Technical Changes for Television

[achilleus]

The NHL is experimenting.

Kinda cool looking, but what I really liked was this one quote:

Goaltender Ryan Miller said he initially had difficulty picking up the puck, but is in favor of changing colors if it helps market the game.

"Any kind of change would help," Miller said. "If they feel like people aren't able to watch or follow on TV, we should make it more television-friendly."

[Prometheus]

I have a radical idea for improving the marketing of NHL hockey:

Actually have games.

[noodle]

grand idea.
lets paint our pistes blue, then the tvs will like us.

[mrbiggs]

Maybe if the NHL would stop being a sport revolving around fights, people wouldn't feel that it's below them to watch it.

I think fencing needs less rules.

[darius]

Maybe if the NHL would stop being a sport revolving around fights, people wouldn't feel that it's below them to watch it.

Maybe if fencing wasn't a sport revolving around rich white ponces shouting "touche!", perhaps more people would watch/do it.

Perpetuation of those sorts of misconceptions is the reason some sports never get their due.

I've never understood why Americans didn't like hockey -- it's fast, it's aggressive, it's generally easy to follow, it's got a high "holy crap that was cool" factor.

darius

[noodle]

americans and their balls and such.
if its not a ball that you're allowed to touch with your hands, its CRAP!

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by darius

Maybe if fencing wasn't a sport revolving around rich white ponces shouting "touche!", perhaps more people would watch/do it.

Perpetuation of those sorts of misconceptions is the reason some sports never get their due.

I've never understood why Americans didn't like hockey -- it's fast, it's aggressive, it's generally easy to follow, it's got a high "holy crap that was cool" factor.

darius

Because in nearly every hockey match, there's a random fight that the refs don't even try to break up, and which seems to be the high point of every match for a good deal of the spectators.

Fencing is not, in fact, a bunch of...oh. Well, we don't shout "touche" very often anymore.

[LUDICROUS]

Originally Posted by darius

Maybe if fencing wasn't a sport revolving around rich white ponces shouting "touche!", perhaps more people would watch/do it.

Perpetuation of those sorts of misconceptions is the reason some sports never get their due.

I've never understood why Americans didn't like hockey -- it's fast, it's aggressive, it's generally easy to follow, it's got a high "holy crap that was cool" factor.

darius

We can't help it if the aristocracy of europe was generally less than 5%(or whatever) of the population!

I still think my "Extreme fencing league" idea (Think WWE, with fencing, and COLOUR.) would work great.

[Bayou Bum]

Originally Posted by darius

Maybe if fencing wasn't a sport revolving around rich white ponces shouting "touche!", perhaps more people would watch/do it.

Perpetuation of those sorts of misconceptions is the reason some sports never get their due.

I've never understood why Americans didn't like hockey -- it's fast, it's aggressive, it's generally easy to follow, it's got a high "holy crap that was cool" factor.

darius

Is hockey still a sport? Maybe I should go watch a professional hockey game ... oh wait ... I can't!

I think there is more fencing on TV than hockey these days ... ain't life grand!

[Rodeo79]

With the introduction of HDTV there is no need to change the puck color. HDTV picks up the puck extremely well, and make the action easier to follow. What the NHL needs to do to improve it's fan in the U.S. base is simple...

1. Have hockey again.
2. Increase scoring.

Americans love scoring. Hence the move for the 2pt conversion in football, and the 3 point line in basket ball. All implemented to increase scoring. Its the reason why Americans don't like soccer, too low scoring.

As for fighting, I wonder how many people who detest fighting in Hockey enjoy the sport of boxing. I also have never seen people at a hockey game boo, or be upset by a fight during the game. It seems to me that it has the same excitement level as a goal. I'd rather see 2 players who are willing to engage in fisticuffs go at it, than bench clearing brawls, or see players and fans engaged in fights during a game. True it has become more of a novelty since the introduction of the instigator rule, but it still has its niche in the game, when used properly.

[darius]

Because in nearly every hockey match, there's a random fight that the refs don't even try to break up, and which seems to be the high point of every match for a good deal of the spectators.

Fighting's been passe in hockey for a long time. The instigator rule basically killed it. Instead, the more goony players take quiet cheap shots behind the action, hoping to draw a retaliatory hit that the refs see. I haven't seen the gloves come off in an NHL playoff game for a long time.

I don't like the way fighting takes from the flow of hockey, but if I were the NHL rules commissioner, I'd:

- Remove icing. Why stop the game? Make the defense carry it out of their zone.
- Remove the two line pass rule (but keep offsides, no cherry pickers).
- Enforce obstruction, especially on players without the puck.
- Limit goalie pad sizes, or maybe increase the size of the net?

As for fighting, I wonder how many people who detest fighting in Hockey enjoy the sport of boxing.

Boxing's a pretty cool sport, except at the heavyweight level, where it's basically the first to lack-of-consciousness-from-multiple-concussions loses.

darius

[achilleus]

It's funny how threads develop a life of their own.

Personally, hockey bores me. The NHL strike is good for me since it leaves more time on ESPN for basketball.

I just thought it was interesting that the athletes were willing to adjust their game for television, and how different that is from the attitude we see in many threads here.

Instead of a discussion on the attitude, people are discussing hockey. Oh well, that'll learn me. Continue on...

[Rodeo79]

Originally Posted by achilleus

It's funny how threads develop a life of their own.

Personally, hockey bores me. The NHL strike is good for me since it leaves more time on ESPN for basketball.

I just thought it was interesting that the athletes were willing to adjust their game for television, and how different that is from the attitude we see in many threads here.

Instead of a discussion on the attitude, people are discussing hockey. Oh well, that'll learn me. Continue on...

You may have tried stating that in your opening post. Only thing you mentioned in your opening post was that you thought it was interesting, and expected all others to read your mind, as to what direction you were going....

Like taking a puppy outside without a leash and being surprised it ran the other way...

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Rodeo79

You may have tried stating that in your opening post. Only thing you mentioned in your opening post was that you thought it was interesting, and expected all others to read your mind, as to what direction you were going....

Like taking a puppy outside without a leash and being surprised it ran the other way...

Could've. But one the things I like about discussions, they take a life their own. It's a great thing.

Plus, I hate treating people like puppies.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by darius

I don't like the way fighting takes from the flow of hockey, but if I were the NHL rules commissioner, I'd:

- Remove icing. Why stop the game? Make the defense carry it out of their zone.

Bad idea, in my books -- icing makes playing defense more difficult, and allows for those exciting moments where one team keeps the pressure on for long periods. These would be less likely if they could fire the puck down the ice with no repurcussions each and every time.

Actually, I'd like to see MORE icing. That is, still have icing when there's a power play. This would force the penalty killing team to ACTUALLY PLAY HOCKEY when they have one player off the ice, rather than stand in a square and try to dump the puck out for two minutes. It should also increase scoring (a good thing) and reduce the amount of interference and dirty play -- it's one thing to risk a penalty with a bit of interference when your team has an 87% penalty kill (ie, they're more at risk of giving up a goal 5-on-5), it's another thing entirely if power play goals are more common than not.

- Remove the two line pass rule (but keep offsides, no cherry pickers).

It would be nice, I guess. I don't think that the two line pass rule actually does anything ... but it'd be good for an occasional highlight reel type play. For the most part this would mean some harmless passes not stopping the play.

- Enforce obstruction, especially on players without the puck.

I'm telling you -- the standard early season crackdown plus icing calls during penalties would make it stick ...

- Limit goalie pad sizes, or maybe increase the size of the net?

Yes to the pads, no to the net.

Also: Put the net back to where it was ... a number of years ago they decided to increase the amount of room behind the net, because Gretzky was so good back there ... they thought that it might encourage other players to do similar things. They can't, and it just makes the offensive end more cramped -- which means fewer spectacular plays.

Increasing the rink size would be good, too, but you can't be taking any seats out of the arenas, now can you? I mean, they're always full, right? Right?

[CvilleFencer]

One big difference between NHL and USFA. NHL players are a type of performer/athlete that earns their living from people watching their sport on TV, buying the merchandise, etc. Fencing, at least in the US is an unpaid amateur sport done by people who love it, enough to spend many thousands of dollars on it and support a large and broad fencing merchandise/equipment industry.

If I got paid to fence in tourneys and my "job" was to appeal to fans by looking cool and being a popular player with the public I would be all for any changes that would increase my customer/viewer/income potential. As a fencer I am there to fence other athletes who at least have a passable understanding of the history, decorum and traditions of our sport for no other reason than to better myself and a love of the sport. I pay for the events I attend(as a fencer) and pay for and support the sport I love by taking lessons, paying to enter tourneys, giving donations and paying dues to the USFA and FIE and purchasing LOTS of fencing equipment for myself and my students.

I could care less what the average trailer dwelling, beer swilling, highschool dropout WWF fan with nothing better to do with his life than sit on a sofa and watch OTHER people play sports thinks about fencing. I have too much fun looking down at them, and in fact most professional sports and their fans, as sellouts and mercenaries that care more about their paychecks than the love of the game. I am part of a sport that owes it allegiances and existence to my fellow fencers and their support of our sport. I tend to get up in arms when someone suggests making radical changes to commercialize the sport I have spent a good chunk of my life and many thousands of dollars supporting.

Wow, I am a bit of an arrogant prick today aren't I? I guess I guilty of hubris and a bit touchy about it all. I don't like talk of changing the rules or play of the sport to be more TV friendly because it seems to me to be somewhat of an affront to current fencers and the fencers that came before us who have taught, protected and supported our sport for centuries without having to bend our principals and traditions to the collective will of a fickle and mercurial public.

By the way, I like hockey, Rugby and Martial Arts comps such as breaking and forms comps much better than any ball sport around. I don't think I have ever watched a complete base/basket/foot/soccer ball game before and only learned to appreciate rugby and hockey as that was all that was discussed when I was stationed at various far flung corners of the world.

[jBirch]

Whoah. I've got two words for anyone thinking of doing this to hockey:

Fox.

Puck.

'Nuff said.

James.

[jBirch]

Increasing the rink size would be good, too, but you can't be taking any seats out of the arenas, now can you? I mean, they're always full, right? Right?

I used to think so, but then I tried to get into a rink to check. For some reason, the doors were locked.

Go figure.

[darius]

I used to think so, but then I tried to get into a rink to check. For some reason, the doors were locked.

Nobody in Canada has figured out that you can use arenas as rock concert venues yet? Damn.

darius

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

One big difference between NHL and USFA. NHL players are a type of performer/athlete that earns their living from people watching their sport on TV, buying the merchandise, etc. Fencing, at least in the US is an unpaid amateur sport done by people who love it, enough to spend many thousands of dollars on it and support a large and broad fencing merchandise/equipment industry.

If I got paid to fence in tourneys and my "job" was to appeal to fans by looking cool and being a popular player with the public I would be all for any changes that would increase my customer/viewer/income potential. As a fencer I am there to fence other athletes who at least have a passable understanding of the history, decorum and traditions of our sport for no other reason than to better myself and a love of the sport. I pay for the events I attend(as a fencer) and pay for and support the sport I love by taking lessons, paying to enter tourneys, giving donations and paying dues to the USFA and FIE and purchasing LOTS of fencing equipment for myself and my students.

I could care less what the average trailer dwelling, beer swilling, highschool dropout WWF fan with nothing better to do with his life than sit on a sofa and watch OTHER people play sports thinks about fencing. I have too much fun looking down at them, and in fact most professional sports and their fans, as sellouts and mercenaries that care more about their paychecks than the love of the game. I am part of a sport that owes it allegiances and existence to my fellow fencers and their support of our sport. I tend to get up in arms when someone suggests making radical changes to commercialize the sport I have spent a good chunk of my life and many thousands of dollars supporting.

Wow, I am a bit of an arrogant prick today aren't I? I guess I guilty of hubris and a bit touchy about it all. I don't like talk of changing the rules or play of the sport to be more TV friendly because it seems to me to be somewhat of an affront to current fencers and the fencers that came before us who have taught, protected and supported our sport for centuries without having to bend our principals and traditions to the collective will of a fickle and mercurial public.

By the way, I like hockey, Rugby and Martial Arts comps such as breaking and forms comps much better than any ball sport around. I don't think I have ever watched a complete base/basket/foot/soccer ball game before and only learned to appreciate rugby and hockey as that was all that was discussed when I was stationed at various far flung corners of the world.

It's great to say I do it for me, but we all run into the issue of the Olympics, and how tied up the sport is with gaining viewers to grow. If that's the case shouldn't we all be more amenable to a little tinkering? Provided it's safe, and tested properly?

Is it such a bad thing to experiment? I also note that the NHL didn't just mandate blue ice rinks for next year, but the played a game and are going to review it thoroughly...