Zamboni_14 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Why not allow all teams to build there ice surface from 85 - 100 ft wide. Whatever suits the team they have. The Bruins and Sabres had smaller rinks than the current ones and played in many exciting games. It is all about style of play. Goalies have changed the game more than anything. The equipment is ridiculous. They argue that they need it to protect themselves yet players continue to block shots fearlessly. Reduce the equipment or make the nets bigger. Secondly the style of coaching needs to change. Pretty sad when you go watch a junior A game and they are playing a 1-2-2. Hockey needs to come up with a way of instituting an illegal defense ruling. 2 warnings then a penalty. Third..... The point system needs to change. The current system is laughable. If you lose you should get nothing. Create the incentive to win a game during 60 minutes not play cautious to insure a point. In the current system you can go a whole season without 1 win and achieve 82 pts. Laughable!!! I would take it a step further and say 3 pts for 4 goal regulation win..... This would change the coaching mindset overnight in my opinion and would not effect the playoffs in any way. Lastly... I hope the league does re-align and playoff rivalries with your own division come back. Also hope that we actually get hockey this fall with CBA negotiations pending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester@wraiths.ca Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 the goalie situation... I've actually addressed in this thread (a few pages ago... raise the nets 6".) Point structure... I agree that something needs to be changed. My idea (which kind of goes along your thinking) is; 3 points= regulation win 2 points= OT win 1 point= shootout win 0 points= any loss That gives the teams that win in regulation consistently an added advantage in the standings (versus the teams that rely on shootout victories.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whcanuck Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 I just want to say that this has nothing to do with the Canucks, they lost I've dealt with it and moved on. The playoffs this year from round 3 on have been dreadfully boring. Not just the on-ice product, but the television production is horrid as well. Jim Hughson is good, but everyone else on CBC is so obnoxious or just plain dense. All these ex-players turned announcers think they know everything about hockey because they were athletically gifted? please. They're usually biased towards the team they played most of their career with. American television is even worse. The announcers are incredibly bad and don't add anything intelligent or hockey-related half the time. Jim Hughson calls the action on the ice, A lot of American announcers are carrying on a conversation when their job is to call the game play-by-play. It's not just the on-ice product that's substandard, it's the way it's brought onto our television screen that's poor as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sting Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 That makes no sense. For a point system to be balanced every game must always produce the same number of points into the standings. A proper 3 point system is; regulation win = 3 points , loss = 0, total 3 points OT/SO win = 2 points, loss= 1 , total 3 points No phantom points that artificially inflate the standings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
votrechien Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Agreed. One of the worst playoffs ever. There were hardly any compelling storylines the entire playoffs. PHI/PIT was one of the best series ever- after that there was nothing. And agreed with the poster who said there's no consistency in the scheduling. Make every game, every other day. I too had no idea when a game was going to be on when it wasn't, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
votrechien Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 You like watching trash defense and goaltending? You like watching teams that can't play a well structured game win the cup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StenMan.EXE Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Fire Bettman, problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamboni_14 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 That makes no sense. For a point system to be balanced every game must always produce the same number of points into the standings. A proper 3 point system is; regulation win = 3 points , loss = 0, total 3 points OT/SO win = 2 points, loss= 1 , total 3 points No phantom points that artificially inflate the standings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Agreed. I think it would just increase the perimeter play even more and that shouldn't be the goal. Bigger ice surfaces just force the play outside. The real goal needs to be to open up the middle of the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I don't quite understand though how a larger surface forces the play to the perimeter. Surely a guy like Booth or Ovechkin would have a field day with all that space in the centre.........not to mention guys like Raymond and Ballard having more room to accelerate in. I am not convinced, some of the best net drivers (Bure, Ovechkin Malkin) grew up and played in Russia where the ice surface is larger. I would need convincing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouverStyle Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I can honestly say i've watched a total of 5 minutes of the cup final. I'm a hockey fan and try to watch as much as possible, but the interest level was not there for me during the cup final round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevforever Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Dont know what they expected. Nothing against the Kings and Devils, but they dont have those big name stars that are gonna get the averge joe to skip over NBA games to watch. Plus last yr there was the excitement in teams that hated each other, loyal and passionate fanbases and a Canadian club. The excitement kind of left the playoffs this year way to early and there were times when the NBA Conf. Finals held more drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I kind of hate to admit it, but I'm pretty much convinced that last year's final received better ratings thanks to the fact that Vancouver were successfully billed as villains. Look a WWE, or WWF in the past. All of the biggest PPVs feature a good vs. evil storyline, something which media and fans alike managed to create during last year's playoffs. A lot of fans, both in the US and Canada, watched because they wanted to see the Canucks lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cs2016 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I kind of hate to admit it, but I'm pretty much convinced that last year's final received better ratings thanks to the fact that Vancouver were successfully billed as villains. Look a WWE, or WWF in the past. All of the biggest PPVs feature a good vs. evil storyline, something which media and fans alike managed to create during last year's playoffs. A lot of fans, both in the US and Canada, watched because they wanted to see the Canucks lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamboni_14 Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 ok I have to ask... why should we care what the ratings are? People are always saying how they don't want Gary to expand to "non-traditional" markets, well the best way to keep that from happening is for nobody to care about hockey. Look at the NBA and how they get all kinds of ratings to the point where they moved teams all over the place (Oklahoma City!!!???? I didn't even know they were big enough to support a local adult league.) Anyways, I could really care less how bad the ratings get as long as I have access to the games. Had they been "great" all this time, we might be stuck watching tape delay games after NBA games and MLB games are done for the day. You think that is better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 ok I have to ask... why should we care what the ratings are? People are always saying how they don't want Gary to expand to "non-traditional" markets, well the best way to keep that from happening is for nobody to care about hockey. Look at the NBA and how they get all kinds of ratings to the point where they moved teams all over the place (Oklahoma City!!!???? I didn't even know they were big enough to support a local adult league.) Anyways, I could really care less how bad the ratings get as long as I have access to the games. Had they been "great" all this time, we might be stuck watching tape delay games after NBA games and MLB games are done for the day. You think that is better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oregon Canucky Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 I can NOT believe the stuff comming out of my mouth durring the SCF... i said things like "I wish the kings would hurry up an win so i dont have to watch hockey any more." I actually dreaded watching the BORING games... I dont have anything against the teams, the rules, or anything else, but that WAS very freaking boring to watch. I was in the pool of those who "tuned-in" but i was in the other room most of the time... uhg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACanuck Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Although a ratings disaster nationally, the SCF got a 24 point share(24% viewing) locally in LA. The news has been touting how successful its been here. A double edge sword that may result from the success of the Kings is that AIG(owner of the team) is now seen as competent in running a team. This may result in a football team coming to LA next year. If that happens, the Kings will fall further down the chain of popularity than the other sports here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsman Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I think it's more a case of people not wanting expansion into markets that have demonstrated a lack of interest in hockey. Case in point: Atlanta. We all realize that it's a large US market and that it would be great if hockey could be popular there, but the reality is that it lies somewhere between high school basketball and tractor-pulls in popularity amongst Georgians. I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally think that it would be great if people in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Miami felt as we do about the game we all love, but it's never likely to be the case. However, when we have an NHL final between two non-traditional markets as we did this year, ratings are going to suffer. Would more consistency in the way games are called help? It's hard to say, but some of us feel that it certainly couldn't hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkpoet Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 The ratings sucked because you had an 8th seed vs. a 6th seed, and both of them play defensive systems. I managed to watch 3 periods of the Final over 6 games, and even that was a chore. Philly vs. Pittsburgh was awesome. Lots of goals, lots of fights, lots of hits, fast pace, lots of PASSION.... all the things that were lacking sorely in the Final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.