Hockey Haters' thread

The Game Room
61

[QUOTE=Spoons]
Well, given that out of 22,219,560 Canadians in 1972 (cite), 15,000,000 of them were tuned into one hockey game (cite, last paragraph), I’d say that would probably be an inaccurate assumption, especially with expansion into other Canadian markets post-1972. Have two-thirds of Americans ever watched one sports game at the same time?
[/QUOTE]

Well, yeah, that was kind of my point. It’s not as if adding teams to the next 4 largest markets in Canada (many of whom are already fans of other NHL teams) is going to add enough people to offset the losses of hockey fans in the US, even with my assumption. Clearly, it does not hold, so the percentage would be even less.

62

i skipped ahead in this thread so maybe (hopefully) someone pointed out that hockey has 60 minutes of actual action during a game. Maybe during a badly officiated game, the time the puck is in play, it might go down to 59 minutes.

Baseball’s, one of the OPs games they want to follow, ‘perfect’ games has 1 person (the pitcher) playing catch with another (the catcher) 27 times(3 pitches per inningr times 9). assuming a pitch takes .5 seconds to travel 90 feet, we get an amazing 13.5 seconds of ‘live’ play in a game. realisticly, a perfect game you get 4-6 pitches per batter, so double my sarcastic times given… . maybe we will get 2 pitchers throwing perfect games for 27 seconds of non-stop action in a nine inning game. although that would lead to extra boredom, so luckily we will assume the 27th batter hits a home run on the 27th pitch and we gt an extra 2-3 seconds of non-stop ‘ball leaving the field of play’ fun. now, this does disregard all of the fun of watching a player scratch his crotch, various players spitting and announcers talking about what a great game the pitcher is throwing.

football, on the other hand does involve both teams actually making contact with each other, still is only around 15 minutes of actual live play between the the teams. i won several bets in college on this. when the ball is ‘in play’, you get 15 min. of action watching either college or pro football. when i lived in OK, you could watch BOTH the OK State game and the OK game in .5 hour on Sun, after they took all the huddles and other non-action parts of the game and pu them in a loop.

so in 3 hours (the typical time an NFL, NHL and MLB game) you get far more action in the NHL than the others. maybe you don’t like (or understand) the action, but i’d rather watch a game that the ball (puck) is in play, than watch people standing around scratching themselves or huddling up.

63

[QUOTE=Leaffan]
If you need a disembodied voice to tell you that it’s an icing call, or an offside then you don’t know the game.
[/QUOTE]

No, I don’t. I’m from the south. We don’t have a history of Hockey.

this just in from the D’oh! Department: I just figured our your handle is Leaf Fan. I’ve been reading it as lef-AN.

64

And I was reading it, for whatever reason, as “Leah-fan”.

Shows what I know. :smack:

65

[QUOTE=wouldn’t you like to know]
i skipped ahead in this thread so maybe (hopefully) someone pointed out that hockey has 60 minutes of actual action during a game. Maybe during a badly officiated game, the time the puck is in play, it might go down to 59 minutes.

Baseball’s, one of the OPs games they want to follow, ‘perfect’ games has 1 person (the pitcher) playing catch with another (the catcher) 27 times(3 pitches per inningr times 9). assuming a pitch takes .5 seconds to travel 90 feet, we get an amazing 13.5 seconds of ‘live’ play in a game. realisticly, a perfect game you get 4-6 pitches per batter, so double my sarcastic times given.. . maybe we will get 2 pitchers throwing perfect games for 27 seconds of non-stop action in a nine inning game. although that would lead to extra boredom, so luckily we will assume the 27th batter hits a home run on the 27th pitch and we gt an extra 2-3 seconds of non-stop ‘ball leaving the field of play’ fun. now, this does disregard all of the fun of watching a player scratch his crotch, various players spitting and announcers talking about what a great game the pitcher is throwing.

football, on the other hand does involve both teams actually making contact with each other, still is only around 15 minutes of actual live play between the the teams. i won several bets in college on this. when the ball is ‘in play’, you get 15 min. of action watching either college or pro football. when i lived in OK, you could watch BOTH the OK State game and the OK game in .5 hour on Sun, after they took all the huddles and other non-action parts of the game and pu them in a loop.

so in 3 hours (the typical time an NFL, NHL and MLB game) you get far more action in the NHL than the others. maybe you don’t like (or understand) the action, but i’d rather watch a game that the ball (puck) is in play, than watch people standing around scratching themselves or huddling up.
[/QUOTE]

A perfect game in baseball does NOT mean that the pitcher is playing catch with the catcher. The batters still put the ball in play, but just do not reach base.

Another reason hockey is so stupid is that each game has TWO “halftimes.” Why not just play two 30-minute halves, instead of three 20-minute “thirds”? You’re certainly not getting much action during these intermissions.

66

No, hockey has two intermissions. And during each intermission, they send out the zambonis. Watching hockey played on bad ice is painful.

67

[QUOTE=JohnT]
And I was reading it, for whatever reason, as “Leah-fan”.

Shows what I know. :smack:
[/QUOTE]

Well, that is my daughter’s name, coincidentally enough. So I guess I am a “Leah-fan” as well. :wink:

68

[QUOTE=Maus Magill]
No, I don’t. I’m from the south. We don’t have a history of Hockey.

[/QUOTE]

Um…ahem…didn’t the Stanley Cup reside there in just two short years ago? :dubious:

And it was just a bit further south in Tampa Bay in 2004?

Dallas in 1999?

Wha? :confused:

69

[QUOTE=Rysto]
No, hockey has two intermissions. And during each intermission, they send out the zambonis. Watching hockey played on bad ice is painful.
[/QUOTE]

Excellent response…but maybe he wanted to see 15 minute quarters instead…you know, for even better ice conditions. :wink:

70

[QUOTE=Yeticus Rex]
Um…ahem…didn’t the Stanley Cup reside there in just two short years ago? :dubious:

And it was just a bit further south in Tampa Bay in 2004?

Dallas in 1999?

Wha? :confused:
[/QUOTE]

One of us needs his sense of history checked.

Canada has a history of hockey. It’s been played there for decades.

The South? Not so much.

71

[QUOTE=Maus Magill]
One of us needs his sense of history checked.
[/QUOTE]
Boy, that sounded a lot more snarky then I had intended. Sorry about that.

72

[QUOTE=Spoons]
Oh, and Bob Baun was mentioned above? He did score a goal on a broken ankle, but it wasn’t a Cup winning goal. Rather, his goal won the game that tied the series at three games apiece and forced a Game 7, which the Leafs won. BTW, it was in 1964.
[/QUOTE]

You are correct, Spoons. I should have cleared that up, but it was a defining moment in the series that led them to winning the cup. Thanks for the additional information.

To answer the points raised about my comment regarding the NHL possibly dying out, there is some strong evidence that the league has been in trouble recently. Look at the lack of television coverage or the financial handling going on at the upper level of management. The lockout, in particular, killed a growing interest in the sport. I am talking league popularity versus the other big professional sports, not fanbases of the game (especially on a local level); which I believe have done well all things considered. This is aside from the fact that I never asserted that hockey was dying, just that I have gathered that opinion from some fans/commentators of the game. Upon re-reading my original post I do see that I was somewhat ambiguous in my phrasing, which I apologize for.

Out here in Arizona, the game is actually steadily growing on a recreational level, as I am sure it is elsewhere. New hockey rinks and competitive teams are springing up, and there are more players being introduced to the game every day. In terms of interest in our professional team, I’d state even that is holding somewhat steadily. RickJay, the Canadian teams would not be able to march on in the NHL if every single American team went belly up, though I am sure a replacement league would be formed. I do think that one of the NHL’s biggest mistakes is not capitalizing further on the Canadian market though.

magellan01, your post brings back some fond memories of Puck Bunnies. For some reason, hockey players can attract some good looking women considering we aren’t always the best looking bunch. :wink:

73

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
mmmm, all that safety equipment!

NASCAR is a whole other level of tedium. I’m okay with a crash highlight reel but actually watching the race? Bleargh.
[/QUOTE]

N Non
A Athletic
S Sport
C Centered
A Around
R Rednecks

:slight_smile:

74

<<snip>>

[QUOTE=wouldn’t you like to know]
football, on the other hand does involve both teams actually making contact with each other, still is only around 15 minutes of actual live play between the the teams. i won several bets in college on this. when the ball is ‘in play’, you get 15 min. of action watching either college or pro football. when i lived in OK, you could watch BOTH the OK State game and the OK game in .5 hour on Sun, after they took all the huddles and other non-action parts of the game and pu them in a loop.

so in 3 hours (the typical time an NFL, NHL and MLB game) you get far more action in the NHL than the others. maybe you don’t like (or understand) the action, but i’d rather watch a game that the ball (puck) is in play, than watch people standing around scratching themselves or huddling up.
[/QUOTE]

The difference though is that in football, you essentially have the same players making that contact over and over throughout the entire game, whereas in hockey, you have all those line changes so you have a different blend of players on the ice all the time.

I like hockey, but count me in the group of those whom have relative indifference to it. I just can’t get up for it. If nothing else that I like is on, and it’s between men’s tennis and hockey, I’ll watch hockey or read a book.

75

[QUOTE=beergeek279]
The 4 largest metropolitan areas in Canada without a hockey team
[/QUOTE]

Just hopelessly irrelevant:

  1. If the NHL needed to occupy Canada alone, you could have at least one or two more teams in the Toronto metro area, and another in Montreal.

  2. In Canada, 700,000 people is enough to support a “Canadian NHL” team, and

  3. It would last forever even with just six or eight teams.

Trust me on this one. You’re underestimating the importance of hockey here. The USA has no equivalent sport.

The survival of the NHL in the United States is simply not a relevant issue to its survival in Canada. The league would go on quite successfully here even if every US team died; there’s an enormous demand for it, so you’d just end up with a smaller league.

And of course, the NHL won’t die out in certain American cities. The Rangers, Red Wings, Avalanche, Bruins and Flyers aren’t going anywhere. The NHL - which is actually making money right now, as a whole - may CONTRACT someday when they finally realize it’s stupid to have a team in Fort Lauderdale and not Hamilton, but it cannot die as long as you have places like Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton, etc. where hockey is a religion.

Do a thought experiment; what would happen if the NHL instantly died tomorrow? Of course, what wouold happen is Canadian business interests would promptly set up a new NHL in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver et al., and would hire all the unemployed players. They’re probably have owners lined up in New York and Detroit begging for franchises, too. They just wouldn’t go to places like Raleigh and Phoenix. In Canada, hockey is a license to print money.

76

[QUOTE=Leaffan]
Yeah. Not much to speak of at all in the last 80 years. Dipshit.
[/QUOTE]

Oooo, snarky. I’m sorry I didn’t realize you were that old.

77

[QUOTE=adam yax]
Oooo, snarky. I’m sorry I didn’t realize you were that old.
[/QUOTE]

When you’re a Leafs fan, it only SEEMS like time moves that slowly.

78

[QUOTE=wouldn’t you like to know]

football, on the other hand does involve both teams actually making contact with each other, still is only around 15 minutes of actual live play between the the teams. i won several bets in college on this. when the ball is ‘in play’, you get 15 min. of action watching either college or pro football. when i lived in OK, you could watch BOTH the OK State game and the OK game in .5 hour on Sun, after they took all the huddles and other non-action parts of the game and pu them in a loop.

so in 3 hours (the typical time an NFL, NHL and MLB game) you get far more action in the NHL than the others. maybe you don’t like (or understand) the action, but i’d rather watch a game that the ball (puck) is in play, than watch people standing around scratching themselves or huddling up.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
<<snip>>

The difference though is that in football, you essentially have the same players making that contact over and over throughout the entire game, whereas in hockey, you have all those line changes so you have a different blend of players on the ice all the time.

[/QUOTE]

Simply not true. Football has plenty of substitutions as well, and much more to draw upon.

20 Hockey Players can only be suited up to play: 18 skaters, 2 goalies.
Usually 4 lines of 3 offensemen and 3 lines of 2 defensemen for the 18.
So on average, TOI (Time on Ice) is 15 minutes per offensemen, 20 minutes per defensemen (barring penalty kills), and 60 minutes TOI for the goalie tandem although pulling the goalie at the end of game and delayed penalties shorten it maybe at most 2-3 minutes.

If you take the 6 players on the ice at any given time, multiply by 60 minutes you get 360 minutes of actual playing time. Let’s say we go ahead and subtract 3 minutes off for the goalie being off the ice during play time and we’ll subtract 20 minutes off for 10 2-minute minor penalties; now we have 337 minutes. Let’s take that 337 minutes and divide by the total number of players suited up…that average TOI is now 16.85 minutes per player. This number includes everyone on the bench…including the backup goalie who usually rides the pine the entire game.

Here’s last year’s Superbowl Champs New England Patriots roster which had 58 suited up, and the depth chart here shows about 51 of them playing (I believe I omitted all of the double and triple listed players). 11 players on the field for 60 minutes (45 to shoot the shit, and the other 15 to actually play the game) totals up to 660 minutes of game time and 165 minutes of actual play time.

660 minutes of playing time divided by 51 players is 12.94 minutes average of each player on the field including shit-shooting, and 165 of actual play time divided by 51 players is only 3.24 minutes of actual play time for each player. I didn’t bother to include the 7 players watching from the sidelines (even though I did include the backup goalie in the earlier calculations…kinda handicapping the football to look a little better.)

As FoieGras asserted, even if I took the 22 usual suspects (11 offensive and 11 defensive) and only played either group for every down of the football game, the average would be 30 minutes per player (including the shit-shooting), but only 7.50 minutes of actual playing time.
CONCLUSION:
Hockey: 16.85 minutes of actual play time per each rostered player.
Football: 7.50 minutes of actual play time per each starting player, IF NO SUBSTITUTES WERE USED.

79

RickJay, I have no doubt of the importance and popularity of hockey in Canada.
I’m just wondering what GROWTH is realistically left in Canada. Sure, Hamilton could have an NHL team and draw 14,000 into Capps every night, but is that not going to cannibalize the Leafs market??

The money is coming in, sure (the players are making more now, as a whole, then before the lockout), but how much longer can the cap realistically grow?

I disagree with your assertion that the league would thrive at the same level without US NHL franchises.

I’d be a bit of a hypocrite to ever suggest relocation or contraction, having seen the 11th hour in the struggle to keep the Pens in Pittsburgh after such a long fight, so I will not do so.

To answer your thought experiment, yes some players would sign up for the new league, but I’m sure a pretty sizable margin would go over and make huge tax-free money from super-wealthy Russian oil tycoons also.

80

The Leafs are, by most standards, one of the most dismally run franchises in the NHL and have been for several decades. They had a brief period of respectability in the early 1990s, but through the Harold Ballard years and into the MLSE years, they’ve been close to an embarassment (hell, there were paper bag wearers at the low points). Still, you cannot get a Leafs ticket for love nor money. The love of hockey is that strong. A second team in Toronto would not even make a dent in the amount of paying customers for hockey, let alone one in an entirely different, but nearby, city. It has 2.5 M people in the city proper, and 5.5 in the metro area.