 80's, goalies got the same amount of injuries as of today, and the pad size is alot smaller. The pads they have on thier legs and hands armt their for protection, but to stop pucks. Thier equipmenty underneath thier jerseys stop them from getting hurt.
Your stance would work, but its not fair. I would agree if they used that stance on violence and illgeal activity on and off the ice would be awesome. But for minor penalties, its absurd.
To neutrilize the trap, wouldnt no red line work?
Please read my last post carefully. "If they add a salary cap or some sort cost certainity, that will remove teams with small bugest to stop playing the trap or any other defensive minded system. That's why they play the trap in the first place."
To say it again. Playing the trap is for teams that dont have the offensive players. With a salary cap, smalls teams like Pittsburgh could get the offensive players to play an offensive minded game. There would be remenets of the trap but it would less severe.
Actually, I'm from Ottawa, but thank you for knowing a city of Canada. My teams is the Leafs but i grew up watching Pittsburgh.
Do Torontonians have an attitude, and what type of attitude is it?
I do think that Canadians do know more about hockey than Americans. Its just like how Americans think they know more about american football than anybody else.
And dont bring nationality into this.
oh man, this pisses me off. and the fact that they wont come back as long as theirs a salary cap is retarded. i mean, i got a flyers jersey and a canadiens jersey, and i got a bruins jersey aon the way, and i cant even go to those games this season! god!
Any given Canadian might know more about football than any given American. The difference between us is that I'll admit it and you won't. It has nothing to do with nationality so shove it.
I didn't even read your first post because I've found that you honestly are just talking from your ass.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 21st, 2004 05:01 AM
