Goodbye ABC, Hello NBC

[nccanes]

But it appears that they are still trying to renew the ESPN deal...

Report: NHL signs U.S. T.V. deal
Canadian Press
5/19/2004

NEW YORK (AP-CP) - NBC Sports will broadcast NHL games the next two seasons under a revenue-sharing deal, The New York Times reported.

The newspaper, citing an executive involved in the negotiations who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Wednesday that NBC will replace ABC Sports as the NHL's broadcast partner.

The Times said NBC, which last did NHL regular-season games 29 years ago, will carry a regional package of games on six or seven Saturdays and also broadcast playoff games.

Under the deal, the league will not receive the kind of upfront fees that are common in most network television contracts. Instead, the NHL and NBC will share revenue, with the network covering its production and distribution costs.

According to the source, NBC would have the right to extend the contract beyond the two years. If next year's NHL season is cancelled because of labour issues, the deal would begin in 2005.

The NHL also has a cable broadcast deal with ESPN, which the league is trying to renew.

[nccanes]

But it appears that they are still trying to renew the ESPN deal...

Report: NHL signs U.S. T.V. deal
Canadian Press
5/19/2004

NEW YORK (AP-CP) - NBC Sports will broadcast NHL games the next two seasons under a revenue-sharing deal, The New York Times reported.

The newspaper, citing an executive involved in the negotiations who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Wednesday that NBC will replace ABC Sports as the NHL's broadcast partner.

The Times said NBC, which last did NHL regular-season games 29 years ago, will carry a regional package of games on six or seven Saturdays and also broadcast playoff games.

Under the deal, the league will not receive the kind of upfront fees that are common in most network television contracts. Instead, the NHL and NBC will share revenue, with the network covering its production and distribution costs.

According to the source, NBC would have the right to extend the contract beyond the two years. If next year's NHL season is cancelled because of labour issues, the deal would begin in 2005.

The NHL also has a cable broadcast deal with ESPN, which the league is trying to renew.

[talkingcanes]

thank goodness for CI.

N.H.L. Games Go to NBC Next Season
By RICHARD SANDOMIR

Published: May 19, 2004

NBC Sports, which last broadcast regular-season National Hockey League games 29 years ago when it showcased the animated Peter Puck character, will resume its relationship with the sport with a two-year revenue-sharing contract, an executive involved in the negotiations said yesterday.

NBC will replace ABC Sports next season as the broadcast partner of the N.H.L., which is also trying to complete the renewal of its cable deal with ESPN.

According to the executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity, NBC will carry a regionalized package of regular-season games on six or seven Saturday afternoons, followed by playoff games every Saturday until the Stanley Cup finals, when the network will pick up coverage with Game 3 and continue through Game 7, if necessary.

Maintaining a presence for his sport on broadcast television is a coup for Commissioner Gary Bettman, but it comes with a certain risk. The league will not receive the kind of upfront fees that are common in most network television contracts.

The last time such a deal was made with a major sports league was in 1994 and 1995, when Major League Baseball joined with ABC and NBC to create the Baseball Network. The players' strike in 1994 wrecked the revenue-sharing model that was central to the agreement.

In this deal, which is structured like the one NBC has with the Arena Football League, the network and the N.H.L. will share revenue. NBC will take the first chunk to cover its production and distribution costs, and the cost of pre-empting other programming during the Stanley Cup finals.

The league will then get the major part of the next set of revenue, and then an even split of what remains.

As in the Arena Football deal, NBC has the option to renew the hockey contract for another two years. If a strike or lockout causes the next season to be canceled, the contract would roll over.

The N.H.L. is entering new television terrain, financially and geographically. The five-year deal with ABC and ESPN, which are subsidiaries of the Walt Disney Company, paid the league $600 million but expires after this season. ESPN paid the league, then compensated ABC for the time to carry games.

Under a new deal, ESPN is unlikely to pay the league much more than $60 million to $70 million.

During the years the N.H.L was affiliated with ABC, hockey ratings declined from those during the league's previous contract with Fox. Ratings for the Stanley Cup finals have fallen from a peak of 3.7 in 2000, the first under the ABC deal, to a combined 2.4 last year, when the network broadcast five games of the finals and ESPN carried two. Each rating point equals 1.08 million television homes.

In shifting to NBC from ABC, the league is moving to the network that attracts the most adults ages 18 to 49 during prime-time broadcast hours. ABC is ranked fourth. That is likely to help in terms of promoting the league during shows like "The Apprentice" and "E.R."

NBC last broadcast the league's games from 1972-1973 to 1974-75, then returned to carry only the N.H.L. All-Star Game in 1991, 1992 and 1993. In the earlier incarnation, NBC hired Hanna-Barbera Productions, the animation studio behind "Yogi Bear" and "The Flintstones," to create Peter Puck, who appeared for four minutes during a broadcast to explain the fundamentals of hockey to viewers.

By carrying the N.H.L. again, NBC is adding a major league sport, although one that has been bruised by low TV ratings, team bankruptcies and the prospect of a strike or lockout that could lead to the demise of some teams.

But the deal fits with the network's desire to minimize risk, one that it has forged by shedding money-losing deals with baseball, the National Football League and the National Basketball Association.

[talkingcanes]

thank goodness for CI.

N.H.L. Games Go to NBC Next Season
By RICHARD SANDOMIR

Published: May 19, 2004

NBC Sports, which last broadcast regular-season National Hockey League games 29 years ago when it showcased the animated Peter Puck character, will resume its relationship with the sport with a two-year revenue-sharing contract, an executive involved in the negotiations said yesterday.

NBC will replace ABC Sports next season as the broadcast partner of the N.H.L., which is also trying to complete the renewal of its cable deal with ESPN.

According to the executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity, NBC will carry a regionalized package of regular-season games on six or seven Saturday afternoons, followed by playoff games every Saturday until the Stanley Cup finals, when the network will pick up coverage with Game 3 and continue through Game 7, if necessary.

Maintaining a presence for his sport on broadcast television is a coup for Commissioner Gary Bettman, but it comes with a certain risk. The league will not receive the kind of upfront fees that are common in most network television contracts.

The last time such a deal was made with a major sports league was in 1994 and 1995, when Major League Baseball joined with ABC and NBC to create the Baseball Network. The players' strike in 1994 wrecked the revenue-sharing model that was central to the agreement.

In this deal, which is structured like the one NBC has with the Arena Football League, the network and the N.H.L. will share revenue. NBC will take the first chunk to cover its production and distribution costs, and the cost of pre-empting other programming during the Stanley Cup finals.

The league will then get the major part of the next set of revenue, and then an even split of what remains.

As in the Arena Football deal, NBC has the option to renew the hockey contract for another two years. If a strike or lockout causes the next season to be canceled, the contract would roll over.

The N.H.L. is entering new television terrain, financially and geographically. The five-year deal with ABC and ESPN, which are subsidiaries of the Walt Disney Company, paid the league $600 million but expires after this season. ESPN paid the league, then compensated ABC for the time to carry games.

Under a new deal, ESPN is unlikely to pay the league much more than $60 million to $70 million.

During the years the N.H.L was affiliated with ABC, hockey ratings declined from those during the league's previous contract with Fox. Ratings for the Stanley Cup finals have fallen from a peak of 3.7 in 2000, the first under the ABC deal, to a combined 2.4 last year, when the network broadcast five games of the finals and ESPN carried two. Each rating point equals 1.08 million television homes.

In shifting to NBC from ABC, the league is moving to the network that attracts the most adults ages 18 to 49 during prime-time broadcast hours. ABC is ranked fourth. That is likely to help in terms of promoting the league during shows like "The Apprentice" and "E.R."

NBC last broadcast the league's games from 1972-1973 to 1974-75, then returned to carry only the N.H.L. All-Star Game in 1991, 1992 and 1993. In the earlier incarnation, NBC hired Hanna-Barbera Productions, the animation studio behind "Yogi Bear" and "The Flintstones," to create Peter Puck, who appeared for four minutes during a broadcast to explain the fundamentals of hockey to viewers.

By carrying the N.H.L. again, NBC is adding a major league sport, although one that has been bruised by low TV ratings, team bankruptcies and the prospect of a strike or lockout that could lead to the demise of some teams.

But the deal fits with the network's desire to minimize risk, one that it has forged by shedding money-losing deals with baseball, the National Football League and the National Basketball Association.

[Guyute]

as long as NBC does them in HD like ABC has.... :)

also, notice the tv revenue # from espn. 10% of the last deal.
T-R-O-U-B-L-E.

[Guyute]

as long as NBC does them in HD like ABC has.... :)

also, notice the tv revenue # from espn. 10% of the last deal.
T-R-O-U-B-L-E.

[nccanes]

as long as NBC does them in HD like ABC has.... :)

also, notice the tv revenue # from espn. 10% of the last deal.
T-R-O-U-B-L-E.

I hope the NHLPA and owners are absorbing all this.

But I bet the NHLPA is going to say the NHL has agreed to such crappy deals just to enhance the NHL's "the sky if falling" stance. I say "oh well" - if you want to be an NHL owner or commissioner, then go be one, but in the meantime, you are all players and you don't get to negotiate TV contracts.

[nccanes]

as long as NBC does them in HD like ABC has.... :)

also, notice the tv revenue # from espn. 10% of the last deal.
T-R-O-U-B-L-E.

I hope the NHLPA and owners are absorbing all this.

But I bet the NHLPA is going to say the NHL has agreed to such crappy deals just to enhance the NHL's "the sky if falling" stance. I say "oh well" - if you want to be an NHL owner or commissioner, then go be one, but in the meantime, you are all players and you don't get to negotiate TV contracts.

[Guyute]

But I bet the NHLPA is going to say the NHL has agreed to such crappy deals just to enhance the NHL's "the sky if falling" stance.

That is precisely my biggest fear. Everything that happens, all the "doom and gloom" stuff, is perceived by the NHLPA ( kill goodenow ) as fabrications/exaggerations by ownership in order to solidify their argument.

ummm... no. when you go from a $600 million tv deal, down to a $60 million deal... that's not posturing, jackass. that's a PROBLEM.

how many fans you think they'll lose that can't afford the cost of CI? a LOT.

[Guyute]

But I bet the NHLPA is going to say the NHL has agreed to such crappy deals just to enhance the NHL's "the sky if falling" stance.

That is precisely my biggest fear. Everything that happens, all the "doom and gloom" stuff, is perceived by the NHLPA ( kill goodenow ) as fabrications/exaggerations by ownership in order to solidify their argument.

ummm... no. when you go from a $600 million tv deal, down to a $60 million deal... that's not posturing, jackass. that's a PROBLEM.

how many fans you think they'll lose that can't afford the cost of CI? a LOT.

[guinevere]

Even the Wallstree Journal Weighs in....

NHL Scores Zero
For TV Rights
In NBC Deal

By STEFAN FATSIS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 19, 2004; Page B1

If the health of a professional sports league is measured by the size
of its broadcast-television contract, the National Hockey League is
taking a turn for the worse. The big figure in its latest deal? Zero.

In a reflection of its troubled fortunes in a changing sports
marketplace, the NHL will get no rights fee, or guaranteed cash
payment, under a two-year contract that shifts league games to
General Electric Co.'s NBC. Since 1999, the NHL has received an
average of $120 million a year from Walt Disney Co. for the rights to
show games on ABC and its ESPN cable network. The ABC broadcast
component of that contract, which expires after this season, was
valued at about $50 million annually.

MELTING ICE



The NHL's recent broadcast-TV contracts:

Network/Years Annual Rights Fee,
in Millions
Fox
1994-99 $31
ABC
1999-04 50
NBC
2005-07 0

Source: WSJ research



Under the NBC deal, expected to be announced today, the two sides
will share revenue from advertising after production expenses. At the
same time, the NHL will retain guaranteed income from cable. ESPN has
tentatively agreed to renew its contract with the league for one year
at about $60 million, with an option for a second year at roughly $70
million, people familiar with the deal said. ESPN has shown an
average of more than 100 games a season under the current contract
but will show only a little more than half as many under the new
pact. An ESPN spokeswoman declined to comment. News of an ESPN deal
was reported Monday in Sports Business Journal, a trade publication.

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman says he's not concerned with the lack
of a rights fee in the NBC deal. With the 30-team league hampered by
low TV ratings, large financial losses and the possibility of a work
stoppage in the fall because of a labor fight with its players union,
Mr. Bettman says the NBC deal gives the league the chance to resolve
its problems and grow. "I wanted to make sure I wasn't getting paid
on today's [ratings] numbers," he says. "I wanted the upside of
future growth."

The deal doesn't signal the state of only the NHL, but illustrates
broadcast television's declining influence in sports, too. Cable --
that is, ESPN, which shows all four major team sports -- has dual
revenue streams of advertising and subscriber fees, allowing it to
better afford the large rights payments demanded by the leagues.

Broadcast networks, meanwhile, have lost hundreds of millions on big
sports contracts in recent years, and are starting to back away from
the major leagues. The National Football League currently receives an
average of $1.6 billion a year from broadcast TV and $600 million
from cable, while Major League Baseball brings in $417 million a year
from broadcast and $142 million from cable. The National Basketball
Association has a joint deal with ABC and ESPN valued at roughly $400
million annually, and a contract with Time Warner Inc.'s TNT cable
network for $366 million.

"There's less of a need for the networks to get bogged down in these
major transactions," says David Carter, a sports-business professor
at the University of Southern California. As NBC is doing, he says,
networks increasingly will demand to form partnerships with leagues
rather than write checks to them. "There's no need for all the risk
to be assumed by the parties broadcasting the games," Mr. Carter says.

NBC has been at the front of such a movement. The network declined to
pay the going rate to renew contracts with the NFL, NBA and MLB,
citing losses on previous deals, and has centered its sports lineup
on Nascar auto racing, golf, tennis and the Olympics. Its new NHL
deal is patterned after a year-old revenue-sharing arrangement with a
second-tier sports property, the Arena Football League. NBC yesterday
extended that deal through 2006, saying it was profitable.

As with the arena league, the NHL won't receive any money until NBC
recovers all of its production costs from advertising revenue. After
that, the NHL is to receive an unspecified amount of revenue, and the
two sides will split additional income 50-50. NBC plans to broadcast
seven regular-season games and up to 11 playoff games -- including as
many as five in prime time -- starting in the middle of next season,
in January 2005. The total is about as many as ABC currently shows.

This year, regular-season NHL games have drawn smaller audiences than
have bowling, arena football and poker. Continued low ratings won't
help NBC's bottom line or its reputation, but the NHL will bring
corporate sponsors with commitments to buy TV-ad time. NBC Sports
President Ken Schanzer says he expects the deal to make money. "We're
acquiring a major sport that's covered every day in the newspapers,
on a basis that fits with what we've been trying to do the last five
or six years," he says.

NBC got the NHL with little financial risk partly because the league
had no other broadcast options; ABC didn't renew its deal, and other
networks balked at Mr. Bettman's initial request for rights payments
in line with what the league has received. But, the commissioner
concedes, "I couldn't expect somebody to pay me a big rights fee with
the uncertainty about next season."

As the only major sports league on NBC, the NHL stands to receive
significantly more promotional attention than it has from ABC, which
began broadcasting the popular NBA in 2002. In addition, the league
should benefit from a consistent time slot -- Saturday afternoons --
something it hasn't had on ABC. That could be important in
encouraging hockey fans, who are extremely loyal, to tune in
regularly.

Another advantage of the deal for NBC is that it isn't likely to show
hockey games until the NHL and its players renegotiate their labor
contract. At that point the league should be financially more stable
and able to focus the sport itself. Mr. Schanzer, the NBC Sports
president, says the deal "incentivizes you to be patient with the
property and intense in trying to make it work."

[guinevere]

Even the Wallstree Journal Weighs in....

NHL Scores Zero
For TV Rights
In NBC Deal

By STEFAN FATSIS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 19, 2004; Page B1

If the health of a professional sports league is measured by the size
of its broadcast-television contract, the National Hockey League is
taking a turn for the worse. The big figure in its latest deal? Zero.

In a reflection of its troubled fortunes in a changing sports
marketplace, the NHL will get no rights fee, or guaranteed cash
payment, under a two-year contract that shifts league games to
General Electric Co.'s NBC. Since 1999, the NHL has received an
average of $120 million a year from Walt Disney Co. for the rights to
show games on ABC and its ESPN cable network. The ABC broadcast
component of that contract, which expires after this season, was
valued at about $50 million annually.

MELTING ICE



The NHL's recent broadcast-TV contracts:

Network/Years Annual Rights Fee,
in Millions
Fox
1994-99 $31
ABC
1999-04 50
NBC
2005-07 0

Source: WSJ research



Under the NBC deal, expected to be announced today, the two sides
will share revenue from advertising after production expenses. At the
same time, the NHL will retain guaranteed income from cable. ESPN has
tentatively agreed to renew its contract with the league for one year
at about $60 million, with an option for a second year at roughly $70
million, people familiar with the deal said. ESPN has shown an
average of more than 100 games a season under the current contract
but will show only a little more than half as many under the new
pact. An ESPN spokeswoman declined to comment. News of an ESPN deal
was reported Monday in Sports Business Journal, a trade publication.

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman says he's not concerned with the lack
of a rights fee in the NBC deal. With the 30-team league hampered by
low TV ratings, large financial losses and the possibility of a work
stoppage in the fall because of a labor fight with its players union,
Mr. Bettman says the NBC deal gives the league the chance to resolve
its problems and grow. "I wanted to make sure I wasn't getting paid
on today's [ratings] numbers," he says. "I wanted the upside of
future growth."

The deal doesn't signal the state of only the NHL, but illustrates
broadcast television's declining influence in sports, too. Cable --
that is, ESPN, which shows all four major team sports -- has dual
revenue streams of advertising and subscriber fees, allowing it to
better afford the large rights payments demanded by the leagues.

Broadcast networks, meanwhile, have lost hundreds of millions on big
sports contracts in recent years, and are starting to back away from
the major leagues. The National Football League currently receives an
average of $1.6 billion a year from broadcast TV and $600 million
from cable, while Major League Baseball brings in $417 million a year
from broadcast and $142 million from cable. The National Basketball
Association has a joint deal with ABC and ESPN valued at roughly $400
million annually, and a contract with Time Warner Inc.'s TNT cable
network for $366 million.

"There's less of a need for the networks to get bogged down in these
major transactions," says David Carter, a sports-business professor
at the University of Southern California. As NBC is doing, he says,
networks increasingly will demand to form partnerships with leagues
rather than write checks to them. "There's no need for all the risk
to be assumed by the parties broadcasting the games," Mr. Carter says.

NBC has been at the front of such a movement. The network declined to
pay the going rate to renew contracts with the NFL, NBA and MLB,
citing losses on previous deals, and has centered its sports lineup
on Nascar auto racing, golf, tennis and the Olympics. Its new NHL
deal is patterned after a year-old revenue-sharing arrangement with a
second-tier sports property, the Arena Football League. NBC yesterday
extended that deal through 2006, saying it was profitable.

As with the arena league, the NHL won't receive any money until NBC
recovers all of its production costs from advertising revenue. After
that, the NHL is to receive an unspecified amount of revenue, and the
two sides will split additional income 50-50. NBC plans to broadcast
seven regular-season games and up to 11 playoff games -- including as
many as five in prime time -- starting in the middle of next season,
in January 2005. The total is about as many as ABC currently shows.

This year, regular-season NHL games have drawn smaller audiences than
have bowling, arena football and poker. Continued low ratings won't
help NBC's bottom line or its reputation, but the NHL will bring
corporate sponsors with commitments to buy TV-ad time. NBC Sports
President Ken Schanzer says he expects the deal to make money. "We're
acquiring a major sport that's covered every day in the newspapers,
on a basis that fits with what we've been trying to do the last five
or six years," he says.

NBC got the NHL with little financial risk partly because the league
had no other broadcast options; ABC didn't renew its deal, and other
networks balked at Mr. Bettman's initial request for rights payments
in line with what the league has received. But, the commissioner
concedes, "I couldn't expect somebody to pay me a big rights fee with
the uncertainty about next season."

As the only major sports league on NBC, the NHL stands to receive
significantly more promotional attention than it has from ABC, which
began broadcasting the popular NBA in 2002. In addition, the league
should benefit from a consistent time slot -- Saturday afternoons --
something it hasn't had on ABC. That could be important in
encouraging hockey fans, who are extremely loyal, to tune in
regularly.

Another advantage of the deal for NBC is that it isn't likely to show
hockey games until the NHL and its players renegotiate their labor
contract. At that point the league should be financially more stable
and able to focus the sport itself. Mr. Schanzer, the NBC Sports
president, says the deal "incentivizes you to be patient with the
property and intense in trying to make it work."

[Mona]

When the networks start passing "us" around, I feel a little worried... :eek2:

[Mona]

When the networks start passing "us" around, I feel a little worried... :eek2:

[talkingcanes]

Another advantage of the deal for NBC is that it isn't likely to show
hockey games until the NHL and its players renegotiate their labor
contract.

and how would NBC, or anyone else, show hockey that is not being played?? this doesn't seem like a real selling point of the deal. can't you hear Bettman saying, "and a real advantage for you is that if we can't work out the CBA and there is no hockey, you aren't obligated to show empty arenas." :roll:

[talkingcanes]

Another advantage of the deal for NBC is that it isn't likely to show
hockey games until the NHL and its players renegotiate their labor
contract.

and how would NBC, or anyone else, show hockey that is not being played?? this doesn't seem like a real selling point of the deal. can't you hear Bettman saying, "and a real advantage for you is that if we can't work out the CBA and there is no hockey, you aren't obligated to show empty arenas." :roll:

[Guyute]

This year, regular-season NHL games have drawn smaller audiences than have bowling, arena football and poker.

:shaking my head: that's just tough to stomach.

[Guyute]

This year, regular-season NHL games have drawn smaller audiences than have bowling, arena football and poker.

:shaking my head: that's just tough to stomach.

[nccanes]

This year, regular-season NHL games have drawn smaller audiences than
have bowling, arena football and poker.

Horrible.

The NHL and NHLPA must know that they have loyal fans, yes. But they are in hockey markets. Look at the freakin' numbers for the NFL, NBA, and MLB tv contracts. You have a goose egg. Adjust your attitudes, lower your financial expecations, and fix the damn thing.

[nccanes]

This year, regular-season NHL games have drawn smaller audiences than
have bowling, arena football and poker.

Horrible.

The NHL and NHLPA must know that they have loyal fans, yes. But they are in hockey markets. Look at the freakin' numbers for the NFL, NBA, and MLB tv contracts. You have a goose egg. Adjust your attitudes, lower your financial expecations, and fix the damn thing.

[caniac369]

thank goodness for CI.

Don't forget FSN... and Tripp's red jacket... :sick:

[caniac369]

thank goodness for CI.

Don't forget FSN... and Tripp's red jacket... :sick:

[Guyute]

well yeah, we can be glad that the Canes have a good amount of games broadcast, so even if you don't have CI, you can still see a fair bit. but, without paying about $200 extra/season for CI... you'll miss about 85% of the season.

ESPN going to just over 50 games is ludicrous. it's an insult. 80% of Those games, will be western conference.

I wish someone would step the hell up, and drag Goodenow and Bettman to some deserted island and leave 'em there. And I don't mean leave 'em there to work stuff out. I mean leave 'em there. period.

[Guyute]

well yeah, we can be glad that the Canes have a good amount of games broadcast, so even if you don't have CI, you can still see a fair bit. but, without paying about $200 extra/season for CI... you'll miss about 85% of the season.

ESPN going to just over 50 games is ludicrous. it's an insult. 80% of Those games, will be western conference.

I wish someone would step the hell up, and drag Goodenow and Bettman to some deserted island and leave 'em there. And I don't mean leave 'em there to work stuff out. I mean leave 'em there. period.

[talkingcanes]

thank goodness for CI.

Don't forget FSN... and Tripp's red jacket... :sick:

unless the NHL signs a contract with FSN for national coverage, it won't help with seeing other teams or the playoffs.

[talkingcanes]

thank goodness for CI.

Don't forget FSN... and Tripp's red jacket... :sick:

unless the NHL signs a contract with FSN for national coverage, it won't help with seeing other teams or the playoffs.

[caniac369]

thank goodness for CI.

Don't forget FSN... and Tripp's red jacket... :sick:

unless the NHL signs a contract with FSN for national coverage, it won't help with seeing other teams or the playoffs.

yuck and double yuck...

[caniac369]

thank goodness for CI.

Don't forget FSN... and Tripp's red jacket... :sick:

unless the NHL signs a contract with FSN for national coverage, it won't help with seeing other teams or the playoffs.

yuck and double yuck...

[talkingcanes]

the official announcement.

NBC to become home of the NHL in 2004-05


NEW YORK -- The National Hockey League and NBC Sports today announced a partnership in which NBC will televise NHL games beginning in 2004-05. The two-year agreement may be renewed for an additional two years at NBC's option. The joint announcement was made today by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and Dick Ebersol, Chairman, NBC Universal Sports & Olympics.

"We're thrilled to be entering into a partnership with the NHL," Ebersol said. "We're acquiring a major, established sport that is rich in tradition - and we're doing it in a way which fits our strong historical commitment to financially sound deals which offer significant upside for both parties."
The revenue sharing agreement calls for NBC, beginning in January 2005, to televise seven regular season games and six Stanley Cup playoff games in regular Saturday afternoon timeslots. In addition, NBC will broadcast Games 3-7 of the Stanley Cup Finals in primetime.

"NBC is renowned for innovative programming and unique promotion of its sports properties," said NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman. "From the days of our Game of the Week in the '70s and onward, through our relationship at the Olympics, NBC has demonstrated an understanding of hockey and the commitment to the promotion of the game and its stars. We're delighted to be in a partnership with NBC."
Ebersol: "Clearly, the NHL understands the importance of the broadcast platform and also realizes that the cycle of broadcasters absorbing profound losses in sports rights is coming to an end. We bring to the NHL promotional intensity and creativity along with a powerful distribution system that got even better with the recent Universal merger.

"This deal is a tribute to Ken Schanzer and his extremely effective efforts in implementing our sports strategy through deals such as this one over the past few years. The NHL game is terrific and we relish the opportunity to work with Gary Bettman and his team to continue the increase in viewership which began during this year's Stanley Cup playoffs."

This partnership, subject to NHL board approval, represents a homecoming of sorts for the NHL, whose first broadcast network contract was with NBC in 1966 to air Stanley Cup playoff games. NBC's NHL heritage also includes the "Peter Puck" era from 1972-73 through 1974-75 and NHL All-Star Game telecasts from 1991-94.

[talkingcanes]

the official announcement.

NBC to become home of the NHL in 2004-05


NEW YORK -- The National Hockey League and NBC Sports today announced a partnership in which NBC will televise NHL games beginning in 2004-05. The two-year agreement may be renewed for an additional two years at NBC's option. The joint announcement was made today by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and Dick Ebersol, Chairman, NBC Universal Sports & Olympics.

"We're thrilled to be entering into a partnership with the NHL," Ebersol said. "We're acquiring a major, established sport that is rich in tradition - and we're doing it in a way which fits our strong historical commitment to financially sound deals which offer significant upside for both parties."
The revenue sharing agreement calls for NBC, beginning in January 2005, to televise seven regular season games and six Stanley Cup playoff games in regular Saturday afternoon timeslots. In addition, NBC will broadcast Games 3-7 of the Stanley Cup Finals in primetime.

"NBC is renowned for innovative programming and unique promotion of its sports properties," said NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman. "From the days of our Game of the Week in the '70s and onward, through our relationship at the Olympics, NBC has demonstrated an understanding of hockey and the commitment to the promotion of the game and its stars. We're delighted to be in a partnership with NBC."
Ebersol: "Clearly, the NHL understands the importance of the broadcast platform and also realizes that the cycle of broadcasters absorbing profound losses in sports rights is coming to an end. We bring to the NHL promotional intensity and creativity along with a powerful distribution system that got even better with the recent Universal merger.

"This deal is a tribute to Ken Schanzer and his extremely effective efforts in implementing our sports strategy through deals such as this one over the past few years. The NHL game is terrific and we relish the opportunity to work with Gary Bettman and his team to continue the increase in viewership which began during this year's Stanley Cup playoffs."

This partnership, subject to NHL board approval, represents a homecoming of sorts for the NHL, whose first broadcast network contract was with NBC in 1966 to air Stanley Cup playoff games. NBC's NHL heritage also includes the "Peter Puck" era from 1972-73 through 1974-75 and NHL All-Star Game telecasts from 1991-94.

[RangersCanesFan]

You know, this is some of the best news I've heard all day. For someone like myself who tends to look at things from a glass half empty perspective to see this as an opportunity rather than a negative should tell you something. The best thing the NHL can do is get off ESPN. The network does not respect hockey in the least. The network also feels that all hockey fans want to see Detroit and Colorado every night there's a game. No, we don't. I'd wager dollars to donuts that has something to do with the poor ratings.

I also don't believe the ratings. The ratings boxes are distributed over the entire population, not focused on one group. Hockey fans, by and large, are (no insult intended) white, middle to upper middle class, and college educated. Hockey does not have and will never have a large "minority" following. Hockey already is down in ratings on that alone. ESPN added the NBA this year. No matter how much ESPN might advertise hockey during the NBA games, it won't really matter. Another thing is, how many hockey fans go to sports bars and/or friends' houses to watch the games? That would cut down on the ratings too.

Center Ice is a BARGAIN! If someone can't afford the $139 for SEVEN MONTHS of programming, that person probably shouldn't have cable to begin with. I don't mean that to insult anyone. I'm just saying that it seems like some people want everything for free. They want players to give up guaranteed contracts and owners to give up the store. Center Ice is not out there to attract new fans, it's there to allow rabid fans the opportunity to watch any game they want. Also, how many people with Center Ice watched the playoffs on CBC when the same game was available on ESPN? Ratings hurt again?

The NHL on NBC is great. NBC does not have a major sport except for NASCAR. NBC will most likely do a better job with the games and maybe hire better broadcasters. And, if it works, CNBC and MSNBC are out there as other outlets for games.

Revenue sharing will not save this league. Both sides understanding the problems and understanding where the league stands will. When small market teams realize they CAN compete even under this model (evidence TB, Calgary, and San Jose this year), this negotiation should go fairly smoothly.

[RangersCanesFan]

You know, this is some of the best news I've heard all day. For someone like myself who tends to look at things from a glass half empty perspective to see this as an opportunity rather than a negative should tell you something. The best thing the NHL can do is get off ESPN. The network does not respect hockey in the least. The network also feels that all hockey fans want to see Detroit and Colorado every night there's a game. No, we don't. I'd wager dollars to donuts that has something to do with the poor ratings.

I also don't believe the ratings. The ratings boxes are distributed over the entire population, not focused on one group. Hockey fans, by and large, are (no insult intended) white, middle to upper middle class, and college educated. Hockey does not have and will never have a large "minority" following. Hockey already is down in ratings on that alone. ESPN added the NBA this year. No matter how much ESPN might advertise hockey during the NBA games, it won't really matter. Another thing is, how many hockey fans go to sports bars and/or friends' houses to watch the games? That would cut down on the ratings too.

Center Ice is a BARGAIN! If someone can't afford the $139 for SEVEN MONTHS of programming, that person probably shouldn't have cable to begin with. I don't mean that to insult anyone. I'm just saying that it seems like some people want everything for free. They want players to give up guaranteed contracts and owners to give up the store. Center Ice is not out there to attract new fans, it's there to allow rabid fans the opportunity to watch any game they want. Also, how many people with Center Ice watched the playoffs on CBC when the same game was available on ESPN? Ratings hurt again?

The NHL on NBC is great. NBC does not have a major sport except for NASCAR. NBC will most likely do a better job with the games and maybe hire better broadcasters. And, if it works, CNBC and MSNBC are out there as other outlets for games.

Revenue sharing will not save this league. Both sides understanding the problems and understanding where the league stands will. When small market teams realize they CAN compete even under this model (evidence TB, Calgary, and San Jose this year), this negotiation should go fairly smoothly.

[lvscolencanes]

This might be a stupid question, and sorry if it is, but is Fox and NBC like sister stations? Cause I was thinking that Fox played most of Nascar, but I have also seen a few races on NBC (my husband makes me watch it, now THAT has got to be the most boring sport to watch, next to golf ;) )JMVVHO!

*ducking for flying objects* ;) :p

[lvscolencanes]

This might be a stupid question, and sorry if it is, but is Fox and NBC like sister stations? Cause I was thinking that Fox played most of Nascar, but I have also seen a few races on NBC (my husband makes me watch it, now THAT has got to be the most boring sport to watch, next to golf ;) )JMVVHO!

*ducking for flying objects* ;) :p

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but NBC isn't replacing ESPN, right? They are replaced ABC. NBC is only showing 7 regualr season games. The NHL is still trying to get an ESPN contract done, aren't they?

I certainly agree that, for the most part, ESPN's hockey broadcasts suck. They should really pay more attention to TSN and CBC and take some pointers.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but NBC isn't replacing ESPN, right? They are replaced ABC. NBC is only showing 7 regualr season games. The NHL is still trying to get an ESPN contract done, aren't they?

I certainly agree that, for the most part, ESPN's hockey broadcasts suck. They should really pay more attention to TSN and CBC and take some pointers.

[e2ipiand1]

FOX and NBC are not sister stations, they are direct competitors. FOX has the rights to almost all of the NASCAR races. NBC has the rights to Daytona and one or two others (much the same way that they have the rights to Notre Dame football games)

[e2ipiand1]

FOX and NBC are not sister stations, they are direct competitors. FOX has the rights to almost all of the NASCAR races. NBC has the rights to Daytona and one or two others (much the same way that they have the rights to Notre Dame football games)

[RangersCanesFan]

Fox has the rights to the races until the start of pre-season football. NBC/TNT then takes over for the rest of the NASCAR season.

The Daytona 500 is a seperate race, much like the Super Bowl, and is bid on from year to year.

[RangersCanesFan]

Fox has the rights to the races until the start of pre-season football. NBC/TNT then takes over for the rest of the NASCAR season.

The Daytona 500 is a seperate race, much like the Super Bowl, and is bid on from year to year.

[Guyute]

WARNING: the following will be perceived as a bit of a personal attack. why? well, it is a bit of a personal attack. I'm tired of seeing crap like this. BTW--- saying "I don't mean that to insult anyone" does not pave the way for past or future insults to be made without hard feelings. That's like me saying something derogatory about someone, and following it with "Bless his heart.". Bull. And yes, I'm breaking a rule I normally enforce. that's the kind of day I'm having. bad break for you.


If someone can't afford the $139 for SEVEN MONTHS of programming, that person probably shouldn't have cable to begin with. I don't mean that to insult anyone. I'm just saying that it seems like some people want everything for free.

I sure do get tired of the tripe that spills from your jowls when you lose control of the muscles that hold your lips together.

You may be allowed to decide who should and shouldn't be able to afford CI, and make comments about their financial affairs, once you actually spend some money on things in life. IIRC, you have forgone your season tickets, so you don't even have That purchase to discuss.
Nobody picks you up on hockey teams (self-admission), so you don't have that bill anymore I'm guessing.
Dollars to donuts you don't have a family, or that center ice fee would seriously be a consideration, (as MONEY is for most people) considering most people already pay an average of $50-$60 per month on regular dish/cable programming. So why don't you leave the ~you can afford this or you shouldn't have cable to begin with~ sentiments where you found them. If you can afford it, good for you. To assume that everyone can is ignorant, and asinine. :mad:

Remember that the next time you consider speaking about who can afford stuff. some people do have other people to consider. some people do have other expenses to deal with. some people don't want to be Forced into paying for CI in order to watch some hockey.

You obviously hate how this team is run anyway, how the arena is run, how local hockey is run, who knows what else...... why not just go back up to NJ where you can watch MSG all you want, and you won't need CI?

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Anyway, whether or not CI is "worth it" is not the discussion here. the discussion is that ESPN, no matter how slanted they are, is our ("our" meaning Americans) only hope at getting more than a handful of national games, without spending money on a hockey package. ESPN has decided to do NBA instead. NBC's trivial 7 regular season games are Not an issue.
Canes games aren't much of an issue, unless you live out of the area, in which case this is an even bigger issue.

ESPN, like them or not, is bailing on the NHL, and it's a Devastating blow. Until a broadcast company wants to show more than a handful of games per season, this is a problem.

[Guyute]

WARNING: the following will be perceived as a bit of a personal attack. why? well, it is a bit of a personal attack. I'm tired of seeing crap like this. BTW--- saying "I don't mean that to insult anyone" does not pave the way for past or future insults to be made without hard feelings. That's like me saying something derogatory about someone, and following it with "Bless his heart.". Bull. And yes, I'm breaking a rule I normally enforce. that's the kind of day I'm having. bad break for you.


If someone can't afford the $139 for SEVEN MONTHS of programming, that person probably shouldn't have cable to begin with. I don't mean that to insult anyone. I'm just saying that it seems like some people want everything for free.

I sure do get tired of the tripe that spills from your jowls when you lose control of the muscles that hold your lips together.

You may be allowed to decide who should and shouldn't be able to afford CI, and make comments about their financial affairs, once you actually spend some money on things in life. IIRC, you have forgone your season tickets, so you don't even have That purchase to discuss.
Nobody picks you up on hockey teams (self-admission), so you don't have that bill anymore I'm guessing.
Dollars to donuts you don't have a family, or that center ice fee would seriously be a consideration, (as MONEY is for most people) considering most people already pay an average of $50-$60 per month on regular dish/cable programming. So why don't you leave the ~you can afford this or you shouldn't have cable to begin with~ sentiments where you found them. If you can afford it, good for you. To assume that everyone can is ignorant, and asinine. :mad:

Remember that the next time you consider speaking about who can afford stuff. some people do have other people to consider. some people do have other expenses to deal with. some people don't want to be Forced into paying for CI in order to watch some hockey.

You obviously hate how this team is run anyway, how the arena is run, how local hockey is run, who knows what else...... why not just go back up to NJ where you can watch MSG all you want, and you won't need CI?

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Anyway, whether or not CI is "worth it" is not the discussion here. the discussion is that ESPN, no matter how slanted they are, is our ("our" meaning Americans) only hope at getting more than a handful of national games, without spending money on a hockey package. ESPN has decided to do NBA instead. NBC's trivial 7 regular season games are Not an issue.
Canes games aren't much of an issue, unless you live out of the area, in which case this is an even bigger issue.

ESPN, like them or not, is bailing on the NHL, and it's a Devastating blow. Until a broadcast company wants to show more than a handful of games per season, this is a problem.

[corylav]

Fox has the rights to the races until the start of pre-season football. NBC/TNT then takes over for the rest of the NASCAR season.

The Daytona 500 is a seperate race, much like the Super Bowl, and is bid on from year to year.

Actually, under the current contract Daytona alternates year to year btwn. FOX and NBC. After Daytona, FOX broadcasts the first half of the season, then NBC does the rest.

[corylav]

Fox has the rights to the races until the start of pre-season football. NBC/TNT then takes over for the rest of the NASCAR season.

The Daytona 500 is a seperate race, much like the Super Bowl, and is bid on from year to year.

Actually, under the current contract Daytona alternates year to year btwn. FOX and NBC. After Daytona, FOX broadcasts the first half of the season, then NBC does the rest.

[RangersCanesFan]

guyute, I'm not going to respond in a harsh way to your attack. I posted my bit about Center Ice because I saw, I think it was you post that CI costs $200 for the season. It's less than that. Even so, that's not the point. My point was that it really isn't a large expense calculated over the time period. I'm sorry if you didn't see it that way. If you're that big of a hockey fan, I cannot see how basically $1 a day breaks you.

Personally, I'll gladly pay that $1 so the few times I would get to see hockey, I'm not seeing Colorado, Detroit, and Dallas ONLY! I'm sure most hockey fans would agree with me on that.

As a fan, I've watched very little ESPN for hockey over the past three seasons I've had CI. I'm sure most people would agree that they've done the same. Yes, ESPN giving up on hockey is a major blow to the sport. I'm of the opinion, however, that the NHL does not need ESPN to survive and prosper. The league did quite well for many years without a national TV outlet. As long as the playoffs are available via CI or some source, I think hockey fans are still served, and served a whole lot better IMHO than by ESPN.

Guy, I stated an opinion. I'm sorry if you didn't see it that way.

By the way, I did get picked up on a team.

I get frustrated with "small market" thinking. Unfortunately, there seems to be an awful lot of that.

[RangersCanesFan]

guyute, I'm not going to respond in a harsh way to your attack. I posted my bit about Center Ice because I saw, I think it was you post that CI costs $200 for the season. It's less than that. Even so, that's not the point. My point was that it really isn't a large expense calculated over the time period. I'm sorry if you didn't see it that way. If you're that big of a hockey fan, I cannot see how basically $1 a day breaks you.

Personally, I'll gladly pay that $1 so the few times I would get to see hockey, I'm not seeing Colorado, Detroit, and Dallas ONLY! I'm sure most hockey fans would agree with me on that.

As a fan, I've watched very little ESPN for hockey over the past three seasons I've had CI. I'm sure most people would agree that they've done the same. Yes, ESPN giving up on hockey is a major blow to the sport. I'm of the opinion, however, that the NHL does not need ESPN to survive and prosper. The league did quite well for many years without a national TV outlet. As long as the playoffs are available via CI or some source, I think hockey fans are still served, and served a whole lot better IMHO than by ESPN.

Guy, I stated an opinion. I'm sorry if you didn't see it that way.

By the way, I did get picked up on a team.

I get frustrated with "small market" thinking. Unfortunately, there seems to be an awful lot of that.

[nccanes]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but NBC isn't replacing ESPN, right? They are replaced ABC. NBC is only showing 7 regualr season games. The NHL is still trying to get an ESPN contract done, aren't they?



That is certainly how I've read the articles in the last day or so. And if ESPN is expected to pay around 60 mil, well at least they are paying something. They (ABC/ESPN) paid $600 mil for 5 years, so paying 60 for 1 year doesn't seem to bad. Perhaps I've got some number wrong, so if so I apologize in advance.

For those hockey fans that don't get Center Ice, perhaps they aren't as critical of the productions as those of us with CI are, but imo the worst part of the ESPN presentation is that it is all over the map (day and time wise) and no "appointment tv" approach and no regular time slot for NHL2Night. Home many times have you watched the end of an ESPN2 game thinking you'd get Bucci following, but they go straight to Karate or Poker or whatever?

[nccanes]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but NBC isn't replacing ESPN, right? They are replaced ABC. NBC is only showing 7 regualr season games. The NHL is still trying to get an ESPN contract done, aren't they?



That is certainly how I've read the articles in the last day or so. And if ESPN is expected to pay around 60 mil, well at least they are paying something. They (ABC/ESPN) paid $600 mil for 5 years, so paying 60 for 1 year doesn't seem to bad. Perhaps I've got some number wrong, so if so I apologize in advance.

For those hockey fans that don't get Center Ice, perhaps they aren't as critical of the productions as those of us with CI are, but imo the worst part of the ESPN presentation is that it is all over the map (day and time wise) and no "appointment tv" approach and no regular time slot for NHL2Night. Home many times have you watched the end of an ESPN2 game thinking you'd get Bucci following, but they go straight to Karate or Poker or whatever?

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but NBC isn't replacing ESPN, right? They are replaced ABC. NBC is only showing 7 regualr season games. The NHL is still trying to get an ESPN contract done, aren't they?



That is certainly how I've read the articles in the last day or so.

Hopefully we're right. As much as I don't like ESPN's broadcasts and the way they handle hockey in general (for the same reasons you pointed out, NC.....hearing Bucci last night say "NHL2Nite won't be back next year" was painful) I certainly don't think that hockey can afford to lose ESPN until some other network starts showing those 50-70 games they were showing. Thinking NBC's 7 games is in any way a replacement for what ESPN supplies, as second rate as it is, is sorta off, IMO.

Sure, hockey fans who can afford it (like it or not, many people can't. Were I not irresponsible I wouldn't be able to) can get CI but also like it or not hockey needs NEW fans. New fans come from attending an actual game or seeing some on TV once in a while. I don't think those 7 games on NBC are going to win anyone over. And this from someone who, in general, likes hockey the way it is and doesn't think we should be changing things and lowering the quality of the sport to try and bring in new fans. But I sure know we need them and ESPN is one way to get them. :huh:

Sure, if some other network with more respect for hockey wants to start showing those 60 games I'd be happy to be rid of ESPN. But NBC's 7 games is no reason to rejoice, IMO.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but NBC isn't replacing ESPN, right? They are replaced ABC. NBC is only showing 7 regualr season games. The NHL is still trying to get an ESPN contract done, aren't they?



That is certainly how I've read the articles in the last day or so.

Hopefully we're right. As much as I don't like ESPN's broadcasts and the way they handle hockey in general (for the same reasons you pointed out, NC.....hearing Bucci last night say "NHL2Nite won't be back next year" was painful) I certainly don't think that hockey can afford to lose ESPN until some other network starts showing those 50-70 games they were showing. Thinking NBC's 7 games is in any way a replacement for what ESPN supplies, as second rate as it is, is sorta off, IMO.

Sure, hockey fans who can afford it (like it or not, many people can't. Were I not irresponsible I wouldn't be able to) can get CI but also like it or not hockey needs NEW fans. New fans come from attending an actual game or seeing some on TV once in a while. I don't think those 7 games on NBC are going to win anyone over. And this from someone who, in general, likes hockey the way it is and doesn't think we should be changing things and lowering the quality of the sport to try and bring in new fans. But I sure know we need them and ESPN is one way to get them. :huh:

Sure, if some other network with more respect for hockey wants to start showing those 60 games I'd be happy to be rid of ESPN. But NBC's 7 games is no reason to rejoice, IMO.

[Night Train]

edited

[Night Train]

edited

[RangersCanesFan]

Your point is well taken SHC. Thing is though, all sports need new fans. It's difficult to say how to make people fans. I mean, I grew up around sports from the time I was a baby basically. The only sport I've become a fan of as an adult is NASCAR, and the only league I stopped following is the NBA.

I just don't think there are as many sports fans as there used to be. Kids seem like they'd rather grow up to be Tony Hawk rather than Tony Gwynn, unfortunately, they'd probably choose Tony Soprano if they could. When I grew up, we played wiffle ball, baseball, football, street hockey, basketball, and street soccer until we were almost in college. That's just what we did. I don't ever see children in my neighborhood playing anything except for skateboarding or trying to dunk basketballs. Supposedly, so many children play soccer. However, does professional soccer have any kind of following in the US?

Even the NBA is in trouble. It has it's core fans, but that sport isn't picking up too many new fans, and there's an NBA game on everywhere.

Baseball is losing casual fans, and there's a lot of baseball on ESPN and ESPN2.

Football is about the only sport that still draws the same TV audience.

TV exposure isn't the end all and be all for the NHL.

[RangersCanesFan]

Your point is well taken SHC. Thing is though, all sports need new fans. It's difficult to say how to make people fans. I mean, I grew up around sports from the time I was a baby basically. The only sport I've become a fan of as an adult is NASCAR, and the only league I stopped following is the NBA.

I just don't think there are as many sports fans as there used to be. Kids seem like they'd rather grow up to be Tony Hawk rather than Tony Gwynn, unfortunately, they'd probably choose Tony Soprano if they could. When I grew up, we played wiffle ball, baseball, football, street hockey, basketball, and street soccer until we were almost in college. That's just what we did. I don't ever see children in my neighborhood playing anything except for skateboarding or trying to dunk basketballs. Supposedly, so many children play soccer. However, does professional soccer have any kind of following in the US?

Even the NBA is in trouble. It has it's core fans, but that sport isn't picking up too many new fans, and there's an NBA game on everywhere.

Baseball is losing casual fans, and there's a lot of baseball on ESPN and ESPN2.

Football is about the only sport that still draws the same TV audience.

TV exposure isn't the end all and be all for the NHL.

[talkingcanes]

according to NHL Live, there is an announcement coming from the NHL and ESPN any time now stating that they've reached an agreement for next season.

I can't stand the ESPN guys, but it's better than no coverage. I agree SHC, hockey needs more fans. those of us who get CI are already hooked, fileted, and fried. nearly every cable package includes ESPN (not always ESPN2) so people will be exposed to it. as HD becomes more common, I believe more people will be unable to resist. HD hockey is incredible (what little I've seen anyway).

NHL Live is also saying the NBC move is a good one because NBC has commited to pretty heavy promotion including the Olympic coverage this summer.

[talkingcanes]

according to NHL Live, there is an announcement coming from the NHL and ESPN any time now stating that they've reached an agreement for next season.

I can't stand the ESPN guys, but it's better than no coverage. I agree SHC, hockey needs more fans. those of us who get CI are already hooked, fileted, and fried. nearly every cable package includes ESPN (not always ESPN2) so people will be exposed to it. as HD becomes more common, I believe more people will be unable to resist. HD hockey is incredible (what little I've seen anyway).

NHL Live is also saying the NBC move is a good one because NBC has commited to pretty heavy promotion including the Olympic coverage this summer.

[Cool Hand Luke]

I wish I had a couple of million front money, and I would start a 24/7 hockey network channel broadcast to both Canada and USA. We could run interviews and background stories of players, get the rights to the classic games and show them, and of course show a live game or games every night. If "the golf network" can make it, I can't see why a hockey network can't!

People complain about the poor marketing the Canes have, but it seems to be a major problem with the NHL in general. Hockey is a great game and if Bettman and company can't figure out a way to promote it so that it draws more viewers than reruns of poker, then someone is doing something wrong. Majorly wrong!

I know some purists hate this idea, but I think we should have shootouts after the OT period to eliminate ties. Who wants to sit around for 3 hours to watch an exciting game end up in a tie? A shoot out or penalty shot is about the most exciting thing in hockey, and I think they should capitalize on what is popular and do it more! Complaining about the un skilled teams like the Canes getting crushed in this scenario is crap. Look at the USA in the worlds. They beat the Czech Republic and the Czechs arguably had 3 times the skill the Americans had. Andy Roach with the game winner? He's a top skill guy?

Someone somehow has to figure out how to make hockey more popular. It's not just TV ratings that are down. Attendence was down across the league last year.

sorry, end of rant....

[Cool Hand Luke]

I wish I had a couple of million front money, and I would start a 24/7 hockey network channel broadcast to both Canada and USA. We could run interviews and background stories of players, get the rights to the classic games and show them, and of course show a live game or games every night. If "the golf network" can make it, I can't see why a hockey network can't!

People complain about the poor marketing the Canes have, but it seems to be a major problem with the NHL in general. Hockey is a great game and if Bettman and company can't figure out a way to promote it so that it draws more viewers than reruns of poker, then someone is doing something wrong. Majorly wrong!

I know some purists hate this idea, but I think we should have shootouts after the OT period to eliminate ties. Who wants to sit around for 3 hours to watch an exciting game end up in a tie? A shoot out or penalty shot is about the most exciting thing in hockey, and I think they should capitalize on what is popular and do it more! Complaining about the un skilled teams like the Canes getting crushed in this scenario is crap. Look at the USA in the worlds. They beat the Czech Republic and the Czechs arguably had 3 times the skill the Americans had. Andy Roach with the game winner? He's a top skill guy?

Someone somehow has to figure out how to make hockey more popular. It's not just TV ratings that are down. Attendence was down across the league last year.

sorry, end of rant....

[nccanes]

Supposedly, so many children play soccer. However, does professional soccer have any kind of following in the US?


I think the thing with soccer is that the kids that "grew up playing it" are just now becoming adults. The kids that are playing it (over 12,000 w/in the Capital Area Soccer League) are just kids and perhaps that doesn't translate into viewership at young ages - unless the parents are keeping track of TV schedules, etc. Having said that, the soccer kids I know (and I know tons) probably watch a lot more Euro soccer on Fox Sports World rahter than MLS on US TV. You hear them talking about Arsenal and Man U more than the Earthquakes and DC United (maybe Adu will change that).

Goalie33 is a fubol fan I believe, perhaps he knows a bit about the TV ratings/growth of soccer in the US.

Expanding on my criticism of ESPN's "approach" rather than the quality of the announcers is that they have so few sportscasters that care about hockey. They've got Bucci, Melrose, and Ferraro (when the Oilers are out of the playoffs) - when one of them can't make it, they get a hockey writer with zero tv personality to sit in. How many times did I see the Dave Andreychuck piece (where TGT talks about the slack ass Lightning) - and i didn't even watch all the Lightning games!

I guess my thinking is take the time ESPN devotes to hockey and make it better - don't take it away. Tell the stories. Hell, if the broadcasts were more like Bucci's columns we'd be going in the right direction.

[nccanes]

Supposedly, so many children play soccer. However, does professional soccer have any kind of following in the US?


I think the thing with soccer is that the kids that "grew up playing it" are just now becoming adults. The kids that are playing it (over 12,000 w/in the Capital Area Soccer League) are just kids and perhaps that doesn't translate into viewership at young ages - unless the parents are keeping track of TV schedules, etc. Having said that, the soccer kids I know (and I know tons) probably watch a lot more Euro soccer on Fox Sports World rahter than MLS on US TV. You hear them talking about Arsenal and Man U more than the Earthquakes and DC United (maybe Adu will change that).

Goalie33 is a fubol fan I believe, perhaps he knows a bit about the TV ratings/growth of soccer in the US.

Expanding on my criticism of ESPN's "approach" rather than the quality of the announcers is that they have so few sportscasters that care about hockey. They've got Bucci, Melrose, and Ferraro (when the Oilers are out of the playoffs) - when one of them can't make it, they get a hockey writer with zero tv personality to sit in. How many times did I see the Dave Andreychuck piece (where TGT talks about the slack ass Lightning) - and i didn't even watch all the Lightning games!

I guess my thinking is take the time ESPN devotes to hockey and make it better - don't take it away. Tell the stories. Hell, if the broadcasts were more like Bucci's columns we'd be going in the right direction.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

I wish I had a couple of million front money, and I would start a 24/7 hockey network channel broadcast to both Canada and USA. We could run interviews and background stories of players, get the rights to the classic games and show them, and of course show a live game or games every night. If "the golf network" can make it, I can't see why a hockey network can't!



I'll chip in a hundred bucks. :D No shootouts, though. :beatup:

[SouthernHockeyChick]

I wish I had a couple of million front money, and I would start a 24/7 hockey network channel broadcast to both Canada and USA. We could run interviews and background stories of players, get the rights to the classic games and show them, and of course show a live game or games every night. If "the golf network" can make it, I can't see why a hockey network can't!



I'll chip in a hundred bucks. :D No shootouts, though. :beatup:

[Cool Hand Luke]

Speaking of soccer, what is the most watched and memorable moment in USA soccer history?

When the USA women beat the China team in a shootout in the world championships. *S*

SHC, you want more fans but you don't want to change aspects of the game? How do you get more fans?

[Cool Hand Luke]

Speaking of soccer, what is the most watched and memorable moment in USA soccer history?

When the USA women beat the China team in a shootout in the world championships. *S*

SHC, you want more fans but you don't want to change aspects of the game? How do you get more fans?

[nccanes]

SHC, you want more fans but you don't want to change aspects of the game? How do you get more fans?

I think she meant (and I'm sure she can speak for herself), that she doesn't care about new fans, but recognizes that it is good for the NHL to have the fanbase grow.

[nccanes]

SHC, you want more fans but you don't want to change aspects of the game? How do you get more fans?

I think she meant (and I'm sure she can speak for herself), that she doesn't care about new fans, but recognizes that it is good for the NHL to have the fanbase grow.

[talkingcanes]

Speaking of soccer, what is the most watched and memorable moment in USA soccer history?

I couldn't have answered that question if you held a gun to my head, but a shootout that works for one spoirt wouldn't necessarily work for another if that was your point. if not, nevermind :beatup:

SHC, you want more fans but you don't want to change aspects of the game? How do you get more fans?

JMO, but you get more fans by exposing them to the sport. I am a firm believer that you don't change something just because people in general have the attention span of a gnat and need "closure" to every event and in the shortest amount of time possible. There are apects of hockey that could be changed to enhance the game, but this is not one of them IMO. Shootouts change hockey from a team to an individual sport and I think that would be deadly. How long until people got bored with shootouts? This is a topic on which I just have to agree to disagree because I will never think it's a good idea.

[talkingcanes]

Speaking of soccer, what is the most watched and memorable moment in USA soccer history?

I couldn't have answered that question if you held a gun to my head, but a shootout that works for one spoirt wouldn't necessarily work for another if that was your point. if not, nevermind :beatup:

SHC, you want more fans but you don't want to change aspects of the game? How do you get more fans?

JMO, but you get more fans by exposing them to the sport. I am a firm believer that you don't change something just because people in general have the attention span of a gnat and need "closure" to every event and in the shortest amount of time possible. There are apects of hockey that could be changed to enhance the game, but this is not one of them IMO. Shootouts change hockey from a team to an individual sport and I think that would be deadly. How long until people got bored with shootouts? This is a topic on which I just have to agree to disagree because I will never think it's a good idea.

[Cool Hand Luke]

Again, this is all just my opinion so take it for what it's worth. :kiss: :D

Hockey is the only "major" sport which seems content to have ties. Hockey diehards like us don't really care so much, but regular sports fans hate ties and won't tolerate them. Professional football has realized this as has college football and each has eliminated ties in their own way. You could say, and many have, that a tied NFL game can come down to a coin toss. How many times have we watched a tied game and said to ourselves, "whoever wins this toss will win the game" and they do. Many times for me, and it sucks. So in reality the outcome of the game depended upon the flip of a coin. But guess what, it's better than a tie and that's why the NFL tolerates it.

Some hockey teams seem too content with ties. If a team is so concerned that they don't want the outcome to be determined by "individuals" rather than the team, then they will struggle and try all the harder not to get into a tie situation to begin with, which would automatically make the game more intense and exciting especailly the 5 minute OT period.

Picture this scenario. After completing a 5 minute overtime period and the score is still tied 2-2, we have Staal, Brendl, Williams, O'Neill, and Brind'amour on the ice along with the 5 best scorers on the opposing team. Everyone in the RBC is standing and cheering, or probably screaming. Even if we were to lose, that would probably be the highlight of the whole game, maybe the highlight of the month, that shootout. People will easily tire of watching that, 3, 4 or 5 times a year? I doubt it.

We aren't radically changing the whole game of hockey here. It's a small tweak, which happens to work very well for international competition. So, we can either try to get creative and fix certain problems of hockey, ties being a major one, or we do nothing and continue to watch the fan base dwindle. My choice is to be pro active.

[Cool Hand Luke]

Again, this is all just my opinion so take it for what it's worth. :kiss: :D

Hockey is the only "major" sport which seems content to have ties. Hockey diehards like us don't really care so much, but regular sports fans hate ties and won't tolerate them. Professional football has realized this as has college football and each has eliminated ties in their own way. You could say, and many have, that a tied NFL game can come down to a coin toss. How many times have we watched a tied game and said to ourselves, "whoever wins this toss will win the game" and they do. Many times for me, and it sucks. So in reality the outcome of the game depended upon the flip of a coin. But guess what, it's better than a tie and that's why the NFL tolerates it.

Some hockey teams seem too content with ties. If a team is so concerned that they don't want the outcome to be determined by "individuals" rather than the team, then they will struggle and try all the harder not to get into a tie situation to begin with, which would automatically make the game more intense and exciting especailly the 5 minute OT period.

Picture this scenario. After completing a 5 minute overtime period and the score is still tied 2-2, we have Staal, Brendl, Williams, O'Neill, and Brind'amour on the ice along with the 5 best scorers on the opposing team. Everyone in the RBC is standing and cheering, or probably screaming. Even if we were to lose, that would probably be the highlight of the whole game, maybe the highlight of the month, that shootout. People will easily tire of watching that, 3, 4 or 5 times a year? I doubt it.

We aren't radically changing the whole game of hockey here. It's a small tweak, which happens to work very well for international competition. So, we can either try to get creative and fix certain problems of hockey, ties being a major one, or we do nothing and continue to watch the fan base dwindle. My choice is to be pro active.

[nccanes]

I'm on the fence on this one, but I will agree completely with what CHL describes above.

I can't remember, but in the hypothetical discussions about shootouts, what has been tossed around point-wise? Does a shootout win get 2 points just like a regulation win and the losing team get 1 point? Or did regulation wins get 3 points?

I heard PL interviewed about the shootout and I think even he said that as a sports fan you HATE to go home watching a game that ends in a tie. Remember baseball fans went ballistic when they allowed the All Star game to end in a tie!

I have to admit I'm leaning more toward it, this week anyway. :)

I happened to attend some youth State Tournament soccer games this weekend. To determine the winner in one of the brackets (and advance to the State Final Four), the teams had to hold a PK shootout. Immediately, players and parents and coaches from all over the soccer complex came to watch and the atomsphere was full of tension and excitement. And these were middle school kids, lol. I felt terrible for the pressure on the kids, but I figured if they could handle it when it was a critical, season ending event for whichever team lost, then the NHL players can deal with it. I would presume that the PS shootouts would not be used in post season, so even the NHL players wouldn't be faced with that in an elimination game?

[nccanes]

I'm on the fence on this one, but I will agree completely with what CHL describes above.

I can't remember, but in the hypothetical discussions about shootouts, what has been tossed around point-wise? Does a shootout win get 2 points just like a regulation win and the losing team get 1 point? Or did regulation wins get 3 points?

I heard PL interviewed about the shootout and I think even he said that as a sports fan you HATE to go home watching a game that ends in a tie. Remember baseball fans went ballistic when they allowed the All Star game to end in a tie!

I have to admit I'm leaning more toward it, this week anyway. :)

I happened to attend some youth State Tournament soccer games this weekend. To determine the winner in one of the brackets (and advance to the State Final Four), the teams had to hold a PK shootout. Immediately, players and parents and coaches from all over the soccer complex came to watch and the atomsphere was full of tension and excitement. And these were middle school kids, lol. I felt terrible for the pressure on the kids, but I figured if they could handle it when it was a critical, season ending event for whichever team lost, then the NHL players can deal with it. I would presume that the PS shootouts would not be used in post season, so even the NHL players wouldn't be faced with that in an elimination game?

[talkingcanes]

I absolutely defend everyone's right to their opinion and to stating it even if I can't disagree more with it ;) :beatup:

there were 157 ties in the EC alone this season (I realize it would show up for both teams if the tie was in interconference play, but I'm not doing that much figuring!), but at any rate, that's more than 3,4,5 times a year.

the NFL plays 16 games in it's regular season. if MLB went to a tie system maybe the average length of a game would be under 4 hours (OK, under 3 hours). I am so not interested in the NBA that if it went belly up it'd be great with me.

I think changing to a shootout is more than a tweak. no touch icing, the changes to offsides, those are tweaks IMO. not letting the goalie handle the puck behind the net is not a tweak. If they went to a shootout, it wouldn't keep me from going to games, but I'd hate it. It stills makes an individual sport out of a team sport IMO. it would be like basketball (let's just call it a college game!) going to 5 free throws or football to 5 field goals to break a tie. regardless of what you think of the tie breaking system, it's still done as a team. that is my biggest issue with the shootout.

[talkingcanes]

I absolutely defend everyone's right to their opinion and to stating it even if I can't disagree more with it ;) :beatup:

there were 157 ties in the EC alone this season (I realize it would show up for both teams if the tie was in interconference play, but I'm not doing that much figuring!), but at any rate, that's more than 3,4,5 times a year.

the NFL plays 16 games in it's regular season. if MLB went to a tie system maybe the average length of a game would be under 4 hours (OK, under 3 hours). I am so not interested in the NBA that if it went belly up it'd be great with me.

I think changing to a shootout is more than a tweak. no touch icing, the changes to offsides, those are tweaks IMO. not letting the goalie handle the puck behind the net is not a tweak. If they went to a shootout, it wouldn't keep me from going to games, but I'd hate it. It stills makes an individual sport out of a team sport IMO. it would be like basketball (let's just call it a college game!) going to 5 free throws or football to 5 field goals to break a tie. regardless of what you think of the tie breaking system, it's still done as a team. that is my biggest issue with the shootout.

[nccanes]

there were 157 ties in the EC alone this season (I realize it would show up for both teams if the tie was in interconference play, but I'm not doing that much figuring!), but at any rate, that's more than 3,4,5 times a year.



I can't speak for CHL, but I'll try. ;) I think he meant how many times you'd witness it live. The Canes had 14 ties, so I suppose he was on the low side, so using averages (I'm also too lazy to find out how many were at home), that would be about 7 home shootouts.

[nccanes]

there were 157 ties in the EC alone this season (I realize it would show up for both teams if the tie was in interconference play, but I'm not doing that much figuring!), but at any rate, that's more than 3,4,5 times a year.



I can't speak for CHL, but I'll try. ;) I think he meant how many times you'd witness it live. The Canes had 14 ties, so I suppose he was on the low side, so using averages (I'm also too lazy to find out how many were at home), that would be about 7 home shootouts.

[talkingcanes]

5:15 PM EDT, 05/19/2004

ESPN, NHL renew TV deal

NEW YORK -- The National Hockey League and ESPN, Inc. have reached a wide-ranging, multimedia extension of their agreement, highlighted by ESPN's exclusive coverage of the first two games of the Stanley Cup Finals and of the All-Star Game. Other elements of the deal include extensive post-season coverage with continued ESPN and ESPN2 exclusivity during the Conference Finals and an additional exclusivity from each Conference Semifinal series (total of two games per series). The agreement covers the 2004 - 2005 season and includes options for ESPN to extend the agreement to the 2005 - 2006 and 2006 - 2007 seasons as well.

ESPN2 will televise 40 fully exclusive regular-season games, on a consistent Sunday and Wednesday schedule. Rights for ESPN HD, ESPN Deportes, ESPN International, ESPN.com, ESPN Classic, ESPN Video-on-Demand, ESPN Broadband and ESPN Wireless have also been secured. The promotional content and sharing agreement with NHL.com will continue. ESPN and the NHL will continue to collaborate on Interactive TV.
"For many years, the NHL has been an important programming element for ESPN and we are thrilled to continue the relationship," said George Bodenheimer, President ESPN, Inc. and ABC Sports. "The increased exclusivity and addition of the All-Star Game will enhance the already outstanding coverage we provide for our fans and the value we deliver to our affiliates and advertisers."

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said, "ESPN has been, is now and will continue to be the definitive cable sports viewing destination, and our partnership with ESPN has been an extremely productive one. We are very pleased that the partnership will continue to be one of growth and we greatly appreciate all of ESPN's efforts and support on our behalf."
Specifics of the agreement include:


Games 1 and 2 of the Stanley Cup Finals exclusively on ESPN;
Exclusive coverage of the All-Star Game and All-Star Weekend activities;
Continued exclusive Conference Finals telecasts;
Additional exclusivities from each Conference Semifinal series;
Extensive Conference Quarterfinal and Semifinal coverage;
40 exclusive regular-season games on ESPN2 - 23 on Wednesdays, beginning Opening Night, and 17 on Sundays;
Coverage of the NHL Draft on ESPN2;
Continued agreements for ESPN.com and ESPN International;
Select telecasts on ESPN HD and ESPN Deportes;
Rights for ESPN Classic, ESPN Video-on-Demand, ESPN Broadband, ESPN Wireless.

The agreement is subject to the approval of the NHL's Board of Governors.

ESPN AND THE NHL
ESPN has televised the NHL since 1992, ESPN2 since its launch in 1993. ESPN also televised league action from 1985 to 1988 and had agreements with individual teams from its launch in 1979 until 1982.

[talkingcanes]

5:15 PM EDT, 05/19/2004

ESPN, NHL renew TV deal

NEW YORK -- The National Hockey League and ESPN, Inc. have reached a wide-ranging, multimedia extension of their agreement, highlighted by ESPN's exclusive coverage of the first two games of the Stanley Cup Finals and of the All-Star Game. Other elements of the deal include extensive post-season coverage with continued ESPN and ESPN2 exclusivity during the Conference Finals and an additional exclusivity from each Conference Semifinal series (total of two games per series). The agreement covers the 2004 - 2005 season and includes options for ESPN to extend the agreement to the 2005 - 2006 and 2006 - 2007 seasons as well.

ESPN2 will televise 40 fully exclusive regular-season games, on a consistent Sunday and Wednesday schedule. Rights for ESPN HD, ESPN Deportes, ESPN International, ESPN.com, ESPN Classic, ESPN Video-on-Demand, ESPN Broadband and ESPN Wireless have also been secured. The promotional content and sharing agreement with NHL.com will continue. ESPN and the NHL will continue to collaborate on Interactive TV.
"For many years, the NHL has been an important programming element for ESPN and we are thrilled to continue the relationship," said George Bodenheimer, President ESPN, Inc. and ABC Sports. "The increased exclusivity and addition of the All-Star Game will enhance the already outstanding coverage we provide for our fans and the value we deliver to our affiliates and advertisers."

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said, "ESPN has been, is now and will continue to be the definitive cable sports viewing destination, and our partnership with ESPN has been an extremely productive one. We are very pleased that the partnership will continue to be one of growth and we greatly appreciate all of ESPN's efforts and support on our behalf."
Specifics of the agreement include:


Games 1 and 2 of the Stanley Cup Finals exclusively on ESPN;
Exclusive coverage of the All-Star Game and All-Star Weekend activities;
Continued exclusive Conference Finals telecasts;
Additional exclusivities from each Conference Semifinal series;
Extensive Conference Quarterfinal and Semifinal coverage;
40 exclusive regular-season games on ESPN2 - 23 on Wednesdays, beginning Opening Night, and 17 on Sundays;
Coverage of the NHL Draft on ESPN2;
Continued agreements for ESPN.com and ESPN International;
Select telecasts on ESPN HD and ESPN Deportes;
Rights for ESPN Classic, ESPN Video-on-Demand, ESPN Broadband, ESPN Wireless.

The agreement is subject to the approval of the NHL's Board of Governors.

ESPN AND THE NHL
ESPN has televised the NHL since 1992, ESPN2 since its launch in 1993. ESPN also televised league action from 1985 to 1988 and had agreements with individual teams from its launch in 1979 until 1982.

[Cool Hand Luke]

You are right NCCanes, I meant having to sit through a dreaded shootout in a live situation. The Canes have consistently been one of the teams that seems to get a lot of ties, for whatever reason, about the highest in the league year afetr year. I'm assuming if the rules were changed, there would be fewer tied OT periods since teams would try harder to prevent the injustice done to them during a shootout.

By the way, I also disagree with the assertation that just getting more people to games, as they are today, will grow the sport. I think Bettman has been employing this strategy by using expansion and creating more markets. If the fact that more people watched automatically grew the sport, we wouldn't be seeing lower attendence and lower TV ratings even though markets have grown. IMO Most people you ask think hockey is a boring sport. If you bring even MORE people to watch games, it's not necessarily going to change their minds or make them fans unless they find something to cheer about. I could be wrong, but I really doubt there are many people left out there that have never seen a hockey game, and if they suddenly watch it on TV or go to see a game, they will suddenly be in love with the sport. A shootout gives people something to cheer about and might increase TV ratings, because the goals from the shootouts will be shown as highlights of the game.

talkingcanes, the comparison with free throws to break ties is a little bit of a reach. The goalies do have the chance to stop the shots, as evidenced in the world championships game that I mentioned. Andy Roach scored the only goal out of 10 shots, so it's a bit harder than shooting free throws, and certainly better than flipping a coin. If the system works in the international system, why is it so horrible for the NHL?

Maybe it would be better if a ref just flipped a coin after every tie to determine the winner?

[Cool Hand Luke]

You are right NCCanes, I meant having to sit through a dreaded shootout in a live situation. The Canes have consistently been one of the teams that seems to get a lot of ties, for whatever reason, about the highest in the league year afetr year. I'm assuming if the rules were changed, there would be fewer tied OT periods since teams would try harder to prevent the injustice done to them during a shootout.

By the way, I also disagree with the assertation that just getting more people to games, as they are today, will grow the sport. I think Bettman has been employing this strategy by using expansion and creating more markets. If the fact that more people watched automatically grew the sport, we wouldn't be seeing lower attendence and lower TV ratings even though markets have grown. IMO Most people you ask think hockey is a boring sport. If you bring even MORE people to watch games, it's not necessarily going to change their minds or make them fans unless they find something to cheer about. I could be wrong, but I really doubt there are many people left out there that have never seen a hockey game, and if they suddenly watch it on TV or go to see a game, they will suddenly be in love with the sport. A shootout gives people something to cheer about and might increase TV ratings, because the goals from the shootouts will be shown as highlights of the game.

talkingcanes, the comparison with free throws to break ties is a little bit of a reach. The goalies do have the chance to stop the shots, as evidenced in the world championships game that I mentioned. Andy Roach scored the only goal out of 10 shots, so it's a bit harder than shooting free throws, and certainly better than flipping a coin. If the system works in the international system, why is it so horrible for the NHL?

Maybe it would be better if a ref just flipped a coin after every tie to determine the winner?

[talkingcanes]

I don't know that it's so horrible for the NHL. I wouldn't like it. I think it would be a mistake. I'm not speaking for anyone but myself. The free throws may have been a stretch, but my point was that basketball's way of breaking a tie is still a team effort.

I'm not going to change my mind. You're not going to change your mind. I'm going on vacation tomorrow. I'll get over not being able to sway you to my side ;) :beatup:

[talkingcanes]

I don't know that it's so horrible for the NHL. I wouldn't like it. I think it would be a mistake. I'm not speaking for anyone but myself. The free throws may have been a stretch, but my point was that basketball's way of breaking a tie is still a team effort.

I'm not going to change my mind. You're not going to change your mind. I'm going on vacation tomorrow. I'll get over not being able to sway you to my side ;) :beatup:

[SCCaniac]

I completly agree TC!

As far as this NBC / ESPN thingy - I need more time to study and digest it.

[SCCaniac]

I completly agree TC!

As far as this NBC / ESPN thingy - I need more time to study and digest it.

[nccanes]

So I see in that laundy list of ESPN hockey things, there is NO NHL2Night (as expected). Can they not squeeze that in somewhere? Was the talent used just too much money?

Wonder what Bucci will do, go back to Sportscenter and do some other sports?

[nccanes]

So I see in that laundy list of ESPN hockey things, there is NO NHL2Night (as expected). Can they not squeeze that in somewhere? Was the talent used just too much money?

Wonder what Bucci will do, go back to Sportscenter and do some other sports?

[Mona]

Looks like Melrose thinks this is a good idea..but what else is he going to say???

I can't believe what a small amount of games NBC will actually broadcast..

[Mona]

Looks like Melrose thinks this is a good idea..but what else is he going to say???

I can't believe what a small amount of games NBC will actually broadcast..

[SouthernHockeyChick]

SHC, you want more fans but you don't want to change aspects of the game? How do you get more fans?

I think she meant (and I'm sure she can speak for herself), that she doesn't care about new fans, but recognizes that it is good for the NHL to have the fanbase grow.

Well, I couldn't actually speak for myself because I'd left the house already. That's exactly what I meant, though. I know the NHL needs new fans but I don't really want them if it means ruining the sport.

IMO Most people you ask think hockey is a boring sport.

IMO, most people you ask think professional wrestling is extremely entertaining. How about we just start fixing hockey games and having "ladder matches" or whatever the hell they do these days, just like wrestling? Oh, and don't forget the cute costumes.

My question here is where does it stop? Where do we stop bowing down to the average person who thinks hockey is boring because their attention span is too short? How much are we going to warp this sport to please people who care nothing for it? I don't know, maybe hockey would die if we didn't. But personally, I think it's a good enough sport that if more people truely gave it a chance they'd be hooked. And more people might truely give it a chance if the NHL officials and annoucers did something other than talk about how broken the sport is and how much it needs fixing. And no, I'm not claiming to have all the answers here. Just giving my opinion.

Shootouts, sure they'd be exciting. Thet'd also lead to an awful lot of scapgoating on fans' parts. You think the goalies catch too much hell now!?! Wait until they start shootouts. It'll be murder.

And I'm just not that adverse to a tie. I think people were pissed when the MLB All-Star game ended in a tie because there are no ties in baseball. They play until someone scores and the All-Star game was prematurely terminated. They wanted a full game, was all. It wasn't the tie itself that made me think that was wrong but the principle that they decided not to bother to finish the game (as they would any normal game) because it doesn't really mean anything anyway. It meant something to the fans.

I'm in the same camp as TC. You think whatever you like about shootouts. I will always think it is a horrible idea and you will never change my mind so don't bother to frustrate yourself trying. :beatup:

[SouthernHockeyChick]

SHC, you want more fans but you don't want to change aspects of the game? How do you get more fans?

I think she meant (and I'm sure she can speak for herself), that she doesn't care about new fans, but recognizes that it is good for the NHL to have the fanbase grow.

Well, I couldn't actually speak for myself because I'd left the house already. That's exactly what I meant, though. I know the NHL needs new fans but I don't really want them if it means ruining the sport.

IMO Most people you ask think hockey is a boring sport.

IMO, most people you ask think professional wrestling is extremely entertaining. How about we just start fixing hockey games and having "ladder matches" or whatever the hell they do these days, just like wrestling? Oh, and don't forget the cute costumes.

My question here is where does it stop? Where do we stop bowing down to the average person who thinks hockey is boring because their attention span is too short? How much are we going to warp this sport to please people who care nothing for it? I don't know, maybe hockey would die if we didn't. But personally, I think it's a good enough sport that if more people truely gave it a chance they'd be hooked. And more people might truely give it a chance if the NHL officials and annoucers did something other than talk about how broken the sport is and how much it needs fixing. And no, I'm not claiming to have all the answers here. Just giving my opinion.

Shootouts, sure they'd be exciting. Thet'd also lead to an awful lot of scapgoating on fans' parts. You think the goalies catch too much hell now!?! Wait until they start shootouts. It'll be murder.

And I'm just not that adverse to a tie. I think people were pissed when the MLB All-Star game ended in a tie because there are no ties in baseball. They play until someone scores and the All-Star game was prematurely terminated. They wanted a full game, was all. It wasn't the tie itself that made me think that was wrong but the principle that they decided not to bother to finish the game (as they would any normal game) because it doesn't really mean anything anyway. It meant something to the fans.

I'm in the same camp as TC. You think whatever you like about shootouts. I will always think it is a horrible idea and you will never change my mind so don't bother to frustrate yourself trying. :beatup:

[CaneZilla]

These people that think hockey is a boring sport, have they been to a live game? I've never seen a game in HD so I can't speak to that but TV doesn't do hockey justice IMO. Do these same people find Baseball on TV boring? or Golf?? (yaWWWWWWWWWWWWWWN!) Some things just don't work well on TV. Hopefully HD will change that.
I grew up on sports although I never got to see that much hockey so I never *really* got into it until I saw some Admiral's games and Charlotte Checkers then came the 'Canes. I'm completely hooked now. I still love football but hockey has taken over as my favorite sport bar NONE.
I don't think hockey is broken, I don't want shootouts, I don't want fighting out of it, I want it JUST AS IT IS! (Well, maybe I want the CBA worked out and think the players are overpaid, of course all pro-sport stars and actors are)
/rant

CZ

[CaneZilla]

These people that think hockey is a boring sport, have they been to a live game? I've never seen a game in HD so I can't speak to that but TV doesn't do hockey justice IMO. Do these same people find Baseball on TV boring? or Golf?? (yaWWWWWWWWWWWWWWN!) Some things just don't work well on TV. Hopefully HD will change that.
I grew up on sports although I never got to see that much hockey so I never *really* got into it until I saw some Admiral's games and Charlotte Checkers then came the 'Canes. I'm completely hooked now. I still love football but hockey has taken over as my favorite sport bar NONE.
I don't think hockey is broken, I don't want shootouts, I don't want fighting out of it, I want it JUST AS IT IS! (Well, maybe I want the CBA worked out and think the players are overpaid, of course all pro-sport stars and actors are)
/rant

CZ

[Cool Hand Luke]

Don't worry SHC, I won't frustrate myself too much here. *L*

But, I still don't understand how having shootouts ruins the sport when they already use shootouts in other events, even in international elimination games when you think they would just keep playing until someone wins or loses. National teams get eliminated because of a shootout and there really isn't much more passion in sports than when you are representing or cheering for your national team. The international tournaments are as popular or more so than they have ever been using this format. I have yet to read anything where a player, coach, or fan refuses to participate in the world championships because they use shootouts. You would think that if the majority of people hated shoot outs or if they were grossly unfair, they would not be allowed in international elimination games. SHC, would you forego a chance to watch team USA play, just because there might be a shootout involved at the end?

Comparing a shoot out to professional wrestling and shooting freethrows in basketball are not valid comparisons at all. Why are ties unacceptable in every other sport, but they are okay in hockey? Also I know TC is gone, but the number of games per season doesn't matter either. 10 ties in an 82 game season is the same as 2 ties in a 16 game season. One is unacceptable, the other is okay?

I can understand that certain people don't like shootouts period, but no one has given me a valid reason yet why they shouldn't be allowed. Because they will somehow turn the NHL into the WWF? (or WWA, whatever they are now)? No way. The losing team after a shootout would still get a point, the same as they do right now after a tie. In the meantime, a few more people will get excited and some people will have fun watching a shootout. What's the harm? If people hate shootouts, they could always leave immediately after the OT session, so not to be disgusted . Somehow I doubt many people would leave though.

[Cool Hand Luke]

Don't worry SHC, I won't frustrate myself too much here. *L*

But, I still don't understand how having shootouts ruins the sport when they already use shootouts in other events, even in international elimination games when you think they would just keep playing until someone wins or loses. National teams get eliminated because of a shootout and there really isn't much more passion in sports than when you are representing or cheering for your national team. The international tournaments are as popular or more so than they have ever been using this format. I have yet to read anything where a player, coach, or fan refuses to participate in the world championships because they use shootouts. You would think that if the majority of people hated shoot outs or if they were grossly unfair, they would not be allowed in international elimination games. SHC, would you forego a chance to watch team USA play, just because there might be a shootout involved at the end?

Comparing a shoot out to professional wrestling and shooting freethrows in basketball are not valid comparisons at all. Why are ties unacceptable in every other sport, but they are okay in hockey? Also I know TC is gone, but the number of games per season doesn't matter either. 10 ties in an 82 game season is the same as 2 ties in a 16 game season. One is unacceptable, the other is okay?

I can understand that certain people don't like shootouts period, but no one has given me a valid reason yet why they shouldn't be allowed. Because they will somehow turn the NHL into the WWF? (or WWA, whatever they are now)? No way. The losing team after a shootout would still get a point, the same as they do right now after a tie. In the meantime, a few more people will get excited and some people will have fun watching a shootout. What's the harm? If people hate shootouts, they could always leave immediately after the OT session, so not to be disgusted . Somehow I doubt many people would leave though.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

LMAO, here's your misunderstanding. For some reason you think that we're arguing anything other than how WE feel. I don't give a rip what they do in other sports, I don't have to give a reason why it's OK there and not in hockey. The only other sport I watch is football and I don't like their tie-breakers either. I don't mind ties in any sport.

I've never said the majority of people don't want shootouts, I've only said what I want. IMO, the majority of people are utter morons and I'm sure they would probably love shootouts....no understanding of the game is required to understand a shootout. Many folks apparently like tractor pulls and "Faces of Death" movies as well....there's no accounting for taste or intelligence, IMO.

I've also never said I'd "forego" watching any hockey just because of shootouts. I've only said I think it taints the sport.

Comparing a shoot out to professional wrestling and shooting freethrows in basketball are not valid comparisons at all.

In your opinion, of course. In my opinion they are very valid comparisons because that's how I see it.

I'm not trying to give you some universal reason why shootouts should not be "allowed" in hockey. I don't have any control over it. I'm just telling you that I don't like turning a team sport into an individual event. You don't think that's a "valid reason" not to have shootouts, I do. End of story, isn't it?

IMO, it's a sport not a spectacle and it should stay that way. Shootouts make it a spectacle. Why not forego the game entirely for one big long skills competition? I'm sure many people would think that was more exciting. Those of us who actually like hockey would be out in the cold, I guess. Afterall, there are so few of us.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

LMAO, here's your misunderstanding. For some reason you think that we're arguing anything other than how WE feel. I don't give a rip what they do in other sports, I don't have to give a reason why it's OK there and not in hockey. The only other sport I watch is football and I don't like their tie-breakers either. I don't mind ties in any sport.

I've never said the majority of people don't want shootouts, I've only said what I want. IMO, the majority of people are utter morons and I'm sure they would probably love shootouts....no understanding of the game is required to understand a shootout. Many folks apparently like tractor pulls and "Faces of Death" movies as well....there's no accounting for taste or intelligence, IMO.

I've also never said I'd "forego" watching any hockey just because of shootouts. I've only said I think it taints the sport.

Comparing a shoot out to professional wrestling and shooting freethrows in basketball are not valid comparisons at all.

In your opinion, of course. In my opinion they are very valid comparisons because that's how I see it.

I'm not trying to give you some universal reason why shootouts should not be "allowed" in hockey. I don't have any control over it. I'm just telling you that I don't like turning a team sport into an individual event. You don't think that's a "valid reason" not to have shootouts, I do. End of story, isn't it?

IMO, it's a sport not a spectacle and it should stay that way. Shootouts make it a spectacle. Why not forego the game entirely for one big long skills competition? I'm sure many people would think that was more exciting. Those of us who actually like hockey would be out in the cold, I guess. Afterall, there are so few of us.

[AbNormal27]

I don't want to get into a big thing with anyone here, but I'd just like to add my thoughts. This deal is tantamount to desperation. Bettman has gotten nothing on this deal which guarantees the NHL 13 games, all on Saturday afternoons :roll:.

Great move Gary. I guess you're comfortable with your new contract and think you have job security? Get that resume ready, bud.

Aaryn

[AbNormal27]

I don't want to get into a big thing with anyone here, but I'd just like to add my thoughts. This deal is tantamount to desperation. Bettman has gotten nothing on this deal which guarantees the NHL 13 games, all on Saturday afternoons :roll:.

Great move Gary. I guess you're comfortable with your new contract and think you have job security? Get that resume ready, bud.

Aaryn

[Night Train]

I guess you can't start the comeback until you hit rock bottom.

[Night Train]

I guess you can't start the comeback until you hit rock bottom.

[nccanes]

Aaryn, sadly I don't think NBC's deal is much less (game wise) than what ABC put on during the regular season. The bulk of games have always been on ESPN.

Since I'm leaning toward pro-shootout (something do to for the summer), I do wonder how the anti-shootouts feel about it being used in International Tournaments. I actually considered that as I sat and watch 12 year olds use it to advance in the soccer tournament. I was thinking "as long as they don't use it for elimination games". Then I realized that the USA won TWO shootouts in the most recent Worlds. It's even the same sport (unlike basketball and WWE).

I know this is a discussion where minds don't change, but I'd be curious about how people felt about Int'l hockey using it.

[nccanes]

Aaryn, sadly I don't think NBC's deal is much less (game wise) than what ABC put on during the regular season. The bulk of games have always been on ESPN.

Since I'm leaning toward pro-shootout (something do to for the summer), I do wonder how the anti-shootouts feel about it being used in International Tournaments. I actually considered that as I sat and watch 12 year olds use it to advance in the soccer tournament. I was thinking "as long as they don't use it for elimination games". Then I realized that the USA won TWO shootouts in the most recent Worlds. It's even the same sport (unlike basketball and WWE).

I know this is a discussion where minds don't change, but I'd be curious about how people felt about Int'l hockey using it.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Speaking for myself, I don't really care if international hockey uses it. I'm not an international hockey fan like I am an NHL fan. I don't get to watch much int. hockey, I don't have a team I'm a fanatic about, so it just doesn't mean as much to me. I also see it as something more like the Olympics than like the NHL. As far as any US teams, those guys are only participating for a couple months a year.....after the NHL season is over. It seems much more like an exhibition to me than the NHL does (speaking of the US teams only). Overall, there are several aspects of international hockey that I don't care for, including shootouts. I'd say that's probably a big part of why it doesn't mean as much to me. I don't really see what international hockey's long standing practices have to do with a discussion about changes to the NHL game, though. :huh:

I do find it interesting that my huge adversion to shootouts won't keep me from watching hockey because I like it yet according to some folks most people's huge adversion to ties does keep them from watching hockey, lol. I'm really not sure I see that ties are what makes people think hockey is boring. Just doesn't seem to me like it would really play that huge of a role. There aren't THAT many ties. I think people are bored by the game because they don't understand it and they don't understand it because they are too lazy to try.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Speaking for myself, I don't really care if international hockey uses it. I'm not an international hockey fan like I am an NHL fan. I don't get to watch much int. hockey, I don't have a team I'm a fanatic about, so it just doesn't mean as much to me. I also see it as something more like the Olympics than like the NHL. As far as any US teams, those guys are only participating for a couple months a year.....after the NHL season is over. It seems much more like an exhibition to me than the NHL does (speaking of the US teams only). Overall, there are several aspects of international hockey that I don't care for, including shootouts. I'd say that's probably a big part of why it doesn't mean as much to me. I don't really see what international hockey's long standing practices have to do with a discussion about changes to the NHL game, though. :huh:

I do find it interesting that my huge adversion to shootouts won't keep me from watching hockey because I like it yet according to some folks most people's huge adversion to ties does keep them from watching hockey, lol. I'm really not sure I see that ties are what makes people think hockey is boring. Just doesn't seem to me like it would really play that huge of a role. There aren't THAT many ties. I think people are bored by the game because they don't understand it and they don't understand it because they are too lazy to try.

[Cool Hand Luke]

SHC said "There aren't THAT many ties. I think people are bored by the game because they don't understand it and they don't understand it because they are too lazy to try"

So, anyone who thinks hockey is boring is too lazy to understand it? I have been a life long hockey fan, but there were a few Canes games in the Mo era in which I nearly fell asleep at the rink and bored me to tears. Guess I have just been too lazy to fully understand the game all thsi time. Now I guess I understand the problem. Thanks. *S* Also, just for your information, there are probably one or two geniuses out there who don't understand hockey at all, but really wouldn't be classified as being lazy. They just don't give a rats ass.

SHC said "IMO, the majority of people are utter morons and I'm sure they would probably love shootouts....no understanding of the game is required to understand a shootout. "

The majority of all people are utter morons, or just people that like shootouts? *L*

May I ask, what makes you different from the majority? What makes you a non moron? The fact that you completely understand the game and that it doesn't need shootouts? *L*

Obviously, you've never been on a debate team. It's tough to argue your logic. You're right and the majority of the world is wrong. End of story. *LMAO*

Finally, the reason we are discussing shoot outs in international play comparing it to the NHL is because we just signed the worse TV contract in the history of the NHL. Ratings are at an all time low. Hockey is basically hockey, no matetr what league it is. Some logical morons might assume that because shoot outs work in one venue, it might be worth a try in another. *L*

[Cool Hand Luke]

SHC said "There aren't THAT many ties. I think people are bored by the game because they don't understand it and they don't understand it because they are too lazy to try"

So, anyone who thinks hockey is boring is too lazy to understand it? I have been a life long hockey fan, but there were a few Canes games in the Mo era in which I nearly fell asleep at the rink and bored me to tears. Guess I have just been too lazy to fully understand the game all thsi time. Now I guess I understand the problem. Thanks. *S* Also, just for your information, there are probably one or two geniuses out there who don't understand hockey at all, but really wouldn't be classified as being lazy. They just don't give a rats ass.

SHC said "IMO, the majority of people are utter morons and I'm sure they would probably love shootouts....no understanding of the game is required to understand a shootout. "

The majority of all people are utter morons, or just people that like shootouts? *L*

May I ask, what makes you different from the majority? What makes you a non moron? The fact that you completely understand the game and that it doesn't need shootouts? *L*

Obviously, you've never been on a debate team. It's tough to argue your logic. You're right and the majority of the world is wrong. End of story. *LMAO*

Finally, the reason we are discussing shoot outs in international play comparing it to the NHL is because we just signed the worse TV contract in the history of the NHL. Ratings are at an all time low. Hockey is basically hockey, no matetr what league it is. Some logical morons might assume that because shoot outs work in one venue, it might be worth a try in another. *L*

[tommy]

Also, just for your information, there are probably one or two geniuses out there who don't understand hockey at all, but really wouldn't be classified as being lazy. They just don't give a rats ass.

:best office space impersonation:

"Well, it's not that I'm lazy; it's that I just don't care."

[tommy]

Also, just for your information, there are probably one or two geniuses out there who don't understand hockey at all, but really wouldn't be classified as being lazy. They just don't give a rats ass.

:best office space impersonation:

"Well, it's not that I'm lazy; it's that I just don't care."

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Ohhh, you're looking for a debate team! That explains sooo much about you!

Yep, I knew you'd be putting all kinds of words into my mouth after that post....it's what you're best at. However, the fact is I've never been talking about anything but my opinion and, sorry, by my opinion is that the majority of people on this planet are lacking in the intelligence category and that most people who don't like hockey have just been too lazy to give it a chance.....exactly because they don't care. The question is how do we make them care. I don't know and neither do you. However, I'm not for doing something that I consider to be compromising the integrity of a game I love in the process and I consider shootouts to be compromising the integrity. Period. If you want to continue to argue the stupid little points that put words in my mouth and have nothing to do with the issue just because you enjoy it, feel free.

I sincerely doubt shootouts are what has made hockey popular internationally, lol. Maybe you hadn't noticed but Europeans are a whole lot different than Americans. I don't see how we can assume that what works there will work here. And, IMO, hockey ISN'T hockey no matter what league it's in. I've always enjoyed North American hockey better than European hockey.....precisely because it IS different.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Ohhh, you're looking for a debate team! That explains sooo much about you!

Yep, I knew you'd be putting all kinds of words into my mouth after that post....it's what you're best at. However, the fact is I've never been talking about anything but my opinion and, sorry, by my opinion is that the majority of people on this planet are lacking in the intelligence category and that most people who don't like hockey have just been too lazy to give it a chance.....exactly because they don't care. The question is how do we make them care. I don't know and neither do you. However, I'm not for doing something that I consider to be compromising the integrity of a game I love in the process and I consider shootouts to be compromising the integrity. Period. If you want to continue to argue the stupid little points that put words in my mouth and have nothing to do with the issue just because you enjoy it, feel free.

I sincerely doubt shootouts are what has made hockey popular internationally, lol. Maybe you hadn't noticed but Europeans are a whole lot different than Americans. I don't see how we can assume that what works there will work here. And, IMO, hockey ISN'T hockey no matter what league it's in. I've always enjoyed North American hockey better than European hockey.....precisely because it IS different.

[Mona]

These people that think hockey is a boring sport, have they been to a live game? I've never seen a game in HD so I can't speak to that but TV doesn't do hockey justice IMO.

I agree.. I also have to say that anyone who watched the game last night beginning with 3 minutes left in regulation and the entire OT period and didn't get excited.. something is wrong with them.. ;) Your comment about a live game is so true.. my boss went to a game this season..got free tickets.. on the FRONT row..the first Canes game he had ever been to..We lost the game (of course it WAS a home game ;)) and I figured the next day he would say he wasn't impressed. He loved it and his 9 year old daughter loved it more than he did!!! :spin:

[Mona]

These people that think hockey is a boring sport, have they been to a live game? I've never seen a game in HD so I can't speak to that but TV doesn't do hockey justice IMO.

I agree.. I also have to say that anyone who watched the game last night beginning with 3 minutes left in regulation and the entire OT period and didn't get excited.. something is wrong with them.. ;) Your comment about a live game is so true.. my boss went to a game this season..got free tickets.. on the FRONT row..the first Canes game he had ever been to..We lost the game (of course it WAS a home game ;)) and I figured the next day he would say he wasn't impressed. He loved it and his 9 year old daughter loved it more than he did!!! :spin:

[SouthernHockeyChick]

my boss went to a game this season..got free tickets.. on the FRONT row..the first Canes game he had ever been to..We lost the game (of course it WAS a home game ;)) and I figured the next day he would say he wasn't impressed. He loved it and his 9 year old daughter loved it more than he did!!! :spin:

I had that happen a few times this season as well, Mona. Some friends went to games for the the first time that I thought they would think were awful.....and they always loved them! I still don't think most people think hockey is boring. I think most people have just never seen hockey.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

my boss went to a game this season..got free tickets.. on the FRONT row..the first Canes game he had ever been to..We lost the game (of course it WAS a home game ;)) and I figured the next day he would say he wasn't impressed. He loved it and his 9 year old daughter loved it more than he did!!! :spin:

I had that happen a few times this season as well, Mona. Some friends went to games for the the first time that I thought they would think were awful.....and they always loved them! I still don't think most people think hockey is boring. I think most people have just never seen hockey.

[Mona]

I think most people have just never seen hockey.

I think you hit the nail on the head.. I grew up here in the South and never watched hockey or didn't care to. When I passed it on tv, I quickly turned it :crazy: . But all it took was one game and I was hooked. I think too people find it complicated and don't understand the rules so they just don't bother. I am still learning but love it more everyday. I try to educate everyone I can and now all my coworkers know about the players and the sport. A coworker of mine told me during the season, they were interviewing some of our guys on tv and she came running in the room telling her hubby who all the guys were.. he was like WTF?? and she said oh yeah, I know these guys through Mona.. ;) Now to just get them to a game, right?? :spin:

[Mona]

I think most people have just never seen hockey.

I think you hit the nail on the head.. I grew up here in the South and never watched hockey or didn't care to. When I passed it on tv, I quickly turned it :crazy: . But all it took was one game and I was hooked. I think too people find it complicated and don't understand the rules so they just don't bother. I am still learning but love it more everyday. I try to educate everyone I can and now all my coworkers know about the players and the sport. A coworker of mine told me during the season, they were interviewing some of our guys on tv and she came running in the room telling her hubby who all the guys were.. he was like WTF?? and she said oh yeah, I know these guys through Mona.. ;) Now to just get them to a game, right?? :spin:

[Cool Hand Luke]

Ohhh, you're looking for a debate team! That explains sooo much about you!

Yep, I knew you'd be putting all kinds of words into my mouth after that post....it's what you're best at. However, the fact is I've never been talking about anything but my opinion and, sorry, by my opinion is that the majority of people on this planet are lacking in the intelligence category and that most people who don't like hockey have just been too lazy to give it a chance.....exactly because they don't care. The question is how do we make them care. I don't know and neither do you. However, I'm not for doing something that I consider to be compromising the integrity of a game I love in the process and I consider shootouts to be compromising the integrity. Period. If you want to continue to argue the stupid little points that put words in my mouth and have nothing to do with the issue just because you enjoy it, feel free.

I sincerely doubt shootouts are what has made hockey popular internationally, lol. Maybe you hadn't noticed but Europeans are a whole lot different than Americans. I don't see how we can assume that what works there will work here. And, IMO, hockey ISN'T hockey no matter what league it's in. I've always enjoyed North American hockey better than European hockey.....precisely because it IS different.

Number 1, I didn't put words in your mouth. I carefully placed quotations around your exact words.

Number 2, what's wrong with a debate team? It's usually a civilized, intelligent, and respectful way to discuss a topic, without resorting to personal attacks and ignorant name calling.

Number 3 Canadian and USA teams play in the world championships, not just Europeans.

Number 4 When a player makes an unassisted goal for a game winner, does that also ruin the integrity of the game? Scenario, Kovaluchuk steals a puck at the red line, uses his speed and individual skill to outrace the defense for a breakaway open shot to win a game with less than a minute left. No other team mates were in the play. Should the goal not count because it was based on individual skill and effort and nothing to do with his team?

Number 5 I'm done with this topic, have fun getting in the last word as you always do. *S*

[Cool Hand Luke]

Ohhh, you're looking for a debate team! That explains sooo much about you!

Yep, I knew you'd be putting all kinds of words into my mouth after that post....it's what you're best at. However, the fact is I've never been talking about anything but my opinion and, sorry, by my opinion is that the majority of people on this planet are lacking in the intelligence category and that most people who don't like hockey have just been too lazy to give it a chance.....exactly because they don't care. The question is how do we make them care. I don't know and neither do you. However, I'm not for doing something that I consider to be compromising the integrity of a game I love in the process and I consider shootouts to be compromising the integrity. Period. If you want to continue to argue the stupid little points that put words in my mouth and have nothing to do with the issue just because you enjoy it, feel free.

I sincerely doubt shootouts are what has made hockey popular internationally, lol. Maybe you hadn't noticed but Europeans are a whole lot different than Americans. I don't see how we can assume that what works there will work here. And, IMO, hockey ISN'T hockey no matter what league it's in. I've always enjoyed North American hockey better than European hockey.....precisely because it IS different.

Number 1, I didn't put words in your mouth. I carefully placed quotations around your exact words.

Number 2, what's wrong with a debate team? It's usually a civilized, intelligent, and respectful way to discuss a topic, without resorting to personal attacks and ignorant name calling.

Number 3 Canadian and USA teams play in the world championships, not just Europeans.

Number 4 When a player makes an unassisted goal for a game winner, does that also ruin the integrity of the game? Scenario, Kovaluchuk steals a puck at the red line, uses his speed and individual skill to outrace the defense for a breakaway open shot to win a game with less than a minute left. No other team mates were in the play. Should the goal not count because it was based on individual skill and effort and nothing to do with his team?

Number 5 I'm done with this topic, have fun getting in the last word as you always do. *S*

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Glad to hear you're done. I warned you not to frustrate yourself. It is a shame to see you leave before any legitimate arguement as to how shootouts will suddenly save the NHL has been provided, though.


Number 2, what's wrong with a debate team? It's usually a civilized, intelligent, and respectful way to discuss a topic, without resorting to personal attacks and ignorant name calling.



In a debate team situation the issue isn't what matters.....the debate itself is the point. That's what I mean explains a lot about you. You're more interested in the conflict than the issue. That's why you insist on taking my words out of context to twist them into things you know I did not say. It's certainly a valid approach on a message board it just gets us no where.

How's this for last words? I have an opinion contrary to yours. Deal with it. :p I always have to laugh when someone openly engaging in a back and forth discussion suddenly accuses the other party of "having to have the last word" lol. You're the one on the attack here, not me.

Now, I'll go discuss the hugely popular US World Championship team with my friends who all love shootouts and are only uninterested in the NHL because they lack them. Oh, wait, none of my non-NHL loving friends have even heard of the WCs and their shootouts. Oh well.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Glad to hear you're done. I warned you not to frustrate yourself. It is a shame to see you leave before any legitimate arguement as to how shootouts will suddenly save the NHL has been provided, though.


Number 2, what's wrong with a debate team? It's usually a civilized, intelligent, and respectful way to discuss a topic, without resorting to personal attacks and ignorant name calling.



In a debate team situation the issue isn't what matters.....the debate itself is the point. That's what I mean explains a lot about you. You're more interested in the conflict than the issue. That's why you insist on taking my words out of context to twist them into things you know I did not say. It's certainly a valid approach on a message board it just gets us no where.

How's this for last words? I have an opinion contrary to yours. Deal with it. :p I always have to laugh when someone openly engaging in a back and forth discussion suddenly accuses the other party of "having to have the last word" lol. You're the one on the attack here, not me.

Now, I'll go discuss the hugely popular US World Championship team with my friends who all love shootouts and are only uninterested in the NHL because they lack them. Oh, wait, none of my non-NHL loving friends have even heard of the WCs and their shootouts. Oh well.

[Cool Hand Luke]

oh well, I'm back..*L*

I'm not just interested in conflict or I would have 1,000's of posts by my name, not 100. I didn't mean to infer that I knew for sure that shootouts would automatically save the NHL, nor do I think I ever said that. (and I put words in your mouth?) I think it's a valid idea to examine and try. If it doesn't work, we can turn the NHL game back into the perfect thing that it is at the present time. I don't see the problem.

[Cool Hand Luke]

oh well, I'm back..*L*

I'm not just interested in conflict or I would have 1,000's of posts by my name, not 100. I didn't mean to infer that I knew for sure that shootouts would automatically save the NHL, nor do I think I ever said that. (and I put words in your mouth?) I think it's a valid idea to examine and try. If it doesn't work, we can turn the NHL game back into the perfect thing that it is at the present time. I don't see the problem.

[nccanes]

In the grand scheme of things, I wonder what shootouts would do, if anything, to ratings, or attendance, or awareness, or intangibles -- and it would be tough to predict. But leaving the opinions (pro shootout, con shootout) out of it, and pretending the NHL DID begin to use them. Would they have an effect?

I think yes. The atomsphere in the arena would be imo as CHL described a number of posts back. Would that majority go to work/school the next day and talk about it? Would it be water cooler conversation? Probably so. That's never a bad thing.

Just musing aloud I guess.

Funny, I used to very much against them, but I've softened my view it seems. If you even got 50% "wins" in your shootouts, would it be much different than getting ties instead, points wise?

[nccanes]

In the grand scheme of things, I wonder what shootouts would do, if anything, to ratings, or attendance, or awareness, or intangibles -- and it would be tough to predict. But leaving the opinions (pro shootout, con shootout) out of it, and pretending the NHL DID begin to use them. Would they have an effect?

I think yes. The atomsphere in the arena would be imo as CHL described a number of posts back. Would that majority go to work/school the next day and talk about it? Would it be water cooler conversation? Probably so. That's never a bad thing.

Just musing aloud I guess.

Funny, I used to very much against them, but I've softened my view it seems. If you even got 50% "wins" in your shootouts, would it be much different than getting ties instead, points wise?

[SouthernHockeyChick]

I'm not just interested in conflict or I would have 1,000's of posts by my name, not 100. Nice back-handed slam, lol. Good job. Again, pertains not at all to the issue and gets us no where, but OK. BTW, I never said "only interested in the conflict."

I didn't mean to infer that I knew for sure that shootouts would automatically save the NHL, nor do I think I ever said that. I didn't say you did say or infer it. However, is the point of the change not to help the supposedly dying NHL? If not, why would we change anything?

As I've clearly stated, this is all just my opinion and my opinion only (even though that seems to mean so much to some people that they somehow take it as a royal edict, lol...yes, that was a back-handed slam :D ). I believe shootouts will taint the game and do not believe they will help with the issues the NHL is facing. I believe a new, very different CBA and some decent promotion will help the NHL more than anything else. Everyone else is perfectly free to believe whatever they would like on the issue, I've merely stated my opinion which you are under no obligation whatsoever to understand much less agree with. All just IMO, of course. :spin:

[SouthernHockeyChick]

I'm not just interested in conflict or I would have 1,000's of posts by my name, not 100. Nice back-handed slam, lol. Good job. Again, pertains not at all to the issue and gets us no where, but OK. BTW, I never said "only interested in the conflict."

I didn't mean to infer that I knew for sure that shootouts would automatically save the NHL, nor do I think I ever said that. I didn't say you did say or infer it. However, is the point of the change not to help the supposedly dying NHL? If not, why would we change anything?

As I've clearly stated, this is all just my opinion and my opinion only (even though that seems to mean so much to some people that they somehow take it as a royal edict, lol...yes, that was a back-handed slam :D ). I believe shootouts will taint the game and do not believe they will help with the issues the NHL is facing. I believe a new, very different CBA and some decent promotion will help the NHL more than anything else. Everyone else is perfectly free to believe whatever they would like on the issue, I've merely stated my opinion which you are under no obligation whatsoever to understand much less agree with. All just IMO, of course. :spin:

[Cool Hand Luke]

I'm not just interested in conflict or I would have 1,000's of posts by my name, not 100. Nice back-handed slam, lol. Good job. Again, pertains not at all to the issue and gets us no where, but OK. BTW, I never said "only interested in the conflict."


Who brought up the subject of "conflict" first? I was only responding to your slam, but suddenly now it's not part of the issue and gets us nowhere? Perhaps you should have considered that before you mentioned it to begin with. *L*

[Cool Hand Luke]

I'm not just interested in conflict or I would have 1,000's of posts by my name, not 100. Nice back-handed slam, lol. Good job. Again, pertains not at all to the issue and gets us no where, but OK. BTW, I never said "only interested in the conflict."


Who brought up the subject of "conflict" first? I was only responding to your slam, but suddenly now it's not part of the issue and gets us nowhere? Perhaps you should have considered that before you mentioned it to begin with. *L*