EHM The Blue Line

As much as the return of hockey has been wholeheartedly embraced in Canada and some American markets it's still not much more than a fringe sport in a lot of the US. Obviously, if hockey is to thrive, the game needs those markets. Anyone have any thoughts/ideas on how to raise the popularity level of the game? Maybe if some good ones come up we can organize some kind of grassroots campaign, but I'm a bit of a dreamer so I may well have my head stuck somewhere it doesn't belong.

My zany idea during the lockout (and it IS pretty zany) was to eliminate all the clubs in non-hockey markets like Florida and Nashville and California leaving only the Canadian clubs and those in strong American markets like Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, New York and Minnesota. The teams that were 'dissolved' would be moved to hockey markets in Europe like Finland, Sweden and Russia. There would be a North American league and a European league and the two would function like the leagues in baseball do--teams in each league would only play each other except for twice a year there would be interleague play. The champions of each league would compete for the Cup like the AL pennant winner and the NL pennant winner. Obviously there are big problems...European players would command a grossly inflated salary because they'd probably prefer to stay closer to home unless the paycheck is large enough to pull them away. Same with North American players I suspect. Travel wouldn't be a big deal if scheduling was done well, until the championship series when you'd have teams going from, say, Montreal to Turku.

Of course this idea is totally impractical but hockey would only be in markets where it's already thriving, which I think is the main appeal of it. So I guess this thread is to ask what people would do if they were the commissioner of the NHL to make the game more accessible, more popular and more appealing. I think one of the biggest problems facing hockey is that people have a hard time watching on TV so any ideas about that? If you say "blue dot on the puck and red line when it's shot" I'll have to ask one of the administrators to ban you from the site

Thundercleese wrote:As much as the return of hockey has been wholeheartedly embraced in Canada and some American markets it's still not much more than a fringe sport in a lot of the US. Obviously, if hockey is to thrive, the game needs those markets.

I really hope that statement was a joke. Hockey needs the southern states in order to thrive? Thats gotta be one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.

Anyone have any thoughts/ideas on how to raise the popularity level of the game?

My idea is to forget about making it a popular sport. It'll never happen until the sport itself is changed to something that people can get excited about; a sport that people can actually follow; a sport that people can actually understand; and most importantly - a sport that people can even afford to like/follow/understand/play... And at that point, it won't even be hockey anymore.

Look at soccer. It's accessible to everyone - no matter where you live, no matter how rich or poor you are - you can play soccer. That's why I think it's the most popular sport around the world. American football in the USA is so huge just because about 99% of our youth grows up watching it, and again, it's acessible to everyone. It's a little more expensive, but still not bad. Basketball is in the same boat as soccer. It's so simple and can be played no matter how rich or poor you are and no matter where you live.

Hockey on the other hand - you can't play the pro form of the sport unless you have a nice slab of ice lying around for anyone to use... which believe it or not all you Canadians, not everyone has. Then you need all that equipment, which if you buy the stuff made for ice hockey, can blow a hole in you pocket with just the skates. And skates brings me to the next point - you have to know how to skate... on ice. It's not the running that most sports have - it's ice skating. If you can't iceskate, forget all hopes of playing pro hockey.

I could keep going, but I will jump to my conclusion:

Hockey will not be popular until it becomes accessible to everyone, and when that "everyone" can actually afford to play it. Take me for example. I grew up playing and watching hockey. But I know I will never play any kind of pro hockey, because I have never had the chance to play any real ice hockey - I've grown up playing in roller hockey leagues. Even with that life-long committment, I can't compete with all the northern people who have had every day of their life to ice skate and play ice hockey.

As for Thundercleese's idea, as you said, its totally impractical. Besides, NHL teams budgets are way bigger than compared to european leagues. Switzerland and Russia may be able to compete, others dont stand a chance. Although making of the "Europe League" would get hockey more exposure, and therefore more money to the teams, it would take years for the European league to compete with North American league.

And yes, stinson has a point. When i was a kid, say 4-5 years old, i wanted to start playing hockey. Too bad, we didnt have a car at the time, so it would have taken a lot of effort to get to practice with all the gear etc. And the gear is expensive, so my mother was against it. So i went for soccer instead. It was way cheaper choice, and due to the fact that you didnt need to take same amount of gear with you, somewhat easier aswel.

Thundercleese wrote:eliminate all the clubs in non-hockey markets like Florida and Nashville and California leaving only the Canadian clubs and those in strong American markets like Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, New York and Minnesota.

Can't work. It's far more easy to devellop a market if there's a team!!! Eliminate teams like Florida and Nashville, and you can be sure that there will NEVER be a hockey market there. A market takes a lot of time to devellop, at least two decades before something starts to grow.

Thundercleese wrote:Travel wouldn't be a big deal if scheduling was done well, until the championship series when you'd have teams going from, say, Montreal to Turku.

The deal isn't to schedule the travels, but the travels cost... Especially for european teams.

Thundercleese wrote:Of course this idea is totally impractical

So is it of any use to talk about it?...

Thundercleese wrote:I think one of the biggest problems facing hockey is that people have a hard time watching on TV

Well-known problem... If you want to be popular, you have to be on TV... If you want to be on TV, you have to be popular...
Free internet broadcast (like does the QMJHL) is a possibility to give an visual exposition to hockey without having to wait that the TV come to you. But impossible to do with the NHL, as NHL receives money from TVs, so they won't make free shows. And if the broadcasts on the net aren't free, you can't devellop hockey, as very few people will pay to discover something when they don't know if they'll like it or not.
And well, you are complaining about the difficulty to see some games on TV in the US, but keep in mind that some europeans fans (me and others) just can't see any hockey game on TV! Or you have to pay 30€/month a private channel to see 1 or 2 games per month... In France, for example, there is absolutely NO hockey on the public channels, exept half of the Olympic Games... that's to say around 10 games... every 4 years! So don't complain too much about the situation in the US

Solutions?
Free broadcast sounds good, but it won't make it all.
I think that the key is to bring youngs to hockey. If more youngs are motivated to give it a try in a hockey-school, we'll have more hockey players. And they'll talk about hockey with their friends, so some of them will have an opportunity to really discover this sport and enjoy it which means more fans. More fans leads to more popularity, which can lead to more exposition on TV, which can bring more youngs to this sport... But the start has to be given by clubs and fans to motivate youngs to go in hockey-schools.

Is anyone has an other idea?

We have an NHL team (supposedly ) and our games are not only not on free tv (you'd need cable to see them) but also we only get televised coverage of away games because our fool owner hold the tv rights for homegames and refuses to allow them to be shown. Combine this with the team's pathetic performances since the 80's and you'll find the scores of the high school girls basketball teams before you get to the hockey coverage in our local papers. They don't even mention the scores on the sports section of the new some nights. So this is what we get with one of the league's 30 teams in or backyard; you can imagine the amount of coverage it gets in other areas...

As for people having problems following the game on TV this is because all popular sports in the US on TV are VERY segmented and stop and go and so people are trained to only have to focus on the game for 30 second stretches and then have a minute of downtime to process and replays of every play while we go to a commercial and then when we come back froma commercial let's look at that again... that's sports here. Baseball is painfully slow, the NFL isn't much better with the amount of stoppages and commercial breaks they take and basketball has slowed to a snail's pace where the last 45 minutes of a televised game are spent covering the last five minutes of clock time.

This is the root problem for why hockey will always be a "foreign" game to most in the US, their brains just can't handle it and about 90% of fans of other sports are so-called 'casual' fans that don't really understand the game or it's rules but can still follow it at least because it so segemented and slow paced and constantly explained to them at every turn while they spend 10 minutes talking about one play and looking at it from 8 different angles etc. So it's an easy excuse to say you "don't get" hockey and watch something that is spoon fed to you in little neatly packaged slowmo soundbites.

In-game commercials is a shame! Hopefully, we don't have it on french TV. When we look sport, we look ALL the period straight, with most of the time dedicated to direct action, and a fiew replay of highlights. Commercials are only while the players are in the locker-room, and it alternates with a little sum-up of the past period. And when the game is back, the direct comes back with it. According to me that's the way it should always be, for any sport.

Shadd666 wrote:According to me that's the way it should always be, for any sport.

National Football League teams get over 100 million dollars per team just from their TV contracts. Why? The advertising money. During the Superbowl it's millions of dollars just for 30 seconds of time. Each time a football team punts or kicks off directly after that you get four commercials. Cha ching. The money aint there without the advertising, it's just the nature of the beast.

The only reason there aren't more "tv timeouts" in hockey is that they can't find enough sponsors to buy the time at a worthwhile price because there isn't enough of an audience. So yeah, it's definitiely the way it should be yeah but it wil never be that way in the US and probably Canada even.

Minstrel, now i get why soccer has never become popular in the states ;p

Shadd, the free livestream trough the internet cant be done except in smaller hockey countries, eg france, italy etc. other leagues pretty much have the audience they need, and therefore can sell tv rights and make money with it.

It sucks that Canal+ has the tv rights for Sm-Liiga at the moment, and you have to pay 30e a month to get Canal+. So no more free hockey from tv. Though i dont mind really, since they show 2 games' a week, and whenever there's an interesting match coming up i'll just go to pub to see the game. But to get hockey more popular, it should be free for all to watch.

B. Stinson wrote:

Hockey will not be popular until it becomes accessible to everyone, and when that "everyone" can actually afford to play it. Take me for example. I grew up playing and watching hockey. But I know I will never play any kind of pro hockey, because I have never had the chance to play any real ice hockey - I've grown up playing in roller hockey leagues. Even with that life-long committment, I can't compete with all the northern people who have had every day of their life to ice skate and play ice hockey.

This...is not the case anymore B. Stinson. Justin Morrison on the Manitoba Moose never skated on an ice rink until he was 15. Tommy Tartaglione, Vancouver Giants goalie...never played anything but Roller Hockey til he was 13. It is possible now. Roller hockey skating is almost exactly the same as ice hockey skating. Ice being somewhat more slippery of course.

As for the game and popularity...for decades in Canada we have been trying to impress the importance of the American market. Blah, whatever the game rules. We know it here ,and everyone on this site knows it. The rest can go play "men run all fall down, 10 minute break, men run all fall down, men kick ball all fall down 20 minute break. Start over." A quote from a female friend of mine about the NFL. Honestly, if the NHL does away with all teams that have no fans attending games it would be fine by me. The Hawks might stand a chance to be decent then, and we can keep their awesome uni's in the league.
As for making it more popular, how can it compete with poker or (I am so in trouble here) baseball? There are way more lazy slobs out there than athletes, so hockey is screwed.

And yeah, the money is hell. $500 to register my son just to play, $300 in additional ice fees for being on a rep team, $100 for team clothing (jacket, sweats), sticks are anywhere between $20 and $200 each, depending on how insane you are as a parent (I am not that insane...10 years old $20), each and every piece of equipment $50, skates $200. And it only goes up. My friend's kid is 18....$5000 in fees to play on the elite team he is on, for one season! Thank god I have nice parents, or my sone (batboy) would be very upset as would not be playing. They help out with gear costs.

I figure including registration, ice fees, tournaments, gas, hotel accomodation, and food (extra food cost as always, always running around) looking at about $2500-$3000 for this season. For a frigging 10 year old. That does not include gear.

Yeah I didn't mention the cost factor but as for development of the game as far as kids playing it and the game building grassroots this is the reason that it has done well in the New England/East Coast area as there is a tradition of hockey there but mainly because in general there are very wealthy areas on the East Coast that can pay those kinds of costs to have their kids play. Minnesota/Michigan /Wisconsin can at least get kids out onto frozen ponds... Texas is actually the largest and most developed hockey hotbed in the US at this point for youth hockey beleive it or not so the idea of "non traditional/warm weather" climes being worthless isn't exactly an informed point of view, more of just an easy argument to throw out there to blanketly write off non-traditional teams. But the cost of the sport really does hamper it's development especially with lower income areas in big cities where it simply will never be even in the Top 10 of sports options.

This...is not the case anymore B. Stinson. Justin Morrison on the Manitoba Moose never skated on an ice rink until he was 15. Tommy Tartaglione, Vancouver Giants goalie...never played anything but Roller Hockey til he was 13. It is possible now. Roller hockey skating is almost exactly the same as ice hockey skating. Ice being somewhat more slippery of course.

You may be right with those two players, but that's not much of a point. That's only two guys who have made the minors with little experience... and one of them isn't even a skater, he's a goaltender. Now, if half the guys in the NHL are 'started-when-I-was-15' guys, then it would mean something. But the fact is, most current pros started playing basically as soon as they could walk - making them an almost unbeatable competition for anyone who started at an older age.


And now that I think about it... another point that could be made is the rough nature of the sport. I doubt there are very many moms out there that would actually allow her "baby" to get into a sport where all of the abnormally large players try to crush the other players between their body and some unmovable solid boards.

P.S. I do agree with what Minty said. Hockey isn't spoon fed to the viewer like most American sports are. You have to be able to keep up with the action as it happens, because there's almost no time for anyone to explain it. I see it kind of like reading a picture book(football) versus reading a novel(hockey).

"Hockey needs the southern states in order to thrive? Thats gotta be one of the most retarded things I've ever heard" - E5150_ca

No, it's not a joke. First of all, you missed what I said, which is that hockey needs the US (as a whole) to thrive. I suppose I should've been clearer and specified the NHL, but I guess I figured that would be assumed on account of I mentioned "the return of hockey" right before I made that statement. Pro hockey, at the level it's currently being played, needs the revenue opportunities afforded by strong interest in the US in order to maintain itself. The cost of running a team is ridiculously high, there is practically no TV revenue to speak of, even winning teams are playing to empty arenas (New Jersey comes to mind), and the salary cap will crumble over inflationary salary arbitration if the system remains unchecked. The last point is most important because player salaries are tied to revenue; the salary cap is 54% of average revenue, which is why it's up for this year--the teams made more $$ than they expected to. It may well drop again next year or the year after. Do you see the point now? If money doesn't keep coming in consistently in places like Nashville and Anaheim and Tampa Bay there will be another economic crisis as the cap drops but players fight to maintain their salaries. The cap has done little to prevent indulgent spending by owners on players like Brad Richards, Chara and Jovanovski to name a few. Even Ryan Kesler is making 2 mil. So the NHL VERY MUCH needs support in ALL of its US markets. I wish that the league had never expanded as widely as it has, I think the thinning of focus and resources is a big part of the problem, but it is what it is. Obviously hockey the game will never die off and it will always be number 1 in places around the world (that is until global warming melts all the ice... ) but the NHL isn't out of trouble at all and support needs to be drummed up EVERYWHERE if it wants to build on the relative success of last season.

The expansion being a cause of the problems the game faces is what led me to come up with the Euro-league idea. Again, I know it wouldn't work but I just wanted to throw it out there as an example of thinking outside the box. It might not be a very GOOD example, but of course everyone thought that pushing back the bluelines was crazy, unworkable or irrelevant until it started to work in the farm leagues.

That reminds me, I read something about a few rinks springing up with blue ice and orange lines. The idea is to make the puck easier to see or something like that. Any thoughts there? Smacks of desperation to me but it might look kinda neat....I guess....

Hockey on the other hand - you can't play the pro form of the sport unless you have a nice slab of ice lying around for anyone to use... which believe it or not all you Canadians, not everyone has.

For B Stinson. My last comment to you:

You did say pro hockey career in your previous post. Not NHL CAREER. Be clear if you mean NHL career. Not just pro hockey. And I am not saying ALL players who play pro hockey played roller hockey. Read better. I said it was POSSIBLE to grow up playing roller hockey, and not just ice hockey. So my point stands perfectly. There is also an NHL all star who never played hockey until he was 14. Several other players are out there too from roller hockey lands in pro or junior hockey. Take a look at WHL rosters and see how many kids are from California...guess what? They started as roller hockey players. It is possible. That is what I am saying, it can happen and does. And the more time goes by, the more it is happening.

Many pro hockey players did not start until later on either. James Demone in the ECHL started at 12. AS did Craig Coxe (former NHL goon--oh and he is Californian from the 80s early 90s NHL). If you have been around the game in any capacity as long as I have, you run into guys all over the place who played pro hockey who started late. I am not saying you could ice an NHL team from these guys. With the exception of Jovo I know of few in the NHL...but you said pro, and I took you at your word. Sorry, that would be my mistake I guess. I read too well.


And to the momma's boys part of the post. Possibly the case that kids who would be great hockey players never get a chance to play. But that is no different from other sports in terms of numbers.So I do not think it has much of an effect on hockey popularity out there. Parents or mom's who are nervous about injury, are nervous period about injury. The kid does not play football, rugby, baseball or soccer either in most, if not all of those cases. Maybe basketball...

As for needing US non-traditional markets for the game. Maybe if we want the NHL like it is now. But I see no problem going back to 20 teams, or even 15. Better hockey, faster, more action...maybe create more fans in the niche USA areas, or bring back the ones we clearly have lost in Chicago, St Louis, and other spots.

"As for needing US non-traditional markets for the game. Maybe if we want the NHL like it is now. But I see no problem going back to 20 teams, or even 15. Better hockey, faster, more action...maybe create more fans in the niche USA areas, or bring back the ones we clearly have lost in Chicago, St Louis, and other spots."

Absolutely it would be better if there were fewer teams. Fringe players would have to compete their hearts out for jobs, teams would be better as a result and the product would be more exciting on the ice (which I think is what you were getting at). Seems to me like we're stuck with what we have though.

You did say pro hockey career in your previous post. Not NHL CAREER. Be clear if you mean NHL career. Not just pro hockey. And I am not saying ALL players who play pro hockey played roller hockey. Read better. I said it was POSSIBLE to grow up playing roller hockey, and not just ice hockey. So my point stands perfectly.

If you wanna get technical, I actually never said anything about a career in anything being linked with past experience - except when I used the example of my own lack of ice experience holding me from a desire to compete with the pros. But my own ability and career chances have nothing to do with anyone else's. So next time you want to insult my ability to clearly form a thought, and insult my ability to read... look in the mirror first.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you would allow me to have an opinion once in a while. It's quite annoying to come to a place like this, only to have one kid(yes, I said kid) who does nothing but tear your opinions apart at any chance he gets, and tries to prove that they're somehow a wrong opinion.

In France, for example, there is absolutely NO hockey on the public channels

I agree Shad. Over here in England all we get on public tv is Snooker, F1, Superbikes, Football Rugby etc. Don't get me wrong I love my football as I have alway been a big follower as we have a team. I do however wish I could turn on the tv and see some Ice Hockey. That won't happen though. The only way this would happen is if I payed £15 for Setanta sports to see some Ice hockey games and hope that more come on. That is the sort of money I don't have. Channel 5 used to show Ice Hockey games but i don't think they are showing any this season. Even Sky Sports don't show Ice Hockey. They only show NFL, I do love watching American sports don't get me wrong but i want to see Hockey more than anything.

As for playing it. I would love to learn how to play ice hockey but I have never been able to afford. To play football you can get a ball for about £10 but to play ice hockey it would cost alot more and as a kid we never had that kind of money. Plus I never knew we had any Ice hockey untill a few years ago. The closest Ice hockey team to me would be Manchester and that is a 40 minutes drive away. I don't have a car so getting there would cost even more money on a train.

I will probably get to at least one game this season in the EIHL and I will prbably go watch the Pheonix. Luckily my freind would also like to go watch ice Hockey so travel will work out alot cheaper. I would love to go to more but it conflicts with my Football. As most home games end up when Huddersfield are playing at home also. With me having a Season ticket for Huddersfield I would not be willing to miss it to go see a game of Ice Hockey. If we was away though I happily would.

I do wish that BBC could buy rights to show EIHL games. Or at least have a weekly program that lasts an hour showing the games over the weekend.

I think the NHL could get rougher. Not too far but I think that casual fans enjoy that part of the game and it attracts them. I would say keep the number the same at the moment. 30 teams is streching it but if we get rid of teams we may find they are not there if we need them back.
It may be a fair shout to say that there are teams like St Louis, Chicago, Columbus etc that have little interest. Yes perhaps there are citys in say canada that could get more. But without the st Louis and Chicago of this league the bigger household names would be languising near the bottom more often therefore if there is to be a 30 team league you need some smaller teams in as they can take the struggling more easily.

As for the shootouts I think they are unnessary I would much prefer to see a 10 minute period of overtime and call it a tie after that. Fair enough have 4 on 4 for ot to have some excitement. But shootout wins do not mean a great team. If Buffalo had won against atlanta in shootouts they would have retained their perfect streak that is not right in my eyes. If they insist in having so's at least have it so regulation time wins = 3 points and ot and shoot out wins = 2 points with 1 point to ot or so loser

A euroleague an interesting theory but really I cannot see being able to work on same level as NHL. I would however like an NHL Europe like the NFL Europe. Would be tricky to find a suitabel time to have it but I thik it could be good.

Out of interest what cities out there in north america do they think could have an NHL team
I would guess at Winnipeg, Hamilton, Halifax, houston, san fransisco, perhpas the last 2 are there just on their size

If there was to be an NHL europe thing like the NFL thing what cities could have teams
well

Moscow, St Petersbery, Bern, Prague, Berlin, Bratislava, Stockholm, Helsinki, Turku, Frankfurt

perhaps 2nd string ideas: Turin, UK team (share home games in Belfast, Sheffield, Nottingham, Manchester, Newcastle,Glasgow), Riga, Kazan, Vienna, etc

In football cities can have 2 or more big teams e.g Milan, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool,
Could this be done in the really big hockey markets perhaps with the history now it is too late but there would be enough hockey fans to fill 2 arenas in certainly the Canadian teams and maybe some American teams. I know that the system does not encourage that as they would need to pay big money to moe anywhere near current franchises but if things had been different.

I would like to see many more exhibition matches in Europe of NHL teams. Perhaps if they fail to make the play offs those teams could come over for a week or 2 would help promote the NHL more in Europe. Right now all we get is brief highights on NHL.com and if we want to see live games often having to pay.

As for the shootouts I think they are unnessary I would much prefer to see a 10 minute period of overtime and call it a tie after that. Fair enough have 4 on 4 for ot to have some excitement. But shootout wins do not mean a great team.

I'll admit - I was one of the shootout advocates during the lockout... but now that I see it in action and being the decider for so many games, I am not a fan anymore(I think I was a fan just because I never really saw one, and I just had an itching to see one happen).

It's definately an exciting thing to watch, which is why they implemented it in the first place... but in the end, all it really does for true fans of the sport is wipe that night's slate clean, and give either team a chance to walk away with the full win.

For example, on Thursday when the Flyers played the Thrashers, it went into OT tied at 2. During OT, I thought the Flyers completely out-played Atlanta, but they just couldn't score, so it went to a shootout. A shootout is exciting, but I wasn't excited at all, was extremely nervous... because now Atlanta - who was clearly outplayed for the last five minutes - has the exact same chances to win as the Flyers did. Luckily Atlanta pulled their '4-0 in shootouts' goalie for one who had yet to play that night, so we still won... but the point is that: for a diehard hockey fan, a shootout becomes more unfair than exciting.

But there's not much we can do about that... they did it to make the sport more exciting to us Americans who want the excitement to be created for us, rather than us having to use some thought process to create the excitement.

Please don't put Chicago and St. Louis in the same category as for fan interest/market. This town used to be absolutely owned by the Blackhawks and through the 80's pre-Jordan's Bulls they were still the most popular team in town by a landslide. It's our retarded ownership that has driven away what could be a huge fanbase. St. Louis has been a f-up of a franchise in a town where nobody has ever given a rubbish about their sadsack team...

And I refuse to speak of the abomination that is the Shootout which I think is the most anticlimactic and boring thing ever concieved.

grazza wrote:Out of interest what cities out there in north america do they think could have an NHL team
I would guess at Winnipeg, Hamilton, Halifax, houston, san fransisco, perhpas the last 2 are there just on their size

What about Quebec? The Nordiques had a good fanbase... And i'm also for the return of the Winnipeg Jets. Those two teams were in the NHL when i discovered hockey, and i'd really enjoy to see them back in the big league.

grazza wrote:regulation time wins = 3 points and ot and shoot out wins = 2 points with 1 point to ot or so loser

I prefer the Elitserien points system:
3 points for regulation win
2 points for overtime win
1 point for overtime loss or tie
0 point for regulation loss

That means NO shootout!!!

B. Stinson wrote:for a diehard hockey fan, a shootout becomes more unfair than exciting.

Shootout is unfair in any sport. Just look at the last soccer world cup final... France was clearly better than Italy, and clearly the best team of the world cup... But they fail to be champions only in the shootouts.
So i'm 100% against the shootout! Go back to tie games in regular season, and as many OT periods as needed in the playoffs! Winners have to deserve their win this way!
Shootouts may be exciting...for fun! So it should be good to put a shootout contest in the contests of the all-star game. But it MUSTN'T be the deciding thing for the win!!!

They already have 20 minute continuous overtime in the playoffs, Shadd.

I really don't mind the shootout that much due to my intense hatred of ties. The problem I have with it is that 5 minutes of overtime isn't enough. Make it 10 minutes of overtime, I say!

And for anyone wondering why I hate ties, it's because in 2001-2002 we had a stretch of games where we had 8 ties in a row, 9 in 11 games. Then in 2002-2003 we had a stretch of 4 or 5 ties twice. In 2003-2004 we didn't have a block of ties, but we still had way to many.

Keep the shootout, but give the teams more time to finish the game the right way!

I would keep the shootout and make it 3 points for a win in regulation.

FAns especially the next generation of fan, love the shootout. No matter how many of us hate it. Thousands stay in buildings and go nuts. If the NHL used the shootout properly it would be an amazing marketing tool. Who would ever have thought Marek Malik could do that? It breeds a whole new type of star to market, and bring more fans to the rink. Cannot wait for someone to pull the pick the puck up on the blade thing and twirl it around like a lacrosse ball. My bet on Rob Shremp.

But yeah..shootouts in general suck. Exciting to see the cool moves you never see. Kids love em. But for me, snooze worthy. You should see minor hockey practices for a week after a new move is seen in a shootout. It is awesome to watch these kids all try it. And some do it!

grazza wrote:I would like to see many more exhibition matches in Europe of NHL teams. Perhaps if they fail to make the play offs those teams could come over for a week or 2 would help promote the NHL more in Europe. Right now all we get is brief highights on NHL.com and if we want to see live games often having to pay.

The way hockey is organized in europe this is not really possible. Season here end earlier than the the playoffs even begin in nhl, and after the season theres only a short while for national teams to get ready for the world championships. And i highly doubt the teams would want to play any more games after the long season. If there are to be more exhibition games in europe, they ought to be played before the season here starts, which might be around the time NHL get ready for their camps etc, not completely sure on this one though.