Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout
For the sake of argument let's agree that no new viewers will be gained (I don't think this is the case, but let's assume it is correct.)
How many viewers will remain with a more accurate system for determining goals? How many Flames fans were gained in 2004 and then subsequently lost over the "Gelinas goal"?
|
Pretty much zero. If there were any, for every "lost" Flames Fan, about a hundred or even a thousand new lightning fans were created.
Quote:
|
Every team has goals disallowed, when you add error in objectivity (goal) to subjectivity (penalties) it calls against become frustrating for fans and will drive them away, especially when you see other sports with more accuracy (soccer, tennis). It doesn't even matter if they are watching those, it's that they know the tech exists (even if it's a misunderstanding of the technology).
|
I don't disagree with anything you've said here. I only disagree that it's worth the business spending much money on.
Quote:
Secondly, why does the ROI have to come from fans?
AHL, ECHL, KHL, QMJHL, OHL, WHL, NCAA. There's lots of teams in those leagues to sell the technology to. NHL develops the technology and can sell the concept to the leagues, have the leagues impose the requirement and then sell the product to the teams.
Depending on how the technology is developed, perhaps it'd be transferable to other sports (baseball, football) and new markets open up.
|
That would mean the NHL would try to become a technology vendor and I doubt that's a business venture they're interested in.
Quote:
|
Thirdly, as a professional (in any field) why wouldn't you want to get things right? As a professional you should constantly be striving to be the best, not good enough or falling to the lowest common denominator.
|
Again, I don't disagree. We're arguing how much that's worth. "Getting it right" isn't an all or none phenomenon. There's a spectrum here. If "getting it right" is what we strive for at all costs, We'd review all face offs, every time the blue line is crossed, icings, etc. You've decided this is an area that needs to be right every time at all costs, I'm saying the cost is too high for the impact. Until someone else makes something that is worth it.
Quote:
Lastly, with the play as quick as it is, referees will tend to waive off anything that's boarder line in the heat of the moment. Then the replay needs to be conclusive beyond all reasonable doubt (a standard which I'd argue is far too high). Which would mean good goals are being waived off because a referee didn't get the split second view to see it cross the line, and then the cameras aren't picking it up perfectly. By having this technology, it would override the referee's human error, leading to an increase in goals. If goals are what's exciting, wouldn't it lead to more fans? But I suppose I'm getting back to the premise of arguing the technology won't bring more fans, which I said I wouldn't do.
|
How many more goals are we talking here? How many reviews are there to see if the puck crossed the line? Very few. Of those, how many are inconclusive? Am extremely small amount. This argument is flawed because the impact is infinitesimally small on goal production. Maybe 10 extra goals per year league wide?
I don't disagree it would be better to have the technology in, I'm arguing the NHL doesn't have a business case to change is business model and add a whole side business of technology development or spend millions to fix a problem with a very little ROI.
Other sports didn't develop their own technology, they are worldwide popular sports with more inventors looking at their problems.
