The NHL vs. MSG

Gary Bettman is a classic case of someone with Napoleon Syndrome. You know, a short little runt that has an insatiable taste for power to make up for his physical shortcomings.

Case in point is his personal vendetta (And it IS personal, believe you me) versus MSG for control over their ... website.

Yes, MSG dared not to become part of the NHL.com collective, and actually likes to do its own thing. While I think it is better for the Rangers to be part of the whole NHL.com thing, I respect the fact that they want to have their own voice.

The NHL, not liking anyone to step out of line, is threatening some serious legal action.

From the National Post:

The National Hockey League is threatening to strip Madison Square Garden of its ownership of the New York Rangers, WNBC reported Thursday.

According to the report, the NHL is seeking to punish MSG for accusing the league of violating anti-trust laws. On Wednesday, the NHL filed court papers that included a letter from commissioner Gary Bettman notifying MSG that it has begun disciplinary proceedings against the organization.

The league and the Rangers have feuded over control of the team's web site. In September, Madison Square Garden sued the NHL, saying it violated antitrust laws by monopolizing control of team promotions. However, a judge ruled in November that the league was within its right to take control of the web site.

In Wednesday's court filing, the league asked a judge to agree that MSG breached its contract by challenging NHL rules. The NHL further claimed that it can force MSG out of the league.

I am amazed that the judge sided with the league. Shouldn't the team be able to control its own frickin website? Geezus.

The Dolans are rich and powerful, and I am amazed Bettman is throwing such a hissy fit over a website. Do you really think he's going to kick MSG out of the league? I just can't see it happening.

Just call this what it is, rich men with small penises who can't stand to lose control. This is just a small example of why the human race is going to eventually wipe itself out ... people just cannot share.

Advertising on NHL Uniforms? Ugh...

by Jes

Normally, concepts and ideas from Europe (such as legalized prostitution, no-touch icing, not going ape-crap over half of an exposed nipple) show how behind-the-times and small-minded North Americans really are.

There are exceptions, however, to every rule, especially when it comes to hockey.

Anyone who has ever seen some semblance of European hockey knows that the entire experience is littered with advertising. It's not enough that the boards and ice surface likes look a NASCAR car, but the players' sweaters, themselves, make the players into skating billboards.

Instead of prominently feature a team logo, you get sweaters covered in enough advertising to make you sick. Hell, some Euroclubs are even named after a team sponsor (such as Chemopetrol Litvinov, HC MOUNTFIELD (Ceske Budejovice), and HC Energie Karlovy Vary.

Given how much advertising we're subjected to already, do NHL fans really want MORE of that crap?

The one 'sacred' aspect of the NHL, compared to Europe, is that the players' uniforms have remained relatively logo free. Sure, there has been logo creep on the sweaters, but we'll accept a logo on a piece of equipment that belongs to the maker of said product.

I always liked that I could look, or wear, an NHL uniform and have it all about the team colours, design, and logo. NHL uniforms are fairly clean and crisp, and are the one bit of freedom we have from the corporate messaging we are submitted to every minute of every game.

Unfortunately, greed tends to prevail in this society, and now we have NHL goaltenders clamouring to sell themselves as corporate shills.

A group of influential NHLers is asking the league and the players' union to consider placing corporate logos on jerseys as a way to generate new revenues, according to a Toronto Star report published yesterday.

The group which includes New Jersey's Martin Brodeur, Dallas's Marty Turco, Detroit's Dominik Hasek and Edmonton's Dwayne Roloson is proposing the creation of a Goaltender's Club.

The idea is to sell space for ads on the jerseys of the league's netminders.

Hockey marketer Brad Robins and Edmonton player agent Ritch Winter are working with the players and they estimate on-uniform ads could generate upwards of $30 million a season for the NHL.

"This is the wave of the future," Winter told the Star. "The NHL isn't as profitable as other leagues, and we have very little choice but to pursue new ways to create revenue so we can reinvest in our sport. It's just a way to pay the bills."

Do these idiots not make enough money as it is? Do they really have no shame in slapping on some generic corporate logos onto their clothing to make a few extra bucks?

Oh, cue the rich quote from Dwayne Roloson.

Roloson shrugs off the prospect of criticism from traditionalists.

"I think it's a great way to grow (hockey-related revenue)," he told the Star. "They have (uniform ads) in Europe and it doesn't take away from the true jersey look."

Doesn't take away from the true jersey look?? O.... K....

If this should ever pass, I suggest every NHL fan boo the living hell out of these empty souls and endeavour to put their fanship into goaltenders who don't submit themselves to the will of corporate assholes. It's pretty sad that these boys, who are already well-off, would feel the need to pimp themselves out as propaganda whores to the highest bidder.

Is the NHL Really More Popular than the NBA?

by Jes

Over at The FanHouse, we were sent a link to something called "The Harris Poll", which asks a bunch of (American) people what their favourite sport is, and then ranks them, plays around with the data, and shows us just how popular the boring NFL brand of football really is.

What made our eyes pop out was the fact that 5% of respondents claimed hockey as their favourite sport, while only 3% claimed professional basketball, aka The NBA, as their favourite sport.
'Sup, bitches?

The NHL is more popular than the NBA?? WTF??

Of course, this news is far too good to be true, as any set of TV ratings will tell you.

As with any poll, this instantly screams "SMALL SAMPLE SIZE!". 2032 adults is hardly going to capture the true tastes of the general American public.

Given how regional NHL interest is, the figures could wildly fluctuate if you hit a good patch (Minnesota) or bad patch (West Virginia) when polling people.

It's always been a pet peeve of mine that the media, and the pollsters themselves, seem to forget a simple little concept called SAMPLING ERROR.

In statistics, sampling error is the error caused by observing a sample instead of the whole population.

An estimate of a quantity of interest, such as an average or percentage, will generally be subject to sample-to-sample variation. These variations in the possible sample values of a statistic can theoretically be expressed as sampling errors, although in practice the exact sampling error is typically unknown. Sampling error also refers more broadly to this phenomenon of random sampling variation.

For example, say a recent poll asked 2,000 Canadians which flavour of ice cream they like the most. The first poll had a +/- margin of error of 3%, with 38% choosing Vanilla and 23% choosing Chocolate.

Now, the second poll shows 35% choosing Vanilla, and 26% choosing chocolate.

If the media were covering the poll, the headline would be like "Support for Chocolate growing!" or "Vanilla Losing Popularity".

Nevermind the fact that the growth/drop was 3% for each, which was the exactly sampling error, the media seems to think that any such movement is indicative of the mindset of the population, rather than the expected variation from one poll to the next.

Just remember, kiddies, that any movement that is within, or very close to, a margin of error on any poll does not necessarily indicate a change in public opinion, as a whole.

Of course, the Harris Poll doesn't even bother publishing a NUMBER for sampling error, but at least they acknowledge there is a such thing and give their reasons for not putting a hard number out there.

Still, I did enjoy the poll, and would love to see a similar poll done with a far large sample size. Perhaps ESPN, with all of their resources, could conduct a poll through their website.
Anyway, back to the original topic at hand ... Big Mac took the reigns of this story for us at FanHouse, and made a good point about how the NHL really is gaining ground to the NBA.

This survey does dovetail well with some other data that we've seen about the relative popularity of the two sports. Back in November, Sports Business Daily published a study about the most popular sports sites on the Web, and that survey pegged the total traffic of NBA.com and NHL.com as pretty much even. Later, I called the league office in New York, and they told me that had the numbers from Canada been included, that NHL.com would have been far more popular.

Of course, once you add in those numbers from China, the NHL suffers a bit. The global village and all that.

If I was working for the NHL, I might take some time to send these numbers to a couple of sports pages around the country to make a simple case: You might be ignoring the NHL, but there's a market of people out there that you aren't necessarily serving. You'd think there might be some potential in that.

The numbers for the NHL are pretty much flat throughout the survey. It's the NBA's numbers that have really dwindles, as the American audience seems to be turned off by the new generation of American 'ballers.

New Restrictions on European Juniors

by Jes

Per TSN.ca, the IIHF, its member countries, and the NHL have come to a new agreement about junior European hockey players.

Following the five hour meeting with representatives of the Czech Republic, Finland, Russia, Slovakia and Sweden, both sides agreed that a player who is still under contract with an IIHF team and has not reached his 20th birthday must be first offered back to his team in Europe. The new proposal sees the age limit increased by two years.

This provision does not affect players who where selected in the first round of the NHL draft.

Out of the 59 European players who were signed by NHL clubs prior to the 2007-2008 season, six are on NHL rosters, 46 were assigned to the minor leagues and seven returned to their European clubs.

So, it sounds like the IIHF clubs will have the first right of refusal is a player is demoted from the NHL to the AHL or ECHL, until they are 20.

I don't mind this at all, given how a European team should have the rights to their players if they are under a valid contract. It's not as if there are that many 20-and-under Europeans in the AHL or ECHL, so I don't think the impact of this decision is going to be dramatic, since it doesn't appear to affect the Canadian Hockey League.

New Restrictions on European Juniors

by Jes

Per TSN.ca, the IIHF, its member countries, and the NHL have come to a new agreement about junior European hockey players.

Following the five hour meeting with representatives of the Czech Republic, Finland, Russia, Slovakia and Sweden, both sides agreed that a player who is still under contract with an IIHF team and has not reached his 20th birthday must be first offered back to his team in Europe. The new proposal sees the age limit increased by two years.

This provision does not affect players who where selected in the first round of the NHL draft.

Out of the 59 European players who were signed by NHL clubs prior to the 2007-2008 season, six are on NHL rosters, 46 were assigned to the minor leagues and seven returned to their European clubs.

So, it sounds like the IIHF clubs will have the first right of refusal is a player is demoted from the NHL to the AHL or ECHL, until they are 20.

I don't mind this at all, given how a European team should have the rights to their players if they are under a valid contract. It's not as if there are that many 20-and-under Europeans in the AHL or ECHL, so I don't think the impact of this decision is going to be dramatic, since it doesn't appear to affect the Canadian Hockey League.

NHL Uniforms, White at Home?

by Jes

Over at The FanHouse, G.W. muses about how he thinks home teams ought to go back to wearing WHITE uniforms at home, rather than the darker versions they do now.

I know that the League had worn dark uniforms at home in the past, but that doesn't mean it's the right look. In fact, it flies in the face of the most basic tenets of classic drama: The good guys wear white, the villains wear the dark colors. Well, that was until "Return of the Jedi," when Luke's black outfit was outwardly symbolic of his internal conflict between destiny and duty and ... I'll stop

As you'll recall, the NHL decided to buck recent standards and made teams wear their 'road' uniforms at home, and then wear white on the road. This was all designed to sell more darker uniforms, and the GM's don't seem to be in a hurry to switch.

I have to say that I've grown on having the darker uniforms at home, as it gives the team more colour and distinction. Look at the Calgary Flames when they play a home game. Almost the entire crowd seems to be wearing red, and it gives their stadium an unique look. The Canucks have their sea blue and green, while the Oilers have their dark blue look. Each of the Canadian teams has a very distinctive colour scheme which really shows when they are in their home barns.

If every team wears white at home, then each arena and crowd becomes that much more generic, right?

Since every team has a white version of their uniforms, it would make sense, to me, to have them wear that version on the road. The enemy, as Greg would say, can be the generic white-washed unit while the home team is the one with colour and personality.

Let the darker uniforms continue to be used at home. It's one decision that the NHL made right, so why go back on it?

What's so Great About Outdoor Hockey Games?

by Jes

It appears that having outdoor hockey games is the big trend these days, and now the Flyers want to jump on that bandwagon with an annual outdoor game against the Pittsburgh Penguins at "Beaver Stadium" (insert Beavis laughter here)

Quite honestly, if I had the chance to go to one of these things, I highly doubt I would. It just doesn't seem like a whole lot of fun to watch hockey in sub-zero temperatures, surrounded by a bunch of drunk, immature twits.

1. I HATE the cold! This is the primary reason why I live in Vancouver (it's milder compared to the rest of Canada) and why I sleep with 6 different blankets and the heat turned up full blast. I don't want to stand outside in cold weather for 10 minutes, much less up to 3 hours. Why anyone would subject themselves to this form of torture is beyond me. I'll watch from my comfy and warm couch, thanks.

2. The games are sloooooooooooooooooow. Remember the big Heritage Classic between the Oilers and Habs? The action was too slow even for Jacques Lemaire to love, and the players were obviously having some trouble adjusting to the insane cold. For a variety of reasons, the players aren't going to be as fluid and comfortable as they normally are, and it leads to action that is less than thrilling. It was more for the spectacle, that people watched, rather than the on-ice action.

3. By the slim chance I ever got a seat, you can imagine that it would be so far away from the action that even one of NASA's best telescopes couldn't allow me to see what is going on. Hockey was not meant for football stadiums, and most of the people there won't be able to get a great view. If you are going to stand out in the freezing cold, at least make it worthwhile.

So, I ask, what's the big deal?

The IIHF is Whining for More Money

by Jes

The IIHF recently raised more eyebrows when it gave notice to the NHL that it wanted to re-open the NHL/IIHF agreement and get better terms for European clubs.

Rene Fasel, IIHF President and corrupt Olympic Committee official, gave an interview which highlights the views of his organization.

There are a few major objections that they have addressed. First, nobody likes the situation where a vast majority of the European players who sign NHL contracts don’t play in the NHL, but instead are demoted to various minor leagues. This is detrimental to player development and to the European leagues. If a player is not NHL-ready he should stay in his home environment and develop until he is ready.

WRONG! The NHL, and North American game, is seriously different from the European game. Playing for longer in Europe does not always help a player adapt to the NHL. Just ask Jaroslav Hlinka, one of Europe's brightest stars that have had loads of trouble adapting to the NHL. Same goes for Jiri Dopita, Pavel Patera, Martin Prochazka, and other such players.

Look, North American players have to often pay their dues in the AHL, so why shouldn't European players do the same? If a guy like Hlinka had played in the AHL at a younger age, he'd likely be a boffo NHL player by now.

Having players in the AHL is detrimental only to the European leagues, and to the egos of European players who are used to more money, better work schedules, and more fan praise that they get back home.

Just look at the signings prior to this season. There were 59 European players who signed NHL contracts for 2007-2008. Seven have been returned to their European clubs, 46 are in the North American minor leagues and only six play in the NHL. To have six players, you don’t need to sign 59.

Signing an NHL contract ... what a poor term to use. You can sign an NHL contract and still play in juniors, Europe, or the AHL. It doesn't mean you will be going to the NHL RIGHT NOW.

It also speaks to, again, the above fact that European players are less likely to put up with playing in the AHL.

Let's face it, every NHL team signs many NHL contracts, but not all of them turn into useful NHL players. That's just the nature of the business.

So very little is actually about the money?

Correct. It’s basically about player development, being able to plan your season and to secure the value of the transfer money.

What a load of crap! This is ALL about money, and everyone knows it. European leagues are sick of losing their players and getting a pittance for it. Why not just come out and say you guys want more money?

Going back to the number of Europeans who sign NHL contracts but end up in the minors – is that really a bad thing?



Yes, it’s bad for everyone. There are four losers in any signing of a player who is not NHL-ready. 1. The player. Our studies show that a player is better off if he stays at home and develops in his environment. All the best Europeans in the NHL are those who stay at home until they are NHL-ready and they go straight to the NHL club. They don’t need “seasoning” in the minors. 2. His European club. For obvious reasons, the club loses a player who could stay another year or two or three and be a marquee player. 3. The NHL club. Instead of getting a good player who is ready to go, it brings him over too early, and very often the player does not reach his potential after a long period in the minors. 4. The North American system. For every European who takes up a spot on a farm team, that developmental position could have been offered to a player from the Canadian junior league or U.S. college.


More Fasel crap

1. What studies? Can I see them? As I've shown, players are often worse off if they stay at home too long, rather than coming to North America. Very few players can jump into the NHL at an advanced age without some minor-league conditioning.

The most important DEVELOPMENT tool is to get lots of ice time and get accustomed to the North American game. I see top prospects in the Czech Extraleague who get 3rd or 4th line ice time. They could be over in North American learning 'our' game and getting more ice time on the farm or in the CHL.

2. European club - OK, that's obvious. We know the IIHF is trying to protect its leagues, and it has every right to do so.

3. The NHL club would benefit if these players would come over and STAY over. If a player doesn't reach their full potential in the minors, it's more about the player just lacking NHL-calibre skill than anything the NHL club does. Not every player that is drafted is going to make the NHL. This has nothing to do with where they play.

4. ALL North American leagues, especially the CHL, have expanded so much that they NEED European talent. There simply isn't enough great talent from our own continent to support all of the expansion. A European player will take a spot only from a 4th-line grinder/tweener that won't be exactly missed.

Besides, plenty of North Americans play in Europe. Should we say they are taking jobs away from Europeans?

In the end, this is a money grab and Fasel should STFU about 'development'.

1. In today's economy, people play and work in all parts of the world. Players should have every right to play and work where they want without other people holding their 'rights'

2. Players are better off getting North American-style development if they want to play in the NHL. This isn't true for all players, but it is true for many players.

3. There are only so many NHL spots, and many players won't make it, European or otherwise. To say it's the fault of the NHL is silly. Unless the NHL expands to 300 teams, a lot of Europeans will simply not be good enough to make the show.

4. I don't mind that the IIHF is trying to protect its members, and I don't like it when Czech and Slovak teams get raided. I just wish the IIHF would be more forthcoming about that reason instead of trying to draw sympathy by playing the 'development' card.

The NHL is not the BAD guy here. They are a well-paying league that offers the chance to play in front of large crowds and play against the top players in the world. If other leagues, such as the Russian Superleague tries to do, paid so well, players would play there, if given the chance. That's just how the economy works.

The NHL vs. The Internet

The Jiri Tlusty naked photo mess has highlighted just how damaging the Internet can be to a player's reputation when the players aren't careful about their activities. Like it or not, there are those who want to take advantage of an athlete's name and use it for nefarious purposes.

As Chuck Gormley of The Sporting News reports, the NHL wants to make its players aware of a world that many of them know little about. Unbeknownst to many players, they are posers pretending to be an NHL player, and often getting away with it.

"Go on MySpace and type in anybody in this (locker) room and there will be someone posing," said Carter, who is single. "I have a friend who said she sent pictures to my MySpace and I don't even have a MySpace. She said, 'Oh, I've been talking to you for the past month and a half.'"

Umberger, who is married, went online and discovered there were four people posing as him on their own web pages. When he found that some were soliciting women, he had all four accounts canceled.

I've seen a few such sites, and they range from harmless 'role playing' (a game where people make no bones about playing the role of a player, and disclose that they are not the actual athlete) to actual identity theft, where many are duped into believing that Jason Smith actually spends six hours a day on his Facebook account.

Unfortunately, it will take a combined effort between the NHL and its clubs to ensure that their athletes are protected.

My solution would be for each club to have one of its employees act as an IT watchdog for their players. Between the clubs and the NHL, these people would scour the internet, ensuring that any MySpace-like accounts are legitimate, and make sure that any false accounts are deleted. It's so incredibly simple for someone to set up an account and pretend that they are an athlete, and an amazing amount of people seem to fall for it.

Since ye olde newspapers are hardly the force they used to be, teams need to focus more of their energy on the media that most fans use, which is definitely the Internet. What goes on TV and Newspapers can more easily be controlled, but the Internet allows fans to get around any controls the NHL has in place for the more established channels.

For the new breed of athlete that does use the Internet often (such as Tlusty), they'll need to be protected from their own stupidity and/or gregariousness as anything that they allow to be exposed will spread around the hockeysphere faster than the Ebola virus.

Tuesday's Thoughts: Flyers Goon it Up

span style="font-style: italic;">by Jes

After what happened between Flyers d-man Randy Jones and Bruins forward Patrice Bergeron, you'd figure that the Philadelphia Flyers might exercise a little caution in last night's rematch

But, as we know, the goonish mentality is alive and well in the City of Brotherly Love. (Hat tip to Mirtle for the video link)

Philadelphia's Scott Hartnell was given a five-minute boarding penalty and a game misconduct for hitting defenceman Andrew Alberts at 14:22 of the second period. Andrews left the game with an unspecified head injury and will be evaluated on Tuesday.

Boston's Zdeno Chara said that his team decided not to retaliate after Alberts was injured.

"It's something we talked about," Chara said. "We probably ended up with some bruises, but we have two points and that's the most important thing right now. It's up to the league to address things like that."

Hartnell said that the hit on Alberts was not deliberate.

"I did not try to hurt him," Hartnell explained. "There was no intent at all. I am not that type of player. If you look at all the games this year and past years, I finish my checks every time I have an opportunity."

Not deliberate? From the little highlight we do see (near the end), Hartnell was absolutely rocketing towards Alberts with the full intention of doing some damage. While I defended Jones' hit on Bergergon, I believe Hartnell's hit was fully intended to injure the Bruins' player, and a very lengthy suspension ought to be on the way.

---
Other goodies over at the NHL FanHouse ...

1. We have a new contributor in Kevin Schultz (from Barry Melrose Rocks). His debit column is a beauty, as he gives Gary Bettman some tips on how to run his new radio show.

2. Imagine winning a hard-to-come-by Nintendo Wii, and then dying on the way to pick up your prize. Well, that's what happened to one poor kid at a Providence Bruins game. Greg Wyshynski has all the gory details.

3. Rome continues to burn as rumours surface that JFJ wanted to fire Paul Maurice, but couldn't. More Steve Simmons bullshit or the real deal? We report, YOU DECIDE!! Muhahaha

Erin Nicks, WTF?

by Jes

Erin Nicks is a cheeky writer, and rabid hockey fan, who has panned many an interesting article for the Ottawa Sun. She definitely ranks up there for underrated writers whose work you ought to check out some time.

Her latest piece, however, made me gasp just a little ...

I'm dealing with an unprecedented case of sports indecisiveness, and it's wreaking havoc on my household.

I'm not talking about Martin Gerber vs. Ray Emery, or whether Wade Redden should stay or go. Those dilemmas are a walk in a park compared to my problem.

I can't choose between the NFL and NHL.

One rarely has to worry about displaying allegiance to a particular sport, because the majority of scheduling allows for year-round gorging with little conflict. Unfortunately, this won't be the case for the NHL, NFL and myself for the next little while. Is it possible to make a clear-cut choice? Maybe not, but a little side-by-side comparison wouldn't hurt.

League vs. League (couch viewing): It's common knowledge that of the two, the NFL translates to television far better than hockey ever could. The NHL has shown a significant number of games in high-definition over the past few years, yet HD seems commonplace for football.

Let's get something straight, Erin. The NFL brand of football is, by far, the most boring sport to watch on TV of all the Big 4, and is on par with NASCAR for actual lack of brain stimulation.

The average NFL game has 3 minutes of talking followed by 5-10 seconds of action followed by 3 more minutes of talking, players walking around, etc. Big plays are few and far between, and most 'hitting' barely registers. The fact that any Canadian would possibly choose an NFL game over ANY NHL game should be cause for lobotomization.

It doesn't matter that the NHL might not translate well to TV (which always strikes me as a cheap cop-out of an argument), because the NFL is naturally boring, and would require showing naked lesbian mud-wrestling in between huddles to be even remotely interesting to watch.

So, Erin, or anyone, can you give me one GOOD reason why anyone should ever choose to watch an NFL broadcast over an NHL game?

To Erin's husband or boyfriend (if she's got one), be a real man and take control of the remote. It's written in law that no female should ever have control of the remote unless the male tires of it. Even then, the male should only grant such privileged access if it results in either a tasty meal and/or serious nookie.

Heated Skate Blades? WTF?!?!

by Jes

As we know, many arenas around the NHL have trouble keeping their ice in great condition. Warm climates, multi-use stadiums, people breathing ... it all leads to slushy ice. Not all arenas are like Edmonton, Detroit, or Vancouver, where the ice is in great shape and leads to better puck control and game speed. Ask any NHL player about Madison Square Garden, or any rink in Florida, and they will tell you that it's like skating on a 7-UP Slurpee.

So, does it make any sense to you that the NHL is considering allowing the use of heated skate blades??

Heated skate blades? Yeah, the "Thermablade", a device which promises to help make skaters faster.

Tory Weber was a student in Calgary and working at a lumberyard when he ran out for his newspaper one February evening. He grabbed a warm pair of running shoes that had been sitting on the heat register next to the front door, stepped out onto his frost-covered front steps, promptly slipped and landed on his backside.

And just like that, Mr. Weber slid upon the idea that Wayne Gretzky believes will revolutionize hockey.

Yesterday at the Hockey Hall of Fame, about two decades after his inspirational slide, Mr. Weber officially unveiled Thermablades - heated skate blades that reduce friction and allow a hockey player to skate faster and with greater ease.

"Put an ice cube in your hand and the ice cube slides around in the palm of your hand," said Mr. Weber, explaining the science behind his invention. "It's the same principle with the skate blade. The heated blade creates a thin film of water between the ice and the blade and acts as a lubricant."

Given how many of Gretzky's ventures have turned into busts, is he really the guy you want on board? *cough*

Now, Big Mac over at The NHL FanHouse touched on the safety aspect of this whole she-bang. Do we really want NHLers to be faster? I mean, give a 240-lbs slab of beef like Todd Bertuzzi that much more speed and you've basically made a big hitter even that much more dangerous. With all of the injuries we've been seeing lately from hitting, do we really want to make it easier to players to injure one another?

Now, I am not a total traditionalist crank, but I believe the NHL would be wise to say NO to this invention, given the safety and ice concerns. Making ice even more watery will likely lead to problematic ice conditions which lead to groin injuries, etc etc etc...

I also believe that this introduces a mechanical element to the game that should NEVER be allowed. At the very base of hockey, you have players with inanimate padding and sticks. None of these devices is mechanical, and all depend on the skill of the player using them. You might have graphite/metal sticks, but they do nothing by themselves. Heated skate blades add an element of 'assistance' that is just not natural.

If you let these in, where do we stop? Do we allow goaltenders to have springs in their pads that will make a rebound go about 100 feet away? How about allowing sticks to have mini-springs inside, allowing for faster shots?

If this was NASCAR, this would be par for the course. NASCAR, and other racing series, are all about man/machine vs. man/machine.

Of course, knowing the NHL, they will give this product their full endorsement. We wouldn't expect them to make the right call, would we?

Jim Balsillie Tries Again

by Jes

Earlier this month, I had vented about how shallow the NHL was in trying to make us think that the Nashville Predators weren't in any danger of moving.

Yeah, it is pretty damn obvious that Bettman is playing games and the team won't be in Nashville for the long term.

So, Uncle Rico, one of like 7 people that actually reads this site, informs me that Jim Balsillie is making another attempt to buy the Predators.

But, but, but, BUT ... Balsillie is claiming that he wants to keep the Preds IN Nashville (for a whopping 2 years), and is willing not to ask the city of Nashville to bend over ass-backwards to make even more concessions.

The Blackberry Juggernaut is once again making a play to get the Predators, but this time he is maintaining that the will not be playing north of the border. He now says that the Nashville market has proven there commitment to the team and that he only cares about owning a NHL franchise and he is adamant that he will not move the moderately productive team.

Uh-huh. Well, the Globe and Mail has some more details about this 'friendlier' bid.

Without trying to repeat myself, this is what we do know.

1. The NHL owners are an old boys club and don't react kindly to mavericks. The owners have, obviously, determined that Balsillie doesn't fit their mould, and don't like the fact that he tried to quickly buy and ship the team away without their demonic consultation.

It's like asking to marry the rich girl without asking her stodgy father's permission. Don’t expect to be in the will, Archie.

2. Balsillie is lying out of his balsillies. Does anyone believe that he is committed to Nashville? For Pavol's sake, the guy tried to sell tickets in a market without a team for a team he didn't own! This DQ soft serve bullshit isn't going to fool anyone. He's as committed to Nashville as Kid Rock is to the blonde groupie he boned last night.

3. Bettman has already committed to "Boots", and will ensure that his booty call gets a team before anyone else does. If Balsillie wants a team, he'll have to wait in line, at the very least.

4. Bettman, the Maple Leafs, and many other team owners do NOT want another team in Canada. If Balsillie wanted to move the team to a friendly Amerikan market, I'm sure it would have happened.

Suffice it to say, Hamilton will have an NHL team when George W. Bush admits the 'War on Terror' is simply a quest to protect his rich friends' equity investments.

So, How Long Until the Predators Move?

by Jes

I got an email in my inbox today from our favourite southerner, Wayne, about the 'sale' of the Nashville Predators. It's a topic I've kinda ignored recently as I'm eagerly awaiting the start of the season.

So, it comes as no surprise that the deal to sell the club is on thin ice.

From the Toronto Star:

The deal to keep the Predators in Nashville appears to be nearly dead, with the local ownership and the city's council at loggerheads over monetary issues and potential changes to the team's arena lease.

The leader of a local group trying to buy the Predators told Nashville's The Tennessean he doubts the deal to work out after the city rejected the group's requests for new tax money and several improvements to the Sommet Center.

"No, I'm not hopeful," David Freeman, CEO of 36 Venture Capital, told the newspaper. "We put a ton of work into it, and we did our best."

Where that leaves the Predators is uncertain. BlackBerry billionaire Jim Balsillie of Waterloo, Ont., had a $238 million (all figures U.S.) offer on the table to buy the team from Craig Leipold, but he wanted to move it to Hamilton.

Of course, James "Canucks Hater" Mirtle has been all over this like a wet blanket, and notes that the Preds already have the sweetest arena deal in the league.

As I see it, this is all part of Gary Bettman's master plan.

Bettman didn't want an owner that he can't control, nor did he want a team to move to Canada, especially Hamilton.

Thus, Bettman did everything he could, including nudging Leopold, not to sell to Jim Balsillie, a 'renegade' in Bettman's eyes.

Out of the blue, the Predators suddenly had a white knight (Knocking Boots Del Biaggio and his crew) that wanted to keep the Preds in Nashville. Why would anyone want to keep a club in a town with weak corporate support and attendance? It was speculated that Bettman promised Boots the next open team, and Boots wanted to move the club.

Of course, Boots and crew put up the illusion that they wanted to keep the team in Nashville. Bettman couldn't surely have the team suddenly move after pulling out the rug from Balsillie's legs, could he?

So, the 'new' owners demand everything but the moon from the local government, continue gutting the roster, and jacking up ticket prices. Basically, the team is doing everything it can to make itself look like it is failing in Nashville. Who in the hell would want to attend a Preds game with a watered-down roster and high ticket prices?

Then, the initial deal will fall through, and Bettman/Boots will find a way to move the team out of Nashville, claiming that the NHL tried, but could not make hockey work in Country Music City.

Tom Benjamin sums it up pretty well in an older post of his:

I think we will see announced attendance in Nashville will be comfortably above the number necessary to sustain the lease while the fans are kept in the dark about the paid attendance. We will also see one snag after another in the sale of the Predators to the local group. Eventually the problems will all be resolved except Boots Del Biaggio will be the majority rather than a minority shareholder. Finally, late in the season, we'll learn the targetted paid attendance was not met.

In the meantime, Predator fans - and there are real fans in the area - have to pay a lot more to see a team that will be a lot less competitive. Many of them will pony up because they believe that if they do, they can save their team. They want to believe that, so they will. Some will say that its their own fault for choosing to buy into a fairy tale, but I don't think that's fair given the way Leipold and the league has scripted the relocation.

NHL08 = Damn Impressive

Last night, I had the fortune of trying out EA Sports's NHL08 for the PS3 on a massive flat-screen HDTV.

Talk about impressive. Damn!! Nothing has ever come so close to mimicking the look, sound, and feel of an NHL game, as this game does.

Now, I've played a lot of NHL07, and it was far from the best in the series. Despite the addition of European leagues (a HUGE plus), the game had way too many setbacks.

All little guys were fast and all tall guys were slow. Yes, a 6'5" giant with 99 speed would always skate like he had a 50lbs weight on his back. The 5'5" guys were all little rockets.

The physics looked bad, especially for goaltenders. During slow motion replays, the goalies had the worst looking movements and the game just didn't look impressive for the year it was released.

Defensive AI = headless chickens. No matter what strategy you chose, you could be sure that your team would skate around and do very little defensively. It was frustrating trying to stop opposing attackers when you had to do everything yourself.

NHL 2008 seems to have improved on the first two elements with a giant leap forward. The goaltending physics, even on slo-mo replays, were just spectacular and very real. Even Luongo's 'style' seems to have been imported into the game, and it really felt like it was him saving my bacon (I beat Calgary 2-1...neener neener).
The control of goaltenders was the best it's ever been, and the players seemed to be more 'real' in their skating, forechecking, and puckhandling. Getting rid of the stupid speed burst, too, is something that is much welcomed.

I have to say, in the 45 minutes that I got to spend with the game, that I was awestruck, impressed, and jealous all at the same time. NHL07, and many previous incarnations, didn't leave me all that impressed. Many of them felt like the same game with more cartoony bullshit and different rosters.

NHL08, kids, is a giant leap forward in hockey gaming technology. Damn, if only I had $600 for a PS3 and the game. Maybe I should start taking donations.

Blah Blah, Buttman, Blah!

by Jes

The Canadian Press recently had an interview with Der Kommissar, Count Gary Bettman.

Let's read in between the lines, shall we?

On crappy ratings in the USA:
"Our TV at the local level is strong - both in Canada and in the United States," said Bettman. "And the U.S. (national TV) is something that will continue to require our attention and work but we like our partnerships and our relationships with NBC and Versus. ... But that's only one metric. If you look at attendance, if you look at the digital space and people who are connecting to us on NHL.com and the club websites, if you look at what we're doing through technology and streaming - all the vital signs are good.

"The metric where we happen to get the most criticism happens to be the metric that is declining over time in importance."

Declining in time?

While it may not matter to the owner of the Nashville Predators that some schmuck in Eugene, Oregon, isn't watching the games, but it certainly is important.

The sport, overall, makes more money if its popular outside of the actual markets. The NFL? The MLB? They have fans all across the country, and they rake in big bucks because of it. While attendance may or may not be strong, the low national ratings are a great indicator that the game means very little outside of the markets, and the NHL isn't cashing in on a large portion of the American audience.

Bettman's flippant dismissal of national TV ratings is disturbing.

On the NHL playing games in Europe:

"This is a good opportunity to dip our toe in the water," Bettman said. "A third of our players come from outside of North America and the hockey fans in those countries like to follow their players."

Translation: Expect more of these games.

On NHL expansion to Europe:

" It's nothing we're planning on, but by the same token I'll never say never," Bettman said. "There are many, many, many things that we have to do and have to happen before we can consider it. And there are logistical issues.

"There are arena issues, there are travel issues, and also there is the existing infrastructure of hockey particularly in Europe and we need to be respectful of all of those considerations."

Translation: There is no way in hell it'll happen in my lifetime. The NHL owners won't allow it, and it's too much of a hassle.

On salaries:

"The average payroll with a $50.3-million cap is $42.3 million," said Bettman. "So that at the end of the year, on average, our teams will have spent $42.3 million - not $50 million."

Bettman continues by pointing back to the 2001-02 season, when the average team payroll was also $42.3 million.

"At the time our revenues were $1.875 billion," he said. "This year the average team payroll - with the $50.3-million cap - will be $42.3 million on revenues of about $2.4 billion. ...

OK, so we're back to square one, except the owners make more money?

Couldn't the owners have increased revenues without missing a whole year of hockey? If GM's and owners were prudent, they could have kept their costs at the same level and worked on improving revenues WITHOUT MISSING A SEASON.

Sorry, Buttman, but we see salaries escalating back to where they were before, and will only continue to get worse.

The NBA is in Trouble? Good! Now is the NHL's Chance to Shine!

by Jes

I am sure that I wasn't the only hockey fan that was filled with glee over this NBA/Donaghy/Point-shaving scandal. In case you haven't heard, some dumb ref called a lot of fouls to affect the scores of certain games, all to help some bookies make money on betting on games.

Of course, now the NBA is under an intense firestorm of criticism and backlash that it wants no part of. Whoever said that no publicity could ever be bad would obviously be wrong about this situation. The NBA has taken a Brad May shot to the head that it may take years to recover from.

Now that the very integrity of NBA games is at stake (Does anyone seriously believe that only one ref was doing this?), and the NFL is under fire for Michael Vick's dog-fighting activities and crime culture, and the MLB has this whole Barry Bonds/steroids cloud over its head, this is the perfect time for the NHL to capitalize on the misfortune of these other leagues.

For years and years, we know the NHL has been dumped on by the American mainstream media for being violent, irrelevant, etc etc etc... With all of the 'bad news' being reported these days, the worst thing that NHL has against it is the Staal brothers getting a bit too jolly at a bachelor party.
(No, Mirtle, most people don't give a rat's ass about Operation Slapshot. The media might, the league might, but fans do not)

Of course, this NBA scandal will lead to the question of how above-the-level the NHL refs are. Over at The FanHouse, I have an in-depth look at why it would be near-impossible for the NHL to ever face this kind of scandal.

The NHL has worked very hard to improve and standardize their officiating. As much as we might want to wring the neck of Kerry Fraser, we can be assured that an NHL game would never be fixed in quite this matter without it being discovered.

With the other leagues reeling in bad publicity, I'd like to see the NHL capitalize. How? I'm not sure, but promoting the integrity of its referees, the players, and the sport would be a good start. Hell, even a TV commercial where the refs are like "Unlike certain other leagues, we don't believe in fixing games" would be a huge slap to the face of the NHL and totally get the NHL some much-needed attention.

I just hope that all of this darkness in the sports world doesn't negatively affect the NHL as a side effect. If people get turned off of sports, on a mass scale, it could affect the NHL if people just decide to ignore pro sport altogether.

So, NHL, now is the time to rise above the sludge and come out like a white dove.