hockey playoffs.

[doozer]

Come on. Basing your argument on Aggregate Number of Eyeballs is a pretty flaccid effort for a lawyer. Do you spend your evenings watching American Idol and Dancing With the Stars because they're popular? Do you listen to Justin Timberlake and Avril Lavigne? Vox populi, vox Dei, right?

See, the lovely thing about living in a pluaristic society is that it's okay for people to like things that other people don't like. You can watch American Idol; we can watch the hockey playoffs. Other people might want to watch, say, women's basketball. But when you feel the need to go into every single thread about women's basketball or hockey just to tell those fans, YET AGAIN, that their sport is stupid and you don't care about it -- at that point you're not engaging in conversation anymore. At that point you're like one of these dogs who goes around vainly humping all the other male dogs, trying to be the alpha male. And that's never very pretty to watch, is it?

There's absolutely no question that hockey is in serious trouble, largely due to the mismanagement of its incompetent commissioner. How Gary Bettman still has a job is beyond me.

I could write six paragraphs about how Bettman , et al. have screwed up the sport, but his failure to work out a deal to stay on ESPN may be the NHL's death blow. He should have just let them broadcast it for free like NBC if he had to. It's not just that OLN/VERSUS is in so few homes that terrible ratings would be inevitable even if there was a decent amount of interest. The main problem is that once ESPN was no longer carrying the games, it no longer had any motivation to devoting any time to hockey. They don't talk about it on Sportscenter, PTI, etc. And in the world of American sports, if it doesn't happen on Sportscenter, it doesn't happen. For the casual American viewer -- exactly the kind of viewer Gary Bettman has spent his whole tenure messing with the league in order to attract -- hockey has fallen totally off the radar. Nobody on ESPN talks about hockey, so he doesn't ever think about it, and even if he wanted to watch the games, they're on an obscure channel up in the 600s that he probably doesn't get. No wonder the TV ratings are awful.

nice posts.

 

[Vercingetorix]

Anyway, in actual game-related content, did anybody other than me stay up to watch the whole 4 OT Canucks-Stars game last night? The Canucks blew a lead in the third period, and then desperately hung on against a much more active Stars team for almost 80 minutes of OT before managing to put a nice one-timer from the slot in the net. Between there being 4 OTs and it being in Vancouver, I was up till 3:30 Eastern watching it. Another example of how there really is nothing in sports quite as compelling as overtime in the Stanley Cup playoffs.

 

[Fine Vol]

Ah, Go Tampa

 

[Fine Vol]

We in Florida know hockey..................ok mabye not

 

[doozer]

Anyway, in actual game-related content, did anybody other than me stay up to watch the whole 4 OT Canucks-Stars game last night? The Canucks blew a lead in the third period, and then desperately hung on against a much more active Stars team for almost 80 minutes of OT before managing to put a nice one-timer from the slot in the net. Between there being 4 OTs and it being in Vancouver, I was up till 3:30 Eastern watching it. Another example of how there really is nothing in sports quite as compelling as overtime in the Stanley Cup playoffs.

i did, despite the fact that i really hate both teams.

my boys skate tonight. this is the time in the season when my confidence turns to pessimism. the Stanley Cup playoffs make me a nervous wreck, the only thing close to Tennessee football. and when their games go into overtime in the playoffs, it is magnified ten fold.

a quick look at the recent history of the Red Wings in the playoffs will show my lack of confidence.

 

[lawgator1]

Come on. Basing your argument on Aggregate Number of Eyeballs is a pretty flaccid effort for a lawyer. Do you spend your evenings watching American Idol and Dancing With the Stars because they're popular? Do you listen to Justin Timberlake and Avril Lavigne? Vox populi, vox Dei, right?

See, the lovely thing about living in a pluaristic society is that it's okay for people to like things that other people don't like. You can watch American Idol; we can watch the hockey playoffs. Other people might want to watch, say, women's basketball. But when you feel the need to go into every single thread about women's basketball or hockey just to tell those fans, YET AGAIN, that their sport is stupid and you don't care about it -- at that point you're not engaging in conversation anymore. At that point you're like one of these dogs who goes around vainly humping all the other male dogs, trying to be the alpha male. And that's never very pretty to watch, is it?

And the other lovely point is that you must be prepared for people to disagree with you and to razz you for liking things they don't. I would also point out that I gave two specific reasons for not liking it -- that there is too little scoring and that, on television, you can't see the flipping puck!!!

So, instead of simply trying to humilitate or drown out someone who, on a message board, criticizes your love of a sport legitimately mocked because it has such extraordinarily little broad based appeal (on television, anyway), how's about you get off the high horse and speak to the two issues I mentioned: no scoring and not being able to see the flipping puck!!!

Are those not reasonable criticisms? Tell you what, you want to post on a board where its all just rosy and how everything is great, you're at the wrong place, anywhow.

 

[Vercingetorix]

And the other lovely point is that you must be prepared for people to disagree with you and to razz you for liking things they don't. I would also point out that I gave two specific reasons for not liking it -- that there is too little scoring and that, on television, you can't see the flipping puck!!!

So, instead of simply trying to humilitate or drown out someone who, on a message board, criticizes your love of a sport legitimately mocked because it has such extraordinarily little broad based appeal (on television, anyway), how's about you get off the high horse and speak to the two issues I mentioned: no scoring and not being able to see the flipping puck!!!

Are those not reasonable criticisms? Tell you what, you want to post on a board where its all just rosy and how everything is great, you're at the wrong place, anywhow.

Obviously criticism and disagreement are not just welcome, but the whole point of discussion. Otherwise it's just a circle-jerk. Perhaps it was unfair of me to jump down your throat on your first foray into a hockey thread, but I've seen your posts in the women's basketball threads. I can barely watch women's basketball myself, even when it's my alma mater playing for the national championship, but I'm not going to go into every thread about it and tell the posters there that it sucks, and that they are implicitly idiots for caring about it. And then do it again in the next thread. And the next thread. And the next one. The first few times it's criticism; after that it's just noise.

I would be delighted to have some discussion about the issues you bring up, both of which are legitimate criticisms, and both of which are big reasons why the sport has had a lot of trouble growing in the US. Unfortunately I have a two-year-old yanking on my elbow wanting to go play outside for awhile, so I'll be happy to share my thoughts on those two things shortly.

 

[lawgator1]

Obviously criticism and disagreement are not just welcome, but the whole point of discussion. Otherwise it's just a circle-jerk. Perhaps it was unfair of me to jump down your throat on your first foray into a hockey thread, but I've seen your posts in the women's basketball threads. I can barely watch women's basketball myself, even when it's my alma mater playing for the national championship, but I'm not going to go into every thread about it and tell the posters there that it sucks, and that they are implicitly idiots for caring about it. And then do it again in the next thread. And the next thread. And the next one. The first few times it's criticism; after that it's just noise.

I would be delighted to have some discussion about the issues you bring up, both of which are legitimate criticisms, and both of which are big reasons why the sport has had a lot of trouble growing in the US. Unfortunately I have a two-year-old yanking on my elbow wanting to go play outside for awhile, so I'll be happy to share my thoughts on those two things shortly.

Ok. Tell you what I'm going to do. I confess freely that I went overboard on the women's basketball threads. It is a pet peeve of mine and has been for a number of years. My motivation is not Imus-like in any regard: I just cannot stand the inefficient use of dollars on that sport and its effort to mimick the infinitely superior athletic entertainment value of the men's game kills me. I admit that my deep disdain for women's basketball has made me way too obnoxious about it. Probably doesn't help that this board obviously is going to be the one place I can go vent my frustrations about it to an audience that is made up of some people that marginalyl care about it simply due to UT's success.

But, I've learned by my posting that, while the national average of people who like women';s basektball is about 0.0003 %, on here it is not much more than 0.0004 % and so my criticism of that sport pretty much falls on deaf ears and my constant posting on the subject simply makes me look the hysterical jerk I sometimes am.

Anyways, back to the subject at hand. I remember I believe ESPN with the puck-finder gizmo on their broadcasts that at least showed the movement of the puck. That was very helpful. I have friends that grew up on hockey and in fact an employee that played for St. Lawrence in college. They claim that, if you understand the game, you can pretty much sense where the puck is even if you can't necessarily locate it on the screen.

I've been to hockey games in person and those are very enjoyable but its totally different on television. To me, as an admittedly VERY casual fan, that is what is hurting the game. I can't follow it on the tv.

 

[doozer]

And the other lovely point is that you must be prepared for people to disagree with you and to razz you for liking things they don't. I would also point out that I gave two specific reasons for not liking it -- that there is too little scoring and that, on television, you can't see the flipping puck!!!

So, instead of simply trying to humilitate or drown out someone who, on a message board, criticizes your love of a sport legitimately mocked because it has such extraordinarily little broad based appeal (on television, anyway), how's about you get off the high horse and speak to the two issues I mentioned: no scoring and not being able to see the flipping puck!!!

Are those not reasonable criticisms? Tell you what, you want to post on a board where its all just rosy and how everything is great, you're at the wrong place, anywhow.

ok. i'll play. had you brought forth the issue of lack of scoring 2-3 years ago i would have agreed with you. however after the lockout the NHL did these things to increase scoring:

NHL Rule Changes - An assessment of NHL rule changes for 2005-06

last night's Dallas-Vancouver game had a final score of 5-4. that's 9 goals. i'm not sure how much more scoring you want. how is a baseball game with the same score any more exciting?

the problem with hockey isn't that it's boring, it's that people don't want to take the time to understand how the game is played and how it works. i will admit you have to watch the game to understand the flow and it's hard for the average fan to pick up the puck. after a few games you get the hang of it. the best thing you can do for yourself is to actually go to a game. this will allow you to see the whole rink and better understand what goes on behind the play and well as in the play.

also, i have maintained, and will continue to do so, that hockey players are the toughest, most skilled athletes in any sport. they combine the hand-eye cordination of baseball with the speed and hitting of football in the setting of areana football, all while on skates with blades 3/16th (i think) of an inch thick.

the TV issue was already adressed, so i won't further go into that. and somebody who compares women's basketball to hockey obviously hasn't taken the time to understand the game, so here's my challenge.

i challenge you to watch the Stanley Cup playoffs with an open mind. if you have questions about the game you can come on here and ask anything and i will do my best to answer your questions or find answers to your questions.

there is no more coveted pize in all of sports than the Lord Stanley's Cup.

edit: i had to go otu for a minute while you guys were posting, and i guess i got in a little late in my response.

 

[allvol123]

there is no more coveted pize in all of sports than the Lord Stanley's Cup.

You were doing alright until that remark.

 

[Fine Vol]

This ones gonna hurt..............I like hockey more than baseball.

 

[allvol123]

Me too.

 

[tidwell]

And then do it again in the next thread. And the next thread. And the next one. The first few times it's criticism; after that it's just noise.

Hey, at least there is only one hockey thread at the moment for him to crap all over.

 

[Vercingetorix]

Anyways, back to the subject at hand. I remember I believe ESPN with the puck-finder gizmo on their broadcasts that at least showed the movement of the puck. That was very helpful. I have friends that grew up on hockey and in fact an employee that played for St. Lawrence in college. They claim that, if you understand the game, you can pretty much sense where the puck is even if you can't necessarily locate it on the screen.

I've been to hockey games in person and those are very enjoyable but its totally different on television. To me, as an admittedly VERY casual fan, that is what is hurting the game. I can't follow it on the tv.

Your friends are right. Once you watch hockey for awhile, you don't try to just follow the puck -- you watch the players, and you can tell where the puck is. You see a guy take a slapshot outside the circles, and your eyes automatically go to the back of the net to see if it goes in.

Fox was treading an interesting line with the glow-puck; it made it easier for casual viewers to see what was going on, but it totally ruined it for people who routinely watch hockey -- suddenly the puck was the ONLY thing I could see. I sat there mindlessly following the puck around and missed what all the players were doing. Eventually they dumped it because they weren't pulling in enough new viewers to warrant offending their core audience.

The game just does not work on TV very well. It's not just the puck; the field of view is too small. You don't get to see the line changes behind the play, so you're missing a huge part of the action. It just looks like they dump the puck into the zone for no reason. Once you go to a few games, you know what's going on, but to the casual viewer it looks pointless. Some people think that this will improve once everybody has gone to a 16:9 aspect TV, as you can fit more of the ice into that screen, but I doubt it -- hockey on television is always going to be a poor substitute for being there, unfortunately.

 

[SWIL]

THRASHERS BABY!! You gotta believe!!

 

[Vercingetorix]

You were doing alright until that remark.

Hahaha. Unfortunately, you're right. My money would be on the FIFA World Cup for that one.

(There's only one trophy for that sport, too. Winners only get to keep a replica after the next tournament.)

 

[allvol123]

Hahaha. Unfortunately, you're right. My money would be on the FIFA World Cup for that one.

(There's only one trophy for that sport, too. Winners only get to keep a replica after the next tournament.)

But hockey is an awesome sport. Especially the NHL playoffs. It is a shame they have the worst commisioner in major North American sports.

 

[Vercingetorix]

THRASHERS BABY!! You gotta believe!!

Yes indeed. I went to the first game in Thrashers history in 1999, and tonight I'm going to the first playoff game in Thrashers history. Very much looking forward to it.

(I could do without 4 OT tonight, though. My sister's babysitting the boy, and she'd KILL me if I didn't get back until 2 AM.)

 

[Vercingetorix]

But hockey is an awesome sport. Especially the NHL playoffs. It is a shame they have the worst commisioner in major North American sports.

Gary Bettman runs the NHL as though he were still working for the NBA and trying to eliminate a competitor.

 

[lawgator1]

Your friends are right. Once you watch hockey for awhile, you don't try to just follow the puck -- you watch the players, and you can tell where the puck is. You see a guy take a slapshot outside the circles, and your eyes automatically go to the back of the net to see if it goes in.

Fox was treading an interesting line with the glow-puck; it made it easier for casual viewers to see what was going on, but it totally ruined it for people who routinely watch hockey -- suddenly the puck was the ONLY thing I could see. I sat there mindlessly following the puck around and missed what all the players were doing. Eventually they dumped it because they weren't pulling in enough new viewers to warrant offending their core audience.

The game just does not work on TV very well. It's not just the puck; the field of view is too small. You don't get to see the line changes behind the play, so you're missing a huge part of the action. It just looks like they dump the puck into the zone for no reason. Once you go to a few games, you know what's going on, but to the casual viewer it looks pointless. Some people think that this will improve once everybody has gone to a 16:9 aspect TV, as you can fit more of the ice into that screen, but I doubt it -- hockey on television is always going to be a poor substitute for being there, unfortunately.

My mistake. Fox I guess had it. That was where when the puck moved there was a red line showing it, right? See, I found that immensely helpful to me while I guess it just annoyed the educated fans. Wish there was some way to accomplish both.

I don't have anything against the sport in general, although its not something as a native Floridian I ever had much exposure to. Its the fact that on tv, for the uneducated, it is just impossible to follow.

 

[lawgator1]

Hey, at least there is only one hockey thread at the moment for him to crap all over.

Solution: Start a second one.

:dance2:

 

[Vercingetorix]

I don't have a lot to add with regard to the low scoring; there's no doubt that Americans like offense, and hockey just doesn't have a lot of it. Between modern players being too big for the ice and the trapping defenses that have become so prevalent, you're just going to see more scores of 3-1 and 4-2 than you will 7-5 and 6-3. I don't know what else the league could do without radically altering the game. One of the best solutions would be to go to the larger ice surface that they use in international play, but it would be problematic to retrofit all these existing arenas with a bigger ice sheet.

Personally, I don't think much is wrong with the amount of scoring in the game now. It's not like soccer, where about every 20 minutes fans scoot to the edge of their seats because something exciting MIGHT be about to happen. In hockey, scoring chances happen all the time, even if not that many actually go in. Every few minutes you're turning to the guy next to you and saying, "Can you believe that?!? I can't freaking BELIEVE we didn't score!!", etc.

And that's what makes the hockey playoffs the most compelling thing in sports, IMHO. Last night the Stars and Canucks played one minute shy of four full overtimes of 20 minutes apiece. Up and down the ice for almost 80 minutes, with the game in the balance every time. There were dozens of good chances for both teams to score; about four or five shots beat the goalies but rang off the post. Vancouver had to kill off a 5-3 power play at one point, almost unheard of in a playoff overtime. By the end the players were so exhausted they could barely even lift their heads on the bench, but somehow they kept going. It's great to watch, even if you don't really care who wins; if it's YOUR team playing a game like that, though, by the end you're just wrung out and drained like you played the game yourself.

Of course, in a year or two Bettman will probably get rid of that, too, and go to four-on-four in the playoffs. Or a shootout or something. If they ever mess around with overtime in the playoffs, that would be it for me. I'd be done with them.

 

[doozer]

Hahaha. Unfortunately, you're right. My money would be on the FIFA World Cup for that one.

(There's only one trophy for that sport, too. Winners only get to keep a replica after the next tournament.)

i'm going to have to disagree.

 

[lawgator1]

Soccer is to me the penultimate example of a sport that has a long way to go to ever be watched by "mainstream" American fans. I read an article about this and it stuck out in my mind because it addresses how it can be that the game is so popular among the American youth but just not getting any legs (no pun intended) with the typical U.S. sports fan.

One of the reasons was the scoring thing. I think that's huge.

Another reason, which really resonated with me, is the keeping of injury time on the field. We Americans are addicted to flurry finishes and beat-the-clock shots. In basketball games we fight for tenths of a second on the clock and everyone is working the endgame around that. In football, use of timeouts and the 2 minute warning and when the clock stops and starts are just ultra important. Coaching careers have been lost over clock mismanagement.

But when you watch soccer, there's a 45 minute half and then, when it reaches that point, there's just some undefined "extra time" left and the only guy that knows it is the official who is just sort of guesstimating how much to add on. A totally insane concept to those of us used to figuring "okay, there's a 4 second differential between the shot clock and the game clock, and we've got a foul to give, let's run it down and then foul and force them to inbound with 5.4 seconds left" ....

I think that is an enormous reason soccer is sort of stagnant in this country as a tv-based spectator sport.

 

[Vercingetorix]

i'm going to have to disagree.

Well, you said that "there is no more coveted prize in sports" than the Stanley Cup. My sympathies are completely with you, but obviously there are championships that a lot more people care about. If you mean the actual trophy....well, there's only one FIFA World Cup, too. And I'm afraid that there are probably 100 times as many people who care who wins that than there are who care who wins the Stanley Cup.

There is no more legendary trophy than the Cup, I'll agree with that. I just can't see that it's the most coveted.