NHL survey

[opuntia]

I don't know if anyone else is registered with NHL.com, but they just sent me a survey about changes they are considering for the NHL. They asked about the following:

1. Making a shootout a part of every regular season game, but not affecting the outcome of the game, like having it before or after. They would use 5 players on each team, and they would shoot helmetless (trying for more face recognition?).

2. Dealing with regular season ties - the current set-up, ending the 5-minute OT with a shootout, a 10-minute OT, or a 10-minute OT with a shootout.

3. Enhancing TV coverage with stuff like a glowing puck (oh no, not again!) and having ways of telling how hard players hit (cool!), how fast they skate, and how fast their shots are. They also mentioned ref mikes and different camera angles and techniques (goalie cam, ref cam, that 3-D thing they do on football replays).

4. Shortening intermissions (bad idea for those going to the game).

5. Going to 4 on 4 for the whole game.

They are clearly looking for ways to make the game more exciting for non-fans (of course, for fans, some of this is very annoying). Any thoughts? Or better ideas?

[Jeff O Rocks]

Sounds like a lot of "for show" changes...but if they want to make people want to watch..that don't already..I guess that is the approach to do it..

I don't know about the 4 on 4...the players may not be as happy about that one cause they will be fighting for more "shift work".. :roll:

Did the puck glow at one point?? :crazy:

[opuntia]

A few years back Fox briefly used a glowing puck (so you could more easily tell where the puck was), but it was terribly distracting and hockey fans hated it. When the Hurricanes first moved down here somebody called the Buzz and actually asked one of the players if the glowing puck was a distraction for them on the ice. He very gently explained that it could only be seen on TV (does anyone remember that? I wish I could remember which player it was...).

[drwFischerFan2]

I think shootouts are a bad idea. Hockey is a team sport. If you have shootouts you are relying on one or two individual players to win a game, and I really don't like that idea.

The glowing puck is horrible, and hopefully they don't bring it back. I think it would be cool to see how hard players hit, how fast the shot is, and how fast they skate.

As for the intermission length, the regular season ties, and 4 on 4 i'm not really sure if I would change anything or not.

[Guyute]

ugh, that glowing puck was a monstrosity. :sick:

4 on 4 for the whole game? are you crazy??

OT should be 10 minutes. no shootout.

shootouts for show (not affecting outcome of game) I like a lot. it's clearly the most exciting thing you get to see, and you don't get to see it often. I think a round of 5 a side shootouts would be a blast.

shortening intermissions?? NOOOOOO. You already did that this year, and I hate you for it.

there's my answers. hehe

[Stormbringer]

1. Making a shootout a part of every regular season game, but not affecting the outcome of the game, like having it before or after. They would use 5 players on each team, and they would shoot helmetless (trying for more face recognition?).

There have been rumors for sometime about shootouts becoming a part of the games...the majority of the rumors I've heard are that shootouts will be used in the place of overtimes when there is a tie. And I hope that majority doesn't come true. I won't mind shootouts if they are for fun and don't effect the game...be like seeing/attending a miniature all-star event. But, if shootouts are used to determine an outcome...no way Jose.

2. Dealing with regular season ties - the current set-up, ending the 5-minute OT with a shootout, a 10-minute OT, or a 10-minute OT with a shootout.

My choices would be either the current set-up or the ten minute OT. Unlike the NHL and/or apparently quite a few fans, I don't mind it when there is a tie. It's like I tell my brother when he has a hissy-fit over the Canes tying, better that they tie than lose. But now that I see that there may be plans to include a shootout at the end of an OT as opposed to the end of regulation, I suppose I don't mind a shootout determining the outcome of a game...but, ONLY if the shootout is at the end of the OT. But I'd definitely want it to remain a regular OT, five or ten minutes without shootout...I would love to know where the complaints about ties in hockey have come from because I haven't heard such complaints.

3. Enhancing TV coverage with stuff like a glowing puck (oh no, not again!) and having ways of telling how hard players hit (cool!), how fast they skate, and how fast their shots are. They also mentioned ref mikes and different camera angles and techniques (goalie cam, ref cam, that 3-D thing they do on football replays).

Ok...let's break it down:

Glowing puck: (imitates Queen in "Bohemian Rhapsody") No, no, no, no, no, no, NO, NO!!! Did they actually do that once? Yuck... :eek2:

Hard Hit, Skating, and Shot "Measuring": That would be cool. :cool:

Ref mikes and cams, different camera angles, techniques, etc.: Hmmmm...this smells of being too much like the NBA. If any of you have seen a recent NBA game, you'll know what I am talking about. In NBA games lately, they have features like bench cams (Where they let you see the team discussing a play/strategy on the bench.), ref cams (Where you get to see the refs doing their job like discussing a call with a player or coach, or examining a play to see which "most legit" call he should make.), and of course a TON of different angles and crud that are supposed to add more "depth" to a game. The only reason I know all of that is because my brother has been flipping back and forth between the NHL playoff games and the NBA playoff games, and the only reason I don't complain is because he loves his hoops as much as I love my hockey, and as long as he turns to the NHL playoffs, all is well. I'm very surprised that they didn't mention the idea of bench cams on that survey, but I suppose it has something to do with the fact that you are only allowed one timeout in hockey. Anyway, I suppose all of that crud would help viewership...though I don't think it would...

My dad and I were recently discussing the NHL's woes, and the one woe we hit upon the most was the viewership problem. My dad brought up an excellent point...the only pro sport league that has excellent viewership as of late is the NFL. And the reason for that is quite obvious, the NFL has a monopoly on Sunday afternoons and evenings AND Monday nights...a lot of hockey and basketball can also be shown during those times, but isn't because the NFL being virtually on and covered almost everywhere on the dial. My dad, who happens to follow finances and stocks, said the only league making money has been the NFL, and said that their iron grip on viewership is a huge reason behind that. I can't help but wonder if the NFL would be in the same boat as other sports leagues if their Sunday games were spread out over the week like those other leagues. I don't think they would because football is considered "America's sport" besides baseball, and if the NFL kept their Monday Night Football show, they would still keep a ton of viewership and money...afterall, it is one of the most viewed shows in all of sports. But as I said, it wouldn't hurt the NFL to spread out some of their Sunday games...variety is the spice of life, and I wouldn't mind seeing other pro sports get a slice of the Sunday pie, especially the NHL of course.

Anyway, to get back to the subject of the special mikes and cams, I'd have to say no because they certainly aren't helping the NBA. Not surprising that a former NBA commissioner would come up with such an idea... :roll:

4. Shortening intermissions (bad idea for those going to the game).

VERY BAD IDEA. As a matter of fact, the hockey loving friends I've talked to have said that they would actually prefer a twenty minute intermission in place of the current fifteen minute one. So, definitely a big fat NO.

5. Going to 4 on 4 for the whole game.

Again, NO. Hockey was meant to be played five-on-five...how on Earth would this gain more fans and make the sport more exciting?! :roll: As could go for most everything mentioned here, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Kat]

Again, NO. Hockey was meant to be played five-on-five...how on Earth would this gain more fans and make the sport more exciting?! :roll: As could go for most everything mentioned here, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Actually, I believe hockey started out as 9-on-9, went to 7-on-7, and has gone down over the years. So not that sure about the "meant to be" stuff. 4-on-4 would have some advantages as well as the disadvantages mentioned... it would contract the league without contracting actual teams, and it might open up the game and get rid of the "trap" that they all say makes hockey boring. I am not saying that I am an advocate of 4-on-4, mind you... just sayin'. :beatup:

-Kat

[Stormbringer]

Again, NO. Hockey was meant to be played five-on-five...how on Earth would this gain more fans and make the sport more exciting?! :roll: As could go for most everything mentioned here, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Actually, I believe hockey started out as 9-on-9, went to 7-on-7, and has gone down over the years. So not that sure about the "meant to be" stuff. 4-on-4 would have some advantages as well as the disadvantages mentioned... it would contract the league without contracting actual teams, and it might open up the game and get rid of the "trap" that they all say makes hockey boring. I am not saying that I am an advocate of 4-on-4, mind you... just sayin'. :beatup:

Ah...learn something new every day. I obviously didn't know about hockey formerly being 9-on-9, 7-on-7, etc...wow, bet that made quite a challenge for the goaltender, and not to mention a crowded rink. :eek2: Anyway, thanks for the enlightenment Kat... :)

[guinevere]

Ah...learn something new every day. I obviously didn't know about hockey formerly being 9-on-9, 7-on-7, etc...wow, bet that made quite a challenge for the goaltender, and not to mention a crowded rink

Can you imagine what that was like without the helmet too.http://www.websmileys.de/sport17.gif Its wasn't until somewhat recently that the goaltenders wore those puppies.

[crazy4canes]

I can't imagine watching 9-on-9 hockey. :eek2:

[Kat]

The 9-on-9 was in the years before the Stanley Cup. By the time the Cup came around, they were playing 7-on-7. I believe that most of what we refer to as "modern" hockey was played first with 6-on-6 (three forwards, two defensmen, and a rover), and then 5-on-5 (eliminated the rover). A lot of this info can be found by going to nhl.com and clicking on the "History" link on the sidebar. ;)

-Kat

[tommy]

I liked the glowing puck!!! (But maybe because that was the 1996 season and I was about 9 years old.)

I think OT should definitely be 10 minutes. With the current set up, by the time everybody gets comfortable and opportunities start happening, you've got less than a minute left.

There should be shootouts in non-conference games after OT. That way it doesn't dramatically affect your playoff race. And only for half of the season, too.

[Turbulence]

How did anyone score on 9-9 hockey? :eek:

Shootouts are not hockey. Hockey is played with two opposing teames duking it out against each other...not goalie vs. sniper. This will take the most exciting sport in the world and turn it into nothing more than a homerun durby at the end of the many OTs throughout the year...I do think a 10 minute OT would benifit the game if TV outlets are ready...they were happy when time between faceoffs was shortened, resulting in 30 minutes less per game...will they be willing to take up more time in order to please all of these new fans we're supposed to be getting?


I'd be game for a different point structure...perhaps 3 for a win, 2 for a tie, and 1 for an OT loss...perhaps the extra point will make OT more exciting, and theoretically gaining the sport fans, rather than having a brainless shootout.

If they bring back the glowing puck I'm not watching anymore. :sick:

[Jeff O Rocks]

Can you imagine what that was like without the helmet too.http://www.websmileys.de/sport17.gif Its wasn't until somewhat recently that the goaltenders wore those puppies.

A man that I work with grew up in Detroit and pulled for the Red Wings his entire life... :sick: The good thing is, since he lives here, he pulled for the Canes last year! Hurray!! Anyway, he talks sometimes about when none of the players wore helmets..and used to pound each other in the head and face on a regular basis.. :eek: :eek2: Can you imagine the goalie without ANY protection with a slapshot coming right at them?? No wonder they didn't have any teeth!! :eek2: ...or skin on their nose ...sorry if I strayed too much off topic! :roll: