NHL, closer to agreement...Finally!

[rubba19]

They need to change more than on-ice activities.

Better marketing, fan interaction, etc.

and for gosh sakes, drop the $80+ a ticket that drives away a large part of the fanbase.

That $80 ticket price is essential for teams' survival because NHL franchises earn MUCH, MUCH less from TV revenues and official endorsements than the other three stick-and-ball sports in America, yet there still are NHL players earning $10 million per year.

And that is the conundrum facing the NHL today.

Take care,
PK

Agreed...but with a cap, the upper tier tix don't have to be an arm and a leg.....

[dougb]

Then we'll be back at square one, no one listening to the fans, every owner/ player to their own. Sadly. I think, everything is still in open discussions but to know a possible aggreement is closer is what most NHL fans like to hear.

DB is right: Rink sizes NEVER will be increased because owners would lose seat revenue. I think it's too much to ask of owners to trim seating in the name of "improving" the game when there are plenty of options available to help the game without bigger rinks.

The proposed rule change that I like a lot is that the center red line becomes the offsides line once a team enters the offensive zone. The blue line still remains the offsides line when a team is rushing the puck from its end. But once it crosses the blue line, it can pass back all the way to the center red line without being called offsides.

I really think that will open up the ice and help to eliminate the neutral-zone trap, which has done more to ruin hockey than anything on the ice in the last 10 years.

Take care,
PK

I think getting rid of that blue line will help alot. For example, play a nhl game on XBL. Like 90 percent of those guys have offsides off. Also a penalty shootout to determine a winner probably will help out get more viewers too. but without ESPN, they're sort of down the tube getting another network to pick them up. NBC was probably their only option but their getting football back so I dont think they'll spend anything on the NHL.

Penalty shootouts are a f*cking disgrace. There a disgrace in international hockey, tournament football (soccer), etc. Europeans have brought a lot of good things to the NHL (better passing, skating, puck control, shooting) but this is one thing they should just throw out on the junk heap. Gimmicke crap that has no place in peewee let alone professional sports.

Rant over.

Best wishes,

Doug

[Jima]

I think the NHL needs some radical changes like this, but leave the nets alone and cut down on the goalie pads.
I think this would work to open up the game!

http://www.bostonbruins.com/pressbox/pr ... sp?id=1453

[tjung0831]

I would love to see TNT do something.

TNT says they are interested.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent ... 1000952284

Levy also told Mediaweek that Turner would be interested in acquiring cable rights to the National Hockey League telecasts now that ESPN has decided not to renew its rights agreement. “We looked at the NHL in the past and were not able to come up with a financial model that worked for us,” Levy said. “But if the NHL approaches us with a model that works for both of us, we would certainly look at it. Hockey is a proven professional sport, so if the NHL has any ideas, we would look at it.”

Wow that's great news! Now that I think about it, I don't really need a cable deal because I'll get the NHL package on Directv anyway so I always will have tons of hockey but if TNT comes to the rescue I would tune in for sure.

[Dave]

Levy also told Mediaweek that Turner would be interested in acquiring cable rights to the National Hockey League telecasts now that ESPN has decided not to renew its rights agreement. “We looked at the NHL in the past and were not able to come up with a financial model that worked for us,” Levy said. “But if the NHL approaches us with a model that works for both of us, we would certainly look at it. Hockey is a proven professional sport, so if the NHL has any ideas, we would look at it.”

"A model that works for us" = little to no money up front for the NHL, much like the NBC deal.

PK, you are right though about the high ticket prices. It is a pipe dream of mine that the prices will go down. But after losing ESPN's $60mil, they need to make up the revenue somewhere.

[rubba19]

What is the difference between USA and TNT?

[rubba19]

Levy also told Mediaweek that Turner would be interested in acquiring cable rights to the National Hockey League telecasts now that ESPN has decided not to renew its rights agreement. “We looked at the NHL in the past and were not able to come up with a financial model that worked for us,” Levy said. “But if the NHL approaches us with a model that works for both of us, we would certainly look at it. Hockey is a proven professional sport, so if the NHL has any ideas, we would look at it.”

"A model that works for us" = little to no money up front for the NHL, much like the NBC deal.

PK, you are right though about the high ticket prices. It is a pipe dream of mine that the prices will go down. But after losing ESPN's $60mil, they need to make up the revenue somewhere.

Dave and PK,

Revenue is not determined by ticket price alone. Losing a fan or fans also caused a loss in parking, concessions, and souveniers. They CAN lower the prices and still make more money.

[Dave]

It all depends on the market though. In baseball, the Twins make jack squat from parking and hardly any of the concession revenue. I'm sure some teams in the NHL have sweetheart deals that give them massive percentages of those streams of income, but there are others that don't.

We all understand that the league needs to do whatever it takes to get people to watch it again after this debilitating lockout...but will the owners be able to see past their bank accounts?

[pk500]

Revenue is not determined by ticket price alone. Losing a fan or fans also caused a loss in parking, concessions, and souveniers. They CAN lower the prices and still make more money.

True. But ticket revenues form a much greater proportion of revenue in the NHL than any other sport because of its weak TV deal and paucity of league sponsors.

So NHL clubs rely on that ticket revenue a lot more than an NFL or NBA team, for example.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

I do not want to see larger nets. That would be the equivalent to making the basket only 9 feet tall in the NBA, making goalposts 40 yards wide in the NFL or the pitcher's mound 80 feet from the plate in baseball. That's way too big of a change.

The NHL can pep up the game with four simple changes, in my opinion:

1. Vastly reduce the size of goalie equipment, to 1970s dimensions.

2. Call interference and obstruction ALL the time.

3. Force players to serve the complete two minutes of a minor penalty, even if the other team scores a power play goal. It might make a guy think twice about a hook or a slash if he knew the other team's high-octane power play might dump in two or three goals in two minutes.

4. Alter the offsides rule in some way, either eliminating the red line for two-line offsides or using the proposed rule to make the center red line the offsides line once a team has gained the offensive zone.

I agree with Doug: Shootouts are horsesh*t. Free-throw shooting, field-goal kicking or home run derbies don't decide the outcome in hoop, football or baseball games.

What's wrong with a well-played tie game in the regular season?

Take care,
PK

[Dave]

I was surprised by the results (or lack thereof) of the NHL awarding a point for an OTL. I figured that teams would just go on an all-out attack during OT if they were guaranteed a point and basically gunning for an extra point with no real risk.

But, in at least the Wild's case, they played the same buttoned-down style during OT, leading to a lot of ties.

Shootouts were fun in the IHL, but they don't belong in the NHL.

[ubrakto]

What is the difference between USA and TNT?

Better programming for one. That's somewhat opinion-based, but if USA has a larger or even parallel viewer base than TNT I'd be absolutely stunned. More importantly, though, TNT has legit experience in professional sports broadcasting. They carried a half-season's worth of NFL Sunday Night games for a long time and they do a fabulous job (relative to their competition) with the NBA. Has USA carried anything? (I honestly have no idea. I never see anything interesting on that channel when flipping past it in the TiVo guide.)
---Todd

[Dave]

Has USA carried anything?

US Open, Dog Show, WWE Raw, some golf...

Did they show Stanley Cup games back in the mid-80s?

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Has USA carried anything?

US Open, Dog Show, WWE Raw, some golf...

Did they show Stanley Cup games back in the mid-80s?

USA hasnt carried the number one rated show on cable at the time RAW in 5 years or so (Raw has been on Spike formely TNN during that time )

however they have just signed a new deal with the WWE to carry it again starting late this year which also includes the return of NBCs Saturday Nights Main Event

which was a huge success in the late 80s filling in every few weeks for saturday night live

[Dave]

I knew someone would call me on that

Technically, has USA ever had WWE programming?

Didn't know the part about Saturday Nights Main Event though.

[Sudz]

the NHL is f***ed....

no TV deal...


F BETTMAN!

[laurenskye]

"2. Call interference and obstruction ALL the time. "

They've been blowing that horseshit up our skirts for 5 years now. "we're really going to crack down on it this year". Every year it lasts about a month at the most and it's right back to half speed hockey.

Hockey would have been fine if they had enforced the rules all along, that includes goalie equipment size. Hell, hockey was doing great in the 80's after the USA team won, Gretzkey and those Oiler teams, Super Mario. It was fast, exciting, high scoring, then they lost the rule book somehow.

They can't try to ease it back each year to the way it was, which is what they have been trying to do. They have to enforce them with an iron fist. If a goalies pad measures too wide toss him out of the game, keep calling interference until half the team is in the stands because there is no more room in the box.

They don't need bigger nets or shootouts.

And please don't keep telling us that scoring is down because goalies are so much better now. Didn't the forwards get better too?

[dougb]

"2. Call interference and obstruction ALL the time. "

They've been blowing that horseshit up our skirts for 5 years now. "we're really going to crack down on it this year". Every year it lasts about a month at the most and it's right back to half speed hockey.

Hockey would have been fine if they had enforced the rules all along, that includes goalie equipment size. Hell, hockey was doing great in the 80's after the USA team won, Gretzkey and those Oiler teams, Super Mario. It was fast, exciting, high scoring, then they lost the rule book somehow.

They can't try to ease it back each year to the way it was, which is what they have been trying to do. They have to enforce them with an iron fist. If a goalies pad measures too wide toss him out of the game, keep calling interference until half the team is in the stands because there is no more room in the box.

They don't need bigger nets or shootouts.

And please don't keep telling us that scoring is down because goalies are so much better now. Didn't the forwards get better too?

Agreed. But everytime the refs start cracking down on the clutching and grabbing everyone (fans, gm's, coaches, players, media) start whining about how the game is being slowed down and ruined by the refs. I can just hear Don Cherry now - "Why can't they just let the play". Not to mention the howls of outrage when the referee has the temerity to call a penalty in the last 5 minutes of a tied hockey game. As you've noted the league always buckles under and instructs the refs to put away the rulebook.

Best wishes,

Doug

[James_E]

Laurenskye and I are on the exact same page.

I've said all along that there is no need for any rule changes, just call the rules as they are written. I've been thinking/saying this for years.

Yes, the fans, gms everyone whines when the refs start to enforce the rules properly, so they stop. This is short-term, near-sighted thinking.

If they just continued calling stuff, then after 2-3 months, everyone would just "get it" and the game would be fine. We have to go through that very hard 2-3 month period to get back to the fast game that hockey should be.

[Sudz]

i wish they would get rid of the red line on 2-line passes....

that is ALL

[GROGtheNailer]

If they change the size of the nets ( which i doubt ) I don't think i could watch the game any more.

Shoot-outs I could possibly live with, with a few rules set. No shoot-outs in play-offs being number one. In regular season, do a 3 on 3 five minute overtime first...then go to a shoot-out. Winner gets 2 points...loser gets 1 point.

TONE DOWN the goalie equipment, this is a must.

I found this read interesting: http://proicehockey.about.com/cs/rules/ ... nges_2.htm


An assessment of NHL rules changes proposed by the league's general managers.
It's been called an historic day for hockey. On February 10, NHL general managers agreed on the league's most radical rule changes in many years. The changes, targetted for approval next summer, are designed to boost scoring.
Several of these ideas represent a return to rules that were in place a couple of decades ago. But the decision to restrict puck handling by goaltenders is a bold new proposal.

This page looks at the four major rule changes intended for 2004-05. On the next page, we consider several other ideas the general managers say they are examining.


NHL goaltenders are forbidden to handle the puck behind the goal line.
The Case: A goaltender has too much influence in the defensive zone. Modern goalies not only stop the puck, they play it like defensemen, handing it off to teammates, shooting it out, making forward passes.

They do it all with immunity, protected by goaltender interference rules. Any player making contact with the goalie risks a two-minute penalty.
Many say the goalie should be declared "fair game." If he leaves his crease, he should be treated as any other player, open to bodychecking and puck battles. But NHL GMs will never support a proposal that increases the injury risk for their most important assets.

The proposed restriction is meant to assist forecheckers. Most shoot-ins go around the boards and behind the net. If the goalie can't play it, the attackers have a better chance to retrieve the puck.

Impact: This could significantly alter the flow of the game. The next time you watch a hockey game, note how often a goalie plays the puck behind the net. It happens on almost every shift. Many NHL goals are set up by forechecking, a strategy that will be more important than ever. Teams that shoot the puck in and fight for it will like this rule.

Down Side: Defensemen must hold off charging forecheckers and corral the puck with little help from the goalie. More than one defender will campaign against this one, in anticipation of having his face plastered into the glass every night. This rule also encourages a dump-and-chase attack, not always the most exciting style of hockey.

More Goals? Yes.


The maximum width of goaltenders' leg pads is reduced from 12 inches to 10 inches.
In addition, all goalie equipment must be inspected and approved by an NHL "clearing house."

The Case: Compared to his forebears, today's goalie fills far too much of the net. The men themselves are bigger. But one look at old game tapes confirms that equipment has expanded as well.

Fearing injuries, GMs decided against shrinking chest or shoulder pads. But there are no such worries in ordering a smaller leg pad. The leg pad limit was increased from 10 to 12 inches in 1989. This proposal reverses that move.

Impact: Hard to say. Today's goaltenders are so good at covering the bottom of the net that players shoot high at every opportunity. After a couple of months, the NHL's best shooters should be asked if they see any more room down low.

Down Side: None, aside from a burgeoning persecution complex among goaltenders.

More Goals? Maybe. But the excellence of today's goalies is more due to athleticism and coaching.


The tag-up offside rule is reinstated.
The Case: Until 1986, players who were offside on a shoot-in had a chance to recover and avoid a whistle. They simply had to clear the zone - "tagging up" in the neutral zone - and then charge back in over the blue line. Today, the attacker has no such option. The whistle is blown on offside shoot-ins. The proposal is to return to the pre-1986 rule.

Impact: The tag-up system is used in international hockey, where it helps keep the play going. Anything that prevents more whistles is considered good.

Down Side: The tag-up option was discarded in 1986 because it was said to encourage too many shoot-ins. A defenseman can simply throw the puck deep any time, whether his teammates are offside or not.

More Goals? No.


Nets and blue lines move three feet closer to the end boards.
The goal line will be 10 feet from the boards instead of the current 13 feet. Shifting the blue lines expands the neutral zone from 54 to 60 feet.

The Case: Offensive players need more room. Stretching the neutral zone gives them a few extra feet to make onside passes, and forces the defense to spread out over more territory.

There is too much wasted space behind the nets. Returning them to their pre-1990 location creates a little more quality shooting space, while still leaving enough room to create plays from behind the net.

Impact: Anything that improves shooting angles is popular with goal scorers.

Down Side: Defenders get an advantage behind the net, where opponents have less room to maneuver.

More Goals? Ask Paul Kariya. He says the 1990 decision to move the nets forward was "brain dead."

Page two: NHL rules changes proposed for further study.
The following rules will not be implemented in 2004-05. But the NHL will ask the American Hockey League to to adopt these changes so the effects can be studied over the course of a full season.

Tie games are decided by a shootout.
Regular season games will follow the current format: 60 minutes of regulation time followed by five minutes of four-on-four overtime to break a tie.

If a goal is not scored in overtime, a shootout determines the winner. Shootouts will likely follow the international and NCAA format: Five players from each team take penalty shots, with the highest goal total winning. If there is a tie after 10 shooters, the teams continue in "sudden-death" mode, trading shots until there is a winner.

By even entertaining the idea, NHL general managers show a considerable shift in their thinking.

Most NHL execs used to dismiss the shootout as a cheap gimmick. The shootout remains controversial. There remains some concern its novelty will fade if fans see it all the time. And what effect will it have on the preceding game? Might some teams play a conservative defensive style, prefering to earn one point and take their chances with a shootout?

Three points are awarded for a win in regulation time.
An overtime or shootout win is worth two points in the standings, while an overtime or shootout loss is rewarded with one point.

With greater value placed on a 60-minute win, more teams will "go for it," attacking aggressively in search of the extra point. But high risk accompanies high reward: Less skilled teams might still play it safe, especially against a divison or conference rival. After all, guaranteeing one point for yourself is much better than handing three huge points to a team you are chasing in the standings.


Blue lines and the center ice line are expanded from 12 to 24 inches wide.
Earlier this season, the AHL conducted an experiment with 36-inch lines. The results were apparently encouraging enough to warrant a modified continuation of the experiment.

The idea is that fatter lines increase the size of each zone. The blue line is part of the neutral zone: an attacker remains onside as long as he is touching blue paint. It is also part of the offensive zone: the puck remains onside as long as it is touching blue paint. Similarly, a wider center ice line provides a few extra inches for a forward pass: the pass receiver remains onside as long as he is touching red paint.

Hockey Shootouts: Thriller? Gimmick? Both?

The ice is cleared of all but two players. As fans rise to their feet and teammates nervously look on, the skater gathers the puck and charges in for a free breakaway, a one-on-one showdown with the goalie.

It's a penalty shot, and for many fans it's the most exciting moment in hockey.

In the NHL penalty shots are rare, usually awarded when a player is pulled down on a breakaway. But in many other leagues and tournaments, the penalty shot also appears at the end of many games. The shootout, a series of penalty shots by each team, is used as a tiebreaker.

The NHL has never used the shootout to decide a meaningful game. But the 2003 NHL All Star Game was decided by a shootout after 65 minutes of hockey produced a 5-5 tie. The exciting finish rekindled a long-standing debate: Should the NHL adopt the shootout to settle tie games?

How Does it Work?

The accepted format for the penalty shootout is the one used in international hockey and NCAA. A game tied after 60 minutes is followed by an overtime period. If there is still no winner, the game is decided by a shootout.

Each team selects five players. In turn, each player begins at center ice, skating in for one shot on goal. The team scoring the most goals in five attempts is the winner.

If the shootout is tied after all ten players have made their attempts, the competition continues in "sudden-death" mode: The teams trade shots until there is a winner.

The Case For the Shootout:

Nothing matches the tension, anticipation and thrill of a shootout. Considering the price of an NHL ticket these days, fans deserve great entertainment, and the shootout is a heck of a great show.
Does the NHL want more people in the seats and more fans watching at home? The shootout is fast, exciting, delivers immediate results and is easy for casual fans to follow.
The NHL needs goals. Scoring has declined since the 1980s and most teams play a boring, defense-first style. Hockey is supposed to be about scoring. The shootout returns goal-scoring to its rightful place at the center of the game.
What's wrong with change? Hockey is an evolving game. The forward pass was illegal until 1911. Regular season overtime began in 1983. Change is good, especially if it makes the spectators happy.
The shootout could be accompanied by other changes, which would encourage teams to win the game in regulation time. For example, what if every game is worth three points? If it's decided in overtime or in a shootout, the winning team gets two points and the losing team gets one. But if a team wins the game in regulation time it gets all three points.
The shootout would not replace overtime in the Stanley Cup playoffs. It would only be used to decide regular season games, and only after five minute of overtime.
The Case Against the Shootout:
The shootout may be fun, but it isn't hockey. Hockey is a team game, not a series of breakaways. Players have to earn scoring chances by outworking and out-skating opponents.
The shootout is a gimmick, the equivalent of deciding a baseball game with a home run contest or breaking a football tie by having quarterbacks throw the ball through a tire.
Patrick Roy works his butt off all night, stops 40 shots and salvages a 1-1 tie for his team. Two minutes later he's a loser because he couldn't stop a couple of guys on free breakaways. How fair is that?
What's wrong with a tie? If teams can't decide a winner after 65 minutes of hockey, a tie is a just result.
The shootout is a great novelty, nothing more. That novelty would soon wear thin and players and fans on the losing end of shootouts would feel cheated.
Another change to the game means more complications in the NHL standings. SOL (shootout losses) would replace ties. More points would be handed out, making historical comparisons between teams even more difficult. Player stats would require yet another category for shootout goals and saves.
Is the Shootout Coming?
If the idea gains momentum, the NHL would likely ask the American Hockey League to try it out for a couple of years, then look at it in NHL exhibition games before approving it for regular play.

Opinion is hard to gauge. Media straw polls suggest most NHL general managers are opposed to the shootout, while players appear split along the expected lines: goalies hate the idea, defensemen are lukewarm, snipers love it. That's not enough support to carry the shootout to the top of the NHL agenda.

[ubrakto]

While regarding the posts in this thread on obstruction I got to thinking (only a little, of course, I'm at work), and I'm curious what you guys think (gut reaction).

If the NHL really calling and enforcing obstruction rules is going to be a problem -especially at playoff time- because you don't want the game dominated by power plays, 5-on-3 situations, and having to call minor penalities in the final minutes, what about awarding a penalty shot intead? Okay, maybe a penalty shot for each infraction would be too extreme. But you could treat it like the NBA does with fouls per period and getting the "bonus". So for every three or four obstruction calls against your team, your opponent gets a penalty shot.

I don't know. Could be a tremendously stupid idea; I haven't really thought it through yet. But it has the virtue of still penalizing teams for the infraction but doesn't have to result in an obscene number of penalty minutes if it's getting called a lot. And at the same time, its an even bigger disincentive for players to break the rule since you're more likely to give up a goal than through a 2-minute penalty.

And while I don't want to sound like a shootout whore, I don't think it would hurt the game as far as excitement factor goes if you could count on seeing five penalty shots or so per game.
---Todd

[James_E]

If the NHL really calling and enforcing obstruction rules is going to be a problem -especially at playoff time- because you don't want the game dominated by power plays, 5-on-3 situations

I don't buy that idea. Call the rules. If teams choose to break the rules, they get a penalty. "PENALTY"... yes it is supposed to be painful. Call the rules, eventually players will get it and won't take the damn penalties. It will all just work out.

Someone will say "let em play".. bullshit. Calling the rules has nothing to do with "letting them play". A person makes a decision to break the rule, or do something risky that results in an infraction, they get penalized. The ref didn't make the decision to clutch and grab, or hook, or slash. The PLAYER did. Player's are still in control.

When a player in the NBA gets called for a foul, or NFL for holding... is that the ref "not letting them play"? No. It's a grown man breaking a rule of the game, and there should be repercussions for breaking the rule. NFL/NBA don't have this idea that they don't call penalties in playoffs or if a game is close, and it works there.

[pk500]

I think forcing each player to serve the full two minutes of a minor penalty will be as much of a deterrent to clutching and grabbing as stricter enforcement of the rules.

Can you imagine how many more goals a talented offensive team like Montreal in the late 70s, Edmonton in the mid-80s and Pittsburgh in the early 90s would have scored if all power plays were two minutes? Can you imagine how many more power play goals Tim Kerr would have scored anchored in the crease during power plays?

Serving a full minor would reduce the number of penalties and increase scoring. A win-win.

Take care,
PK

[10spro]

Talks are ongoing (that's the good news), the latest rumour is that an agreement could be in place at the end of the month, making July a frenzy month for signing of players and trades, while the junior draft will go ahead during the 1st week of August. At least they are talking...