A Glimmer of Hope for NHL Fans.

[Telly Savalas]

Looks like the players are backing off their demands for no salary cap and the owners are backing off their demand for linkage. These are both radical departures from their previous positions. Even though the deadline is near, this is the most hope fans have had in a long time.

One sportsnet story it

and another

[tridim]

1. Please, please, please bring hockey back

I miss it more that I thought I would. College hockey just doesn't do it for me.

[chicagojoe]

2. yea, at least we have an AHL team here.

[Oreo]

3. As much as I want it

what will they have now... maybe a 20 game season? That would be a joke.
If they meet the $12million difference in the salary cap that is now the only barrier I think the should do something exciting with what would be left of the season. The league now wants a 40 million cap and the players want 52mill.

It won't happen... but if it does, they should add penalty shots, remove the red line, and replace the rule where a penalty doesn't end on a goal. Do something to win back fans... DAMNIT!

[papau]

4. More FIGHTS!

:-)

[ProfessorGAC]

5. Ban Fighting!

Even though i honestly believe that is the way to save the NHL, i mostly said it just to start a argument!

You say more, i say none. (Sort of like The Beatles.)

The Professor

[papau]

10. smile :-) I totally understand! :-)

:toast:

:-)

[ProfessorGAC]

11. You Better! Or We'll Have To Fight

Oh, wait. That would be inconsistent, wouldn't it? Pretend i never wrote this post.
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

6. I Have A Couple Of Other Suggestion

I'd lose the red line too! I'd end the penalty end on goal too! So, we're on the same page there.

Here's a couple others. See what you think:

1) Take the dimensions of a goalie in pads in 1950. Take those same dimensions with today's goalie equipment. Enlarge the goal so it's the same proportion vs. the size of the goalie and pads. I don't want goalies getting killed, so banning the pads isn't the answer.

2) Ban fighting. It's a canard that banning fighting leads to more stick and roughness calls. In NCAA, Olympic and Euro hockey, fighting is totally banned. (The penalites ranges from 2 games to the balance of the season.) Yet, in all three of those classes of competition, penalties for roughing, high sticking, slashing, spearing, boarding, tripping, and hooking are lower on a per game basis than in the NHL. I honestly believe that there are 40 million avid sports fans in North America who would be attracted to hockey is the pace were higher, unnecessary roughness were eliminated, and enforcers went the way of the dinosaur. Hockey is about speed, skating, puck handling, and shooting, not brutality. Good clean checks and hits are totally legit. What passes for defense are not.

3) Increase the penalty time for stick related offenses. 5 minutes, no substitution, no ending no matter how many goals it costs for slashing, spearing, and the like. That'll put the game back in the hands of the best players, and help cut down on dump and rush. Nothing more boring than that style of hockey.

4) Standardize the rink size. No excuses. Just do it. Bigger ice surfaces mean more speed and more excitement for the fan. It also leads to fast break hockey, especially if the red line is gone, and there isn't any two line pass rule.

Whatcha think?
The Professor

[Telly Savalas]

8. Interesting ideas.

1) Take the dimensions of a goalie in pads in 1950. Take those same dimensions with today's goalie equipment. Enlarge the goal so it's the same proportion vs. the size of the goalie and pads.

I don't see the goalie equipment size/goal size ratio being a problem. I know I'm in the minority on this one, but to me it's not the absence of goals that makes the game bland, but rather the absence of scoring chances. To me the game is just as exciting if 5% of scoring chances go in the net versus 30% of 'em. Granted I watch a lot of soccer, so I'm pretty used to 1-0 scores.

2) Ban fighting.
While I enjoy the sideshow of an occasional scrap as much as the next guy, I could live without the fisticuffs. The best hockey (NHL playoffs, 2002 Olympics) features little or no fighting.

I agree that the ban might help market the game in the U.S. A lot of potential new fans watch the NHL hoping for WWE on ice and are disappointed when only 2 minutes of the 2.5 hours of an NHL game are spent with the gloves off. On the other hand, there are a lot of people turned off by the violence. By selling the sport as one of finesse, we'll give more realistic expectations to the first kind of potential fan, and a more palatable product to the second.

3) Increase the penalty time for stick related offenses. 5 minutes, no substitution, no ending no matter how many goals it costs for slashing, spearing, and the like.

Great idea. This would do more to reduce the violence in the sport than a fighting ban. This would have a good chance of getting implemented, cause I can see even the Don Cherry crowd getting on board with this idea.

4) Standardize the rink size. No excuses. Just do it. Bigger ice surfaces mean more speed and more excitement for the fan. It also leads to fast break hockey, especially if the red line is gone, and there isn't any two line pass rule.

I like the big ice too, but I just don't see the NHL buying into it. There would be a big initial capital expenditure to change their arenas to accomodate the larger ice, and there'd be less space for seats which translates into fewer ticket sales. Since for Bettman hockey is more about money than aesthetics, they wouldn't go to the effort.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. Thanks For The Feedback

Just one nit to pick.

The stadia aren't sold out anyway, so the rink size doesn't translate to fewer tickets. Also, larger rinks have MORE rink side seats. (Simple surface to perimeter ratio stuff.) So, larger rinks would have more of the highest price seats to sell. It's, at worst, a fiscal wash.

And, i'm glad you mentioned Don Cherry. He is among the leading troglodytes that has held hockey back as a major U.S. sport. Think about total viewership. What's ahead of hockey; NFL, MLB, College Football, College Basketball, NASCAR, Arena Football, Golf(!), and NCAA Women's Basketball tournament ALL have better ratings than NHL. And some by miles.

A league that finds themselves this far down the ladder that worries about alienating the cromagnons is headed for the same extinction as that species. The aprocryphal definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result. The NHL has been doing that for over 40 years, and look what's happened. Radical change for radical conditions. It's time to forget what's been. It's time they look at what could be.
The Professor

[Telly Savalas]

7. I thought I saw somewhere that they'd be lookin' at...

a 28 game season with teams doing a home and away with each team in their conference. So I guess there'd be no inter-conference play until the cup finals.

The extremely shortened season wouldn't be that big a deal, because it's only in the playoffs that things get really interesting. With the 82 game season, teams mail it in too many nights. (Justifiably so. If they were to give it their all for 82 games, they'd have nothing left for the playoffs.)

The main drawback is that if you're favourite team goes into a funk for 10 games (which can often happen even to the best teams), that's over a third of the season!

[Ravenseye]

12. Yes 28 Game Season, Full Playoffs

If they do it today that's what it'd be. Training camp immediately, 28 game season where they play a home and away of each conference team, no intra-conference, then a playoffs.

A couple days ago I was 100% sure the season was dead, now...well if they don't make it happen this will piss me off even more to get my hopes up at the last minute.

[Ravenseye]

13. They Should Reach An Agreement

Before it was a philosophical difference.

Salary Cap vs. No Way Jose!

Now they're both agreeing on everything, including a Salary Cap, aside from the numbers. I only hope that Bettman is willing to come up. I bet if he met them halfway we'd get some hockey.

[Telly Savalas]

15. We'll find out tomorrow 1 PM EST.

Here's a Sportsnet article which says Bettman will hold a press conference then which will either be an announement of a deal or of the cancellation of the season.

[devilgrrl]

14. What's "linkage?"

I'm unfamiliar with that, what is it?

[Telly Savalas]

16. Player salaries are "linked" to team revenues.

So if the teams either don't make a lot of money or cook their books to make it look like they're not making money, the players salaries go down.

[devilgrrl]

17. Has there been any mention of "revenue sharing?"

I don't know but as a fan of a small market team, I do think it's unfair that only 4 or so teams can afford to buy a Stanley Cup by signing star players.

Any thoughts?

[Telly Savalas]

18. I think some of the owner's proposals might have had...

minor provisions for some revenue sharing. I haven't been following closely enough to give ya a good answer though. Although it seems that teams that blow their financial wads trying to buy the cup tend to fail. Exhibit A: the New York Rangers.

[MrSlayer]

19. Latest word is Bettman rejected the players $49 million cap offer.

They are about 6.5 million apart in the negotiations. Surely they can call it $45 million and get the league running.

[Telly Savalas]

20. If it was anyone besides Bettman and Goodenow...

the players would all be heading back to North America to get ready for the season. With these stubborn jackasses though, who knows what'll happen.