Alaska Darin Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 as former coach Harry Neale once put it, "We better do something about all this fighting, or we'll have to build bigger arenas......." 290131[/snapback] There's certainly something to that line of thinking. There are three times a crowd stands during a hockey game: 1. The National Anthem. 2. A Goal is Scored. 3. A Fight. Why eliminate that? You're never going to appeal to everyone and there are far more people who like the fisticuffs than don't. I remember when they used to show the box lacrosse commercials when I was a kid. My buddies and I really looked forward to the big hitting and fighting.
LabattBlue Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 There's certainly something to that line of thinking. There are three times a crowd stands during a hockey game: 2. A Goal is Scored. 290138[/snapback] Unless you're at HSBC Arena where the quiche eaters sit. The only way their a$$es are coming out of those seats is to go to the bathroom, get another drink or to leave a close game with 10 minutes to go!
EndZoneCrew Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 Just make the giant goalie pads smaller.....makes more sense to me!
Like A Mofo Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 I really do not have too much of a problem with this, because goalies are MUCH bigger overall now then they were years ago, but I sure hope they would test this concept at a lowerl level before bringing it to the NHL
ndmanley Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 If you enforce the rules, that would help. The biggest difference would be if they moved to a larger ice surface (i.e. international hockey). The players have become so big and the equipment so good that they have simply out grown the current rink size. However, they will never do that though because there are too many new arenas and it would just eliminate premium seats.
Alaska Darin Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 If you enforce the rules, that would help. The biggest difference would be if they moved to a larger ice surface (i.e. international hockey). The players have become so big and the equipment so good that they have simply out grown the current rink size. However, they will never do that though because there are too many new arenas and it would just eliminate premium seats. 290187[/snapback] There's no reason it has to be done across the board. No 2 baseball stadiums are alike and that actually benefits the game and (especially) the home team. They could have mandated it for all new arenas only.
Ramius Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 That's lame. If you want more scoring, get rid of the two line pass - done! Keep offsides, just remove the stupid redline. CW 290043[/snapback] Bingo...
SilverNRed Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 There's no reason it has to be done across the board. No 2 baseball stadiums are alike and that actually benefits the game and (especially) the home team. They could have mandated it for all new arenas only. 290265[/snapback] The unique dimensions of all baseball stadiums is part of the game's appeal. I wouldn't mind at all if NHL rinks had slightly different dimensions across the league.
LabattBlue Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 How are talks going? Bettman? Goodenow? Anybody?
Alaska Darin Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 How are talks going? Bettman? Goodenow? Anybody? 290309[/snapback] No.
stuckincincy Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 The unique dimensions of all baseball stadiums is part of the game's appeal. I wouldn't mind at all if NHL rinks had slightly different dimensions across the league. 290306[/snapback] Heh - I recall War Memorial and the "subtle" tuning of the boards left and right of the crease so a dump would cause the puck to ring back 25 feet or so, much to the benefit of the French Connection...
LabattBlue Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 No. 290320[/snapback] No as in "no talks" or "no common sense" or "no hockey again next year"??
eball Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 Heh - I recall War Memorial and the "subtle" tuning of the boards left and right of the crease so a dump would cause the puck to ring back 25 feet or so, much to the benefit of the French Connection... 290322[/snapback] don't you mean memorial auditorium? the sabres always had a distinct home ice advantage at the aud.
Alaska Darin Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 No as in "no talks" or "no common sense" or "no hockey again next year"?? 290326[/snapback] There'll be hockey next season - I don't doubt that. There's not much common sense currently, nor are there any talks going on that I'm aware of.
stuckincincy Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 don't you mean memorial auditorium? the sabres always had a distinct home ice advantage at the aud. 290334[/snapback] No, the name was War Memorial Auditorium. Google it.
eball Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 No, the name was War Memorial Auditorium. Google it. 290343[/snapback] just did. Buffalo Memorial Auditorium or Buffalo Memorial Auditorium don't mean to nitpick, but i'd never heard it called "war memorial" before and it appears as though that's because it wasn't. it was dedicated to those who died in WWII, but not named after them.
millbank Posted March 30, 2005 Author Posted March 30, 2005 There'll be hockey next season - I don't doubt that. There's not much common sense currently, nor are there any talks going on that I'm aware of. 290341[/snapback] talks are going to resume Monday _(CP) - The NHL and NHL Players' Association will resume labour talks Monday at an undisclosed location, sources have told The Canadian Press. The two sides haven't met since March 17 in New York, when the NHLPA was presented two proposals by the NHL, the first being a team-by-team $37.5-million US salary cap deal that did not have a fixed link between player costs and league revenues - a term called linkage. The second offer was based on linkage, with player costs to take up no more than 54 per cent of league revenues. The union wants no part of linkage, not wanting to tie players' salaries to a business that has suffered immeasurable damage with an entire season cancelled. The NHL gave the union an April 8 deadline to negotiate on the "de-linked" proposal, or else it will be pulled off the table and only the second proposal will remain. If a new deal isn't reached in the very near future, the NHL will likely go ahead with plans to open shop using replacement players in the fall. That subject will be on the table when owners gather again for a board of governors meeting April 20 in New York. Talks resume Monday
CentralVaBills Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Man, what a bunch of morons the NHL has become. Here's a friggin newsflash, ENFORCE the fuggin rules, and go to the international size ice. Bingo, problem solved. So fuggin dumb. Changing the nets leads to other kinds of circus type fixes. Garbage idea!
Recommended Posts