crashlanding
Registered User
Did you just describe Dallas?Ouch. You think Canucks fans complain about travel? Winnipeg is two time zones away from all these cities.
Did you just describe Dallas?Ouch. You think Canucks fans complain about travel? Winnipeg is two time zones away from all these cities.
I think BOS-MTL outweighs BOS-Hartford and Washington was part of the original Patrick division. Plus, Hartford could probably try to start a rivalry with NYR.I know I was thinking how to split the division. So I thought of the following factors:
Past and Present Rivalries:
Boston - Hartford
NYI - NYR
PHI - NJD
Toronto - Ottawa
Montreal - Quebec
I know Buffalo - Washington do not have a great rivalry, but they do have something going with Oveckin - Briere hopefully.
Also I wanted 2 original six teams in 3 divisions so that's how I got...TOR-MON, DET-CHI, and NYR-BOS.
Did you just describe Dallas?
I think BOS-MTL outweighs BOS-Hartford and Washington was part of the original Patrick division. Plus, Hartford could probably try to start a rivalry with NYR.
Well, if you like their jerseys, by all means we should keep them in the league....I could see getting rid of Anaheim, but why NYI. I mean they have a great history in the 80's, and plus I really like there jerseys.
And who's going to cough up the hundreds of millions of dollars to buy out the Ducks and the Isles and the legal fees when, well how about that, Samuelli and Wang just don't want to sell.Since we're being controversial -- take the NHL down to 28 teams (yes, I know, it will never happen). Remove the two teams with the lowest attendance average from the 2000-01 season (the first with all 30 teams) onwards (thus adjusting for a short-term variance) -- so bid farewell to Anaheim and Long Island (which makes sense, as they're both additions to arguably oversaturated markets).
Don't forget the NHLPA that's just lost 7% of its active membership.And who's going to cough up the hundreds of millions of dollars to buy out the Ducks and the Isles and the legal fees when, well how about that, Samuelli and Wang just don't want to sell.
Short of a team becoming quickly and completely insolvent, all talk of contraction is just unrealistic, not well thought out at all, and by now, just more than a damn bit tiring.
The shootout is an abomination that must be destroyed at all costs. At ALL costs.
10 minute OT, sudden death, 5-on-5. Winner (in OT or regulation) gets 3 points, loser (in OT or regulation) gets NO points. Tie game after OT is a tie game -- one point to each team.
So, did you MISS the point where I said "Yes, I know this will never happen", or are you being deliberately obtuse in order to spout about the topic?And who's going to cough up the hundreds of millions of dollars to buy out the Ducks and the Isles and the legal fees when, well how about that, Samuelli and Wang just don't want to sell.
Short of a team becoming quickly and completely insolvent, all talk of contraction is just unrealistic, not well thought out at all, and by now, just more than a damn bit tiring.
Why stop there? Why not go to goalie against goalie? trainer vs. trainer?
10 minutes of OT, then 5-4 PP? That's another half a period and then even more. We have to go to work in the morning. Imagine how tired certain teams would get going to a full 10 min. OT and then 5-4 PP.
The NHL has made some incredible STUPID changes since the lockout (VS), but the Shoot Out isn't one of them.
5 min. OT then SO is just fine. I like this aspect of the game as is.
First of all, YES. Give me a break -- you want to spend $250 to watch a glorified game of rock/paper/scissors? That's all fine and dandy for you, but to say there "has to be a winner" to such a point that you bastardize the game itself is asinine, in my opinion. Since you can't do infinite OT during the season, you call it a tie and move on, instead of playing a completely different game and call it "deciding a winner".First of all, NO. I am not sure what demographic the NHL would be trying to focus on but I can assure you that everyone my age that watches hockey (college) loves the idea of the shootout. Ties are just plain terrible. Like I really want to drop 250 for me and my g/f to go to a Ranger/Isles game to see the game end 2-2. Give me a break, 157 ties in 03 is entirely too much. Its one thing if you just hate shoot outs, but in my opinion (as well as pretty much everyone I know agrees with) there must be a winner. 3 points for an O.T win and no points for a loss? Please.
-- Interesting note from The New York Times: When the Panthers beat the Devils at CSA on Jan. 27, a grand total of 736 households (rating number: 0.01) in the mammoth New York market tuned in on MSG. The available households in the market: 7.4 million. According to the report, over 2,000 homes tuned in on Florida's FSN while the arena announced a crowd of 18,136.
How can this really be done? Mandate that a team must have at least three players in the offensive zone by three seconds after carrying it in? This is too open to interpretation.12. Ban the trap. Call it illegal defense. Just ban it and all forms of it. It is a plague to the sport and has to be eliminated.
How can this really be done? Mandate that a team must have at least three players in the offensive zone by three seconds after carrying it in? This is too open to interpretation.
First of all, YES. Give me a break -- you want to spend $250 to watch a glorified game of rock/paper/scissors? That's all fine and dandy for you, but to say there "has to be a winner" to such a point that you bastardize the game itself is asinine, in my opinion. Since you can't do infinite OT during the season, you call it a tie and move on, instead of playing a completely different game and call it "deciding a winner".
It's an abomination. I stand by that.
First of all, YES. Give me a break -- you want to spend $250 to watch a glorified game of rock/paper/scissors? That's all fine and dandy for you, but to say there "has to be a winner" to such a point that you bastardize the game itself is asinine, in my opinion. Since you can't do infinite OT during the season, you call it a tie and move on, instead of playing a completely different game and call it "deciding a winner".
It's an abomination. I stand by that.
Says the logistics of an 82-game season with back-to-back games in different cities on different nights. Says plane reservations. Says arena lease agreements and staffing restrictions. Says logistics and everything else an 82-game regular-season has to deal with.This is the type of typical thinking that drives me nuts reading this stuff.
Says who?
I have never heard a single salient argument that says that the supposed best conditioned athletes in this corner of the galaxy could not play to a finish.
I swear, hockey fans hear something and take it as if it is the gospel. Friggin' standard "wisdom".