Most of the blog (and the world for that matter) dislikes the NHL. I’m going to provide some reasons (including the new rule changes) why that thinking is flawed and why this is something everyone should start watching.
1) Speed of the game
Nothing moves faster than a hockey puck. There’s always action going on and the new rules are going to speed up the game even more. No more neutral zone traps (or at least they won’t be as effective). If you don’t know what that is, that’s a good thing.
2) 2-line Passing is Legit
The red line will still be visible on the ice, but it will not be used to call a 2-line pass infraction. This means that the goalie can conceivably pass the puck all the way up to the other team’s zone! This destroys the dreaded “neutral zone trap” which has plagued the NHL for the last 10 years. Teams would used to crowd the space between the blue & red lines, but now a team would have to cover all of the space between both blue lines. In order to get the word out, I would hire MC Hammer as a spokesman who could do some kind of rendition on "2 Legit to 2 Quit"
3) Reduced goalie pads = more scoring
Now that the NHL has reasonable restrictions on goalie pads, we will definitely see more scoring, more skill shots on the ESPN highlights, and more goalies losing their sanity, which makes for good TV.
4) Shootouts after OT to end games
To make games more entertaining, shootouts will occur. The winner gets a “W” the loser gets a “L”. Very simple, it’s just like basketball, or baseball except for that one all-star game that ended in a tie.
Together, all of these rule changes will increase scoring, and make the game easier to watch for younger & newer fans. The best thing about the NHL is the playoffs, but its hard to enjoy the playoffs if there are no fans watching.
The only other thing I would do, is to make the puck neon orange. Seriously, making the puck more visible for TV should be a top priority. And I don’t think that Fox should bring back the ominous “blue cloud” around the puck that they had about 10 years ago.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I've read about those rules changes and I think they might help, with an emphasis on might. What I think people who like hockey forget, however, is that those changes won't determine the rate of conversion among those of us who don't like hockey. I don't think people who don't like hockey will say, "Well, before, there were ties but now that there are no ties, that's a good reason to start liking hockey." I think these changes are meant to persuade hockey fans that the league is willing to do what it takes to remain relevant for them. I don't know how many new fans this will draw in, increased scoring and all.
The parallel to baseball in interesting to note here. After the strike, MLB struck a Faustian bargain with steroids (I theorize) such that juice became a big part of the game -- more homers, more fannies in seats. The difference is that baseball had a bigger fan base to start with. At hockey's best, it still doesn't capture even 10% of the American sporting public. TV ratings back me up on this -- hockey's just not a good TV product.
In the end, the NHL has a long way to go before being guaranteed that it can survive in the United States. As of this writing, they have no national cable TV package and have a very limited and restrictive national network deal with NBC that doesn't pay rights fees but follows a revenue-share model after production costs. That's a recipe for failure.
I had assumed the comment wasn't for people to start watching hockey. Only MJ.
HOckey has a lot of problems however hopefully these changes will at least solidify hockey's base and keep them from hemoraging fans that might otherwise feel alienated b/c of the strike/jeremy roenick
While I might be the #2 hockey fan on this blog, I think that hockey is doomed in the US. Like soccer, which is a more global sport, hockey will fall in the same category. Perhaps the NHL should look at getting leagues in places where hockey is popular (ie Canada, Sweden, USSR, etc.) and then have an Olympics style tournament every year with the best teams in each league. Although this is an inconceivable idea, it has worked before with the European Cup (FIFA) or whatever it is called in soccer and could work with hockey. Or we could follow the cartoon post the election of George I that has hockey in the land of the United States of Canada and no hockey in Jesusland.
MJ - you are completely right about the financials of the NHL, there really isn't any TV revenue coming in. Nonetheless, if people like you start watching, they might have a chance.
I do like the idea by the Colonel to have the NHL just become a global league. To take it a step further, I think they should just scrap 20 games of the season, and have a wordlwide "Champion's League" tournament - inviting 3-6 teams from different leagues across the World like they do in Europe. It would be sweet, and provide some exposure.
They do the whole non-Olympics international cup thing. It is called the World Cup of Hockey fka the Canada Cup. It is fashioned like the World Cup in soccer where it is every four years. Why not do this every year with the best teams from the divisions in the US, Canada and Europe.
"MJ - you are completely right about the financials of the NHL, there really isn't any TV revenue coming in. Nonetheless, if people like you start watching, they might have a chance."
It'll take a lot of people like me to start watching for the Nielsen ratings to move up enough to convince people that the NHL is worth a rights-fee TV deal and a greater advertising commitment from its sponsors. At its peak in 1994, the NHL wasn't even close to the NFL or NBA in terms of TV viewership and that was when their product was considered extremely strong. 1994 launched the expansion craze and killed the sport. I predict they won't get back to 1994 TV levels in the next 6 years (the life of the CBA) and that, in the end, the NHL will be forced to make tough decisions on contraction.
I don't care about this post, much like I don't care about hockey. Go Blackhawks, or something like that.
A post-script to my last posting. This morning, the NY Times sports media columnist Richard Sandomir wrote that ESPN2, OLN, Spike TV and the USA Network are showing interest in broadcasting hockey. In the case of ESPN2, they are only interested in a non rights fee, revenue share package. USA and Spike are not being seriously considered because they don't have a rich enough sports history to carry games (USA's broadcasts of golf and tennis notwithstanding). OLN is interested because it is owned by Comcast and it sees adding hockey as small price to pay for its next step -- buying football broadcasts and launching a competitor to ESPN.
So, the NHL may yet be back on cable TV but its suitors all have warts.
Post a Comment