decade of decline for the NHL

[eatapeach]

"A decade ago the NHL was considered a rising hot property in the U.S. sports market. The 1994 Stanley Cup finals between the New York Rangers and Vancouver Canucks was one of the most exciting and memorable in NHL history and was cited as one of the biggest sporting events of that year.

The on-ice product was never better, a perfect balance of high-octane offense and skilled defense. Attendance was healthy and growing, while television viewership was on the rise, leading to a lucrative deal with Fox. The league was well into its plans to expand to what they believed were untapped markets in the southern United States.

Indeed, the future looked so bright that Sports Illustrated actually suggested the NHL was better than the National Basketball Association.

What a difference 10 years can make."

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/2687502

[Mike AI]

I am a new hockey fan. I read the article, the problem is it did not suggest what needs to be done to boost ratings again.

A work stopage could be disasterous, but what else needs to be done to make it a better game?

[DrGuile]

Originally posted by eatapeach@Aug 24 2004, 10:33 AM
The on-ice product was never better, a perfect balance of high-octane offense and skilled defense. Attendance was healthy and growing, while television viewership was on the rise, leading to a lucrative deal with Fox. The league was well into its plans to expand to what they believed were untapped markets in the southern United States.

That's such BS... in 1994 people were crying about how hockey now sucked. How it wasnt like the good old days.

Just like they do now.

Let me guess, this is a NYC writer? Golly gee, you found the NHL more exciting when the Rangers didnt suck like 2$ whores? How surprising.

Teams werent striving back than either. a bunch of canadian/north teams were moved to the southern US. That's not exactly prosperity.


dummy.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by DrGuile+Aug 24 2004, 10:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DrGuile @ Aug 24 2004, 10:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-eatapeach@Aug 24 2004, 10:33 AM
The on-ice product was never better, a perfect balance of high-octane offense and skilled defense. Attendance was healthy and growing, while television viewership was on the rise, leading to a lucrative deal with Fox. The league was well into its plans to expand to what they believed were untapped markets in the southern United States.

That's such BS... in 1994 people were crying about how hockey now sucked. How it wasnt like the good old days.

Just like they do now.

Let me guess, this is a NYC writer? Golly gee, you found the NHL more exciting when the Rangers didnt suck like 2$ whores? How surprising.

Teams werent striving back than either. a bunch of canadian/north teams were moved to the southern US. That's not exactly prosperity.


dummy. [/b][/quote]


WOW! I guess I have the Canadien view!

B)

[eatapeach]

actually, i don't think there's anything wrong with hockey that removing the instigator penalty wouldn't solve.

the only other thing i could think of would be removing the red line and letting the fastest players run up and down the ice like hooligans on speed. barry melrose says that the game is better with the red line, so what do i know?

i do think the rushed expansion was detrimental to hockey and heavily diluted the quality of players, thus leading to the current clutch-and-grab style of hockey that the 1995 nj devils popularized. whenever i watch old games on espn classic i can't believe how much more open the game was in the past.

with the speed of today's players and no muggings each trip down the ice nhl hockey would be just fine. that and about 10 less teams.

[DrGuile]

Originally posted by eatapeach@Aug 24 2004, 02:24 PM
actually, i don't think there's anything wrong with hockey that removing the instigator penalty wouldn't solve.

the only other thing i could think of would be removing the red line and letting the fastest players run up and down the ice like hooligans on speed. barry melrose says that the game is better with the red line, so what do i know?

i do think the rushed expansion was detrimental to hockey and heavily diluted the quality of players, thus leading to the current clutch-and-grab style of hockey that the 1995 nj devils popularized. whenever i watch old games on espn classic i can't believe how much more open the game was in the past.

with the speed of today's players and no muggings each trip down the ice nhl hockey would be just fine. that and about 10 less teams.
That's about right

8 less teams, 15 less games. That would help a whole lot.

but I dont really have a problem with the rules. If the players were just a tad better, it would be fine. Tampa proved that a fast talented team can win. So did Calgary actually. Players just suck too much nowadays... its lowest-common-denominator-hochey.


For the money side, they juts need to go to a NBA or NFL model... no way around it...

[Evil Chris]

Pro hockey players are some of the hardest working pro athletes there are.
My opinion is that they earn way too much money (as most pro athletes do), but personally I think hockey players work harder for the money they make.

However, having said that, I'd agree with Guile that something needs to be done about the financial model in the game. Some kind of salary cap *is* needed, and arbitration needs to be monitored and approved by a third party.

I'm not overly concerned about how popular the game is south of the border. I'm more concerned about the remaining Canadian franchises. Hockey will always be popular in Canada, no matter the level of play.

[Mike AI]

There needs to be some comprmise worked out. NHL cannot support NBA type salaries. Hope player realize that soon, and something gets worked out.

[Evil Chris]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Aug 26 2004, 10:51 AM
There needs to be some comprmise worked out. NHL cannot support NBA type salaries.
It isn't. Incredibly, the overall salaries in the NBA are approx double what they are in the NHL, Mike. Which is absolutely ridiculous. The NBA "salary cap" is a joke in my opinion.

Oddly enough, this morning I received my Montreal Canadiens schedule and offers for tickets for the upcoming season. If there is one.

[Evil Chris]

NBA salaries, team by team for 2003/2004
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/...px?year=2003-04 (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/salaries/mediansalaries.aspx?year=2003-04)

NHL salaries, team by team for 2003/2004
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/...px?year=2003-04 (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/salaries/mediansalaries.aspx?year=2003-04)

[DrGuile]

Originally posted by Evil Chris+Aug 26 2004, 10:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Evil Chris @ Aug 26 2004, 10:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Aug 26 2004, 10:51 AM
There needs to be some comprmise worked out. NHL cannot support NBA type salaries.
It isn't. Incredibly, the overall salaries in the NBA are approx double what they are in the NHL, Mike. Which is absolutely ridiculous. The NBA "salary cap" is a joke in my opinion.

Oddly enough, this morning I received my Montreal Canadiens schedule and offers for tickets for the upcoming season. If there is one. [/b][/quote]
I think NBA salaries reflect the money being generated by the NBA... which is what every league should be.

The NHL does NOT make as much money as the nba, hence salaries shuold be lower.

I think the salary cap should be based on like a xx% average of what the teams make on average. and could not be below that percentage minus like 10% or something...

[eatapeach]

why not try revenue sharing? that's what allows places like green bay wisconsin ( population 102,313 ) to have a championship calibre team in the NFL.

i am 100% on the players side of this issue. the owners want the players to take a paycut but there is no talk of the owners making their own income concessions.

remember, the players don't make up their contracts, the teams do. they wouldn't sign the contracts if they didn't feel that paying chris pronger $9 million or jarome iginla $7 million a season was worth it to their team.

[DrGuile]

Originally posted by eatapeach@Aug 26 2004, 02:51 PM
why not try revenue sharing? that's what allows places like green bay wisconsin ( population 102,313 ) to have a championship calibre team in the NFL.

i am 100% on the players side of this issue. the owners want the players to take a paycut but there is no talk of the owners making their own income concessions.

remember, the players don't make up their contracts, the teams do. they wouldn't sign the contracts if they didn't feel that paying chris pronger $9 million or jarome iginla $7 million a season was worth it to their team.
there are two sides to every coin.


revenue sharing for the owners, salary cap for the players.


but like Chris said, I really dont care about the sport being popular in the USA...

[slavdogg]

>> A league that now supposedly rates behind arena football in U.S. viewership

thats sad..