NHL Lockout for 2012?

Really hoping it doesn't happen, but will there be another NHL lockout?
http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2012/5/18/3028644/nhl-lockout-cba-talks-nhlpa

Hope not, they can't afford it. They're struggling as it is with their fanbase.

Dark Horseman wrote:

Hope not, they can't afford it. They're struggling as it is with their fanbase.

Not according to the article. Their profits are up, their fanbase is up, etc.

I sure hope not!

ultmetal wrote:

Not according to the article. Their profits are up, their fanbase is up, etc.

But ratings were down for the Playoffs as all major teams went golfing early on. It's kinda sad, i'm a Red Wings Fan but i usually root for the underdogs, the small teams and i think it's great the L.A. Kings won the Cup.
A Majority of fans are just bandwagon fans, you could see it in Nashville and Phoenix, when suddenly more and more people showed up - who won't show up next season.

If there's another lockout, i hope they kick out Bettman. He is basically the cancer of the NHL (no wonder since he before was a NBA guy, he has no clue about hockey and all his projects went horribly wrong, with "Hockey in the Desert" surviving the longest so far)

I think the NHL doesn't even know what direction they want, they don't want fight, nor penalties and think about reinstating the 2 Line Pass rule all the while scoring goes down every season.

NHL Gamecenter with their Archive is a curse, i watch those 90's games and they are exciting, lots of action, speed, goals, it was just so fine...ever since that 2004 lockout the NHL has been nothing what it was before

I hope not.

Right now it's just each side drawing their lines in the sand. Wait till the preseason gets closer and the real pissing match begins. Then I'll start to care.

Gary Bettman is one thing, but Don Fehr is just trouble. The union didn't bring him in to agree to the owners' demands.

I don't think fighting will be removed any time soon. The people who think fighting in hockey is disgusting are people who don't watch hockey anyway. Will they suddenly start watching hockey if fighting is removed? Hell no! But hockey fans, for the most part, love the fights. They might stop buying season tickets if there is no chance of a fight.

Obviously you don't want the crazy 80's back, that'd be hard to market as a family sport, but last season there were only 601 fights, which is less than a fight per game and about average post lockout. I think that's a good number. Teach your kids a little right and wrong and sticking up for your team mates, but let's not get back into the "I went to the fights, but a hockey game broke out" times.

wow. It took awhile for them to recover last time. This would be really bad for a league that is starting to recover.

First of all, it's Gary Bettman who has pushed this league to the brink of failure since the early 90's. His gross expansion during the 90's was so completely foolish and unrealistic, we're still paying the price. And his allowing certain moves to impossible markets.

I love hockey. It's the greatest sport we have for me personally. But it's a small market sport and that will never change. You can't support 30 teams, especially when you have a complete ignoramus allowing teams to start/move in places like Phoenix, Atlanta, Florida and on and on. Most of these teams have been in trouble off and on for over 10 years. Hell, teams in what use to be "great" markets have almost bankrupted, I.E. Penguins.

They have to let some of the teams die. Finding new ownership and new City's won't fix the NHL. The talent pool has already been severely diluted over the last 20 years. I think 22 maybe 24 teams would create better hockey and a stronger league. I don't know what the magic number is... But instead, Bettman keeps forcing all the profitable teams/owners to subsidize all of his failed transplants and expansion teams. It's a joke.

FYI, Bettman is an attorney by trade....what idiots thought he could run a large professional organization?

T-Roy wrote:

First of all, it's Gary Bettman who has pushed this league to the brink of failure since the early 90's. His gross expansion during the 90's was so completely foolish and unrealistic, we're still paying the price. And his allowing certain moves to impossible markets.

I love hockey. It's the greatest sport we have for me personally. But it's a small market sport and that will never change. You can't support 30 teams, especially when you have a complete ignoramus allowing teams to start/move in places like Phoenix, Atlanta, Florida and on and on. Most of these teams have been in trouble off and on for over 10 years. Hell, teams in what use to be "great" markets have almost bankrupted, I.E. Penguins.

They have to let some of the teams die. Finding new ownership and new City's won't fix the NHL. The talent pool has already been severely diluted over the last 20 years. I think 22 maybe 24 teams would create better hockey and a stronger league. I don't know what the magic number is... But instead, Bettman keeps forcing all the profitable teams/owners to subsidize all of his failed transplants and expansion teams. It's a joke.

I agree - it is time for some of the franchises to go away (or back to where they came from i.e. Hartford)

exact33 wrote:

T-Roy wrote:

First of all, it's Gary Bettman who has pushed this league to the brink of failure since the early 90's. His gross expansion during the 90's was so completely foolish and unrealistic, we're still paying the price. And his allowing certain moves to impossible markets.

I love hockey. It's the greatest sport we have for me personally. But it's a small market sport and that will never change. You can't support 30 teams, especially when you have a complete ignoramus allowing teams to start/move in places like Phoenix, Atlanta, Florida and on and on. Most of these teams have been in trouble off and on for over 10 years. Hell, teams in what use to be "great" markets have almost bankrupted, I.E. Penguins.

They have to let some of the teams die. Finding new ownership and new City's won't fix the NHL. The talent pool has already been severely diluted over the last 20 years. I think 22 maybe 24 teams would create better hockey and a stronger league. I don't know what the magic number is... But instead, Bettman keeps forcing all the profitable teams/owners to subsidize all of his failed transplants and expansion teams. It's a joke.

I agree - it is time for some of the franchises to go away (or back to where they came from i.e. Hartford)

Whalers!!! Most people don't remember, but that's where Shanahan and I believe Ron Francis played when they were young. Didn't Howe play there too, or his son(s)? There were some great players that came from the Failures....I mean Whalers!!!

I think part of the problem is how well it worked to relocate the Nordiques to Colorado and he thinks it will always work that way.

T-Roy wrote:

exact33 wrote:

T-Roy wrote:

First of all, it's Gary Bettman who has pushed this league to the brink of failure since the early 90's. His gross expansion during the 90's was so completely foolish and unrealistic, we're still paying the price. And his allowing certain moves to impossible markets.

I love hockey. It's the greatest sport we have for me personally. But it's a small market sport and that will never change. You can't support 30 teams, especially when you have a complete ignoramus allowing teams to start/move in places like Phoenix, Atlanta, Florida and on and on. Most of these teams have been in trouble off and on for over 10 years. Hell, teams in what use to be "great" markets have almost bankrupted, I.E. Penguins.

They have to let some of the teams die. Finding new ownership and new City's won't fix the NHL. The talent pool has already been severely diluted over the last 20 years. I think 22 maybe 24 teams would create better hockey and a stronger league. I don't know what the magic number is... But instead, Bettman keeps forcing all the profitable teams/owners to subsidize all of his failed transplants and expansion teams. It's a joke.

I agree - it is time for some of the franchises to go away (or back to where they came from i.e. Hartford)

Whalers!!! Most people don't remember, but that's where Shanahan and I believe Ron Francis played when they were young. Didn't Howe play there too, or his son(s)? There were some great players that came from the Failures....I mean Whalers!!!

I've been to a bunch of Phoenix games over the last few years and I've never seen a half empty house. The games have been packed. So perhaps Phoenix wasn't a bad move.

Dark Horseman wrote:

I think part of the problem is how well it worked to relocate the Nordiques to Colorado and he thinks it will always work that way.

That's very true, that did work out well. And maybe you could use the Northstars/Stars as well. But that was prior to Bettman. The point is, there are good relocations that make sense, that are set up to win. And then there are stupid ones, dumb ones that everybody EXCEPT Bettman, know have a snow balls chance in hell at surviving. Altanta, Phoenix, Anehem, Florida, Tampa Bay, Carolina, Nashville and no offense to Minnesota or Winnipeg fans, but those two as well. Simply based off of history, those are two high-risk markets. Some of these cities can't or barely support NFL, NBA or MLB teams....

And then you have Bettmans incompetence when it comes to the actual quality of the game. Lest we forget it was under him we had the ridiculous "interference/foot in the crease during a goal scored" rule that effected countless outcomes of regular season games, playoffs and no doubt cup finals. And then we can also thank his regime for the excitement killing "two line pass" rule that snoozed an already goal starving league all through the 90's. Despite the fact that the international stage rightfully ignored those two foolish rules all during this time. Also, if anybody can, go back and watch film of 80's superstars and early 90's (pre Bettman). Notice how rare it is to see an attacking forward or center being held by up in the neutral zone or at the blue-line? Sure,there was checking, hip checks and all the like, but the use of grabbing, clutching, hooking was extremely rare during the course of breakaways, odd man rushes or forward progressing play. My favorite example and my personal hockey hero is Mario. Watch his highlights, and so many others. I don't know how or why, but the birthplace of obstruction seems to be the 90's and just got worse as time went on. I believe that may be connected to a dilution of talent. Coaches see this, and they adapt to that environment. The old trap/Devils? That is an "obstruction" style of play found in every team to some degree now, in the NHL.

Anyways, I could talk about hockey philosophy all day....it's fun!

ultmetal wrote:

T-Roy wrote:

exact33 wrote:

T-Roy wrote:

First of all, it's Gary Bettman who has pushed this league to the brink of failure since the early 90's. His gross expansion during the 90's was so completely foolish and unrealistic, we're still paying the price. And his allowing certain moves to impossible markets.

I love hockey. It's the greatest sport we have for me personally. But it's a small market sport and that will never change. You can't support 30 teams, especially when you have a complete ignoramus allowing teams to start/move in places like Phoenix, Atlanta, Florida and on and on. Most of these teams have been in trouble off and on for over 10 years. Hell, teams in what use to be "great" markets have almost bankrupted, I.E. Penguins.

They have to let some of the teams die. Finding new ownership and new City's won't fix the NHL. The talent pool has already been severely diluted over the last 20 years. I think 22 maybe 24 teams would create better hockey and a stronger league. I don't know what the magic number is... But instead, Bettman keeps forcing all the profitable teams/owners to subsidize all of his failed transplants and expansion teams. It's a joke.

I agree - it is time for some of the franchises to go away (or back to where they came from i.e. Hartford)

Whalers!!! Most people don't remember, but that's where Shanahan and I believe Ron Francis played when they were young. Didn't Howe play there too, or his son(s)? There were some great players that came from the Failures....I mean Whalers!!!

I've been to a bunch of Phoenix games over the last few years and I've never seen a half empty house. The games have been packed. So perhaps Phoenix wasn't a bad move.

Thats great, but it's been a public fact they have been near bankrupt, of which they were almost purchased by the now Jets owner, a couple years ago. And that was at least the second time there was talk of them being sold and moved in their young history.

the Penguins though are an example of a franchise that has struggled and they have a good fanbase. I think sometimes it has more to do with the sport - hockey fans are diehards and a lot of people who are not diehards dont think of watching hockey - which is really where the money is at.

Quote :

Dark Horseman wrote:

I think part of the problem is how well it worked to relocate the Nordiques to Colorado and he thinks it will always work that way.

That's very true, that did work out well. And maybe you could use the Northstars/Stars as well. But that was prior to Bettman. The point is, there are good relocations that make sense, that are set up to win. And then there are stupid ones, dumb ones that everybody EXCEPT Bettman, know have a snow balls chance in hell at surviving. Altanta, Phoenix, Anehem, Florida, Tampa Bay, Carolina, Nashville and no offense to Minnesota or Winnipeg fans, but those two as well. Simply based off of history, those are two high-risk markets. Some of these cities can't or barely support NFL, NBA or MLB teams....

Yeah, I should've clarified. I think he's seen those two work and thought he could replicate that without understanding hockey won't fly in every midsized American city. As for int'l hocky, i've often thought the NHL could learn from them, I love the high flying way they play.

ShadowAngel wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

Not according to the article. Their profits are up, their fanbase is up, etc.

But ratings were down for the Playoffs as all major teams went golfing early on. It's kinda sad, i'm a Red Wings Fan but i usually root for the underdogs, the small teams and i think it's great the L.A. Kings won the Cup.
A Majority of fans are just bandwagon fans, you could see it in Nashville and Phoenix, when suddenly more and more people showed up - who won't show up next season.

Nashville has good attendence all the time, and they got an NHL team because they supported the minors for so many years there. Plus, they made it no futher than they did last season. Just because they're in the south doesn't mean they don' t go to games. They do.

[quote="Dark Horseman"]

Quote :

As for int'l hocky, i've often thought the NHL could learn from them, I love the high flying way they play.

ME TOO!!!

One last Bettman bashing. The one thing I've ALWAYS hated about international hockey is the shootout. Hockey is a team sport, and to play 65 minutes as such and then decide it individually is so lame. I completely agreed with getting rid of regular season ties, which is equally absurd. But incorporating the shootout ONLY for the regular season games? It's such an excitement killer for me and they're very empty wins. One of the reasons I've never cared for soccer, but...there's at least a very old tradition of the shoot out in soccer.

I say let them play full 20 minute, sudden death overtime wins in the regular season. Just like the NBA and NFL. You play as a team, you should win/lose as one. And then completely changing it for the playoffs? He's just so incompetent and inconsistent regarding "the game" it's pathetic.

One more thing...does Bettman have some sort of medical issue? Why is the guys head twitching and bobbing up and down constantly when he speaks into a microphone? Far as I know he never played, so it can't be too many hits to the head?! I digress....

He can feel you staring at him, makes him twitchy.

Dark Horseman wrote:

He can feel you staring at him, makes him twitchy.