[Ishkur]

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

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

May I bring to your attention: The Olympics Triplecast.

Ever since that debacle, NBC found out that the average American just can not be bothered with watching sports about other countries in other countries live, so learning from the experience they have vowed never to do anything like that ever again.

Now, the Olympics features only Americans winning things (or, if the human interest story is really good, a foreigner winning or at least participating in something where they had to overcome adversity just to be there, fleeing from a tyrannical country where their family was sent to the gulag years ago, training in the USian land of freedom along the way), taped, edited and given that smarmy Bob Costas recap narration for your pre-packaged primetime mass consumption.

And it still doesn't get very good ratings. Not compared to March Madness or the Superbowl, at any rate.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

Or Wimbledon.
Or golf in general.

It's funny, because John McEnroe was talking about this just last year: Tennis in America has been declining in interest ever since Agassi and Sampras ceased to be threats to go head-to-head in any given Grand Slam. Sure, there's Roddick (and if you want to be million-to-one-long-shot about it, James Blake or Taylor Dent), but he's too inconsistent to really capture America's heart the way a Jimmy Connors could.

There's the women's tour, of course, and Americans represent that well, but for some reason the press still wants to be talking about Kournikova. For some reason.

Golf: same thing. America pays attention when America wins. Or when it involves America. It's like the presence of other countries is too anti-climactic or something, the best matchups really pit Americans against each other. Davis Cup is crazy-ass popular overseas. Here......it's a rolling tumbleweed compared to Duke vs. UK.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

Are Canadian fans happy with the way Bettman's NHL has managed the sport?

Bettman can't set foot inside Canada, less he gets his testicles ripped off with a pair of rusty plyers. There are people up here determined to do it too, if they get the chance. The guy is seriously a slimey grin away from getting shot. This is no joke. With each passing today, we keep thinking to ourselves "Fuck, it's OUR game. Why are we letting this guy get away with this?" NHL headquarters is starting to look like the French Bastille on July 13, 1789. A bloodthirsty revolution is coming. Just as soon as we finish our beer.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

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

I grew up watching grainy black&white Hockey Night in Canada on my lil 15" TV in my room back in the 80s. I never had a problem figuring out what was going on.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

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.

No, its about their respective cities CARING that two teams are playing each other at all. There could be all the bad blood in the world, bench brawls, name calling, wife cheating, real Slap Shot stuff between them.........if either city's sports section has highschool basketball on its front page or Spring Training updates instead, that rivalry just doesn't manifest. If you ask the mayors and they say "we have a hockey team?", it just doesn't matter. If the buses don't have "Go team Go" on their electronic displays beside their route numbers, if sportstalk radio doesn't have the team's trials and tribulations as the topic of the hour and people don't phone in talking about it, if a big motorcade of obsessive fans don't decorate their cars patriotically and then travel to the opposing team's city and stir shit up in the stands at the rematch.............then none of that shit matters.

The great secret (and irony) about rivalries is they don't actually involve the teams. They involve the passionate devotion to the teams by their respective cities. You hear about the Montreal Riots of 1955? You know what started that? Rocket Richard took a cheap shot at a referee and the league suspended him for the Stanley Cup Playoffs. The whole city went BALLISTIC and fucked shit up like it was the Rodney King trial. THAT'S a rivalry. You're just not going to see that coming out of Carolina. The people just don't care enough. The game is not an ingrained part of their culture.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

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

You haven't seen serious fan support unless you've witnessed the legendary "White Noise" movement of early 90s Jets arena, when they were in the Playoffs. Winnipeg and Quebec were moved so the league could find bigger markets with potential television broadcast dollars, not because of dwindling fan support. It was painful. There were 560,000 signatures on a petition, which is crazy because Winnipeg was only a city of 500,000 people! It was like all of Manitoba--and probably Saskatchewan too--came out to see them. And yet none of that mattered. The NHL didn't care, the owners didn't care, Bettman certainly didn't care. He was determined to sink this franchise into mediocrity for the cheap and easy buck, and the problems we have today largely result from bonehead decisions like that one.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

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?

Funny you should mention that. When Pavel Bure was traded to Florida there was a popular picture of him with his shirt off stepping out of the Canucks weight room with Gino Odjick. The guy was seriously ripped. Florida papers got hold of the photo and printed it. Marketing dept. of the Panthers grabbed it and used it in a campaign about this new player they just acquired aimed at--yes, the gay community. Pavel, with his boyish, fetching good looks and stocky, beefy frame, was a natural heartthrob for neo-Pathers fans, most of whom were female, gay, and/or cared little for hockey. The crowd of Panthers games after that moment was a little.........how should we say.....odd.

And its easy for Dallas and Colorado to acquire fan support: they inherited good teams. The jury's still out on whether they will continue to support them when they inevitably decline, however. We shall see.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

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?

The dump and chase is NEVER boring, and is in fact one of the better strategies in hockey. Canada won the recent Juniors on the strength of their dump and chase. They wore down every team's defence that way. It's a time-honoured trick, invented by Gordie Howe, and it's designed to create confusion and scoring opportunities in the offense zone, not avoid them. What IS boring is the dump and don't-go-get-it. 5 guys, stacked on the line. The trap. Team carries it out, check them and throw it back in again. See, this is where eliminating the red line would help, because you don't have to carry the puck out where you'll inevitably get checked. You can try an up-and-under like in Rugby, ricochet the puck off the boards, or start your own dump in chase about 20 feet early because you don't have to advance the puck past a certain point. Look at how it was done in the Olympics or World Juniors. Those who think that removing this archaic restriction will slow down the game just aren't very creative at thinking about hockey.

And restricting goalie movement is stupid. Have it like lacrosse: they're allowed to go whereever they damn well please. But once they leave the crease, they're fair game. Hit them for all it's worth.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

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.)

Shootout is not hockey. Hockey involves passing, hitting, checking, and fighting too. Penalty Shot is meant to restore a lost scoring opportunity. There is no merit in a shootout. It's such a european way to decide a game. Either earn your win through the proper perameters of the game, or don't win at all. Increase to 10, 4-4. I like that.