[Greg_Wyshynski]

Originally Posted by Ishkur

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).

I guess that's why the Olympics are traditionally ignored every two years.

Or Wimbledon.

Or the British Open.

Or golf in general.

Hockey is a Canadian sport; the NHL is a North American (emphasis on "American") league. There's a difference.

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?

I'm an American hockey fan. That's all I can be. Hockey's not a religion or a way of life or anything that Canadian xenophobes slam American fans for not treating hockey as such. But it is by and away my favorite sport and has been for my entire life.

In speaking with American hockey fans (you know, all three of us), it' s apparent that we're all very upset that this lockout is occurring, but the majority of the fans I've spoken to don't have faith that the NHL's leadership will be willing to change the way they market and legislate the sport to make the NHL a success. Are Canadian fans happy with the way Bettman's NHL has managed the sport?

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.

Yeah, that sort of was the point of the column.

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.

Can't say I don't agree with you, because I do.

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.

You're half right. It is learned trait that comes with watching hockey for years. But I've seen HDTV hockey, and it's easier to follow the play, if only because you get to see more the ice. Power plays, for example, can be shown without the camera hardly moving.

And question the clarity of the picture all you'd like, but have you ever tried to watch World Juniors on 17-inch screen?

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

I've been corrected on this by a few people, and you're right. The point was that those rail cams are the kind of equipment American broadcasters need to utilize for hockey on TV.

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.

Exactly, which is why a return to divisional play will be a benefit for hockey. It's not about two teams playing a lot; it's about two teams battling for the same playoff spot. Washington, Carolina and the Florida teams aren't rivals now. But if the stakes were raised, and the only way they're getting into the postseason is through each other, then the games are naturally more intense.

As far the hybrid schedule, I think you're right in that the NHL needed to maintain its natural rivalries. But there's simply no reason for the Oilers to visit the Caps every year. That game should be used for Philly or the Rangers or the Lightning. That's better for the NHL and for fan interest.

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.

Where are we going to find it then? Winnipeg and Quebec?

The Mason-Dixon Line comment is an interesting one. Where do you think these hockey fans in Florida are from? Backwater towns that only know about the ice in their drinks? Or have many fans "south of the Mason-Dixon line" migrated from Northern locales?

And are you questioning the success of the Dallas Stars and the dedication of their fans?

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.

Talk to the players. Eliminating the red line will open up an entirely new can of worms when it comes to defensive systems, and it will ulitmately do more to harm the offensive flow than help to it. If you think the dump and chase is boring now...

And interesting about your first point: If you take away the red line, could you still restrict goalie movement and expect good puck-handling keepers to show off their abilities?

I think we agree on a lot of points in so far as opening up the game and creating offensive chances. (And the fact that you didn't advocate the shootout makes you A-OK in my book.)