Hockey Fans

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:52 pm

The fuck?

I'm not a knowledgeable fan of the game but I usually get out to see the Ducks four or five times a season and I'd like to get more into it but work stoppages/lockouts every couple years makes it kinda tough. It's a great sport that should be more popular in the US than it is. It's fast paced, physical and entertaining even if you don't quite fully understand what's happening on the ice.

What's the beef this time?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:57 pm

Sudden Sam wrote:Actually hockey is enjoyable...if you're present...but not on TV.

You don't even watch hockey on TV so how the fuck would you know?

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:57 pm

Money.

Owners want to reduce the split of revenue from what the players received previously (57%) to (47%) over the course of a few years. Some of the smaller market teams are struggling and could be in danger in a few years. The players seem to understand this too, but disagree on how to get there.

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:40 pm

Bettman should have never expanded the NHL into Florida, Columbus OH and AZ among other places and how he wants the players to give up their share in revenue for his piss poor mistakes.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:22 pm

mvscal wrote:
Sudden Sam wrote:Actually hockey is enjoyable...if you're present...but not on TV.
You don't even watch hockey on TV so how the fuck would you know?

Pretty much. Pro basketball is absolutely abominable both live and on TV. I love basketball but pro basketball is a joke and the sport live is about appealing to non-fans with "entertainment aspects."

Jim is right. There is nothing more I want in live than to have Gary Bettman either run over by a cement truck or brutally blown away on a busy Manhattan street corner. This is his third work stoppage since 1994. Maybe these stupid fucking owners should hire some real lawyers who know how to negotiate proper collective bargaining agreements the first time around. Hockey is the last sport that can afford consistent work stoppages, but like Democrats in DC, hockey fans are so loyal ownership pisses in their faces. It's a shame.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:47 pm

Left Seater wrote:Money.

Owners want to reduce the split of revenue from what the players received previously (57%) to (47%) over the course of a few years. Some of the smaller market teams are struggling and could be in danger in a few years. The players seem to understand this too, but disagree on how to get there.

Pretty much this...the last system was supposed to work for the owners but ended up working out well for the players since HRR went up each and thus the salary cap would go up. The encouraging thing is the players are willing to give back but the question is, how much do they have to give back to satisfy the owners.

I personally think the owners need a system to protect themselves from themselves. The long-term contracts (10+ years) have become a major flashpoint in how teams can circumvent the cap. Teams have figured out ways to cheat the system they came up with the level the playing field. In reality, the league is very balanced competively (different champions every season since the new CBA) but still have a few franchises that struggle financially. You'll never convince me this league should stay at 30 teams or more because of the instability of the non-traditional markets.

What bothers me is the league is prospering but several teams are still struggling to survive. The league as a whole has to suffer because of a few runt franchises. Bettman is too stubborn to not to the bold thing and blow them away and would rather continue to force these square peg markets into round holes. There are just some markets that should have never gotten teams. As a hockey fan, we have to get used to potential nuclear winter every time a CBA expires because the squeaky wheels need greasing.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:17 pm

Shoalzie wrote:The long-term contracts (10+ years) have become a major flashpoint in how teams can circumvent the cap.

Are they really circumventing the cap or are they fucking themselves in the ass? Are player contracts fully guaranteed in the NHL and do they have a hard cap like football? A guaranteed ten year contract seems like a great way to fuck yourself with dead cap space.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:29 pm

Minor league hockey is alive and well (as far as I know) here in the form of the Everblades of the ECHL. They play in a 7K+ arena south of me in Estero. They won the Kelly Cup, ECHL's version of the Stanley Cup, last season. They are affiliated with Tampa of the NHL and Syracuse of the AHL. I guess that puts them in a category of like a AA baseball team. I've never been to a game. I have gone to see my alma mater the University of Maine play down here during Christmas vacations in the Everblade's NCAA college tournament. I know of some folks here who are hard core fans of the Everblades. I guess they are making money and hockey seems to be set here. Since I moved here in 2010, I've seen a couple of arena football teams and a couple minor league basketball programs come and go due to lack of interest. The Class A Fort Myers Miracle baseball team seems going well. The Twin's just signed an extension for them as their level A team through 2014.

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:59 pm

As long as they work it out in time for the playoffs, that's all that really matters....

Sin,

SoCalHockeyFan

Home of the Stanley Cup

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:54 pm

Hockey is the suck on TV. You just don't appreciate the speed or violence on the tube. Plus, live you are so close to the action. Football and baseball are better on the tube, IMO. You are too far away, especially in football.

The other sport that is sooo much better live is racing, especially local 1/2 mile track stuff. So much better than the superspeedway draftathon. I don't give a fukk if you don't like racing, go see your local friday night races. I dare you to not have fun.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:31 am

mvscal wrote:
Shoalzie wrote:The long-term contracts (10+ years) have become a major flashpoint in how teams can circumvent the cap.
Are they really circumventing the cap or are they fucking themselves in the ass? Are player contracts fully guaranteed in the NHL and do they have a hard cap like football? A guaranteed ten year contract seems like a great way to fuck yourself with dead cap space.

How the cap works in the NHL, you take the average salary for the length of the deal and that's the cap figure for the life of the deal regardless of what the yearly amount is paid each year. A 4-year deal of $16 million has a cap hit of $4 million per year. For example, the contract could pay out $5 million in the first year, $4 million in the second and third years and then $3 million in the fourth and final year...the cap it is the same no matter what. You've got guys signed into their 40s where the end of the contracts are quite small as far as actual salary. You look contracts like Marian Hossa or Henrik Zetterberg or Ilya Kovalchuk...the contracts are long in length and mostly front loaded to pay the guy more money in the prime of their careers and the end of the deals are typical much smaller salaries but of course, the cap hit is still the same.

The contracts are basically guaranteed but can be bought out. It's not like the NFL where you have the signing bonus serving as the guaranteed salary and teams are on the hook for that no matter what. The buy out process is pretty complicated but teams are able to get out of deals but still owe a "dead cap" number for what I believe would be for the remainder of the contract. It's a fraction of the amount...I don't know all the specifics of how that's determined if it is based on salary or years remaining on the deal or age of the player.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:26 pm

Wolfman wrote:Minor league hockey is alive and well (as far as I know) here in the form of the Everblades of the ECHL. They play in a 7K+ arena south of me in Estero. They won the Kelly Cup, ECHL's version of the Stanley Cup, last season.

The ECHL is garbage.

smackaholic wrote:Hockey is the suck on TV. You just don't appreciate the speed or violence on the tube. Plus, live you are so close to the action. Football and baseball are better on the tube, IMO.

That might be the worst take I've ever heard in my life. I love baseball but to say baseball is a better TV sport than hockey is ludicrous. Hockey is just fine as a TV sport, it just takes more than two brain cells to run together to appreciate, which apparently you completely lack.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:56 pm

The ECHL is garbage? As compared to what? Sure it isn't the NHL, but it doesn't claim to be. It is double A of the minor league system.

As for hockey on tv I watch it all the time but feel it is one of the worst TV sports. (Granted I don't watch the NBA at all, but that prolly translates to TV better too). You have to assume some things like a finished check or a hit behind the puck, who is changing, weak side rotations, etc. I won't stop watching, but you lose a ton by watching on tv.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:24 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:I love baseball but to say baseball is a better TV sport than hockey is ludicrous.

I don't think it's ludicrous. Baseball is great on TV because you can see the break and movement from a pitch; when you're in the mezzanine, every pitch just looks like a straight line to the catcher. That said, I think all the major sports translate just fine to TV. TV technology has come a long way, so unless you're watching on some 19" regular def television, it is hard not to enjoy any of the sports. But here's the key: actually enjoying the sport itself or having a rooting interest. That's where the biases are coming into play in this thread.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:24 pm

Left Seater wrote:As for hockey on tv I watch it all the time but feel it is one of the worst TV sports. (Granted I don't watch the NBA at all, but that prolly translates to TV better too). You have to assume some things like a finished check or a hit behind the puck, who is changing, weak side rotations, etc. I won't stop watching, but you lose a ton by watching on tv.

Hockey is at least better on the 16:9 HD format than 4:3 Sd since you can see more of the ice but it can't replicate being able watch the entire play in person. A lot happens just outside what it shown on screen. Plus, you can't replicate the sounds inside an arena.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:54 pm

Left Seater wrote:The ECHL is garbage? As compared to what? Sure it isn't the NHL, but it doesn't claim to be. It is double A of the minor league system.

Compared to everything else. I guess if I lived in an entertainment backwater I would accept the ECHL for what it is. But in hockey rich Michigan, I'll take college and Junior A over the AHL and ECHL any day of the week.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:26 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:I love baseball but to say baseball is a better TV sport than hockey is ludicrous.
I don't think it's ludicrous. Baseball is great on TV because you can see the break and movement from a pitch; when you're in the mezzanine, every pitch just looks like a straight line to the catcher. That said, I think all the major sports translate just fine to TV. TV technology has come a long way, so unless you're watching on some 19" regular def television, it is hard not to enjoy any of the sports. But here's the key: actually enjoying the sport itself or having a rooting interest. That's where the biases are coming into play in this thread.

Sure hockey is better on a 65 inch LED, but, it's still nothing like watching it live. And what Mgooo said, you miss so much watching baseball live and TV has had over 60 years of practice covering baseball so, they kinda got it down. Unless you are sitting right behind the plate, you can't tell a good curve from a shit one, live.

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:09 am

smackaholic wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:I love baseball but to say baseball is a better TV sport than hockey is ludicrous.
I don't think it's ludicrous. Baseball is great on TV because you can see the break and movement from a pitch; when you're in the mezzanine, every pitch just looks like a straight line to the catcher. That said, I think all the major sports translate just fine to TV. TV technology has come a long way, so unless you're watching on some 19" regular def television, it is hard not to enjoy any of the sports. But here's the key: actually enjoying the sport itself or having a rooting interest. That's where the biases are coming into play in this thread.
Sure hockey is better on a 65 inch LED, but, it's still nothing like watching it live. And what Mgooo said, you miss so much watching baseball live and TV has had over 60 years of practice covering baseball so, they kinda got it down.

They've been televising hockey at least since I was a kid (albeit somewhat sporadically), so I don't think it's necessarily lack of experience that accounts for the poor quality of televised hockey as opposed to watching it live. I think many others have hit on some of the factors. Also, the hockey puck is much more difficult to track visually than the ball used in other sports, and TV only exacerbates that difference. There are ways to make the puck more easily visible, of course, but those would translate into even less scoring than you see now, so they would hurt ratings in that respect.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:21 am

I recommend a televised 'chem trail' for the puck. Wherever the puck goes, a large red, laser beam trail should follow it. Allowing you to follow wherever the puck is on your screen.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:02 pm

KC Scott wrote:They tried that - it sucked

Sarcasm, much? Jesus.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:02 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:There are ways to make the puck more easily visible

What, exactly, would you suggest? Specifics, please.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:40 pm

KC Scott wrote:Not many people remember when NBC tried the original puck trail back in the 80s

Technology has improved just a little bit since then, yes?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:59 pm

KC Scott wrote:Not many people remember when NBC tried the original puck trail back in the 80s

Are you talking about the NHL? :?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:11 pm

I don't recall any glowing pucks on TV until at least the mid 90s, maybe later.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:15 pm

[quote="Terry in Crapchester]They've been televising hockey at least since I was a kid (albeit somewhat sporadically), so I don't think it's necessarily lack of experience that accounts for the poor quality of televised hockey as opposed to watching it live. I think many others have hit on some of the factors. Also, the hockey puck is much more difficult to track visually than the ball used in other sports, and TV only exacerbates that difference. There are ways to make the puck more easily visible, of course, but those would translate into even less scoring than you see now, so they would hurt ratings in that respect.[/quote]

If by somewhat sporadically, you mean just about never, then yeah, it's been sporadic.

The bottom line is, Hockey is not a good TV sport. It is decent enough for big fans, but the casual fan, not so much.

That being said, the single greatest TV sport moment of my life and I am quite sure many of your lives, was a fuggen hockey game, so go figure.

Oddly enough, I do find a well called radio hockey game pretty decent.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:22 pm

smackaholic wrote:the single greatest TV sport moment of my life and I am quite sure many of your lives, was a fuggen hockey game

Horrible TV sport.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:03 pm

smackaholic wrote:That being said, the single greatest TV sport moment of my life and I am quite sure many of your lives, was a fuggen hockey game

This.

/s/

Marty & Phibes
2010

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:53 pm

It's a shame they don't bring it back, you'd never hear the end of it.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:27 pm

smackaholic wrote:The bottom line is, Hockey is not a good TV sport.

Bullshit. Football and hockey are easily the best TV sports. Unless it's the 7th game of the World Series, I'd rather watch paint dry than baseball on TV and the NBA is completely unwatchable in any format.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:50 pm

mvscal wrote:
smackaholic wrote:The bottom line is, Hockey is not a good TV sport.
Bullshit. Football and hockey are easily the best TV sports. Unless it's the 7th game of the World Series, I'd rather watch paint dry than baseball on TV and the NBA is completely unwatchable in any format.

Uhhhh, I have to agree with every single thought mvscal typed.

I promise mvscal is not Left Seater and Left Seater is not mvscal.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:48 am

I'll watch regular season football on TV because each game is quite important. Reg. season baseball, not so much, so I rarely watch it. But playoff baseball, if it's a close game is awesome to watch.

ML@Coyote · Post by **ML@Coyote** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:21 am

No one has mentioned boxing. Like hockey, you lose something not seeing it live, but it's one of my favorite TV sports. Call me old fashioned, but I can't really get into today's popular homo-erotic octogon brawls. But I don't think you can beat a good boxing match on the tube, a leather-slapping, flesh-pounding dose of the ol' sweet science. True, the golden years appear to be over, but there is still a match worth seeing every now and again.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:23 am

Basketball is the only sport that is dramatically different seeing it live.

Still, college basketball is the best TV sport going right now.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:25 am

Martyred wrote:Still, college basketball is the best TV sport going right now.

You're an embarassment to Canada.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:30 am

mvscal wrote:
Martyred wrote:Still, college basketball is the best TV sport going right now.
You're an embarassment to Canada.

Martyred wrote:...right now.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:32 am

What are you? Bill Clinton now?

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:02 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:There are ways to make the puck more easily visible
What, exactly, would you suggest? Specifics, please.

For starters, they could make the puck larger and/or a different color that might show up a little more easily for the human eye -- I'm thinking red or orange.

Alternatively, they could make it illegal for players to tape their sticks with black tape. That might help make it a little more visible as well.

There's a downside to this, of course. If the puck becomes easier for a spectator watching on TV to track visually, it also becomes easier for the goalie to track visually. So scoring probably would go down.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:29 am

Those are your suggestions?

You are a idiot.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:44 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
They've been televising hockey at least since I was a kid (albeit somewhat sporadically), so I don't think it's necessarily lack of experience that accounts for the poor quality of televised hockey as opposed to watching it live. I think many others have hit on some of the factors. Also, the hockey puck is much more difficult to track visually than the ball used in other sports, and TV only exacerbates that difference. There are ways to make the puck more easily visible, of course, but those would translate into even less scoring than you see now, so they would hurt ratings in that respect.

It's not lack of of experience, it's lack of interest. If you don't give a shit about hockey then you're going to post in this thread about what a horrible sport it is on TV. There aren't many sports more exciting than rugby, live or on TV, yet I could give a shit about the any sort of Tri-Nations or whatever so end up turning the channel after 10 minutes.

And what's so hard about following a black puck on white ice? No different than watching a tiny ass golf ball other than you're used to one sport and not the other. And even if you don't see the puck it's quite obvious where the action is focused.

If you don't give a shit about a sport by the time you've graduated high school then you're probably never going to come around on it.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:29 pm

Truman wrote:
smackaholic wrote:That being said, the single greatest TV sport moment of my life and I am quite sure many of your lives, was a fuggen hockey game
This.

/s/

Marty & Phibes
2010

mind yer place newb, don't forget your roots.

errr, who?