Bettman's Interview with Duhatschek - Nov-15, 2013

[CaptainYooh]

Globe & Mail published a full-page Gary Bettman's interview with Eric Duhatschek this morning (actual interview was given on November 15). Topics discussed:

• NHL expansion plans (or lack thereof);
• NHL revenues;
• Fighting;
• Rules, infractions and enforcement;
• Canadian TV contract negotiations.

Here's the link to the online version:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...5311/?page=all

[GirlySports]

Nothing but hot air in that article. Bettman has his head in the sand.
The quality of play has never been worse. If I weren't such a Flames fan. I'd never watch the NHL.

sure there's revenue growth. Everything is growing. The NHL will be crying poor again in 6 years.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Nothing but hot air in that article. Bettman has his head in the sand.
The quality of play has never been worse. If I weren't such a Flames fan. I'd never watch the NHL.

sure there's revenue growth. Everything is growing. The NHL will be crying poor again in 6 years.

I disagree. Sadly we lost Stamkos for a bit, but I think we'd all enjoy the season more of flames didn't suck.

What's worse this year exactly? Scoring seems fine, physical play is there, lots of story lines, a potential cap era "dynasty" is born,...?

[Itse]

Yeah, I would agree that hockey in itself is fine.

Even the bad teams play a somewhat entertaining style, and even the worst team can hope to beat the best team every now and then.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The quality of play has never been worse. If I weren't such a Flames fan. I'd never watch the NHL.

We were just saying the same thing. In the 1980s NHL games used to get me worked up like when I watch the World Cup (like a religion to me).

Now I usually find the GT here more interesting than the games. And no offence that's pretty sad since most of the comments are one sentence reactions.

[GirlySports]

For one thing the ice is bad in every arena. Nhl needs to fix that first.
next is reffing some games there are no penalties some games there are 20.
third is there are no quality chances. Sure there are shots but they are perimeter.. the rest of the time is just cycling.

[CaptainYooh]

Not sure I'd agree that the game quality has gone down. I think it's the opposite. Everything in the game today is at a significantly elevated level from the old NHL era - starting from strategy, video coaching, players' technical and physical training etc. If anything, the element of spontaneity in the game is disappearing, teams are playing more like machines these days and that takes away from the entertainment value (for me, at least). But when some emotions are infused, even a structured and well-planned game becomes very entertaining.

[GirlySports]

I think hockey and football have gone in opposite directions.

Football was 3 yards and a cloud of dust played on crap dirt fields, just guys running into each other and hockey was a game of great plays and great skill.

now hockey is played on crap ice with guys just running into each other and football is played on perfect (sometimes fake) grass with players making amazing plays.

And I haven't even touched on internet, presentation and marketing.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

For one thing the ice is bad in every arena. Nhl needs to fix that first.
next is reffing some games there are no penalties some games there are 20.
third is there are no quality chances. Sure there are shots but they are perimeter.. the rest of the time is just cycling.

I disagree with everything you posted here. Everything.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Read this article this morning. Bettman says a whole lotta nothing. Completely open questions where he says nothing.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I disagree with everything you posted here. Everything.

Well at least you presented some well-reasoned arguments on why.

[CliffFletcher]

I agree the entertainment value of hockey today is markedly lower than it was 20+ years ago. As a fan:

Odd-man rushes >>>>>>> cycling, cycling, cycling, cycling, perimeter shot

Players who have a strong on-ice identity >>>>>> anonymous drones playing a system

Glove saves >>>>>>>> blocked shots

Acrobatic save >>>>>>> 6'5 goalie filling the net

Players who have a strong loyalty to the team >>>>>>> 35 per cent roster turnover every season and free agent mercenaries

The players are far fitter and more skilled, no question. But that hasn't made for a better game. And that's on the league.

For a far more interesting insight into the state of the NHL, read this Globe and Mail interview with Howie Meeker. The guy may be old as dust, and yes, some of his comments are out of touch. But some of them are brilliant. If the players are far fitter today than 30 years ago, then why do we even need four lines and three pairs of d-men? Mandate three forward lines and two d-men pairs (+ a utility player or two for injuries) and the marginal goons and scrubs would be out of the league. Bad for the players union, good for fans.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I agree the entertainment value of hockey today is markedly lower than it was 20+ years ago. As a fan:

Odd-man rushes >>>>>>> cycling, cycling, cycling, cycling, perimeter shot

Players who have a strong on-ice identity >>>>>> anonymous drones playing a system

Glove saves >>>>>>>> blocked shots

Acrobatic save >>>>>>> 6'5 goalie filling the net

If the nets were made bigger, you could probably address the blocked shots and cycling issue since players would have more of a target to shoot at, thus taking more shots at any point in the zone. Right now you really have to work to get a shot in a good position since you don't have much to shoot at.

[TurnedTheCorner]

I miss those acrobatic stand-up goalies uselessly kicking their pads at those 60 foot slappers from the winger streaking down down the boards at 5 MPH with a smoke dangling from their mouth.

I could also go the concession with a dollar and come back with 40 cents change, 6 beers, a loaf of bread, and a stick of butter.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Joborule

If the nets were made bigger, you could probably address the blocked shots and cycling issue since players would have more of a target to shoot at, thus taking more shots at any point in the zone. Right now you really have to work to get a shot in a good position since you don't have much to shoot at.

Then make the nets slightly bigger. What is the NHL scared of? More goals? More acrobatic goalies?

We now have a generation of Luongos

[TurnedTheCorner]

I agree with GirlySports regarding officiating and larger nets. The officiating could always be improved upon and aim for a higher standard.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Then make the nets slightly bigger. What is the NHL scared of? More goals? More acrobatic goalies?

We now have a generation of Luongos

I agree the nets should be slightly enlarged (4 or 5 inches wider and 2 inches higher), but the "purists" are against it because they think it will ruin the records. What they fail to realize is that the records are already ruined by the larger goalies.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Then make the nets slightly bigger. What is the NHL scared of? More goals? More acrobatic goalies?

We now have a generation of Luongos

I agree. The players on the ice have adapted to make the game much more defensive than it was in the past, so the rules of the game have to adapt with it. NHL does the small changes like the trapezoid, two line pass, faceoffs in the zone of the team that got the penalty, but why don't they make the change that will truly make the differences that they want?

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Fire

I agree the nets should be slightly enlarged (4 or 5 inches wider and 2 inches higher), but the "purists" are against it because they think it will ruin the records. What they fail to realize is that the records are already ruined by the larger goalies.

That would certainly create more goals but would it make the game more entertaining? I think the result would be more long distance shots on net and even bigger goalies. I don't think more goals=better hockey.

I agree that the ice conditions need to be better.

Also, wouldn't the game open up a bit more if they reduced the need for guys that were there primarily to fight? More skilled players on the ice would lead to more skilled plays on the ice, I suspect.

[Northendzone]

Let's make the nets like soccer nets, because everyone would love games that are 42 to 39......

I fail to buy into the more goals = more excitement