I don't like the "new" NHL

Mainiac · Post by **Mainiac** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:55 pm

There. I said it. I've given it 2 months and I just don't like it. There are two major reasons:

1)The games are just endless power plays interrupted by some even-strength play. Just looking through last night's box scores shows teams with 9, 7, 6, 5, or 4 power plays. In some cases almost half the game is played with a power play going on. There's no rythm to the game. Just as a team is starting to establish control of the puck in the other team's end there's always a penalty called. I know there needed to be something done about the obstruction and interference but this is ridiculous.

2)This is the biggie. There is hardly any physical play at all. The B's-Sens game the other night was putrid. I could count the number of good hits in that game on one hand. Unfortunately, this is the norm rather than the exception. It's a shame, physical play (not fighting, although that helps) is a big reason why I watch hockey. Now it seems they are afraid to throw a check.

Maybe things will change, I sure as hell hope so. This is a far cry from the hockey I grew up with in the 70's (yes, I'm an old fart) and 80's. It's too bad.

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:04 pm

Where oh where have the Cam Neely's of the world gone???

fix · Post by **fix** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:42 pm

Mainiac wrote:There. I said it. I've given it 2 months and I just don't like it. There are two major reasons:

1)The games are just endless power plays interrupted by some even-strength play. Just looking through last night's box scores shows teams with 9, 7, 6, 5, or 4 power plays. In some cases almost half the game is played with a power play going on. There's no rythm to the game. Just as a team is starting to establish control of the puck in the other team's end there's always a penalty called. I know there needed to be something done about the obstruction and interference but this is ridiculous.

2)This is the biggie. There is hardly any physical play at all. The B's-Sens game the other night was putrid. I could count the number of good hits in that game on one hand. Unfortunately, this is the norm rather than the exception. It's a shame, physical play (not fighting, although that helps) is a big reason why I watch hockey. Now it seems they are afraid to throw a check.

Maybe things will change, I sure as hell hope so. This is a far cry from the hockey I grew up with in the 70's (yes, I'm an old fart) and 80's. It's too bad.

RACK!!!!!

It's not even close to the game that you and I both grew up loving to watch.
Sadly, that's what you get when you insist on marketing it to a group that has no real interest in watching it to begin with.

Bring back the good old days..
Bench clearing brawls, boardings, the Broad Street Bullies and open ice clock cleaning hits..

JD · Post by JD » Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:35 pm

You guys should try watching some games in the West. All the Flames games for the past month or more have been well-played, physical games.

Things will go back to the way they were.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:37 pm

The way the game is called is causing players to let up quite a bit on hitting. You can't scrum in the corner with getting a holding penalty. I'm 80% satisfied with the product right now but I'd like a little more of the physicality back. I'd be curious to see how this will go in the playoffs. I'd still like to see the wide-open style in the spring but the toughness of the game won't be phased out.

Mainiac · Post by **Mainiac** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:45 am

Maybe I should give it more time but fuck do I miss bone-crunching open ice hits, chippy games where teams are on the edge of brawling, and intense 5-on-5 hockey. It's become such a specialty game now.....PP, PK and shoutout. I've been saying this for years but I think the true solution is to lop off about 10 teams from the league. Say goodbye to:

1)San Jose
2)Dallas
3)Florida
4)Tampa Bay
5)Atlanta
6)Columbus
7)Nashville
8)Anaheim
9)Phoenix (sorry Gretz)
10)Carolina (sorry AQ)

And for fuck's sake put a team back in Winnipeg. We don't need teams in the south, it's fucking stupid to have teams where they are right now. I know Columbus isn't in the south but I've never understood why there is a team in Columbus to begin with. That would make 21 teams, 2 divisions in each conference, and division teams play each other 8 times a year for real rivalries. These teams would be in places that historically have been hockey hotbeds--these teams would do well financially.

Division winners get a first round bye, 2nd and 3rd in each division play in the first round best-of-five making 12 teams total in the playoffs. Conference semis, conference champ and Cup finals would all be best-of-7. This is thinking in terms of making the best hockey possible not thinking about keeping teams financially viable. If you're not viable then fuck off--get the fuck out of the league. What great fucking hockey we'd get with this system---I guarantee it.

It's all so simple isn't it?

JD · Post by JD » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:37 am

Mainiac wrote:It's all so simple isn't it?

Yeah, if you were right.

Trouble is, your "league" is exactly the league that existed in 1989 (which wasn't a bad year, mind you...). Maybe it's time you left the past and joined us in the 21st century where sunbathers go from the beach to a game where they witness their favourite team win the Stanley Cup. A world where Winnipeg is a has-been city that can barely support their AHL team. This crazy world where the LA Kings outdraw the fabled Bruins... (oh, say it ain't so!!).

I don't mind sunbelt teams if they actually win fans over. I don't mind 30 teams in the NHL, as long as Europe supplies us with as much talent as Canada does. And I don't mind a couple more teams in the playoffs, just like there will be next year. Bank on it.

Mainiac · Post by **Mainiac** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:08 pm

Notice that I didn't include the Kings in my list.

Yes, my league is the same as '89, just before things started to go down the toilet.

I'm in the 21st century alright and I think we could learn a few things from the past instead of trying to be NBA-lite.

fix · Post by **fix** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:19 pm

Mainiac wrote:Maybe I should give it more time but fuck do I miss bone-crunching open ice hits, chippy games where teams are on the edge of brawling, and intense 5-on-5 hockey. It's become such a specialty game now.....PP, PK and shoutout. I've been saying this for years but I think the true solution is to lop off about 10 teams from the league. Say goodbye to:

1)San Jose
2)Dallas
3)Florida
4)Tampa Bay
5)Atlanta
6)Columbus
7)Nashville
8)Anaheim
9)Phoenix (sorry Gretz)
10)Carolina (sorry AQ)

And for fuck's sake put a team back in Winnipeg. We don't need teams in the south, it's fucking stupid to have teams where they are right now. I know Columbus isn't in the south but I've never understood why there is a team in Columbus to begin with. That would make 21 teams, 2 divisions in each conference, and division teams play each other 8 times a year for real rivalries. These teams would be in places that historically have been hockey hotbeds--these teams would do well financially.

Division winners get a first round bye, 2nd and 3rd in each division play in the first round best-of-five making 12 teams total in the playoffs. Conference semis, conference champ and Cup finals would all be best-of-7. This is thinking in terms of making the best hockey possible not thinking about keeping teams financially viable. If you're not viable then fuck off--get the fuck out of the league. What great fucking hockey we'd get with this system---I guarantee it.

It's all so simple isn't it?

God Bless you...

That was beautiful... :cry:

And exactly what I've been saying for the past 2 years.

Of course the detractors will continue to argue that you and I are wrong and of course, the league will continue to flounder until they do wake up and realise that Bettman's plan to expand into markets that could care less about hockey will never work, not even under a salary cap.

AcidQueen · Post by **AcidQueen** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:11 am

While we're at it, let's trash:

St. Louis
Washington
Los Angeles

Hey, if we're going to get hockey out of warmer-than-Canada areas, you might as well zorch those too. Or do they get a bye because they were actually afforded time to grow a fanbase (which, apparently, the 10 teams Mainiac names shouldn't be allowed to have)?

Joey Moss · Post by **Joey Moss** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:19 am

An heck with the chinooks that Calgary gets, and Vancouver's winter rain, we might as well get ride of those cities too. It's not like their outdoor rinks last that long or are any good.

Anyone else want a franchise in Finflon? I mean it would be great for Sackatchewan and Manitoba.

JD · Post by JD » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:07 pm

Otis wrote:the league will continue to flounder

Link?

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:00 pm

JD wrote:
Otis wrote:the league will continue to flounder
Link?

Exactly...I'm not worried about the financial future of the league. They just need to loosen up a tad with officiating. I'm curious to see if the NHL will stay on OLN or if ESPN will try get it back. A big TV deal would help them move forward. I'm interested in seeing how NBC does with hockey...they've got the Olympics coming up in February and their weekly games start in mid January.

Van Plowboy · Post by **Van Plowboy** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:22 pm

Funny you bring up the OLN. Still no hockey in my area. After pressures from myself and other hockey fans my cable system now puts in a "To Be Announced" message on my preview guide. After talking with the NHL and their lack of a response to the OLN blacking out games, I quickly decided to NOT order the Center Ice package. Plus, the OLN laughingly shuts down its message board in response to the NHL fans' outrage.

The NHL is nothing more than low-rent programming. The rule changes this year are strikingly similar to the XFL's response to the NFL. Hindsight tells us that this is not good.

Records become obsolete as scoring is increased. Goalies of today cannot be judged by the standards of the goalies of yesterday and goal scorers will quickly accumulate points and chase down Gretzky's records. Bonds and McGwire undoubtedly cheated to break Maris's home run record in baseball. The NHL is acting in kind to change rules to bring excitement through scoring.

In a movement to create a European skills game, the NHL's trickle-down rules changes are affecting the lower leagues. The AHL is a backlog of players that should have been on NHL ice right now, but they are playing like junior level players trying to adjust to new rules and systems. The UHL is even worse.

Right now I'm geeking on Tier 1 hockey. The only rule change adopted here this year is the elimination of the 2 line pass. The younger players have adapted to this quickly. Unfortunately, the speed and strength required in this league are diminished by the choking effect of collegiate hockey (but hey, 88 of the 100 players in the last Frozen Four came from Tier 1, so they are at least adapting). It looks like the smaller goalie equipment will also be adopted for the USHL next year (as if the scoring wasn't high enough now).

Sorry, I'm off track. Frankly, the NHL isn't what it was through the 90's. The clutch-and-grab style is out of fashion and the "home run" mentality reigns supreme. The game has given way to increased scoring, not through improved skill and playing style, but by a system that puts a defense at a great disadvantage.

I'll admit, the shootouts are awesome. Most NHL fans agree that this should have been in place for a long time now. And yes, scoring is fun. But when hockey scores look like baseball scores, have the fans been served a product they want? Would banning tackles in football make it more exciting? How about increasing the size of the hoop in basketball? In truth, it eliminates the skills required to play at the elite level of the game. The NHL has lowered the bar, effectively selling its soul, for the almighty dollar.

Hell, I did without the NHL for a year. Maybe they can do without me for a year too.

Smoked Meat · Post by **Smoked Meat** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:19 am

Do I like the new NHL? Yes and no. Do I like it more than 2 or 5 years ago? Yes (although I agree with JD's statement when he says things will go back to the way they were). Do I like it more than 20 years ago, no.

Then again, I understand that as time goes by the game of hockey changes and therefore must adapt to new realities. I mean just look at the players now, they all look like goons compared to the players 20 years ago. I'm always amazed (and reminiscent) whenever I see hockey footages from the 80's (I miss that green Whaler jersey). There seems to be less space on the ice today compared to the old days.

Also, nowadays you have all kinds of coaches surrounding players and every single aspect of the game has been overstudied, analyzed, tested, etc... Everything is so specialized now, everything is based on math probabilities and scoring %. Seems like there isn't much left for creativity anymore, players all look the same except for a few gifted ones. You have coaches for goalies, defense, offense, off ice trainers, you name it. Even the friggin' mascot probably has a PhD in psychology!

Anyway, I guess all this is normal. My grandpa keeps whining about how hockey was great in the old days when Maurice Richard was playing. I'm doing the same here. My impossible request, along with suppressing those southern teams which absolutely means nothing to me, is to bring back hockey's worse rivalry ever: Montreal vs Quebec.

Blitzkrieg · Post by **Blitzkrieg** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:35 am

Mainiac wrote:Maybe I should give it more time but fuck do I miss bone-crunching open ice hits, chippy games where teams are on the edge of brawling, and intense 5-on-5 hockey. It's become such a specialty game now.....PP, PK and shoutout. I've been saying this for years but I think the true solution is to lop off about 10 teams from the league. Say goodbye to:

1)San Jose
2)Dallas
3)Florida
4)Tampa Bay
5)Atlanta
6)Columbus
7)Nashville
8)Anaheim
9)Phoenix (sorry Gretz)
10)Carolina (sorry AQ)

This was, nearly my exact same take over at TOT.

I would, however, like to see Dallas survive your fictitious purge. That's a money franchise with a great fan base.

Blitzkrieg · Post by **Blitzkrieg** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:37 am

Mainiac wrote:1)The games are just endless power plays interrupted by some even-strength play.

Nuff' said.

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:36 pm

Blitzkrieg wrote:
Mainiac wrote:1)The games are just endless power plays interrupted by some even-strength play.

Nuff' said.

I'd rather have the penalties called then watch the NJ Devils cling to a 2-1 lead and clutch and grab with the center ice trap for 2 periods.

BORING.

The current NHL might be a little over the top but it's still better than it was the past 5-10 years..

JD · Post by JD » Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:52 pm

jiminphilly wrote:I'd rather have the penalties called then watch the NJ Devils cling to a 2-1 lead and clutch and grab with the center ice trap for 2 periods.

Yet I'm pretty certain that Devils fans were probably OK with this.

Winning is exciting. Bottom line.

Looking forward to tonight's game, Philly fan. Too bad the Flyers are so banged up it won't be the test it might have been.

Mainiac · Post by **Mainiac** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:24 pm

I'm not saying I want the clutch and grab back. No way. Too much of the game now is power play. Maybe the players are still adapting to the new rules but it's pretty irritating. The lack of physical play is killing me, though. It's brutal. Every time someone tries to check another player it seems a penalty is called.

I know part of my rant is just good old yearning for the old days. But there are things that need to be fixed desperately.

AQ, I'll let the 'Canes and the Stars stay in the league. I still have a soft spot for the Whale and Brass Bonanza. The other 8 can go down the drain.

AcidQueen · Post by **AcidQueen** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:02 am

Mainiac wrote:AQ, I'll let the 'Canes and the Stars stay in the league. I still have a soft spot for the Whale and Brass Bonanza. The other 8 can go down the drain.

Give me a justification that DOESN'T point to geography, attendance (especially considering how shitty two O6 teams' attendance have been the last few years), or the mythical "watering-down" of the talent pool, and then I might concede that you have some kind of point.

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:10 pm

JD wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:I'd rather have the penalties called then watch the NJ Devils cling to a 2-1 lead and clutch and grab with the center ice trap for 2 periods.
Yet I'm pretty certain that Devils fans were probably OK with this.

Winning is exciting. Bottom line.

Looking forward to tonight's game, Philly fan. Too bad the Flyers are so banged up it won't be the test it might have been.

Oh really? I missed the game but by all that I have read it sounded like it was an intense game.. almost playoff like..

and the Flyers came out on top.

JD · Post by JD » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:59 pm

jiminphilly wrote:Oh really? I missed the game but by all that I have read it sounded like it was an intense game.. almost playoff like..

and the Flyers came out on top.

Very intense game indeed. Lots of hitting and some great goaltending. Only the Flames' pitiful powerplay and unimaginative shootout attempts gave Philly the win, however.

The Flames always seem to play good tight games in Philly. Too bad it'll be three years before they're back.

Mainiac · Post by **Mainiac** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:32 pm

AcidQueen wrote:
Mainiac wrote:AQ, I'll let the 'Canes and the Stars stay in the league. I still have a soft spot for the Whale and Brass Bonanza. The other 8 can go down the drain.
Give me a justification that DOESN'T point to geography, attendance (especially considering how shitty two O6 teams' attendance have been the last few years), or the mythical "watering-down" of the talent pool, and then I might concede that you have some kind of point.

Whether you believe it or not, there is a watering-down of the talent pool because of the shear number of teams. There's no comparison between the quality of the hockey of the 70's, 80's, and very early 90's with what we've had for the last 10-12 years. You're probably too young to remember but there used to be a time when the first option was to pass the puck to a teammate, not dump it into the corner and chase it!

The timing of the downturn in quality of hockey coincides directly with the dramatic increase in the number of teams. I don't really care about the "geography" or attendance, although obviously you need good attendance. I chose the teams on my list because they are the newest teams, pure and simple.

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:53 pm

JD wrote:
Winning is exciting. Bottom line.

Do you think it's fun to have a parade to celebrate your stanley cup win in a parking lot?

JD · Post by JD » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:11 pm

jiminphilly wrote:
JD wrote:
Winning is exciting. Bottom line.
Do you think it's fun to have a parade to celebrate your stanley cup win in a parking lot?

Probably more fun than not having a parade at all...

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:32 pm

JD wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:
JD wrote:
Winning is exciting. Bottom line.
Do you think it's fun to have a parade to celebrate your stanley cup win in a parking lot?
Probably more fun than not having a parade at all...

If a team is having a parade in a parking lot I doubt the team or the 50 fans that showed up really had any fun.

And the Devils made hockey so fucking boring to watch that the game needed to go through this transition.

JD · Post by JD » Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:33 pm

jiminphilly wrote:If a team is having a parade in a parking lot I doubt the team or the 50 fans that showed up really had any fun.

And the Devils made hockey so fucking boring to watch that the game needed to go through this transition.

But the point is, I really doubt Devils' fans had much problem with their style or their parade or anything as long as their team won hockey games. Winners always attract attention in their local markets, thus gaining more fans.

Look at the Mighty Ducks in 2003. They played even worse hockey than the Devils. But the Stanley Cup Finals between those two "boring teams" ended up being pretty good. But the arenas were jammed and the fans were loud.

Hockey's popularity in every market, except Toronto, will fluctuate based on the success of the local team. That's all I'm saying.

Why should Devils' fans care what the rest of the league's fans think? Their team won Cups!!

Adelpiero · Post by **Adelpiero** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:04 am

yeah, the New NHL is great.

Watching players running defensless goalies is great. : meds:

NHL needs to take care of this crap immediatley, too many goalies injured because of pussy moves by players just running goalies.

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:56 pm

JD wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:If a team is having a parade in a parking lot I doubt the team or the 50 fans that showed up really had any fun.

And the Devils made hockey so fucking boring to watch that the game needed to go through this transition.
But the point is, I really doubt Devils' fans had much problem with their style or their parade or anything as long as their team won hockey games. Winners always attract attention in their local markets, thus gaining more fans.

Look at the Mighty Ducks in 2003. They played even worse hockey than the Devils. But the Stanley Cup Finals between those two "boring teams" ended up being pretty good. But the arenas were jammed and the fans were loud.

Hockey's popularity in every market, except Toronto, will fluctuate based on the success of the local team. That's all I'm saying.

Why should Devils' fans care what the rest of the league's fans think? Their team won Cups!!

The Devil's don't have any fans. That is my point. They were an unexciting team playing a dull and boring brand of hockey and they barely reached 50% capacity on any given night.

Hockey's popularity in every market, except Toronto, will fluctuate based on the success of the local team. That's all I'm saying.

Not really. No matter how good the Flyers are they will never climb higher than 3rd as far as popularity in Philly. It's a football and baseball market first.. basketball is usually more popular than hockey but they usually finish about even.

JD · Post by JD » Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:44 pm

jiminphilly wrote:The Devil's don't have any fans. That is my point. They were an unexciting team playing a dull and boring brand of hockey and they barely reached 50% capacity on any given night.

Do they not have fans because New Jersey is a bad market or because you perceive their style to be boring? I would tend to lead to the former.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2004

Last NHL season, the Devils filled their rink to 78% on average. They must have SOME fans.

Hockey's popularity in every market, except Toronto, will fluctuate based on the success of the local team. That's all I'm saying.
Not really. No matter how good the Flyers are they will never climb higher than 3rd as far as popularity in Philly. It's a football and baseball market first.. basketball is usually more popular than hockey but they usually finish about even.

Your statement is in no way a rebuttal to what I said. Philly could be a fuckin gymnastics town for all I care... I'm not talking popularity compared to other sports. I'm talking about that team's ability to generate revenue in its market.

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:35 pm

JD wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:The Devil's don't have any fans. That is my point. They were an unexciting team playing a dull and boring brand of hockey and they barely reached 50% capacity on any given night.
Do they not have fans because New Jersey is a bad market or because you perceive their style to be boring? I would tend to lead to the former.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2004

Last NHL season, the Devils filled their rink to 78% on average. They must have SOME fans.

Hockey's popularity in every market, except Toronto, will fluctuate based on the success of the local team. That's all I'm saying.
Not really. No matter how good the Flyers are they will never climb higher than 3rd as far as popularity in Philly. It's a football and baseball market first.. basketball is usually more popular than hockey but they usually finish about even.
Your statement is in no way a rebuttal to what I said. Philly could be a fuckin gymnastics town for all I care... I'm not talking popularity compared to other sports. I'm talking about that team's ability to generate revenue in its market.

and I am telling you that revenue for the Flyers will not change. The money the Flyers are competing for is going to the Eagles and Phillies. Those fans don't tend to straggle over to the Flyers when they are winning. Flyer fans also don't tend to abandon their team when they lose either.

Looking at that link you can go back 5 years and with 1 exception the top 5 teams have always been (in no particular order) Detroit, Montreal, Philly, St. Louis, Toronto. Tampa slipped into the top 5 just that one year.
So as you can see, Toronto is not the only market that remains steady. That statement about Toronto has some merit but isn't 100% true.

[/quote]
Do they not have fans because New Jersey is a bad market or because you perceive their style to be boring? I would tend to lead to the former.

No, I tend to believe it's the game. A team that wins on average 45 game a year in the NHL should be filling their stands especially if they have had the success the Devils have had. That area has a ton of Met and Jets fans and they have no trouble selling tickets. Why aren't those fans going to the games? Perhaps the product sucks? It's not like the Mets, Jets or even Giants are winning for that matter. If the Devils are winning and the other teams are not wouldn't fans want to spend their money on some form of entertainment, especially if there is a good chance of that team winning?

Obviosuly not.

fix · Post by **fix** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:07 am

The six teams that had the NHL's lowest attendance records prior to the lockout, to this point, continue to have the NHL's lowest attendance records, post lockout.

Washington
New York Islanders
Chicago
Nashville
Carolina
Pittsburgh

Obviously, even with the superstars in 2 of those markets and a solid young team with a huge upside to it in Carolina, they still can't draw.

Even a salary cap's not going to save them if they can't fill their buildings.
Hence, the league's still going to continue to flounder until they get rid of the watered down product which Mainiac was exactly dead on right about, or put those teams into markets where the fans actually give a shit about hockey and will support it.
Chicago's the exception to that rule, Bill Wirtz should be shot and pissed on for the way he has gone Harold Ballard on that storied franchise.

AcidQueen · Post by **AcidQueen** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:27 pm

Otis wrote: Obviously, even with the superstars in 2 of those markets and a solid young team with a huge upside to it in Carolina, they still can't draw.

Uhh, bullshi'ite? The 'Canes attendance is up bigtime over 03-04. Still not the best, but much MUCH better than it was in the waning days of the Paul Maurice regime.

fix · Post by **fix** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:43 pm

AcidQueen wrote:
Otis wrote: Obviously, even with the superstars in 2 of those markets and a solid young team with a huge upside to it in Carolina, they still can't draw.
Uhh, bullshi'ite? The 'Canes attendance is up bigtime over 03-04. Still not the best, but much MUCH better than it was in the waning days of the Paul Maurice regime.

Fine I'll conede the fact that their attendance is up somewhat. However, that certainly wouldn't be hard to do considering they routinely had less than 10,000 people in the seats of the 18,176-seat RBC Centre in 2003-2004.

But let's check the attendance records of the Canes home games over the past two months

Their home opener, one which should be a sellout, was
Octover 7----- 18,787 (Crosby Phenom led Penguins)
October 12--- 10,968 (Division rivals Washington)
October 24---- 12,116 (You'd think Ottawa would draw more fans in)
October 26-----13,098 (Boston)
October 28---- 18,165 (Philly drew fans in)

Okay, so for the opening month, you had 2 games that sold out or were close to selling out out of 5 home dates.

November 3--- 13,801 (The Leafs draw well everywhere, but not here?)
November 5--- 16,015 (Division rival Florida)
November 12-- 16,526 (Atlanta)
November 17-- 14,819 (Rangers)
November 20-- 12,423 (Tampa Bay)
November 22-- 13,427 (Ottawa obviously doesn't draw)
November 25-- 18,730 (Leafs finally bring fans into the RBC)
November 27-- 12,067 (Atlanta)

So in November, you had one game that sold out, two respectable dates and 5 games that had at least 25% of the building empty.

December's not looking to be much better either considering that your home dates include Chicago, Columbus, Devils, Tampa (they might sell out), Florida, Philly and Montreal.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/teams/schedule?team=car

http://mirtle.blogspot.com/2005/11/atte ... dding.html

One of league's all time great enforcers, Dave Tiger Willams thinks this new look sucks nd even Steve Yzerman thinks this new NHL is garbage

Dave "Tiger" Williams, who retired in 1987-88 and remains the NHL's all-time penalty-minutes leader (3,966), denounced the new NHL last month during an interview with the Calgary Sun.

"They can sell this (expletive) to anyone else, not me," said Williams, now a president and CEO of Pacific Rodera Energy.

"They're going to kill all the goalies and most of the good defensemen. And some snot-nosed little (expletive) that isn't going to break a nail is going to score 50 goals and he's never driven to the net in his life. He's never stood in front with Moose Dupont giving him 89 cross checks in the back of the head."

From the other extreme is longtime Red Wings captain Steve Yzerman, one of the highest-scoring forwards in league history, who also lashes out at a game he no longer knows.

"Everybody keeps saying this is great. It's not great," Yzerman told the Detroit Free Press last month. "It's not hockey."

Adelpiero · Post by **Adelpiero** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:11 pm

Blues attendance has been pathetic.

several good reason though.

1.Ownership is horrid
2. product on ice is pathetic, not rebuilding, just putting out shit product
3. fans on a "were on strike" agenda also(have a few season tix buddies who said they will reup next year, no matter whats on the ice.
4. team in turmoil(Billboy laurie getting horrible advice on the price of club and who to sell too.
5. And losing doesn't fill the seats, no matter where your located.

AcidQueen · Post by **AcidQueen** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:47 pm

Otis wrote:Fine I'll conede the fact that their attendance is up somewhat. However, that certainly wouldn't be hard to do considering they routinely had less than 10,000 people in the seats of the 18,176-seat RBC Centre in 2003-2004.

Unfortunate, but the fans do the same thing with the college teams when they suck, too.

But let's check the attendance records of the Canes home games over the past two months

Their home opener, one which should be a sellout, was
Octover 7----- 18,787 (Crosby Phenom led Penguins)
October 12--- 10,968 (Division rivals Washington)
October 24---- 12,116 (You'd think Ottawa would draw more fans in)
October 26-----13,098 (Boston)
October 28---- 18,165 (Philly drew fans in)

12K on a weekday night for Ottawa is pretty damn good for us--not great, but still pretty damn good considering in years past that would have drawn maybe 8K. It's progress.

Okay, so for the opening month, you had 2 games that sold out or were close to selling out out of 5 home dates.

November 3--- 13,801 (The Leafs draw well everywhere, but not here?)

Most of them are in Charlotte--and again, that's damn good attendance for a weekday night (and it's more progress, because even in 02-03 weekdays were harsh attendance-wise).

So in November, you had one game that sold out, two respectable dates and 5 games that had at least 25% of the building empty.

WELL LET'S JUST FOLD THE TEAM RIGHT NOW, THEN. :roll:

Again--St. Loo, Washington, Vancouver, and Los Angeles were afforded the luxury of time to build their fanbases. If we're going to fold every team in towns where it doesn't get to -40 in the middle of winter, then those four need to go too.

Am I saying that everything is all sunshine and happiness? Of course not. But if all of the other post-1967 teams were allowed time to sink or swim, then we should too.

December's not looking to be much better either considering that your home dates include Chicago, Columbus, Devils, Tampa (they might sell out), Florida, Philly and Montreal.

Why don't we burn that bridge as we cross it, Nostradamus.

One of league's all time great enforcers, Dave Tiger Willams thinks this new look sucks nd even Steve Yzerman thinks this new NHL is garbage

Williams is just pissed off that there isn't a fight every other game. Yzerman should bitch at his good buddy Shanahan rather than to the press, since all the rules changes were his idea.

fix · Post by **fix** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:45 pm

AcidQueen wrote:
Otis wrote:Fine I'll conede the fact that their attendance is up somewhat. However, that certainly wouldn't be hard to do considering they routinely had less than 10,000 people in the seats of the 18,176-seat RBC Centre in 2003-2004.
Unfortunate, but the fans do the same thing with the college teams when they suck, too.

But let's check the attendance records of the Canes home games over the past two months

Their home opener, one which should be a sellout, was
Octover 7----- 18,787 (Crosby Phenom led Penguins)
October 12--- 10,968 (Division rivals Washington)
October 24---- 12,116 (You'd think Ottawa would draw more fans in)
October 26-----13,098 (Boston)
October 28---- 18,165 (Philly drew fans in)
12K on a weekday night for Ottawa is pretty damn good for us--not great, but still pretty damn good considering in years past that would have drawn maybe 8K. It's progress.

For a league that is gate driven, unfortunately, "pretty damn good" doesn't exactly inspire confidence that it's ever going to get better.

AcidQueen wrote:
Okay, so for the opening month, you had 2 games that sold out or were close to selling out out of 5 home dates.

November 3--- 13,801 (The Leafs draw well everywhere, but not here?)
Most of them are in Charlotte--and again, that's damn good attendance for a weekday night (and it's more progress, because even in 02-03 weekdays were harsh attendance-wise).

So in November, you had one game that sold out, two respectable dates and 5 games that had at least 25% of the building empty.
WELL LET'S JUST FOLD THE TEAM RIGHT NOW, THEN. :roll:

Again--St. Loo, Washington, Vancouver, and Los Angeles were afforded the luxury of time to build their fanbases. If we're going to fold every team in towns where it doesn't get to -40 in the middle of winter, then those four need to go too

Am I saying that everything is all sunshine and happiness? Of course not. But if all of the other post-1967 teams were allowed time to sink or swim, then we should too..

The difference is that there weren't 30 teams back then playing in a watered down environment.
I'm not saying that the NHL needs to fold them right now, but how much longer do they need to prove that the experminent is failing?
Expansion under Bettman's watch has mirrored that which the CFL tried to do back in the 90's.
For the most part, it just doesn't work trying to place teams in areas where the people will have little to no interest in the league.
Of course the die hard fans will support it but they're in the minority, not the numbers needed to make it viable.
Vancouver has a solid hockey base. St. Louis could once again be a profitable franchise if it had stable ownership and the same deals that other teams in that market get from the state and local government.
Los Angeles draws fans.
Washington wouldn't be missed if they were contracted.

AcidQueen wrote:
December's not looking to be much better either considering that your home dates include Chicago, Columbus, Devils, Tampa (they might sell out), Florida, Philly and Montreal.
Why don't we burn that bridge as we cross it, Nostradamus.

Sure thing but don't say I didn't tell you so when those numbers mirror the attendance records you've had so far this season.

AcidQueen wrote:
One of league's all time great enforcers, Dave Tiger Willams thinks this new look sucks nd even Steve Yzerman thinks this new NHL is garbage
Williams is just pissed off that there isn't a fight every other game. Yzerman should bitch at his good buddy Shanahan rather than to the press, since all the rules changes were his idea.

What's wrong with there being a fight or three at every other game?
It's an important aspect of the game and the physicality involved with playing the game is an instrumental part of hockey.
Take it out and all you have left is basically, figure skaters with sticks and a puck.
Yzerman has every right to speak to the press about how he feels.
Just because Shanahan helped craft the new rule changes doesn't mean they've made the game better.

For the record though, I'd fold Atlanta, Nashville, Anaheim and Florida before the Canes. Along with moving the Penguins into a Canadian market where they would draw, preferably Winnipeg or Quebec City

Mainiac · Post by **Mainiac** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:07 pm

Tiger Williams wrote:"... some snot-nosed little (expletive) that isn't going to break a nail is going to score 50 goals and he's never driven to the net in his life. He's never stood in front with Moose Dupont giving him 89 cross checks in the back of the head."

Epic quote from Tiger. He's right on. New sig for me.

"that isn't going to break a nail"....I love it!

Mainiac · Post by **Mainiac** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:09 pm

I wonder which snot-nosed little bleep he's talking about.

T1B

I don't like the "new" NHL

I don't like the "new" NHL

Re: I don't like the "new" NHL

Re: I don't like the "new" NHL

Re: I don't like the "new" NHL

Re: I don't like the "new" NHL

Re: I don't like the "new" NHL

Re: I don't like the "new" NHL

Re: I don't like the "new" NHL

Re: I don't like the "new" NHL

Re: I don't like the "new" NHL

Re: I don't like the "new" NHL

Re: I don't like the "new" NHL

Re: I don't like the "new" NHL

Re: I don't like the "new" NHL