Poll: NHL Lockout

[Anthony]

i just wanna put this out there, curious as to what ultimately matters to NHL fans.

1. The game is the only thing that matters to you. As long as there's quality gamplay you could deal with the NHL starting over with entirely new players. Doing so would allow the NHL to implement whichever financial model they like without the players' union getting in the way.

2. you must watch the game with the greats. you don't care if it's the NHL or "Bob's Hockey League", as long as it has the stars of the NHL pre-lockout you'll watch it. the stars make the game what it is.

i chose option 1. i would really like to see the league "start over" with new players, stick it to the NHLPA and use new rosters. these guys wouldn't be scabs - scabs are temp players while the real players hammer out a new deal. essentially the NHL would be "banning" any players associated with the NHLPA. the NHL would start over, and to play in the NHL you'd have to agree to their rules and regulations. there would be no union.

i'm interested as to why the owners don't take this route. sure, there'd be this window where the gameplay would be shitty, and the tickets would have to be drastically cut in order to entice existing fans to watch a league of amateur players , but i'd like to see this.

say what you want about the owners - but it's their team, they have the right to make money on their investment. the players take on no risk (other than serious injury), so why they're opposing a financial model that the league says will allow it to successfully exist is beyond me. i'd like to see the league stick it to the union.

[FBPro]

I watch hockey a bit more than basketball. In the last 2 or 3 years I may have watch 30 minutes of an NBA game in all the time I've watch put together and hockey is maybe twice that.

[RPI-Fan]

If you answered (a) - there's this little thing called College Hockey.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Other - the scenario you present isn't the NHL, so I would give it the same consideration I give the various minor leagues now (i.e. I go to a few games a year, depending upon how competitive/compelling the closest team happens to be)

Note that the above isn't entirely measured by wins/losses. Losing 4-3, 5-4, 2-1 is a lot different than losing 7-1, 6-0, etc. every night.

I treat hockey a lot like baseball I guess -- if the teams are competitive, then it's entertaining to watch almost regardless of skill level (i.e. a good close Little League game can be a lot of fun, just like a good close MLB game), if we're talking con sisten slaughter, then that's not nearly as interesting (and I've seen at least a couple of pretty non-competitive minor league hockey franchises).

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Other - the scenario you present isn't the NHL, so I would give it the same consideration I give the various minor leagues now (i.e. I go to a few games a year, depending upon how competitive/compelling the closest team happens to be)

in a way, yes, you're correct. but the thing that separates the NHL from a "minor league" is the financial backing of the NHL. minor leagues can't market its players to the extent the NHL can, nor do they have the lush history that the NHL has.

look at it this way. the 2004-2005 season is lost unless something unexpectedly drastic happens (like the players agreeing to a cap). why not use this lost year to bring on totally new players, establish a new financial model, give current NHL players a chance to jump the union's ship and start over. the '04-'05 season would essentially be an "extended offseason" of sorts.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

If you answered (a) - there's this little thing called College Hockey.

That'd be wonderful if they actually showed it on TV.

[Johnny93g]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

If you answered (a) - there's this little thing called College Hockey.

I answered A, but I dont really care about US College hockey...or Canadian College hockey.....Ill be watching the AHL when it's on....GO BABY LEAFS, and pay close attention to Junior hockey and Sidney Crosby, who had a goal and 2 assists last night

[Cards4ever]

If you like Junior hockey, you would like College Hockey and if you can order the Fox Sports pack for cable or dish, you can find a ton of college hockey.

[GrantDawg]

The thing is, there is no way the NHL can play scabs, is there? Canada will not allow scabs to play which would shoot any replacement player ideas in the foot, would it not?

[Cards4ever]

I think a impasse has to be declared before they can do that, but, I'm not exactly sure.

[klayman]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The thing is, there is no way the NHL can play scabs, is there? Canada will not allow scabs to play which would shoot any replacement player ideas in the foot, would it not?

They can only play scabs if the NHLPA was on strike. Since it is the owners locking out the players, they would have to disband the league and reform in order to play replacement players.

[Karim]

In Bettman's news conference, he said an impasse could be declared at any time. In fact, he suggested they've been at impasse for the last year. As far as legalities, labour law is a federal matter in the US but provincial jurisdiction in Canada. Bettman says he has a team of labour lawyers to deal with that sort of thing. Apparently, it's not something the owners have considered.

For me, it has always been about the logo on the front, not the name on the back, so I would definitely support opening the doors to any player who would be willing to play under a unilaterally imposed CBA. As HA stated though, ticket prices would have to be drastically reduced.

In Canada though, I'm starting to wonder how badly we'll miss it because there are just so many hockey options. I'm more disappointed than anything but I'm going to the Hitmen season opener (major junior) and will turn my attention there. I'm supporting the Flames because they own the team and at $35CDN for the best seat in the house, you can't go wrong.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

I answered A, but I dont really care about US College hockey...or Canadian College hockey.....Ill be watching the AHL when it's on....GO BABY LEAFS, and pay close attention to Junior hockey and Sidney Crosby, who had a goal and 2 assists last night

One more year on The Rock, for the Baby Leafs... after that I hope they die a horrific death. I'm still a Toronto fan, but they have slowly been losing all credibility for me since Stavro left, and they've turn into a Pension Piggy Bank, run by Dickhead Peddy.

[finkenst]

and the network tv money would be drastically reduced, undoubtedly.

ahh... It's almost Rivermen season. http://www.rivermen.net

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by sabotai

That'd be wonderful if they actually showed it on TV.

Go watch Princeton get slaughtered by RPI live and in person.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by finkenst

and the network tv money would be drastically reduced, undoubtedly.

How could that be possible? Do you mean that the NHL would actually pay to get on television? Because they don't have much of a TV contract now.

[mgadfly]

I'm not familiar with the NHL, but why do they need a cap. Can't the owners just not pay outrageous salaries? (I know this is simplistic, but what is the real problem? It sounds as if the real fear might be major market teams being able to buy all the good players. So if the owners just kept the current CBA, but didn't offer to pay players more than they could afford, the problem would be solved--except that you might end up with the hockey Yankees who could buy all the talent.)

[rkmsuf]

I'm rooting for the lockout.

[hhiipp]

Where is the don't care about hockey option?

[henry296]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

I'm not familiar with the NHL, but why do they need a cap. Can't the owners just not pay outrageous salaries? (I know this is simplistic, but what is the real problem? It sounds as if the real fear might be major market teams being able to buy all the good players. So if the owners just kept the current CBA, but didn't offer to pay players more than they could afford, the problem would be solved--except that you might end up with the hockey Yankees who could buy all the talent.)

1. Your last sentence is what we have today. Teams like the Red Wings, Leafs and Rangers can afford and do have much larger payrolls and have driven up salaries. Just like baseball it isn't a guarantee of success (ask the Rangers) but it doesn't hurt either.

2. The owners can't agree to pay lower salaries. It is called collusion and baseball got caught doing in the 1980s and paid huge amounts in damages.

Todd

[druez]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

I'm not familiar with the NHL, but why do they need a cap. Can't the owners just not pay outrageous salaries? (I know this is simplistic, but what is the real problem? It sounds as if the real fear might be major market teams being able to buy all the good players. So if the owners just kept the current CBA, but didn't offer to pay players more than they could afford, the problem would be solved--except that you might end up with the hockey Yankees who could buy all the talent.)

That is the current situation. The rangers are like the mets. Ton of money and stars, but can't win to save their lives. There are always a few teams who have a good run with a low payroll, but the problem is they loose the players because they can't afford to pay them.

Salary cap is needed because it works. Look at the NFL? THere isn't a league that is better financial shape or more compelling then the NFL. The cap works and it ensures the survivial of the league and the smaller franchise cities.


What the NHL needs to do is adopt the same format as english soccer.

[Karim]

Originally Posted by hhiipp

Where is the don't care about hockey option?

Along with the don't care about football option.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by sabotai

That'd be wonderful if they actually showed it on TV.

CSTV and some of the RSNs carry it. In New Jersey, Princeton may be reasonable for you to attend in person, although that's not exactly the best example of the college game.

Although I picked the "insert joke" option, b is probably closer -- I already have a in the form of Notre Dame hockey.

[Cards4ever]

I'll post this here too:

http://www.nike.com/canada/nikehockey/lockout/

[Johnny93g]

Originally Posted by druez

That is the current situation. The rangers are like the mets. Ton of money and stars, but can't win to save their lives. There are always a few teams who have a good run with a low payroll, but the problem is they loose the players because they can't afford to pay them.

Salary cap is needed because it works. Look at the NFL? THere isn't a league that is better financial shape or more compelling then the NFL. The cap works and it ensures the survivial of the league and the smaller franchise cities.


What the NHL needs to do is adopt the same format as english soccer.

I think the NFL system works as great as it does because of all the TV revenue they get....The NHL cant even come close to that kind of TV deal....Still, revenue sharing would be best for the league....That, and killing 8-10 franchises that have no business being in the league....The way the owners have worded what they want....salaries linked directly to revenue sounds great to me, but the players are not out of line in what they want.....It's too bad neither are willing to make any consecions at this point...

As for NHL reverting to the format as english soccer, I think that would make more sense in MLB, where the gaps in team payrolls make the NHL ones look tiny

[Logan]

I think the problem with what you are suggesting is that the way a league like the NHL can make money is by bringing in the casual fan. There will always be the diehards and the season ticket holders, but they need the guy who enjoys hockey - not depends on it - to come to more than just one or two games a year. That's tough with how high ticket prices are, and will be even harder if the casual fan can't go see players he recognizes.

Personally though, I'm all for A.