[Ishkur]

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

The popularity of hockey isn't the problem.
The popularity of NHL hockey is.

The Hockey-Hating American Media has been quasi-orgasmic in questioning where the "outrage" is when it comes to the lockout,

Something I explain the reason for fairly adeptly right here.

(says it's by Mike, but that's wrong. It was an old article I wrote that he saved, before the current incarnation of the site)

Summed up: American media is not going to want to spend time on something that's not genuinely American. And when they do, they seem to like to--whether consciously or unconsciously, I don't know--ignore the fact that it's not. You are a shining example of this (not meant to be an insult, just something apparent).

For instance:

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

The other reason we're not outraged

Correction: Canadians are outraged, which, at this point you gotta admit, is all that matters to hockey. So saying you are not outraged is really saying "We who don't think we would miss it if it's gone are not outraged." Been to Canada recently?

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

How many cameras are utilized in a garden-variety NHL broadcast? Two, maybe three?

I count 16: 3 main sideview cams up in the press box or upper deck usually (80% of the game will be from this view, they are redundant in case one conks out), 4 corner ice level cams, 4 net cams (one under the top bar, and one at the surface at the back, per net), 2 overhead cams, 2 behind the net cams which provide an AWESOME view during powerplays, and one roaming cam that they rarely EVER use because it's difficult to follow the play and its constant mobility shifts perspective a lot and confuses watchers, but it's really useful in case it catches something the other cams don't and the instant replay guys need something else to rely on.

The reason why you've never heard nor seen these cams is because...

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

On ESPN or ABC

Well there's your problem right there: I have seen American broadcasts of hockey before. It is vastly inferior to Canadian broadcasting, and I'm not surprised that it doesn't catch on down there. Seriously, take a page from the CBC or the TSN: they've been doing this stuff for 50 years, and they got it down to a science. You can't treat the game like football and show one view during the play, and different views when the play is over. You can't treat it like baseball, where the ball is rarely moving and there's no direct need for urgency. And you can't treat it like basketball, which only requires ONE VIEW 99% of the time.

The big problem is that the game just doesn't stop, thereby allowing television commentators to talk about what just happened and what they think will happen next.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

The NHL and NBC have clearly stated that they feel HDTV technology will make a difference in hockey on television, and they’re right.

If you have trouble following the puck now, HDTV isn't going to make much of a difference. It's not that people in America can't follow the puck because their TV clarity sucks. They can't follow the puck because they don't understand hockey. Any 5-year old kid in Canada raised by Hockey Night in Canada can follow the puck no problem, and when it goes to the near side of the boards and dissapears (something of a bane to American sports broadcasters), just by watching the players telegraphed movements they can gauge where it is and where it's going to go. It's a learned trait, but you're not going to acquire it overnight.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

Cameras everywhere, including those wicked cool rail cams that ESPN used during the Heritage Classic in Edmonton.

ESPN didn't use those. That was CBC, ESPN was just stealing their feed.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

If you want to keep the three division/two conference format, then create a hybrid of the Major League Baseball and NFL schedules.

Heh. There you go again: American solution for a Canadian problem. The reason why the NHL doesn't do that is because there already ARE rivalries, but only in Canada--ie: the teams you conspicuously forget. Canadian teams want to play together because they're passionate about hockey and love earning the bragging rights of becoming Canada's Team.

Rivalries don't magically form when you make two teams play together a lot. When you were a kid, did you ever try to trap beetles or spiders in jars and then try to get them to fight? ....but they'd just sit there? Rivalries form when there is a concerted effort and passion towards the game by the players and the fans to defeat the other team. If the fans feel it, the media will feel it, the cities will feel it, and it will rub off and make the teams feel it too. Detroit-Colorado started this way. Vancouver-Colorado started this way. There was also Vancouver-St.Louis for a time last year. The Mayors of both cities actually crank called each other's houses.

This came about not through excessive play, but through the involvement of each team's respective city. Vancouver and Toronto hate each other, and they only play each other ONCE every year. Hell, EVERY Canadian team and Toronto hate each other. Especially Ottawa. And that's because of this country's obsession with hockey.

In the end, ultimately, fan interest solves everything. And you're just not going to find much of it south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

(What about getting rid of the red line? I thought goal-hanging was something NHLers left on the pond.)

All unfounded. It actually adds a new dimension of play, especially if you have a good goalie with accurate passing, and the other team has a sloppy change. Removing the red line opens up a lot of new tactics, and for those who fear the long pass--it's a low percentage pass, and prone to getting picked off easily. If you wish to risk it, go right ahead, but seriously it's not worth it sending a cherry picker out and having an odd-man rush and probably scoring chance against you as a result.

Scoring doesn't equal good hockey. Scoring CHANCES equals good hockey. The puck in prime scoring areas creates excitement. The puck stuck in neutral zone limbo might as well be soccer. Solution? Drop the red line, shrink the neutral zone, move the nets back to where they were before to create a bigger scoring opportunity zone (affectionately known as the slot) in front of the net. It's always puzzeled me how the organizers of this game had no problem making rule changes like crease play, instigator, and behind the net space--changes of parts of the game that no one really thought had anything wrong with them--but are adamantly stubborn with making changes today to a game that is undeniably broken. What are they waiting for?!!? Shrink the damn goalie pads, no-touch icing, tag-up offsides, no two-line pass, and let's get on with it. How hard is that to do?