Roenick - "We've agreed to some kind of deal."

[Chadd 916]

If it's fair for a team to pay less money, why isn't it fair for another team to pay more money? If one owner wants to pocket $25M a year that should be his choice. However, if another owner wants to put that money back into the team and try to put a better team on the ice, shouldn't he be permitted to do so as well?

well look at the rangers. they invest a ton of money into the team and still dont make the playoffs? i think teams who are struggling should be given a little extra cash (i.e. both of our teams chadd, pit and chi) but i dont think teams like detroit and philly should have to cut 30 million off of their payroll.

Chicago used to be a great hockey town, and still is. The fans have just given up on the ownership and management. Chicago doesn't need any money, they just need to stop pissing on their fans and they'll be fine.

The Penguins never should have been permitted to come out of banruptcy and remain in Pitt without an agreement signed for a new arena. Since then, they have gone from giving some money for the new building, to the new money coming from a ticket tax, to not giving any money at all and still expecting a new building. If the owners are expecting a nice, new, FREE arena, fuck them and move the team.

As for the NFL; the constant replays, one game a week and stars that are on the field for extended periods of time make it easier to market. It's also easier to learn the game when there is so much time for an announcer to explain what you just saw. Then you have Madden describing some other game. Competitive balance? I have two words for you Arizona Cardinals.

[chippa13 1844]

Hockey action doesn't translate well to tv. True. A lack of stoppages has nothing to do with things because, as I've noted, there are plenty each period.

The problem with generating interest is that too many of the non-traditional teams aren't competitive and the NHL game has lost some of its excitement punch.

Look, a fringe fan in Atlanta has too many other options to paying good money to see the Thrashers struggle their way into 9th/10th place. There is the NFL, NBA, college football, college basketball, MLB, etc, etc which all can distract a newcomer to the NHL if the NHL team isn't worth watching.

[chippa13 1844]

If it's fair for a team to pay less money, why isn't it fair for another team to pay more money? If one owner wants to pocket $25M a year that should be his choice. However, if another owner wants to put that money back into the team and try to put a better team on the ice, shouldn't he be permitted to do so as well?

well look at the rangers. they invest a ton of money into the team and still dont make the playoffs? i think teams who are struggling should be given a little extra cash (i.e. both of our teams chadd, pit and chi) but i dont think teams like detroit and philly should have to cut 30 million off of their payroll.

Chicago used to be a great hockey town, and still is. The fans have just given up on the ownership and management. Chicago doesn't need any money, they just need to stop pissing on their fans and they'll be fine.

The Penguins never should have been permitted to come out of banruptcy and remain in Pitt without an agreement signed for a new arena. Since then, they have gone from giving some money for the new building, to the new money coming from a ticket tax, to not giving any money at all and still expecting a new building. If the owners are expecting a nice, new, FREE arena, fuck them and move the team.

As for the NFL; the constant replays, one game a week and stars that are on the field for extended periods of time make it easier to market. It's also easier to learn the game when there is so much time for an announcer to explain what you just saw. Then you have Madden describing some other game. Competitive balance? I have two words for you Arizona Cardinals.

The NFL has 1 Arizona Cardinals. The NHL has 12.

[PJLime 0]

If we are talking about Americans (and I am one), most Americans don't grow up playing hockey or watching hockey on TV. Most Americans play baseball and/or football as children and therefore understand the games and have a passion for them.

Playing the sport of hockey in the U.S. is a regional thing. The NHL has been trying to get people who don't care about hockey to watch hockey. That is a difficult thing to do. Certainly, people all over the U.S. play hockey. But not enough to translate into television viewership as the NHL wants.

[Jason Harris 31]

I don't think it's laziness that makes football more popular on TV than hockey. I think familiarity has more to do with it (although I know there are some drunk skunks out there that look forward to Sunday football).

Also, football really is the perfect TV sport, mainly because the stoppage in plays allows analysis and replays. Conversely, I'd rather see a hockey game live versus a football game, because that down time stinks in brutal weather. On TV, however, the audience gets to see a jarring hit three times before the next play, whereas you may need to wait four minutes to see a replay in hockey. Obviously, everybody here is a diehard, but maybe the novice fan finds it difficult to learn the game without the constant replays and analysis.

Just a thought, not a suggestion to make a change.

[mack 44]

Football's just more exciting to watch on TV, plain and simple. Granted I still think nothing's better as a sport to watch than playoff hockey, but day-to-day games are just incredibly boring.

[Chadd 916]

Football's just more exciting to watch on TV, plain and simple. Granted I still think nothing's better as a sport to watch than playoff hockey, but day-to-day games are just incredibly boring.

I must be one of the only American males who can't stand to watch football on TV. If I can stay awake through a game it's amazing. The game is so much better on TV than live but the obnoxious drunk behind me usually keeps me awake in the stadium. I guess I don't need someone to tell me what I just saw, let alone explain it to me. I just want to see more action.

[hockeydude_49 0]

Football's just more exciting to watch on TV, plain and simple.  Granted I still think nothing's better as a sport to watch than playoff hockey, but day-to-day games are just incredibly boring.

I must be one of the only American males who can't stand to watch football on TV. If I can stay awake through a game it's amazing. The game is so much better on TV than live but the obnoxious drunk behind me usually keeps me awake in the stadium. I guess I don't need someone to tell me what I just saw, let alone explain it to me. I just want to see more action.

lol I fall asleep everytime I try to watch a football game on tv. IMO its just incredible boring watching the team make little 2 or 3 yard gains then punt it, and I guess it doesn't help much that I'm watching the Vikings :D IMO the best thing on tv to watch is the Gopher mens hockey. Its exciting and fast paced and they just score more than NHL games so it keeps you more entertained.

[Jason Harris 31]

Granted I still think nothing's better as a sport to watch than playoff hockey.

No doubt about that, Mack. I know they would never do it, but I've always felt the NHL should cut back to 50 games.

Because of how long the season is now, particularly if they were to truly hit, it seems guys hold back somewhat until March when they start to make a playoff push. If you had a 50 game season, you had better start making your playoff push 20 games into the season or you'll end up packing early. Plus, players would be fresher going into the playoffs.

[bigmak05 0]

I don't really know how to put this into words too well but i f the problem is that some Americans, or Canadians for that matter, don't understand the game, why don't they try to explain a few rules or certain situations in the game during intermission? Kind of like when your watching poker and they explain the rules and hands during breaks. It may help people to understand and therefore enjoy the game more.

[Jason Harris 31]

I don't really know how to put this into words too well but i f the problem is that some Americans, or Canadians for that matter, don't understand the game, why don't they try to explain a few rules or certain situations in the game during intermission? Kind of like when your watching poker and they explain the rules and hands during breaks. It may help people to understand and therefore enjoy the game more.

Many of the telecasts will explain the game during the intermission. They'll either show a replay with the telestrator, or they'll take someone's email and answer it on the air.

I've never quite understood when people say hockey is too hard to follow on TV, but I've heard enough people say it to realize it is apparently a valid concern. The way I look at, physics tell you if a guy shoots on the right around the boards, you should turn your eyes to the left because that is where the puck will obviously end up.

[chippa13 1844]

Hockey is similar to baseball in that something is lost between being at the game versus watching it on tv. Most fringe fans become real fans when they have actually been to a game. HD has helped hockey somewhat in that I have noticed a marked improvement in HD televised games. For one thing, more of this ice is on the screen. Also, because of the improved definition, regular folks are better able to follow the play.

[ktang 34]

I don't really know how to put this into words too well but i f the problem is that some Americans, or Canadians for that matter, don't understand the game, why don't they try to explain a few rules or certain situations in the game during intermission? Kind of like when your watching poker and they explain the rules and hands during breaks. It may help people to understand and therefore enjoy the game more.

"Peter Puck"!!! (the animated puck that explained the rules in the '70s, on CBS I think).

[ktang 34]

Sean Avery's Comments