the worst thing to ever happen to hockey

7/24/09 in NHL   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

Gary Bettman thought that the NHL needed to flourish in the southern states and non-traditional hockey markets to become a player in the big leagues. He added expansion teams to these markets and moved existing teams there as well.

In order for them to be more marketable right away, it would be better for them to be more competitive and not get blown out on most nights. If only there was a way to restrict talent and manufacture less scoring, the games would be more competitive, closer in scoring, and more exciting to watch, especially for fans in the new markets.

Bettman battled the fans and media for almost his entire tenure, about obstruction, lack of scoring, and rules always insisting that there is nothing wrong and that the state of the game has never been better. Never in the history of major sport has the amount of scoring changed as drastically as the first few years bettman took over as commissioner of the nhl.

While the fans were complaining about lack of scoring and officiating, goalie equipment gradually and surreptitiously got bigger and bigger.

Over-sized goalie equipment is a more obvious example of cheating than steroids are. I remember watching a game on TV and during one of the intermissions they were showing the webbing Patrick Roy was using between his legs.Outrageous! The fans and media are screaming, "What happened to the goals? We hate the trap. No more obstruction," and this guy has webbing between his legs. He should have received a lengthy suspension, if not banished from the NHL all together.

i always chuckle when i hear an announcer exclaim "great glove save" and the goalie hardly moved his glove, if at all.  Only after the puck is in it do they embellish with some theatrics. Want to see some great glove saves that were exciting to watch? Watch some games before Bettman was the Commissioner. I am sure most players would give up composite sticks if goalie equipment was only as big as it was in the 80s, before Bettman came along.

Most of the goals these days are what was known as "garbage goals." There's nothing wrong with some garbage goals, but a great passing play, a beautiful sniper shot, or a sweet deke are more entertaining to watch. Statistics should have an asterisk denoting when and for how many years a player played in the NHL while Bettman was Commissioner.  

Fans boo him any chance they get. I know this is an embarrassment for the NHL, but the NHL IS an embarrassment as long as he is the commissioner.      
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

11/24/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
But the allowed size didn't change hardly at all.  What happened was goalies started to take advantage of the rule as it was written.  Can't blame them for following the rules.

I don't blame the goalies at all

11/24/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
Pads have been downsized but are still bigger than before Bettman began his tenure as commissioner, but it is not the pad size it is all the reat of the equipment that is making the biggest difference

But the allowed size didn't change hardly at all.  What happened was goalies started to take advantage of the rule as it was written.  Can't blame them for following the rules.

11/24/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
 Bowman pulled that stunt to prove a point. All that I am trying to say is that goalie equipment should be for protecting the goalie not to help cover more net, The game would be better with more net to shoot at.
I like that fact that for the first time in my life they are usually trying to call all the rules rather than randomly..I am apalled that they allowed all the obstruction that they did during most of Bettman's tenure as commissioner for the sake of parity.

What point?  And why?

More net to shoot being a good thing is a subjective thing.

They were letting the bulk of the obstructions slide going back to John Ziegler & Clarence Campbell.  It was under Bettman's reign that changed.

11/23/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
Parity is a catch phrase for ALL pro sports leagues!  Except MLB.  Which doesn't have it but fans want it.  No, you never used the word "conspiracy" but you did describe the events in such a way that happens to be the definition of the word "conspiracy".

Obstruction has been in place for ages.  It was there when I first started watching the NHL in the early 80's.  And was only recently tried to be dealt with.  (Ineffectively in my view, but I'm not on a crusade about it)  The goalie equipment has never been illegal.  As long as I have been following hockey, the legal size has never increased.  The answer to your question is this...  Because it the size still fell within the rules.  It might be that some players never took advantage of the full size.  But, and you keep forgetting this, the pad size was officially downsized years ago.  So you got what you wanted.  I don't understand why you are still harping about it.

Pads have been downsized but are still bigger than before Bettman began his tenure as commissioner, but it is not the pad size it is all the reat of the equipment that is making the biggest difference

11/23/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
Why would Bowman pull that stunt?  What on Earth was he trying to prove?

Plus, new equipment always changes things.  Look at the evolution of the baseball mitt.  Batting helmets.  In hockey, face masks and other pads.  Things change.  You have to accept that.

And besides...  Nothing you wrote challenges what I had earlier said.  You just went off on some kind of history lesson.

So in the end, you seem to not like things to evolve.  Sorry about that. 

 Bowman pulled that stunt to prove a point. All that I am trying to say is that goalie equipment should be for protecting the goalie not to help cover more net, The game would be better with more net to shoot at.
I like that fact that for the first time in my life they are usually trying to call all the rules rather than randomly..I am apalled that they allowed all the obstruction that they did during most of Bettman's tenure as commissioner for the sake of parity.

11/11/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
Goalie Pads were changed to 12 inches in 1984....known as the Barrasso rule. In 1997, Scotty Bowman pulled a stunt where he had Mike Vernon stand on a spot in the crease wearing the equipment he used as a rookie and the equipment he wore in the 1996-97. His 1985-86 equipment covered 33% of the net from the specific point that Bowman used, and 50% when using the 96-97 equipment. Vernon was also able to completely enclose his 1982 Junior glove within his 1997 glove. A couple of years ago, Mario Lemieux discovered that using modern equipment, 57 year old Gilles Meloche had reflexes slightly faster than Marc-Andre Fleury...........and when Fleury put on a pair of Meloche's old pads...he couldn't stop a thing. The advances in goalie equipment between 1985 and 2004 were quite radical when compared to the period between 1940 and 1985 where pads and gloves remained relatively unchanged (Jacques Plante used a pair of pads in his only WHA season that he had purchased in 1952...22 yrs earlier, Terry Sawchuk wore 3 pairs of pads during his entire NHL career, two of which were bought in the 1940s, and he was still wearing them in 1970).

Why would Bowman pull that stunt?  What on Earth was he trying to prove?

Plus, new equipment always changes things.  Look at the evolution of the baseball mitt.  Batting helmets.  In hockey, face masks and other pads.  Things change.  You have to accept that.

And besides...  Nothing you wrote challenges what I had earlier said.  You just went off on some kind of history lesson.

So in the end, you seem to not like things to evolve.  Sorry about that. 

11/11/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
And I think hockey would be so much better if the fights vanished.  If obstruction were actually called like it is supposed to.  If penalty shots would be awarded for hooks and slashes on players OBVIOUSLY intending to shoot.  The game would be better if they got rid of the shootout.  Or if they keep it, to call a loss a LOSS!  There are a lot of things that would make the game better.  Tight fitting uniforms is not one of them.  The goalie pads have shrunk.  What more do you want except to get rid of goalies all together.  Then the game would be more like basketball.
And, for the record, the one and only time the goalie pad size officially changed under Bettman's term as Commissioner was when they were DECREASED.

I really don't care what you think beyond just having a fun sports discussion.  But you seem to be a one trick pony on the matter.

Goalie Pads were changed to 12 inches in 1984....known as the Barrasso rule. In 1997, Scotty Bowman pulled a stunt where he had Mike Vernon stand on a spot in the crease wearing the equipment he used as a rookie and the equipment he wore in the 1996-97. His 1985-86 equipment covered 33% of the net from the specific point that Bowman used, and 50% when using the 96-97 equipment. Vernon was also able to completely enclose his 1982 Junior glove within his 1997 glove. A couple of years ago, Mario Lemieux discovered that using modern equipment, 57 year old Gilles Meloche had reflexes slightly faster than Marc-Andre Fleury...........and when Fleury put on a pair of Meloche's old pads...he couldn't stop a thing. The advances in goalie equipment between 1985 and 2004 were quite radical when compared to the period between 1940 and 1985 where pads and gloves remained relatively unchanged (Jacques Plante used a pair of pads in his only WHA season that he had purchased in 1952...22 yrs earlier, Terry Sawchuk wore 3 pairs of pads during his entire NHL career, two of which were bought in the 1940s, and he was still wearing them in 1970).

11/10/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
Because hockey would be so much better if they regulated the size of the shoulder pads and made them wear tight fitting jerseys and decreased the size of gloves  and reduced the pads to the 10 inches that they were before Bettman was commissioner. Players trying to break records would create excitement about the game and most importantly  it would be more entertaining to watch . Why do you have a bugg up your a$$ about what I think?

And I think hockey would be so much better if the fights vanished.  If obstruction were actually called like it is supposed to.  If penalty shots would be awarded for hooks and slashes on players OBVIOUSLY intending to shoot.  The game would be better if they got rid of the shootout.  Or if they keep it, to call a loss a LOSS!  There are a lot of things that would make the game better.  Tight fitting uniforms is not one of them.  The goalie pads have shrunk.  What more do you want except to get rid of goalies all together.  Then the game would be more like basketball.
And, for the record, the one and only time the goalie pad size officially changed under Bettman's term as Commissioner was when they were DECREASED.

I really don't care what you think beyond just having a fun sports discussion.  But you seem to be a one trick pony on the matter.

11/10/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
Truth is stranger than fiction. Parity has always been a catch phrase for Bettman. I never said anything about a conspiracy. You tell me then, why was all the obstruction and bigger goalie equipment allowed?

Parity is a catch phrase for ALL pro sports leagues!  Except MLB.  Which doesn't have it but fans want it.  No, you never used the word "conspiracy" but you did describe the events in such a way that happens to be the definition of the word "conspiracy".

Obstruction has been in place for ages.  It was there when I first started watching the NHL in the early 80's.  And was only recently tried to be dealt with.  (Ineffectively in my view, but I'm not on a crusade about it)  The goalie equipment has never been illegal.  As long as I have been following hockey, the legal size has never increased.  The answer to your question is this...  Because it the size still fell within the rules.  It might be that some players never took advantage of the full size.  But, and you keep forgetting this, the pad size was officially downsized years ago.  So you got what you wanted.  I don't understand why you are still harping about it.

11/10/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
I would have been done with this long ago remember when I was trying to show you the differenc in size in pictures and we concluded that because of angles and distances pictures were not an accurate ay to judge the size of equipment and trhen I copied and pasted where a league administrtor in charge of policing the size of equipment went on to say that there is a marginal difference in size of pads but the biggest difference is in shoulder pads shirts blockers and gloves yert you continue to say stuff like "says you and only you"

You saw what you wanted to see.  I addressed those posts.  Why go back?

11/10/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

Even the saves were more exciting to watch when they actually had to make them rather than just let the puck hit them

11/10/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
You are still the only one here.  And the opinion of one writer doesn't mean crap. 

As I said, there were minor rumblings about it some years back.  I could do a search and find a couple of articles about it.  Doesn't mean a thing.  It was never that big a deal.  And the pads ended up getting shrunk anyway.  I don't know why you have a bug up your a$$ about it.
(Edited by jvuk1)

Because hockey would be so much better if they regulated the size of the shoulder pads and made them wear tight fitting jerseys and decreased the size of gloves  and reduced the pads to the 10 inches that they were before Bettman was commissioner. Players trying to break records would create excitement about the game and most importantly  it would be more entertaining to watch . Why do you have a bugg up your a$$ about what I think?

11/10/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
Also, you alleged that it was a conspiracy on the part of Bettman to get expansion teams to do better. 

Which is just plain nuts.
(Edited by jvuk1)

Truth is stranger than fiction. Parity has always been a catch phrase for Bettman. I never said anything about a conspiracy. You tell me then, why was all the obstruction and bigger goalie equipment allowed?

11/9/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
So...  You went and dug and dug and dug until you found one year old article about your pet peeve.  Lucky you.  So what does that prove?  You are still in the extreme minority on this issue. 

I was warned about you by another member that this is the only tune you ever play.

I would have been done with this long ago remember when I was trying to show you the differenc in size in pictures and we concluded that because of angles and distances pictures were not an accurate ay to judge the size of equipment and trhen I copied and pasted where a league administrtor in charge of policing the size of equipment went on to say that there is a marginal difference in size of pads but the biggest difference is in shoulder pads shirts blockers and gloves yert you continue to say stuff like "says you and only you"

11/9/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
You said I was the only one heres another one "Two things have contributed to the rise of the goalie. First, it’s far more of a science now, just the same as the golf swing and the field goal kick. Where goalies in the old days relied on reflexes and instinct, today’s top stoppers are masters of positioning and process. The majority of shots just hit them, as opposed to the toe saves and splits we used to see, the same ones that look completely ridiculous in hindsight. Second, the equipment. It’s enormous. Yeah, yeah, everyone knows that, so I won’t expand on it. But where the debate usually falls apart is what to do about it. When the NHL returned from its lockout, leg guards were reduced a whopping inch, from 12” to 11”. In 1989, they were 10” and that’s what they would’ve been in 2004 if the goalies hadn’t put up a stink. They complained that reducing the size of the equipment would make them more vulnerable to injury, a predictable argument. The thing is, forwards and defensemen block shots all game. Why do goalies need so much more equipment than regular players? Besides, it’s not like goalies get injured on shots much anyway. It’s all groins and knee strains and sports hernias. When was the last time you heard about a goalie that’s out with a puck-related injury? Richard Brodeur took one off the ear once. When was that?"

Also, you alleged that it was a conspiracy on the part of Bettman to get expansion teams to do better. 

Which is just plain nuts.

11/9/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
You said I was the only one heres another one "Two things have contributed to the rise of the goalie. First, it’s far more of a science now, just the same as the golf swing and the field goal kick. Where goalies in the old days relied on reflexes and instinct, today’s top stoppers are masters of positioning and process. The majority of shots just hit them, as opposed to the toe saves and splits we used to see, the same ones that look completely ridiculous in hindsight. Second, the equipment. It’s enormous. Yeah, yeah, everyone knows that, so I won’t expand on it. But where the debate usually falls apart is what to do about it. When the NHL returned from its lockout, leg guards were reduced a whopping inch, from 12” to 11”. In 1989, they were 10” and that’s what they would’ve been in 2004 if the goalies hadn’t put up a stink. They complained that reducing the size of the equipment would make them more vulnerable to injury, a predictable argument. The thing is, forwards and defensemen block shots all game. Why do goalies need so much more equipment than regular players? Besides, it’s not like goalies get injured on shots much anyway. It’s all groins and knee strains and sports hernias. When was the last time you heard about a goalie that’s out with a puck-related injury? Richard Brodeur took one off the ear once. When was that?"

You are still the only one here.  And the opinion of one writer doesn't mean crap. 

As I said, there were minor rumblings about it some years back.  I could do a search and find a couple of articles about it.  Doesn't mean a thing.  It was never that big a deal.  And the pads ended up getting shrunk anyway.  I don't know why you have a bug up your a$$ about it.

11/9/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
So...  You went and dug and dug and dug until you found one year old article about your pet peeve.  Lucky you.  So what does that prove?  You are still in the extreme minority on this issue. 

I was warned about you by another member that this is the only tune you ever play.

Roy switching sides?
Was it just odd timing or an orchestrated coincidence?

During a press conference prior to Sunday's All-Star Game, retired goaltender Patrick Roy was asked for his thoughts on reducing the size of goalie equipment as a way to increase scoring. Roy noted the width limit increased from 10 to 12 inches during his playing days (1985-2003) and that he'd be in favor of reducing it back to 10 inches. Two days later, the league's general managers made the same recommendation at their meeting in Henderson, Nevada.

We won't go so far as to say we suspect the league asked the winningest goaltender of all time to ease the shock for the brethren he left behind; that would be speculation on our part. Still, we can't help but recall that Roy not only took advantage of the rules when he played, but he stretched them every time he had the chance. Once, Roy was fingered for employing a wing-like device that spread out from his already large pads whenever he dropped into the butterfly formation. The flaps, initially designed to protect the area alongside and behind the knee, opened to a point where they helped cover the open area between the goalies legs, commonly known as the five hole

11/9/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
So...  You went and dug and dug and dug until you found one year old article about your pet peeve.  Lucky you.  So what does that prove?  You are still in the extreme minority on this issue. 

I was warned about you by another member that this is the only tune you ever play.

You said I was the only one heres another one "Two things have contributed to the rise of the goalie. First, it’s far more of a science now, just the same as the golf swing and the field goal kick. Where goalies in the old days relied on reflexes and instinct, today’s top stoppers are masters of positioning and process. The majority of shots just hit them, as opposed to the toe saves and splits we used to see, the same ones that look completely ridiculous in hindsight. Second, the equipment. It’s enormous. Yeah, yeah, everyone knows that, so I won’t expand on it. But where the debate usually falls apart is what to do about it. When the NHL returned from its lockout, leg guards were reduced a whopping inch, from 12” to 11”. In 1989, they were 10” and that’s what they would’ve been in 2004 if the goalies hadn’t put up a stink. They complained that reducing the size of the equipment would make them more vulnerable to injury, a predictable argument. The thing is, forwards and defensemen block shots all game. Why do goalies need so much more equipment than regular players? Besides, it’s not like goalies get injured on shots much anyway. It’s all groins and knee strains and sports hernias. When was the last time you heard about a goalie that’s out with a puck-related injury? Richard Brodeur took one off the ear once. When was that?"

11/9/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/13682-Screen-Shots-Bigger-battles-to-fight-than-goalie-equipment.html

So...  You went and dug and dug and dug until you found one year old article about your pet peeve.  Lucky you.  So what does that prove?  You are still in the extreme minority on this issue. 

I was warned about you by another member that this is the only tune you ever play.

11/9/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
Not that it matters....  One does not need to buy The Hockey News to demonstrate caring about the sport.

But....    Yes.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/13682-Screen-Shots-Bigger-battles-to-fight-than-goalie-equipment.html

11/9/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
Ever buy a copy of the Hockey News?

Not that it matters....  One does not need to buy The Hockey News to demonstrate caring about the sport.

But....    Yes.

11/9/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
Once again, your viewpoint is skewed.  I am aware of the small rumblings about increasing the size of the goal.  I first heard about it back in the mid '90's when the Devils were playing the trap.  Many teams copied it.  Scoring went down.  Expansion teams came in.  They started to adopt that style of play because they didn't have the skill to compete offensively.  If you can keep the other team from scoring, you will be in more games.   The size of the goalie equipment was mentioned but only as a part of the whole.  It was mentioned, however, that the pads were NOT illegal.  Eventually rules came down to decrease the size some.  That, and the trap falling out of favor, was the end of that.

And then, years later, you come along and start ranting and moaning about how the size of the goalie equipment has hurt the game and how it was a conspiracy to help expansion teams and whatnot.  You are in the fringe minority on that one.

And lastly, only in your strange world can you read what I have written about the NHL and conclude that I don't care about the sport.  I don't even want to know how you "reasoned" that one out.

Ever buy a copy of the Hockey News?

11/9/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
Not too long. ago on TSN, Headline Sports, Sportsnet, The Hockey News and NHL management were talking about increasing the size of the nets to compensate for the lack of scoring because of increased size of goalie equipment and obstruction. I doubt you have ever purchased an issue of the Hockey News or even checked out the website, I don't know why you like to argue about a sport you obviously don't care so much about .
(Edited by ML31)

Once again, your viewpoint is skewed.  I am aware of the small rumblings about increasing the size of the goal.  I first heard about it back in the mid '90's when the Devils were playing the trap.  Many teams copied it.  Scoring went down.  Expansion teams came in.  They started to adopt that style of play because they didn't have the skill to compete offensively.  If you can keep the other team from scoring, you will be in more games.   The size of the goalie equipment was mentioned but only as a part of the whole.  It was mentioned, however, that the pads were NOT illegal.  Eventually rules came down to decrease the size some.  That, and the trap falling out of favor, was the end of that.

And then, years later, you come along and start ranting and moaning about how the size of the goalie equipment has hurt the game and how it was a conspiracy to help expansion teams and whatnot.  You are in the fringe minority on that one.

And lastly, only in your strange world can you read what I have written about the NHL and conclude that I don't care about the sport.  I don't even want to know how you "reasoned" that one out.

11/9/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
Dude...  Nearly all the posts here were written by you or me.  One guy bought into some of what you said.  But stopped short on the conspiracy aspect.  What you just did was mistake the $2 scratcher prize for the million dollar one.  You need to improve your perspective.

Not too long. ago on TSN, Headline Sports, Sportsnet, The Hockey News and NHL management were talking about increasing the size of the nets to compensate for the lack of scoring because of increased size of goalie equipment and obstruction. I doubt you have ever purchased an issue of the Hockey News or even checked out the website, I don't know why you like to argue about a sport you obviously don't care so much about .

11/9/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
So you say but if you care to read som of the comments posted on this article by people other than you and I there is at least a couple of people that actually do agree with me so you are wrong to say "you and only you"

Dude...  Nearly all the posts here were written by you or me.  One guy bought into some of what you said.  But stopped short on the conspiracy aspect.  What you just did was mistake the $2 scratcher prize for the million dollar one.  You need to improve your perspective.

11/8/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
i was just checkin it out seems i got more respects for my comment about this than you i think the only one you got was the one i accidentally gave you

So you say but if you care to read som of the comments posted on this article by people other than you and I there is at least a couple of people that actually do agree with me so you are wrong to say "you and only you"

11/8/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
You said "says you and only you", I was merely pointing out that even in this forum there are others that agree ,with me not to mention that there must be others out there that have never read this article that do or if  presented the facts would also agree. Seems nobody is agreeing with anything you have said about this article  

And I was merely pointing out that you drew a false conclusion from the "respect" tags you received many many many posts ago.  (Most likely they were from the same two people as well) 

Let me enlighten you...  Just because someone dishes out a "repsect" tag does not mean that someone agrees with you.  It merely means you said something someone respected you for saying.  For example, I have been known to dish out the tag not to posts I agree with, but for someone who makes a bold point.  Or for a post that I respected because it goes against the norm or offers a new or different perspective on something.  But my no means should it be taken to mean that I wholeheartedly buy into the point being made.

Furthermore, if someone who never read the above article were presented the facts, odds are they would not come to the same conclusion you did.  Obviously there are two who respect your perspective, but respect is hardly agreement.

11/8/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
Says the person who erroneously thinks it means he isn't the only one who believes in the "goalie pad" conspiracy.
(Edited by jvuk1)

You said "says you and only you", I was merely pointing out that even in this forum there are others that agree ,with me not to mention that there must be others out there that have never read this article that do or if  presented the facts would also agree. Seems nobody is agreeing with anything you have said about this article  

11/8/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
i was just checkin it out seems i got more respects for my comment about this than you i think the only one you got was the one i accidentally gave you

Says the person who erroneously thinks it means he isn't the only one who believes in the "goalie pad" conspiracy.

11/8/09   |   nyrangers   |   192 respect

ML31 wrote:
There is just not enough room on ESPN or ESPN2 for the NBA, NHL and MLB.  There just isn't.  If such a thing came about, the NHL would likely get relegated to ESPNNews.  Like the USA World Cup qualifiers got when they got preempted by something ESPN deemed more popular.  The NHL cable deal HAS to be in a place that will not relegate them to lower level tiers if something else gets in the way.  The NHL cable deal has to place the NHL no lower than the #2 event or it just won't work.  Which is why ESPN is simply not a good option for them right now.  I agree that perhaps VS is not the best option.  But not only is it currently a better option than ESPN, it seems to be their only one.  I'd like them to be on USA or something like it myself.  But they don't seem to be interested.
I'll have to take your word on how much air time ESPN gives to discussing the NHL.  I gave up on ESPN years and years ago.  I hear more ESPN radio than I ever see on their TV stations.  Although it seems a bit irresponsible for them to ignore the NHL.  

ESPN's coverage of hockey is despicable and embarassing. The only show that EVER gives it any attention is Sportscenter. And the attention they give is minimal. They will show a goal or two from a few games during every hour, usually for a total of about one minute / hour, even if every team in the NHL played the previous night. Very rarely Barry Melrose and Steve what's-his-face actually have a dedicated time slot to discuss and analyze, but even this only lasts one or two minutes.

11/8/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
Sez you and only you it seems.

i was just checkin it out seems i got more respects for my comment about this than you i think the only one you got was the one i accidentally gave you

11/8/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
Sez you and only you it seems.

meant to press reply and accidentally pressed respect certainly didn't mean to giv ya a respect for that one 

11/8/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
Sez you and only you it seems.

How can you say that when they made drastic changes in how the game was being officiated after the last lockout. After Bettman got his salary cap he allowed them to play hockey but unfortunately some of the changes made during the rerst of hi tenure still prevail like the bigger goalie equipment. There are still more than 2000 fewer goals scored every year now then were scored before he was ever commissioner.

11/8/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
That is very omnipotent of you to know what everyone notices or complains about, the goalie equipment has been slightly reduced recently but has significantly grown during Bettman's first few years as commissioner. There has been a lot of complaints that is why all the "new" rules after the last lockout and why the goalie equipment has been slightly reduced recently it is still much bigger than it was before Bettman became commissioner

Sez you and only you it seems.

11/8/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

nyrangers wrote:

Well, that's why I would hope it would become at least the #4 sport, in the top-four where it belongs with the NBA, NFL and MLB.

To answer your question, they should have NBA playoffs on ESPN and the NHL playoffs on ESPN2. Also, aren't NBA games usually on TNT or ABC anyway? As mentioned before, having NHL games on another major network would help, or even a channel like SPIKE. I think the two leagues could work out something between the six or seven major networks, and also the timing for the playoffs aren't right in alignment, I think NHL playoffs start earlier (although they may be more equal because of the Olympics).

As long as ESPN covered the playoffs, not nessesarily meaning airing games, they are doing something. Even if it's gradual and takes five years before it's recognized, I'll take it.

There is just not enough room on ESPN or ESPN2 for the NBA, NHL and MLB.  There just isn't.  If such a thing came about, the NHL would likely get relegated to ESPNNews.  Like the USA World Cup qualifiers got when they got preempted by something ESPN deemed more popular.  The NHL cable deal HAS to be in a place that will not relegate them to lower level tiers if something else gets in the way.  The NHL cable deal has to place the NHL no lower than the #2 event or it just won't work.  Which is why ESPN is simply not a good option for them right now.  I agree that perhaps VS is not the best option.  But not only is it currently a better option than ESPN, it seems to be their only one.  I'd like them to be on USA or something like it myself.  But they don't seem to be interested.
I'll have to take your word on how much air time ESPN gives to discussing the NHL.  I gave up on ESPN years and years ago.  I hear more ESPN radio than I ever see on their TV stations.  Although it seems a bit irresponsible for them to ignore the NHL.  

11/8/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
No one but you has ever complained or even noticed it.  Especially since the fact is, goalie equipment has decreased in size.  Not increased.
(Edited by jvuk1)

That is very omnipotent of you to know what everyone notices or complains about, the goalie equipment has been slightly reduced recently but has significantly grown during Bettman's first few years as commissioner. There has been a lot of complaints that is why all the "new" rules after the last lockout and why the goalie equipment has been slightly reduced recently it is still much bigger than it was before Bettman became commissioner

11/8/09   |   nyrangers   |   192 respect

ML31 wrote:
I don't think being relegated to being the #5 or 6 or even 7 sport on ESPN is better than being #1 on Vs.

Answer this next question honestly...  What do you honestly think ESPN would do with the NHL when both the NHL and NBA are in playoff mode?  And remember, they will want to still show baseball games some nights too.

Exposure has potential to help, but the exposure has to be positive exposure as well.  If it isn't, then all the exposure in the world won't do any good.  It will only turn whatever newbies may tune in off.  And I think you know where I am going when I say "positive" exposure.  No need to hash that about again.

Well, that's why I would hope it would become at least the #4 sport, in the top-four where it belongs with the NBA, NFL and MLB.

To answer your question, they should have NBA playoffs on ESPN and the NHL playoffs on ESPN2. Also, aren't NBA games usually on TNT or ABC anyway? As mentioned before, having NHL games on another major network would help, or even a channel like SPIKE. I think the two leagues could work out something between the six or seven major networks, and also the timing for the playoffs aren't right in alignment, I think NHL playoffs start earlier (although they may be more equal because of the Olympics).

As long as ESPN covered the playoffs, not nessesarily meaning airing games, they are doing something. Even if it's gradual and takes five years before it's recognized, I'll take it.

11/8/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
There is no denying it it is in the stats and on video

No one but you has ever complained or even noticed it.  Especially since the fact is, goalie equipment has decreased in size.  Not increased.

11/8/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

nyrangers wrote:
To be honest I was very young and had no idea what was going on when hockey was acknowledged on ESPN. I still feel that ESPN has such a grasp on the common sports fans that they would be compelled to at least consider hockey and the NHL.

However I feel as if we agree on some of the same points -- that the NHL needs more exposure, and the whole catch-22 thing you mentioned. The main point of my original post was that not nearly enough games are on the air on major networks for everyone to see...ABC, NBC, FOX, etc. And as you said they won't put games on the air until ratings improve but ratings won't improve until games are on major networks. So in a way that's why I believe ESPN is the kicker for this, because people will watch whatever they put up there and if they gradually talk more and more about hockey people will become more and more interested.

I don't think being relegated to being the #5 or 6 or even 7 sport on ESPN is better than being #1 on Vs.

Answer this next question honestly...  What do you honestly think ESPN would do with the NHL when both the NHL and NBA are in playoff mode?  And remember, they will want to still show baseball games some nights too.

Exposure has potential to help, but the exposure has to be positive exposure as well.  If it isn't, then all the exposure in the world won't do any good.  It will only turn whatever newbies may tune in off.  And I think you know where I am going when I say "positive" exposure.  No need to hash that about again.

11/7/09   |   keppieboy   |   158 respect

 This is not the hockey I grew up with. I barely watch a game anymore.

11/7/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
It is a conspiracy if they did something and denied it ever happening.  As you are suggesting. 

There is no denying it it is in the stats and on video

11/7/09   |   nyrangers   |   192 respect

ML31 wrote:
Good grief.

I still don't know why you feel things would be different now than it was before.  When the NHL was on ESPN, they spoke of it on Sportscenter and gave it plenty of time.  It didn't help.  They were still getting better ratings for poker than hockey.  And that was before they got the NBA.  If the NHL was on ESPN, they would STILL not be given the time of day.  If any games were shown, they would be on ESPNNEws or U or some other lower tier station no one gets.  I have Direct TV (So no VS for me right now) and I STILL know they are better of on VS right now than on ESPN.  

What the NHL needs in terms of TV is not a better cable deal.  But a better over-the-air network deal.  They need at the very least ALL the Finals games on a major network.  They need at the very least playoff coverage EVERY weekend.  And they need national (Not regional) games on every week at least after the Winter Classic.

But we are talking catch-22 here.  No network will commit to that unless the ratings get better and the ratings will not get better until some network makes the commitiment.  ESPN has little to do with it.  You give way too much power to the four letter network.

To be honest I was very young and had no idea what was going on when hockey was acknowledged on ESPN. I still feel that ESPN has such a grasp on the common sports fans that they would be compelled to at least consider hockey and the NHL.

However I feel as if we agree on some of the same points -- that the NHL needs more exposure, and the whole catch-22 thing you mentioned. The main point of my original post was that not nearly enough games are on the air on major networks for everyone to see...ABC, NBC, FOX, etc. And as you said they won't put games on the air until ratings improve but ratings won't improve until games are on major networks. So in a way that's why I believe ESPN is the kicker for this, because people will watch whatever they put up there and if they gradually talk more and more about hockey people will become more and more interested.

11/7/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

nyrangers wrote:
I'll throw a third opinion in here (geez, 30-something comments between two people, that has to be a record).

The NHL can be saved and become one of the top-four sports again, as it should be, if ESPN does their job and acknowledges it. This means covering it on shows such as SportsCenter, playing games every once and a while (even if it's on ESPN2) and possibly creating a time slot dedicated to hockey (NHL Live or something like that). Having games on VERSUS doesn't really accomplish anything, since only half the nation (US) gets the station and few people have NHL Center Ice, so they only get TV of their local team(s) and a few surrounding teams like division rivals. 

But if ESPN starts to talk about hockey for a reasonable amount of time and shows highlights from every game like the other three major sports get and analyzes aspects of the game, then the NHL will become a respectable sport in the eyes of the general nation

Good grief.

I still don't know why you feel things would be different now than it was before.  When the NHL was on ESPN, they spoke of it on Sportscenter and gave it plenty of time.  It didn't help.  They were still getting better ratings for poker than hockey.  And that was before they got the NBA.  If the NHL was on ESPN, they would STILL not be given the time of day.  If any games were shown, they would be on ESPNNEws or U or some other lower tier station no one gets.  I have Direct TV (So no VS for me right now) and I STILL know they are better of on VS right now than on ESPN.  

What the NHL needs in terms of TV is not a better cable deal.  But a better over-the-air network deal.  They need at the very least ALL the Finals games on a major network.  They need at the very least playoff coverage EVERY weekend.  And they need national (Not regional) games on every week at least after the Winter Classic.

But we are talking catch-22 here.  No network will commit to that unless the ratings get better and the ratings will not get better until some network makes the commitiment.  ESPN has little to do with it.  You give way too much power to the four letter network.

11/7/09   |   nyrangers   |   192 respect

I'll throw a third opinion in here (geez, 30-something comments between two people, that has to be a record).

The NHL can be saved and become one of the top-four sports again, as it should be, if ESPN does their job and acknowledges it. This means covering it on shows such as SportsCenter, playing games every once and a while (even if it's on ESPN2) and possibly creating a time slot dedicated to hockey (NHL Live or something like that). Having games on VERSUS doesn't really accomplish anything, since only half the nation (US) gets the station and few people have NHL Center Ice, so they only get TV of their local team(s) and a few surrounding teams like division rivals. 

But if ESPN starts to talk about hockey for a reasonable amount of time and shows highlights from every game like the other three major sports get and analyzes aspects of the game, then the NHL will become a respectable sport in the eyes of the general nation

11/7/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:

I never said there was a conspiracy. you seem to like to put words in other people's mouths. I think it was blatant and obvious

It is a conspiracy if they did something and denied it ever happening.  As you are suggesting. 

11/7/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
And you know there is this conspiracy in the the League....  How?

I never said there was a conspiracy. you seem to like to put words in other people's mouths. I think it was blatant and obvious

7/31/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
I don't know much about baseball i know i for one, wouldn't hold it against him if he was betting on his own team which he apparently was. I know the whole obstruction, bigger goalie to circumvent talent thing sounds ridiculous well it is absolutely ridiculous. Why were they allowing all the blatant obstruction even calling it occasionally (or randomly) and that's exactly what they did, why did they allow goalie equipment to get bigger and bigger? You tell me.
I don't think we will ever agree about this. To a casual observer it sounds just too ridiculous to have ever occurred and you must think i am insane. i guess we will just have to leave it at that. Checkout out a game in the mid nineties check out the 95 stanley cup final any game will do. 

And you know there is this conspiracy in the the League....  How?

7/31/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
I seriously doubt that there was the intent you mention.  You are suggesting some kind of conspiracy.   Tell me, do you also think that MLB was railroading Rose out of the game too?

I don't know much about baseball i know i for one, wouldn't hold it against him if he was betting on his own team which he apparently was. I know the whole obstruction, bigger goalie to circumvent talent thing sounds ridiculous well it is absolutely ridiculous. Why were they allowing all the blatant obstruction even calling it occasionally (or randomly) and that's exactly what they did, why did they allow goalie equipment to get bigger and bigger? You tell me.
I don't think we will ever agree about this. To a casual observer it sounds just too ridiculous to have ever occurred and you must think i am insane. i guess we will just have to leave it at that. Checkout out a game in the mid nineties check out the 95 stanley cup final any game will do. 

7/31/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
I seriously doubt that there was the intent you mention.  You are suggesting some kind of conspiracy.   Tell me, do you also think that MLB was railroading Rose out of the game too?

I don't know much about baseball i know i for one, wouldn't hold it against him if he was betting on his own team which he apparently was. I know the whole obstruction, bigger goalie to circumvent talent thing sounds ridiculous well it is absolutely ridiculous. Why were they allowing all the blatant obstruction even calling it occasionally (or randomly) and that's exactly what they did, why did they allow goalie equipment to get bigger and bigger? You tell me.
I don't think we will ever agree about this. To a casual observer it sounds just too ridiculous to have ever occurred and you must think i am insane. i guess we will just have to leave it at that. Checkout out a game in the mid nineties check out the 95 stanley cup final any game will do. 

7/31/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
i am saying they wanted the obstruction to affect the play and restrict the talent and they were very effective at accomplishing this. goal scoring dropped from 7.2 goals a game in 92-03 to 5.2 in 97-98, the panthers made it to the cup final in only their third year of existence in 96 the "year of the rat".  that rat was bettman all pleased with himself, his machinations working out as planned. Or so it seemed. Despite the new markets the bigger audience never materialized

I seriously doubt that there was the intent you mention.  You are suggesting some kind of conspiracy.   Tell me, do you also think that MLB was railroading Rose out of the game too?

7/30/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
That is a pretty black & white way of looking at things.  Maybe they were calling only what they considered the "blatant" ones?  Maybe they were letting the smaller ones they felt did not affect the play slide?  Maybe they were bad refs and just missed some?  There are plenty of other reasons rather than the refs were essentially calling only the ones that occurred in the odd minutes and letting the ones in the even minutes go.

i am saying they wanted the obstruction to affect the play and restrict the talent and they were very effective at accomplishing this. goal scoring dropped from 7.2 goals a game in 92-03 to 5.2 in 97-98, the panthers made it to the cup final in only their third year of existence in 96 the "year of the rat".  that rat was bettman all pleased with himself, his machinations working out as planned. Or so it seemed. Despite the new markets the bigger audience never materialized

7/30/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

(Edited by jvuk1)

 

7/30/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
If they are not calling them all the time then what is it but random?

That is a pretty black & white way of looking at things.  Maybe they were calling only what they considered the "blatant" ones?  Maybe they were letting the smaller ones they felt did not affect the play slide?  Maybe they were bad refs and just missed some?  There are plenty of other reasons rather than the refs were essentially calling only the ones that occurred in the odd minutes and letting the ones in the even minutes go.

7/30/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
I still think claiming they were "randomly" calling penalties is a bit of a stretch.  

Unless you were exaggerating to make a point.

If they are not calling them all the time then what is it but random?

7/30/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
what i was trying to say was that before the last lockout referees were instructed not to call all the penalties. after the strike they insisted they will put into affect a "crackdown" on interference type penalties (which were always in the rule book as hooking, holding, tripping, interference...) which is to say that before they called them randomly if not at all times. it is obvious to anyone who was more than a casual fan anyway. and after the strike they actually did make a crackdown on interference penalties but it does seem that even still that late in the games or late in the playoff run they are indeed instructed to swallow (randomly call penalties) the whistles. that alone is enough reason to insist on change. it is idiotic and you too admit too it. trust me before the last lockout obstruction was encouraged by the fact that it wasn't enforced regularily yet the rules are in the rulebook. it is asinine.i have followed this. For years bettman insisted that there is nothing wrong with the game when a reporter from tsn or hockey night in canada or the hockey news inquired about obstruction and officiating he would always say trhat the game has never been better so why after ten years the need for this crackdown?
he made a rule forcing some goalies to shrink their pads marginally to adress the backlash of over sized equipment when the rest of the equipment should have been adressed. not only was it getting bigger but much lighter again favouring goalies and making it even harder to score

I still think claiming they were "randomly" calling penalties is a bit of a stretch.  

Unless you were exaggerating to make a point.

7/29/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
I think you are being disingenuous when you claim the refs were just being random.  Sure, I think the officiating in the game needs tremendous improvement myself.  Sadly, it seems to have always been that way going back to when I first started watching hockey decades ago.

But, that being said, I think the refs are indeed doing their best and in their defense, the game on the ice looks a lot different than from the seats and at home with the benefit of 10 replays at your disposal.  It's a fast game.  Calls are going to get missed.  Calls are going to get blown.  This does not mean nothing should be done about it.  The think is, it needs to get worked on so the missed and blown calls are minimized.

My main beef with officiating is the swallowing of whistles late in games.  Especially in playoff games.  In my mind, a penalty in the first period is a penalty in the 3rd.  A penalty in November ought to be a penalty in May.  I really think something needs to be done about that one.

what i was trying to say was that before the last lockout referees were instructed not to call all the penalties. after the strike they insisted they will put into affect a "crackdown" on interference type penalties (which were always in the rule book as hooking, holding, tripping, interference...) which is to say that before they called them randomly if not at all times. it is obvious to anyone who was more than a casual fan anyway. and after the strike they actually did make a crackdown on interference penalties but it does seem that even still that late in the games or late in the playoff run they are indeed instructed to swallow (randomly call penalties) the whistles. that alone is enough reason to insist on change. it is idiotic and you too admit too it. trust me before the last lockout obstruction was encouraged by the fact that it wasn't enforced regularily yet the rules are in the rulebook. it is asinine.i have followed this. For years bettman insisted that there is nothing wrong with the game when a reporter from tsn or hockey night in canada or the hockey news inquired about obstruction and officiating he would always say trhat the game has never been better so why after ten years the need for this crackdown?
he made a rule forcing some goalies to shrink their pads marginally to adress the backlash of over sized equipment when the rest of the equipment should have been adressed. not only was it getting bigger but much lighter again favouring goalies and making it even harder to score

7/28/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

(Edited by ML31)

I think you are being disingenuous when you claim the refs were just being random.  Sure, I think the officiating in the game needs tremendous improvement myself.  Sadly, it seems to have always been that way going back to when I first started watching hockey decades ago.

But, that being said, I think the refs are indeed doing their best and in their defense, the game on the ice looks a lot different than from the seats and at home with the benefit of 10 replays at your disposal.  It's a fast game.  Calls are going to get missed.  Calls are going to get blown.  This does not mean nothing should be done about it.  The think is, it needs to get worked on so the missed and blown calls are minimized.

My main beef with officiating is the swallowing of whistles late in games.  Especially in playoff games.  In my mind, a penalty in the first period is a penalty in the 3rd.  A penalty in November ought to be a penalty in May.  I really think something needs to be done about that one.

7/28/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

michelleandkeith007 wrote:
you seem to like to argue for no reason.in Canada where we appreciate hockey more and grow up playing it there was a lot of media attention about obstruction and lack of scoring and in the Hockey News as well

In Canada, there was a lot of media attention when Mats Sundin was just THINKING about coming back to the NHL.

In Canada, there is a lot of media attention when Jerome Iginla buys produce in the local store.

7/28/09   |   michelleandkeith007

ML31 wrote:
That is a poor reason to not get into hockey.  The NFL has the most convoluted and goofy set of rules ever.  And it's the most popular sport in the country!

A fan watching a favorite team play is hardly the most unbiased spot to judge the officiating.  Why not watch games in which you have absolutely no emotional stake in?  Then you might get a better feel for how the refs call games.

he is right.they were randomly calling the rules everyone who watches hockey knows that and i think wehat he is tryiong to say is when officiating is random like that a fan of a team feels ripped off by the officials when their team loses

7/28/09   |   michelleandkeith007

(Edited by michelleandkeith007)

you seem to like to argue for no reason.in Canada where we appreciate hockey more and grow up playing it there was a lot of media attention about obstruction and lack of scoring and in the Hockey News as well

7/28/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
i have noticed that a lot of people say they never got into hockey because the rules are hard to understand, they are even harder to understand when most of them are only applied less than half the time.
as a fan of a team you notice the calls missed against your team and can attribute most losses to officiating

That is a poor reason to not get into hockey.  The NFL has the most convoluted and goofy set of rules ever.  And it's the most popular sport in the country!

A fan watching a favorite team play is hardly the most unbiased spot to judge the officiating.  Why not watch games in which you have absolutely no emotional stake in?  Then you might get a better feel for how the refs call games.

7/28/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
you tell me. why (for more than a decade despite an outcry from fans and media) did they allow all that obstruction when hooking, holding, tripping... are clearly supposed to be penalties? why did they call penalties randomly rather than all the time. Why???. i know officials are human and are going to miss things but clearly they were not supposed to call the penalties all the time in fact it seems they were instructed not to most of the time. when referees are supposed to just call penalties randomly not only did it restrict talent with all the clutching, grabbing and hooking that was permitted but even if they were trying to be objective, biases may affect their decisions unconsciously(or not).
i have noticed that a lot of people say the never got into hockey because the rules are hard to understand, they are that much harder to understand when most of them are applied less than half the time.
as a fan of a team you notice the calls missed agaist your team and can attribute most losses to officiating.
why were they instructed to call penalties randomly. whatever the reason the person in charge of such decisions should be fired. that was absolutely assinine(purposely misspelled that way) and you can't fire an owner but i do believe (judging from interviews where concerns about obstruction were brought up) bettman was a proponent of  obstruction and allowing goalie equipment to get bigger.

In all the years I have followed hockey, I have NEVER heard fans or the media crying out for clamping down on the clutching and grabbing.  It was brought up on occasion, sure.  But it was hardly the #1 issue among fans and media.  And it was (kind of) dealt with after the lockout.  I cannot answer why refs let some things go and not others.  But I can tell you that it was certainly NOT on the orders of the Commissioner.  How can I be so sure?  Because the Commissioner simply does not have that kind of power and the referees don't answer to him anyway.

Next....

7/28/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
you tell me. why (for more than a decade despite an outcry from fans and media) did they allow all that obstruction when hooking, holding, tripping... are clearly supposed to be penalties? why did they call penalties randomly rather than all the time. Why???. i know officials are human and are going to miss things but clearly they were not supposed to call the penalties all the time in fact it seems they were instructed not to most of the time. when referees are supposed to just call penalties randomly not only did it restrict talent with all the clutching, grabbing and hooking that was permitted but even if they were trying to be objective, biases may affect their decisions unconsciously(or not).
i have noticed that a lot of people say the never got into hockey because the rules are hard to understand, they are that much harder to understand when most of them are applied less than half the time.
as a fan of a team you notice the calls missed agaist your team and can attribute most losses to officiating.
why were they instructed to call penalties randomly. whatever the reason the person in charge of such decisions should be fired. that was absolutely assinine(purposely misspelled that way) and you can't fire an owner but i do believe (judging from interviews where concerns about obstruction were brought up) bettman was a proponent of  obstruction and allowing goalie equipment to get bigger.

i have noticed that a lot of people say they never got into hockey because the rules are hard to understand, they are even harder to understand when most of them are only applied less than half the time.
as a fan of a team you notice the calls missed against your team and can attribute most losses to officiating

7/28/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

(Edited by jvuk1)

you tell me. why (for more than a decade despite an outcry from fans and media) did they allow all that obstruction when hooking, holding, tripping... are clearly supposed to be penalties? why did they call penalties randomly rather than all the time. Why???. i know officials are human and are going to miss things but clearly they were not supposed to call the penalties all the time in fact it seems they were instructed not to most of the time. when referees are supposed to just call penalties randomly not only did it restrict talent with all the clutching, grabbing and hooking that was permitted but even if they were trying to be objective, biases may affect their decisions unconsciously(or not).
i have noticed that a lot of people say the never got into hockey because the rules are hard to understand, they are that much harder to understand when most of them are applied less than half the time.
as a fan of a team you notice the calls missed agaist your team and can attribute most losses to officiating.
why were they instructed to call penalties randomly. whatever the reason the person in charge of such decisions should be fired. that was absolutely assinine(purposely misspelled that way) and you can't fire an owner but i do believe (judging from interviews where concerns about obstruction were brought up) bettman was a proponent of  obstruction and allowing goalie equipment to get bigger.

7/27/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
i never said bettman told teams what style to play. he allowed bigger and bigger goalie equipment and obstruction which led to lower(closer) scoring games and restricted talent to allow expansion teams to be more competitive. it is very irritating how you keep putting words in my mouth. with bigger goalie equipment and obstruction talent was restricted and the trap the most effective way to win a game. i am guessing you probably were not even a hockey fan before bettman was commissioner.

You keep saying this (about the goalie equipment) and yet you offer nothing to back it up.  I recall the equipment shrinking recently.  So unless you can offer something substantial to verify your allegation, you are doing nothing more than blowing hot air on the matter.
I keep asking you to produce something to show that it was Bettman who encouraged the clutching and grabbing yet you produce nothing.  I on the other hand, offered up a link and a quote to show what you claim in fact was NOT the case.

BTW...  I only go back to John Ziegler.  Another poorly arrived at conclusion on your part.

7/27/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
You need to learn some recent history.  Bettman did not tell the expansion teams what style of game they should be playing.  They only copied what they saw done successfully earlier.  It was the New Jersey Devils who made the neutral zone trap so popular.  Especially when they won a Stanley Cup using it.  Such a style of play may not be too exciting to watch, but it does keep lesser skilled teams in the game more.

I think you have some kind of anger here and are focusing it needlessly on Bettman.  Think about what is ticking you off and then trace back the reason logically.  It is not productive to run to Bettman every time something happens to the NHL that you don't like.

i never said bettman told teams what style to play. he allowed bigger and bigger goalie equipment and obstruction which led to lower(closer) scoring games and restricted talent to allow expansion teams to be more competitive. it is very irritating how you keep putting words in my mouth. with bigger goalie equipment and obstruction talent was restricted and the trap the most effective way to win a game. i am guessing you probably were not even a hockey fan before bettman was commissioner.

7/27/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
now you ask me what does the situation in arizona got to do with any of this when i was obviously trying to show you that you were wrong when you said "However, teams moving had everything to do with the team owners.  There precious little Bettman had to say about that."if you watched a game in the nineties a player who wins a faceoff in the offensive zone was automatically interfered with by the player he just beat at the faceoff to prevent him from getting into the play this happened all the time yet it was obviously an interference penalty

Ok...  So what does the Arizona situation have to do with it?

Not to say you are wrong about the interference soon after face offs...  But I don't recall it being an epidemic.  Not only that, but again, Bettman had little to do with it.  The players will do what they can get away with.  Why not blame the officials for not calling it?  
And finally, do you have any kind of verifiable stats to back up your claim?

7/27/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
You need to learn some recent history.  Bettman did not tell the expansion teams what style of game they should be playing.  They only copied what they saw done successfully earlier.  It was the New Jersey Devils who made the neutral zone trap so popular.  Especially when they won a Stanley Cup using it.  Such a style of play may not be too exciting to watch, but it does keep lesser skilled teams in the game more.

I think you have some kind of anger here and are focusing it needlessly on Bettman.  Think about what is ticking you off and then trace back the reason logically.  It is not productive to run to Bettman every time something happens to the NHL that you don't like.

i never said bettman told teams what style to play. he allowed bigger and bigger goalie equipment and obstruction which led to lower(closer) scoring games and restricted talent to allow expansion teams to be more competitive. it is very irritating how you keep putting words in my mouth. with bigger goalie equipment and obstruction talent was restricted and the trap the most effective way to win a game. i am guessing you probably were not even a hockey fan before bettman was commissioner.

7/27/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

(Edited by jvuk1)

now you ask me what does the situation in arizona got to do with any of this when i was obviously trying to show you that you were wrong when you said "However, teams moving had everything to do with the team owners.  There precious little Bettman had to say about that."if you watched a game in the nineties a player who wins a faceoff in the offensive zone was automatically interfered with by the player he just beat at the faceoff to prevent him from getting into the play this happened all the time yet it was obviously an interference penalty

7/27/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
you really like to talk about something you obviously know nothing about. why would anyone do that??? "However, teams moving had everything to do with the team owners.  There precious little Bettman had to say about that.". Are you not aware of what's going on phoenix right now??? "Plus, there is nothing Bettman can really do to make the games "more competitive"." Did you not read the article before you commented??? i am stating that he allowed obstruction and bigger goalie equipment to restrict talent and thus make the new expansion teams more competitive. Why else would he allow bigger and bigger goalie equipment?. why else would he allow all that obstruction? why else would he allow random and inconsistent enforcement of on ice rules?

I know exactly what I am talking about.  You are the one who is not thinking this through.  You are implying that Bettman ordered the Nordiques (for example) to move to Denver.  Hardly.  The Nords owners wanted a new arena and things were going very badly in Quebec.  Denver offered a more stable financial market and the promise of a new arena.  Bettman was not involved beyond officiating the teams request to move when the Board of Govorners OK'd it.

I am aware of the situation in Arizona.  Not sure what that has to do with any of this.  That was a case of a terrible owner screwing up.  Why blame Bettman for that?

Bettman did not increase the clutching and grabbing.  He tried to take what steps he could to stop it.  Here is a blog from 2005 on the subject...  www.scoresreport.com/2005/07/28/the-new-and-improved-nhlif-anyone-cares/   And...  In an SI article from 2004 the following comment could be found...  The NHL added a second referee in 1998-99 not only to whistle penalties but also to reduce clutching and grabbing behind the play.

What do you have apart from your word that Bettman actually encouraged slowing the play down?

7/27/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
You are incorrect he allowed all that obstruction fans and media complained about for years he allowed goalie equipment to get bigger and bigger, he purposely reduced the quality of the game to give these new expansion teams a chance to be more competitive with better teams. this did result in  closer scoring(because of the lack of scoring) games but was far less entertaining. never in the history of sport has such a drastic change in amount of scoring as in the first few years bettman took over as commissioner. you are a soccer fan you probably like the lower scoring less entertaining game bettmnan has created.
despite expansion the nhl has not grown in popularity in the states if the game was not interfered with and was more entertaining maybe it would have grown some in popularity.

You need to learn some recent history.  Bettman did not tell the expansion teams what style of game they should be playing.  They only copied what they saw done successfully earlier.  It was the New Jersey Devils who made the neutral zone trap so popular.  Especially when they won a Stanley Cup using it.  Such a style of play may not be too exciting to watch, but it does keep lesser skilled teams in the game more.

I think you have some kind of anger here and are focusing it needlessly on Bettman.  Think about what is ticking you off and then trace back the reason logically.  It is not productive to run to Bettman every time something happens to the NHL that you don't like.

7/27/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
You need to learn some recent history.  Bettman did not tell the expansion teams what style of game they should be playing.  They only copied what they saw done successfully earlier.  It was the New Jersey Devils who made the neutral zone trap so popular.  Especially when they won a Stanley Cup using it.  Such a style of play may not be too exciting to watch, but it does keep lesser skilled teams in the game more.

I think you have some kind of anger here and are focusing it needlessly on Bettman.  Think about what is ticking you off and then trace back the reason logically.  It is not productive to run to Bettman every time something happens to the NHL that you don't like.
(Edited by jvuk1)

you really like to talk about something you obviously know nothing about. why would anyone do that??? "However, teams moving had everything to do with the team owners.  There precious little Bettman had to say about that.". Are you not aware of what's going on phoenix right now??? "Plus, there is nothing Bettman can really do to make the games "more competitive"." Did you not read the article before you commented??? i am stating that he allowed obstruction and bigger goalie equipment to restrict talent and thus make the new expansion teams more competitive. Why else would he allow bigger and bigger goalie equipment?. why else would he allow all that obstruction? why else would he allow random and inconsistent enforcement of on ice rules?

7/27/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
Incorrect.  Only Bud Selig is stupid enough to want to reduce the quality of play.  I have yet to see that from Mr. Bettman.

I cannot compare him to all previous League Presidents, but I can say that he has done far more good for the game that John Ziegler did.

You are incorrect he allowed all that obstruction fans and media complained about for years he allowed goalie equipment to get bigger and bigger, he purposely reduced the quality of the game to give these new expansion teams a chance to be more competitive with better teams. this did result in  closer scoring(because of the lack of scoring) games but was far less entertaining. never in the history of sport has such a drastic change in amount of scoring as in the first few years bettman took over as commissioner. you are a soccer fan you probably like the lower scoring less entertaining game bettmnan has created.
despite expansion the nhl has not grown in popularity in the states if the game was not interfered with and was more entertaining maybe it would have grown some in popularity.

7/27/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jvuk1 wrote:
he intentionally reduced the quality of the game to help make the expansion teams more competitive. some of those changes to the game made so these new teams can be more competitive are still prevalent today. no major scoring records will ever be broken unless something is done

Incorrect.  Only Bud Selig is stupid enough to want to reduce the quality of play.  I have yet to see that from Mr. Bettman.

I cannot compare him to all previous League Presidents, but I can say that he has done far more good for the game that John Ziegler did.

7/27/09   |   jvuk1   |   16 respect

ML31 wrote:
Bettman was right.  The NHL in order to grow nationally did need a more national presence.  The recent expansion was a very good thing for the NHL.  That was something Bettman did spearhead.

However, teams moving had everything to do with the team owners.  There precious little Bettman had to say about that.

Plus, there is nothing Bettman can really do to make the games "more competitive".  But that would have little to do with making the game more popular anyway.  I mean, the most exciting tennis match in the world would not make me want to watch a tennis match since I just am not too keen on watching tennis.

But, what Bettman can do is to try and make the game more available to people across the country to expose them to the game.  That is the key to growing the sport.  It won't click with everyone, but at least give sports fans a CHANCE to check hockey out.

he intentionally reduced the quality of the game to help make the expansion teams more competitive. some of those changes to the game made so these new teams can be more competitive are still prevalent today. no major scoring records will ever be broken unless something is done

7/26/09   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Bettman was right.  The NHL in order to grow nationally did need a more national presence.  The recent expansion was a very good thing for the NHL.  That was something Bettman did spearhead.

However, teams moving had everything to do with the team owners.  There precious little Bettman had to say about that.

Plus, there is nothing Bettman can really do to make the games "more competitive".  But that would have little to do with making the game more popular anyway.  I mean, the most exciting tennis match in the world would not make me want to watch a tennis match since I just am not too keen on watching tennis.

But, what Bettman can do is to try and make the game more available to people across the country to expose them to the game.  That is the key to growing the sport.  It won't click with everyone, but at least give sports fans a CHANCE to check hockey out.