EHM:FE Release Date? [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

View Full Version : EHM:FE Release Date?

ca2hill44

01-27-2004, 01:09 PM

I know this isn't really FOF, but people on this board seem to know lots about this sort of thing too.

So I'm just wondering if anyone knows if there is a release date? I know Sega will publish it and I've seen Q1 2004... which is now... so... if you know, I would love to hear about it.

Thanks,

BTW: Fourth Edition is absolutely stellar. The only thing I would complain about is the computer's poor ability to retain players. My other complaint is solved by Fido's tool. That thing rocks!!!

HornedFrog Purple

01-27-2004, 01:11 PM

I am betting it is under the "when it's done" tag like all of SI's games. I don't think anybody knows.

WSUCougar

01-27-2004, 01:18 PM

From another recent thread, this from Marc Vaughan of SI Games:
EHM:FE is coming along nicely, as with all our games however "it'll be ready when we're happy with it" ....

More information is going to be released upon it in the near future though which should give a lot more info on how its going to end up ... imho its great, now if only I could win the Stanley Cup with the Duck's I'd be a happy man http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

Maple Leafs

01-27-2004, 01:29 PM

The fact that he has any interest at all in the Ducks makes me fear for the overall quality of this sim.

MizzouRah

01-27-2004, 01:32 PM

Well, no news is good news, seems like it's getting close by his comment.

I've just about forgotten about this one. Knowing my luck, it'll come out right about the time the baseball games start coming out. :D

Todd

MrBug708

01-27-2004, 01:32 PM

Ya, it was great that the Leafs beat them in the Cup last year

Oh, wait....

MrBug708

01-27-2004, 01:33 PM

Dola

I'm waiting for this game with much interest

Ksyrup

01-27-2004, 01:35 PM

I've just about forgotten about this one. Knowing my luck, it'll come out right about the time the baseball games start coming out. :D
Yep. And if that's the case, I'll either not buy it, or probably won't have time for it until June. Timing is important - I know some people play games year round, but when we've now pretty much got a playable game in every major sport, there's bound to be priority given to the sports in play at the moment.

ice4277

01-27-2004, 02:10 PM

Yep. And if that's the case, I'll either not buy it, or probably won't have time for it until June. Timing is important - I know some people play games year round, but when we've now pretty much got a playable game in every major sport, there's bound to be priority given to the sports in play at the moment.
Agreed; at the same time, you have to look at it from their perspective. Releasing it earlier (say, end of 2003) could have cut into their CM sales. This is probably the best time for them to release it, from a worldwide perspective. Although, if it gets pushed back, to say late March, that may be a little late.

Ksyrup

01-27-2004, 02:15 PM

Agreed; at the same time, you have to look at it from their perspective. Releasing it earlier (say, end of 2003) could have cut into their CM sales. This is probably the best time for them to release it, from a worldwide perspective. Although, if it gets pushed back, to say late March, that may be a little late.
Well, Marcus says that OOTP6 won't be out until right before opening day (as opposed to the beginning of spring training like last year), so EHM:FE has a bit more wiggle room for a release date this year. I'd probably buy it if it came out before March 15 - otherwise, it'll have to wait until I get to a stopping point with FOF and then OOTP.

Fidatelo

01-27-2004, 03:11 PM

I'll buy EHM:FE no matter when they release it. I have been looking forward to this game for 2 years now!

wbatl1

01-27-2004, 07:26 PM

bbor

01-27-2004, 08:37 PM

I'll buy EHM:FE no matter when they release it. I have been looking forward to this game for 2 years now!

Ditto

Karim

01-27-2004, 08:44 PM

Exactly. This is the first "real" career hockey simulation to come out in a long, long time. EHM was pretty incredible as freeware but this is a commercial product so I'm expected something substantially better. I'll be buying it regardless of when it's released.

corbes

01-27-2004, 08:44 PM

They'll release it just in time for the lockout!

Karim

01-27-2004, 08:44 PM

I guess "ditto" would have covered it. ;)

ice4277

01-27-2004, 09:04 PM

They'll release it just in time for the lockout!
That's true, it may be the only hockey many of us will be enjoying for quite a while.

bbor

01-27-2004, 09:34 PM

That's true, it may be the only hockey many of us will be enjoying for quite a while.

Bite your tongue:D

Blade6119

01-27-2004, 09:49 PM

Bite your tongue:D

I hope the NHL doesnt take a break...i dont know if the league will ever recover...

sachmo71

01-27-2004, 10:51 PM

Patience, grasshoppers.

bbor

01-28-2004, 12:39 AM

Patience, grasshoppers.

Damn beta testing Stars fan :D

klayman

01-28-2004, 01:30 AM

Damn beta testing Stars fan :D
Sach is holding up development until he can make sure the current Stars win the Stanley Cup. He should know by now that it is impossible. :D

Honolulu_Blue

01-28-2004, 06:40 AM

Id expect a release date when they finish the update of their boards and their time away from us on the 12th of february. I would not expect a release date till late Feb.

http://www.sigames.com (http://www.sigames.com/)

I'd certainly be happy with a 12th of February release date. It'd be the perfect birthday present!

Fidatelo

01-28-2004, 08:43 AM

I hope the NHL doesnt take a break...i dont know if the league will ever recover...

Recover? What is there to recover? The NHL as it stands is an overpriced, boring product in markets that either shouldn't have hockey or can no longer afford it. I love hockey, but the NHL needs to be blown up in a major way. Here's to a 2 year lockout! *clink*

sachmo71

01-28-2004, 08:47 AM

Sach is holding up development until he can make sure the current Stars win the Stanley Cup. He should know by now that it is impossible. :D

LOL!

Karim

01-28-2004, 10:06 AM

Recover? What is there to recover? The NHL as it stands is an overpriced, boring product in markets that either shouldn't have hockey or can no longer afford it. I love hockey, but the NHL needs to be blown up in a major way. Here's to a 2 year lockout! *clink*
I agree. I'll easily accept a 2 or 3 year lockout if it means once and for all fixing the game. There's plenty of hockey to watch and play until the NHL gets its house in order.

Tekneek

01-28-2004, 10:34 AM

Fidatelo

01-28-2004, 10:56 AM

That long of a shutdown will finish off the league for good. There will be no TV contract to speak of. Hardcore fans will have found satisfaction with other hockey and the NHL may never regain the stature it had today, at least not in as many markets as it currently does. European players would all have gone home to play and would be less interested in returning, especially since the number of jobs and possible salaries probably would have changed for the worse. It wouldn't "fix" anything, and would allow something like the WHA to gain a solid foundation.

Why is any of this bad? Why do people seem to think that the NHL is such a hallowed institution? Yes, it has history, but so what? I'd rather watch a reasonably-priced WHA game between teams that play in natural hockey locations with refs that call the rules and games that don't all end 2-2, than yet another yawner between New Jersey and Dallas where Brodeur gets his 17th shutout of the year in a 0-0 tie whose only highlights are 2 high-sticking infractions and a 30 second fight.

And so what if we lose the Europeans? I don't remember missing them 20 years ago, why would I miss them now? And hey, why shouldn't Sweden and Finland get to watch their star players play on their own continent? It's not like Nashville and Carolina appreciate them. If the Europeans can pay them more then good for them, they deserve to get to watch them!

bbor

01-28-2004, 11:00 AM

Hockey will never die in Canada.

Armageddon won't happen no one is that stupid to kill the golden goose.

But if they do hockey would still never die in Canada...and i gotta tell you..i would have no problems with a 6 team all Canadian NHL.:D

ice4277

01-28-2004, 11:00 AM

I think we may be heading down the path with hockey that we have with soccer; a few powerful leagues located in different countries around the world, with players moving back and forth between the different leagues. I also think one of the NHL's biggest mistakes was trying to move hockey into non-traditional markets so quickly. One team in Florida and one in California, fine, but do we need two Florida teams, one in the middle of the desert, three in California, and one on Tobacco Row? To me, the league had its peak from about the mid-80's till 1994. At that point, with the huge expansion and development of the trap, it started its fall into mediocrity.

Sloan

01-28-2004, 11:02 AM

But if they do hockey would still never die in Canada...and i gotta tell you..i would have no problems with a 6 team all Canadian NHL.:D

How cool would it be to have just the original 6 playing again. Imagine all the great players condensed to 6 teams. That would be some great hockey.

Maple Leafs

01-28-2004, 11:06 AM

*clink**clink*

It's hard to say it, but I agree with you. The NHL doesn't need a bandaid right now, it needs major, radical surgery.

Fidatelo

01-28-2004, 11:31 AM

How cool would it be to have just the original 6 playing again. Imagine all the great players condensed to 6 teams. That would be some great hockey.

Think back even to the 80's setup of 21 teams... imagine chopping out 200 of the bottom feeders in the current NHL, think of how much even that would improve things!

Tekneek

01-28-2004, 12:10 PM

Original 6 with all the best players of today? I don't think that would happen, because all the best players of today would not take the paycuts to make it happen. All 6 teams could not possibly afford to pay out $5 million or more to each player. That would already be on par with the Rangers payroll of today.

Sloan

01-28-2004, 12:13 PM

I know its a pipe dream, but it would be great. Going back to 21 teams however, I think is possible and would be very good for hockey.

Tekneek

01-28-2004, 12:19 PM

The NHLPA is probably more likely to agree to a salary cap before contraction.

klayman

01-28-2004, 02:43 PM

Why is any of this bad? Why do people seem to think that the NHL is such a hallowed institution? Yes, it has history, but so what? I'd rather watch a reasonably-priced WHA game between teams that play in natural hockey locations with refs that call the rules and games that don't all end 2-2, than yet another yawner between New Jersey and Dallas where Brodeur gets his 17th shutout of the year in a 0-0 tie whose only highlights are 2 high-sticking infractions and a 30 second fight.

And so what if we lose the Europeans? I don't remember missing them 20 years ago, why would I miss them now? And hey, why shouldn't Sweden and Finland get to watch their star players play on their own continent? It's not like Nashville and Carolina appreciate them. If the Europeans can pay them more then good for them, they deserve to get to watch them!
http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

Qwikshot

01-28-2004, 02:54 PM

I know its a pipe dream, but it would be great. Going back to 21 teams however, I think is possible and would be very good for hockey.

Who would you cut from the league then?

Sloan

01-28-2004, 03:16 PM

Who would you cut from the league then?

This was tough, and I had to cut some cities that are clearly great hockey towns like Calgary and Edmonton, but I don't think those cities can compete financially. I had to cut some teams that are having good seasons, but these are my best guesses at the long term weakest teams financially. I would change my picks if I had access to the books.

Buffalo
Carolina
Washington
Anaheim
Florida
San Jose
Edmonton
Calgary
Nashville

ice4277

01-28-2004, 03:18 PM

I nearly agree with Sloan, except I would dump Phoenix and keep Edmonton. Columbus also would be close to the chopping block.

Fidatelo

01-28-2004, 03:24 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong*, but doesn't New Jersey struggle to sell out playoff games even though they win the freakin' cup every 3 years and have been one of the 3 best teams in the league the last 10 years? I would cut them, just on principle alone.

* if I am wrong, then forget I just typed this. Hell, I'll probably delete this post and then commit seppuku.

chrisj

01-28-2004, 03:48 PM

This was tough, and I had to cut some cities that are clearly great hockey towns like Calgary and Edmonton, but I don't think those cities can compete financially. I had to cut some teams that are having good seasons, but these are my best guesses at the long term weakest teams financially. I would change my picks if I had access to the books.

Buffalo
Carolina
Washington
Anaheim
Florida
San Jose
Edmonton
Calgary
Nashville

Carolina is interesting... their attendance had been increasing the past four years, but this year nose dived. Thought maybe hockey was starting to catch on there, but this year it's been awful.

How come Pittsburgh didn't make this list? They are a total mess, everyone knows it, and it'd probably be easier to fold the team than to ever turn them into something respectable.

What about the Islanders? Yeah, they play in New York. Yeah, they have a long history - but the last time their attendance was respectable was back in the mid to late 80's. Is there that much interest in the team? Although maybe they have a sweet TV deal to make up for lost revenues.

San Jose surprises me a bit to be on the list as they've had decent fan support for the team over the years.

I really wonder about Edmonton and Calgary. Edmonton usually has a higher average attendance (and above average NHL attendance) than Calgary, but I would have thought Calgary would have a ton of corporate support from the oil companies in the city - I'd guess wrong though because they've been losing money for years. Not sure about Edmonton...

Personally, I'd just take the bottom seven cities attendance wise and chop them off. If you're not going to support your team, then you don't deserve one. But the results would be scary... cities losing teams (of course just based on this years attendance): Carolina, Pittsburgh, Nashville, New York Islanders, Chicago (!!), Phoenix, New Jersey, Washington and Boston (!!).

Sloan

01-28-2004, 03:56 PM

You're correct with Pittsburg, they should be on the list. If New Jersey has trouble selling out then they deserve to be on it too.

sachmo71

01-28-2004, 04:15 PM

Everyone should have trouble selling tickets in today's NHL. The bang is not usually worth the buck.

JonInMiddleGA

01-28-2004, 04:18 PM

Let me say in advance that this doesn't do anything to account for factors like larger/smaller buildings or teams that surged or teams that sucked over this 3 1/2 year period. Minus those factors, I think it's an idle curiosity, but interesting taken FWIW.

Average per game attendance since '00-'01 season

<table height="576" x:str="" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="568" style="border-collapse: collapse;"> <col width="95" span="6" style="width: 71pt;"> <tbody><tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" width="95" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 71pt;">
</td> <td class="xl22" width="95" style="width: 71pt;">2003-2004</td> <td class="xl23" width="95" style="width: 71pt;">2002-2003</td> <td class="xl23" width="95" style="width: 71pt;">2001-2002</td> <td class="xl22" width="95" style="width: 71pt;">2000-2001</td> <td class="xl22" width="95" style="width: 71pt;">4 yr Avg</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Montreal ">Montreal </td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">20141</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">20672</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">20027</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">20105</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="20236.25" x:fmla="=SUM(B2:E2)/4">20236</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Detroit</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">20066</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">20058</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">20057</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">19995</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" x:fmla="=SUM(B3:E3)/4">20044</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Philadelphia</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">19255</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">19325</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">19569</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">19575</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" x:fmla="=SUM(B4:E4)/4">19431</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Toronto</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">19334</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">19240</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">19279</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">19257</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="19277.5" x:fmla="=SUM(B5:E5)/4">19278</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">St Louis</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18453</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18570</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18968</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">19519</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="18877.5" x:fmla="=SUM(B6:E6)/4">18878</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Minnesota</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18527</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18500</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18455</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18328</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="18452.5" x:fmla="=SUM(B7:E7)/4">18453</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">NYR</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18050</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18148</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18038</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18200</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" x:fmla="=SUM(B8:E8)/4">18109</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Dallas</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18353</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18532</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18527</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17001</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="18103.25" x:fmla="=SUM(B9:E9)/4">18103</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Colorado</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18007</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18007</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18007</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18007</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" x:fmla="=SUM(B10:E10)/4">18007</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Vancouver</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18631</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18396</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17712</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17026</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="17941.25" x:fmla="=SUM(B11:E11)/4">17941</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Columbus</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17251</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17774</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">18136</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17457</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="17654.5" x:fmla="=SUM(B12:E12)/4">17655</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Ottawa</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17534</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17198</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">16919</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17793</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" x:fmla="=SUM(B13:E13)/4">17361</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">LA</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17745</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17569</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">16756</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">16057</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="17031.75" x:fmla="=SUM(B14:E14)/4">17032</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">SJ</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15599</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17350</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17420</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17468</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="16959.25" x:fmla="=SUM(B15:E15)/4">16959</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Edmonton</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">16629</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">16657</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">16592</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15611</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="16372.25" x:fmla="=SUM(B16:E16)/4">16372</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Calgary</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">16204</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">16239</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15718</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">16622</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="16195.75" x:fmla="=SUM(B17:E17)/4">16196</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Tampa Bay</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">16899</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">16545</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15722</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14906</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" x:fmla="=SUM(B18:E18)/4">16018</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Buffalo</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14935</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">13735</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17206</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17839</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="15928.75" x:fmla="=SUM(B19:E19)/4">15929</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Washington</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14515</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15787</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">17341</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15534</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="15794.25" x:fmla="=SUM(B20:E20)/4">15794</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Florida</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15405</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15428</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">16083</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14557</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="15368.25" x:fmla="=SUM(B21:E21)/4">15368</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">NJ</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14483</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14858</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15925</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15642</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" x:fmla="=SUM(B22:E22)/4">15227</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Boston</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14541</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15029</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15403</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15432</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="15101.25" x:fmla="=SUM(B23:E23)/4">15101</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Chicago</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">13584</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14794</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15568</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14996</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="14735.5" x:fmla="=SUM(B24:E24)/4">14736</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Pittsburgh</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">12027</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14749</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15649</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">16336</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="14690.25" x:fmla="=SUM(B25:E25)/4">14690</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Atlanta</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14544</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">13476</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">13668</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15262</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="14237.5" x:fmla="=SUM(B26:E26)/4">14238</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Carolina</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">11809</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15682</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15508</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">13355</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="14088.5" x:fmla="=SUM(B27:E27)/4">14089</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Nashville</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">12314</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">13228</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14788</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">15824</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="14038.5" x:fmla="=SUM(B28:E28)/4">14039</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Phoenix</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14036</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">13229</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">13165</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14224</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="13663.5" x:fmla="=SUM(B29:E29)/4">13664</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">Anaheim</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14802</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">13988</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">12002</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">13499</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="13572.75" x:fmla="=SUM(B30:E30)/4">13573</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;">NYI</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">12745</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14930</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">14548</td> <td class="xl22" x:num="">11083</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="13326.5" x:fmla="=SUM(B31:E31)/4">13327</td> </tr> <tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" class="xl25" style="height: 12.75pt;">Total/30</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="16213.933333333332" x:fmla="=SUM(B2:B31)/30">16214</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="16589.766666666666" x:fmla="=SUM(C2:C31)/30">16590</td> <td class=\"xl25\" x:num=\"16758.533333333333\" x:fmla=\"=SUM(D2<img src=" ../forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif="" border="0" alt="" title="big grin" smilieid="4">16759</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="16550.333333333332" x:fmla="=SUM(E2:E31)/30">16550</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="16528.141666666666" x:fmla="=SUM(F2:F31)/30">16528
</td> </tr></tbody> </table>

JonInMiddleGA

01-28-2004, 04:27 PM

Some random odds & ends I noticed from the table, again FWIW

-- I'd assume the current season numbers will climb slightly, as interest & attendance increase as the seasons gets past the all-star break
-- Philly & St. Louis as well as Boston, Pittsburgh & Nashville, are the only teams to currently show decreased attendance for 3 straight years. Teams at the opposite ends of the spectrum.
-- Minnesota, Vancouver & Tampa Bay are the only teams with increased attendance for 3 straight years.
-- I pulled these figures straight from ESPN.com but I wonder what a 10 year trend would show? I suspect there's a very strong correlation between attendance & performance (well, duh) but my gut says the relationship is stronger with the NHL than with other sports.

Maple Leafs

01-28-2004, 04:30 PM

Here's my "new" NHL

NHL North
Toronto
Montreal
Ottawa
Boston
Philadelphia

NHL East
New York
New Jersey
Atlanta
Florida
Washington

NHL Central
Detroit
Chicago
St. Louis
Colorado
Minnesota

NHL West
Edmonton
Calagary
Vancouver
Dallas
California

There you go... 20 teams. We drop Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Phoenix, Carolina, Nashville and Columbus. You merge all the California teams and both the Florida teams. The Islanders can merge with the Devils. Atlanta and Washington could go too, but they're big markets and I'm trying to be realistic. But they're next in line to walk the plank.

Now you have a nice 20 team league, so the worst one-third of the players are out of work. Next you cut the schedule down to 60 games. Three games a week for 20 weeks -- mid-October to mid-March. All games are played on Tuesdays, Thursday and Saturdays. You keep to that schedule so people know when hockey is on (kind of like the NFL on Sundays). Have one game, league-wide, each Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Those are your showcase games (like Monday Night Football).

Forget about a big-time TV deal. Take whatever you can get. Come up with a system of revenue sharing for TV and merchandising and other league-wide revenues. Allow teams to keep their attendance gates, though. Once that becomes their meal-ticket, teams may think twice about playing a boring, trapping style. Call the game based on the rules. Reduce the size of goalie padding (outlaw synergy sticks too, as a tradeoff to goalie safety). Have a salary cap.

Then get out there and play hockey. Stop trying to be the NBA. Give up on the dream of being a major sport in the US. You can make plenty of money as a second tier league.

There, problem solved. Where do I send my bill?

NoSkillz

01-28-2004, 04:42 PM

Don't kid yourself...the Sabres aren't going anywhere.

What other place can a Maple Leaf fan go to watch a game live for a reasonable price?!?! :p

primelord

01-28-2004, 04:44 PM

I think I am officially going to start the campaign to have Maple Leafs replace Gary Bettman. I think your ideas are excellent ML. Although I would also add getting rid of the red line and icing to the list.

ice4277

01-28-2004, 04:51 PM

Leafs,

That may be one of the greatest plans for keeping the NHL alive that I have ever seen. That is why I give it 0% chance of ever happening.

JonInMiddleGA

01-28-2004, 04:51 PM

A couple of problems that caught my eye

1) I wouldn't be so quick to dump Columbus. They're outdrawing at least 3 of the Canadian franchises you left in your proposal (Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa) as well as Atlanta & Washington (who I assume were city-size exemptions) and all 3 California teams and both Florida teams. Can they sustain that? can they be a small-market miracle? who knows? But I don't know if I could shoot for scaling down the league by putting a bullet into the 11th best draw amongst 30 teams.

Stop trying to be the NBA.
As of 2001, the NHL outdrew the NBA in over half the cities where they went head-to-head.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0FCM/7_29/73023292/p1/article.jhtml

And after a quick glance at the NBA attendance figures posted on ESPN.com, it looks like the two are pretty much even in avg attendance this year.

Maple Leafs

01-28-2004, 05:37 PM

And after a quick glance at the NBA attendance figures posted on ESPN.com, it looks like the two are pretty much even in avg attendance this year.But don't look too hard at attendance. How are the two TV contracts? Ratings? Which league sells more merchandise? Who's on SportsCenter first? Etc.

Fidatelo

01-28-2004, 06:32 PM

It also neglects to include Winnipeg in the equation, so I give it a thumbs down :D

Maple Leafs

01-28-2004, 06:37 PM

It also neglects to include Winnipeg in the equation, so I give it a thumbs down :DYeah, I thought about squeezing Winnipeg and Hamilton in there, but couldn't find a way.

Chief Rum

01-28-2004, 06:40 PM

I see a new bias here. I call it Icebound Bias. That is, the assumption that only cities which actually see ice in their regular weather patterns deserve to have hockey teams. :rolleyes:

Who cares about selling tickets or big population centers or what not. It's all right for the Ice Bound Biased fans to drop other cities' teams so long as theirs are around, I suppose.

CR

Maple Leafs

01-28-2004, 06:59 PM

Who cares about selling tickets or big population centers or what not. It's all right for the Ice Bound Biased fans to drop other cities' teams so long as theirs are around, I suppose.Which cities are you suggesting would be unfairly losing a team?

Chief Rum

01-28-2004, 07:01 PM

Maple Leafs

01-28-2004, 07:04 PM

Chief Rum

01-28-2004, 07:13 PM

I think that Anaheim will support a winner. We have shown we do that for the Angels, and we did for the Ducks in the past. Last year was a surprise and we went into the dumps so quick this year that the franchise hasn't really been able to take advantage. I do think that some people are ignoring the sheer potential of teams like these in large metropolitan areas when they draw up league contraction maps based on their icebound biases.

Anaheim itself historically in the NHL hasn't been the strongest market yet, but then we have only had a hockey for ten years and we have only been winners (playoff teams) in three of them. So I wouldn't base my attack on the biases of some here on Anaheim itself, but that bias is still present. It's about time some people in colder climes realize that hockey can be played and is popular in areas that aren't necessarily covered in snow and ice half the year and where the people don't pronounce their "ou"s as "ooo"s.

CR

Maple Leafs

01-28-2004, 07:21 PM

Anaheim itself historically in the NHL hasn't been the strongest market yet, but then we have only had a hockey for ten years and we have only been winners (playoff teams) in three of them. So I wouldn't base my attack on the biases of some here on Anaheim itself, but that bias is still present. It's about time some people in colder climes realize that hockey can be played and is popular in areas that aren't necessarily covered in snow and ice half the year and where the people don't pronounce their "ou"s as "ooo"s.Maybe. But so far, the record hasn't been good. The only southern teams that have had any real success for an extended period were Dallas, who were very good right away and have stayed that way, Colorado (same) and LA during the Gretzky years. And that last one is debatable. The rest have varied between outright failures and marginal success.

And who can blame them? The NHL product isn't very good these days, so why would someone who didn't grow up with the game go to see it? Why would someone who never gave the NHL a second thought until ten years ago be expected to become a die-hard fan during this awful era? It's not a reflection on the people down south, it's reality. I don't think it's enough to support a winner. When a league is struggling as badly as the NHL is, you need markets that will supprt hockey, period. Not everyone can win every year.

Now if the league was doing well, you could be patient. You could let those markets grow, same as MLB and the NBA are trying to do up north. No question, that's the best approach to take. But the NHL is dying right now, and it can't afford to have 30 teams. Somebody has to go. Where do you start? I think you start with the markets that could be good, someday, in a perfect world, but just aren't right now.

Sloan

01-28-2004, 07:27 PM

Snip

I've been sitting here trying to come up with a reply that wouldn't make me seem anti-south, but you've said it perfectly. Unless your team is competing for the Stanley Cup right now, hockey as it currently stands is not going to attract new fans in non traditional markets.

ice4277

01-28-2004, 07:43 PM

Chief,

Based on the argument you are making, it would be impossible to cut any teams from the league that have come about in the last ten or fifteen years, since the 'potential' exists for the cities to support their teams. Unfortunately, there is scant evidence that this will ever happen. The true measure of support for a team comes when that team is down, not when they are at the pinnacle of success. The bias is not necessarily against cities from the south; the bias is against cities that have not shown the ability to support an NHL franchise over the long-term. Most of those are cities where the newer franchises have failed to take strong root, and those happen to be in the South. IMO, the NHL needs to consolidate its base; yes, that would end up alienating a number of fans, like yourself, who truly do care about the game, but I think it is important for the long-term health of major professional hockey.

JonInMiddleGA

01-28-2004, 07:55 PM

Why would someone who never gave the NHL a second thought until ten years ago be expected to become a die-hard fan during this awful era?
Then why is my 5 1/2 year old son the most enthusiastic hockey fan I've seen, even impressing Chicago & Detroit natives, as well as a Avs fan, with his interest & understanding of the game?

Granted, he's not diagramming plays yet, but for a 5 y/o to be able to call icing and two-line passes correctly on sight after watching with any real interest for only a few months isn't too shabby from what I've seen of adults trying to grasp hockey from scratch. He chose Thrashers tickets over Braves playoff tickets without hesitation, hell he even named his 3rd-jersey wearing plush bear "Kozlov" :)

I'll grant you that he comes by some of it honestly, I follow the league more closely than most native Southerners (I wonder how many native Georgians have actually ponied up for THN subscriptions) but the bleak picture you paint with regard to the state of the league right now doesn't match what I see here, nor what I see at Phillips Arena.

Sure, he's impressed with Ilya's skills but he's even more impressed by the ability of Pasi Nurminen and a gritty guy like Garnett Exleby ranks among his favorites.

One anecdote about a kid certainly isn't enough to base a league's future on, I know that. But I think this may be one of the rare times when I'm the one who sees the glass as half-full while others insist it's half-empty (or worse).

bbor

01-28-2004, 08:51 PM

Just having a pasionate hockey debate like we are having here shows the game ia alive and well )

chrisj

01-28-2004, 09:15 PM

Any cities which are supporting their teams better than cold weather teams which apparently donb't have to pass the same qualifications for membership in most fo the revised leagues I have read here.

I'm not sure what cold weather teams you're talking about, so this comment maybe somewhat off, but you also need to consider the teams that have played in front of them. Is Calgary right at league average attendance? Just about. But look at the team that's played in that city recently... what would happen in some of the southern cities if they had a team like that?

Fidatelo

01-28-2004, 11:29 PM

To say that we have an Icebound Bias may be somewhat correct. I will admit that I am very bitter that the Jets were forced to leave for a sunbelt place like Phoenix. I'm sure Quebec fans feel even more bitter that their team went on to win Stanley Cups immediately upon leaving. As Canadians we always have the anti-American slant to things, especially something like hockey which we feel is 'ours'. So yes, there is a bias.

However, you will never in your life convince me that Phoenix is a better hockey town than Winnipeg, or that Carolina was a good move from Hartford. Winnipeggers live and breathe hockey, but we are also known for something else: we are, umm, how should I say, 'discerning' about how we spend our money. Ok, we're cheap. We like a bargain. And $75 to see a crappy game of hockey is anything but a bargain.

I will agree, based on the current economic climate of the NHL, that Winnipeg does not fit. Even if the on-ice product were better, there aren't 16,000 people here that will pay $75 to see a game of hockey. Not on a consistent basis anyways.

But you know what? Amazingly there are 3,000 people registered in the Sponge Hockey league I play in. We are the largest, but by no means the only, league in town. It costs about $50-60 a person for the season, plus $75 for shoes and $30 for a stick. We pay this money to play 25 games on OUTDOOR ice in the months of December to February. The HIGH for tomorrow is -32 celcius. That's without the windchill factor. I have a spongee game. It will not be cancelled. In 23 years the league has never cancelled a game due to cold weather.

So we will go out there and freeze our nuts off, and love every minute of it. Because that's what hockey truly is. It isn't sitting in a box seat your company bought, drinking a $7 beer in your suit and tie, watching millionaires play the trap. It isn't driving home with the top down in your convertable while chatting with your buddy Sal to see if you should hit the beach this weekend. And it certainly isn't the willingness to 'support a winner'.

So if you want to portray me as having an 'Icebound Bias', then ya, go ahead. It's nice that people in Anaheim will support a winner. It's nice that Hollywood stars loved the Kings when Gretzky made them fashionable. And it's nice that JohnInMiddleGA has a kid who digs hockey. But I'll say right to your face, and mean every word of it, that my city, and others like it, deserve a team more than any single city that thinks snow is quaint. We deserve a team that people, the same people who pay money to freeze their ass off at the local rink 3 times a week, can afford to watch play. We deserve a team that plays in a league where the rules are called and the teams play hard, fast, and fun. We deserve a team that can afford to keep a player like Teemu Selanne, a player that loved the city but was priced out of it. Right now, this league doesn't exist. So no matter how much we deserve it, we can't have it.

The league that does exist is dull to watch. A third of the teams sell off their players every year in order to continue to exist. The average fan can't afford to see more than a couple games a year. And if they went, there is a good chance the game they paid their money to see is a steaming pile of shit. This is the league that attaches itself to cities in the south because they have big markets and lots of foolish rich people.

So what have we learned? I guess its that you get what you deserve.

bbor

01-28-2004, 11:33 PM

Cleveland needs another team...The Barons were the bomb diggity

klayman

01-29-2004, 01:28 AM

Chief Rum

01-29-2004, 01:51 AM

Hey all,

I just came back from the Kings-Ducks game, and if you guys think hockey doesn't belong down here, then I guess you will just have to ignore the utter and complete passion the fans had at this one. For two fanbases that supposedly don't care about hockey, these two groups certainly seem to hate each other enough.

My point isn't that Anaheim or other fair weather cities are better hockey cities. You guys seem to forget where I am coming from. I'm not making an argument for hockey here over anywhere else. I'm fighting for the very existence of my favorite hockey organization in all of your "NHL redevelopment" plans, which all seem to just assume that because hockey isn't played 365 days down here that we don't deserve to have a team.

I'll see if I can address some myths that progressed in this thread recently.

Myth One: Southern teams don't support their clubs.

Wrong. LA, San Jose, Dallas and Colorado are all in the Top 15 in the attendance chart posted above. The supposedly poorly-supported Florida teams, Tampa Bay and Florida, are both in the top twenty attendances, both higher than hockey hubs like Jersey, Boston and Chicago. Given time and a modicum of success (the kind that generally comes to any time over a longer period of time to all clubs in a league), I am certain fair weather teams will be drawing as well or better than smaller, more passionate northern teams.

Myth Two: Areas that don't have ice can't be passionate about hockey.

Wrong. Tonight's Ducks-Kings game is exhibit one in that one. It wasn't on TV, so you'll have to trust me, but there were a ton of people in that sellout crowd that seemed likely to wound you badly instead of listening to you spurn their Southern California teams. We may not have kids in winter leagues on the outdoor ponds, but field, foot and rollerblade hockey are all on sharp rises around here, and I suspect they are doing well in Florida as well. I have many friends who do this sort of thing recreationally, and they all count themselves as fervent hockey fans. Yet they have never once stepped on a patch of ice to play hockey. I guess they are all transplants from the northern territories, eh?

Myth Three: I am saying south teams are more passionate than northern teams or more deserving of NHL hockey teams.

Very wrong. I never once state this. I am merely making a case for hockey in warmer climes, something a few icebound traditionalists here seem bent on eliminating "for the good of their sport". Hockey has been a tradition and big thing in many northern American cities, and, of course, is next to God in Canada, for decades and even longer. These cities have for the most part had teams for decades as well, and have had years and years to develop that fanbase--on top of the natural advantages of being cold weather climes. It is obvious that the average northern team fanbase is going to be more passionate than the average southern team fanbase. But for you guys to call hockey in warmer climates a failure after just a decade for many of these teams in their areas to develop fanbases and any sort of history is just blatantly jumping to conclusions. These franchises haven't had much time yet to build up stoired or sometimes even marginally successful programs. Fans in this area who were kids when hockey started in their south city are just reaching near young adulthood now. What franchise history do these fans have to fall back on? What generation after generation of team support can such fans throw out there at fans of Detroit or Montreal or the Rangers, whom all have grandparents and great-grandparents that rooted for their teams? These things take time, folks. It's not going to happen right away.

Myth Four. More passionate fanbases--such as northern clime cities--deserve to be the only teams with NHL squads.

Wrong. If you want the NHL to succeed, you need to reach the most people and pull as much money out of them as you can. Maybe the fans in Florida or California aren't as impassioned as those in Canada, but there sure are a heck of a lot fo them. This is why you see marginally successful south teams like San Jose and Tampa Bay and Los Angeles outdrawing Calgary and Edmonton and Buffalo and Boston. This means more money and more people paying attention and more coverage in big metropolitan areas. Whether you think southern fans of hockey are passionate or not, the fact is their money is just as green as yours, and in fact, they just have plain more of it (because there are more than them). If you want the NHL to succeed, you need to stay in the markets that will earn the league needed income.

As great a place and fans as Winnepeg and its population is, Fidatelo said it himself. They can't support their team. There's just not enough people. It's not a question of passion. It's just the sheer numbers. I really think some of you should be asking yourselves if you're basing your plans on actual league survival, or maybe, underneath it all, your bias toward hockay as having to be a traditional cold climate sport. I find it interesting that of all the people arguing against me ont his, they all seem to be from cold weather areas or support cold weather teams. What a shock, huh?

It seems clear to me that if you want the league to survive, you need money. And if you need money, you have to go to where the money is. More people, more money. Welcome to the well-populated southern areas of the country, guys.

Chief Rum

dan_garlick

01-29-2004, 01:52 AM

Chief Rum

01-29-2004, 01:58 AM

So we will go out there and freeze our nuts off, and love every minute of it. Because that's what hockey truly is. It isn't sitting in a box seat your company bought, drinking a $7 beer in your suit and tie, watching millionaires play the trap. It isn't driving home with the top down in your convertable while chatting with your buddy Sal to see if you should hit the beach this weekend. And it certainly isn't the willingness to 'support a winner'.

Yup, that's right. That's all of us. We're all like that, starting around the Mason-Dixon line (extended). You must come here a lot.

Hey, buddy, here's a newsflash...not everything you read or see in the media or things you dig up from baseless assumptions in your own imagination are true. I didn't see too many convertibles tonight at the Pond. I didn't see to many people sipping champagne and just having a gay ole time while they compared diamonds.

Get a clue, huh? And leave the insulting ethnocentrism in your mind, instead of exposed and out in the open as you have done here.

I have never played ice hockey. I have never been to Canada. But I'm just as big a hockey fan as you. And so are a bunch of people I know around here.

CR

ice4277

01-29-2004, 05:37 AM

Tonight's Ducks-Kings game is exhibit one in that one. It wasn't on TV
Chief,

This to me is a perfect case in point. If this really was such a strong, heated rivalry that people cared about, it would be a lock to be on TV. You can't tell me that they wouldn't have it on if they didn't think it would generate some interest. To me, the old adage about Chicago's hockey fans really seems to apply to a lot of the newer NHL cities: "There's 20,000 hockey fans in this town, and all of them were at the game."

Ksyrup

01-29-2004, 07:19 AM

Hey all,
Myth One: Southern teams don't support their clubs.

Wrong. LA, San Jose, Dallas and Colorado are all in the Top 15 in the attendance chart posted above. The supposedly poorly-supported Florida teams, Tampa Bay and Florida, are both in the top twenty attendances, both higher than hockey hubs like Jersey, Boston and Chicago. Given time and a modicum of success (the kind that generally comes to any time over a longer period of time to all clubs in a league), I am certain fair weather teams will be drawing as well or better than smaller, more passionate northern teams.
South Florida has always been a winner's town - they don't support crap if it doesn't win. When Florida got to the Stanley Cup in 97 (I think?), you couldn't get a ticket. And for a couple of years after that, it was the same way. That the Panthers suck as bad as they do now and continue to turn over their roster with no definitive stars on that team, and still draw in the top 20, is pretty impressive for that market, IMO.

JonInMiddleGA

01-29-2004, 07:31 AM

Yup, that's right. That's all of us. We're all like that, starting around the Mason-Dixon line (extended).
And to think, I never even noticed your accent before now.http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Just wanted to add a "bravo" to your post, you covered my thoughts pretty darned well.

Fidatelo

01-29-2004, 09:16 AM

Myth Four. More passionate fanbases--such as northern clime cities--deserve to be the only teams with NHL squads.

Wrong. If you want the NHL to succeed, you need to reach the most people and pull as much money out of them as you can. Maybe the fans in Florida or California aren't as impassioned as those in Canada, but there sure are a heck of a lot fo them. This is why you see marginally successful south teams like San Jose and Tampa Bay and Los Angeles outdrawing Calgary and Edmonton and Buffalo and Boston. This means more money and more people paying attention and more coverage in big metropolitan areas. Whether you think southern fans of hockey are passionate or not, the fact is their money is just as green as yours, and in fact, they just have plain more of it (because there are more than them). If you want the NHL to succeed, you need to stay in the markets that will earn the league needed income.

It seems clear to me that if you want the league to survive, you need money. And if you need money, you have to go to where the money is. More people, more money. Welcome to the well-populated southern areas of the country, guys.

It's like you're going out of your way to make my point...

The league that does exist is dull to watch. A third of the teams sell off their players every year in order to continue to exist. The average fan can't afford to see more than a couple games a year. And if they went, there is a good chance the game they paid their money to see is a steaming pile of shit. This is the league that attaches itself to cities in the south because they have big markets and lots of foolish rich people.

You can have the shitty NHL as it exists right now. I certainly don't want it. I want the NHL as it should exist, and easily could exist with proper finances and a change to the way the game is played. This NHL would not cost a fan $75 to attend. Plus it would have a higher chance of being fun to watch to boot. And a city like Winnipeg could, and would, support a team in such a league.

If you consider 'success' to be a league that struggles to stay affloat in many markets, inflates its attendance figures with corporate ticket sales and giveaways which are empty seats on game day, and bows down to the almighty dollar no matter the cost to the game itself, then yes, you're right, it does need the well-populated southern regions.

Personally, I don't consider that to be a successful league.

Fidatelo

01-29-2004, 09:31 AM

Yup, that's right. That's all of us. We're all like that, starting around the Mason-Dixon line (extended). You must come here a lot.

Hey, buddy, here's a newsflash...not everything you read or see in the media or things you dig up from baseless assumptions in your own imagination are true. I didn't see too many convertibles tonight at the Pond. I didn't see to many people sipping champagne and just having a gay ole time while they compared diamonds.

Get a clue, huh? And leave the insulting ethnocentrism in your mind, instead of exposed and out in the open as you have done here.

I have never played ice hockey. I have never been to Canada. But I'm just as big a hockey fan as you. And so are a bunch of people I know around here.

CR

Hmm, so owners demanding new arenas because they need the revenue from 200 extra box seats, that's all in my mind? Attendance figures that are nowhere near the actual amount of people who enter the turnstiles, that's a figment of my imagination? Despite the fact that you can turn on your TV and see it for yourself by looking at all the empty seats?

JonInMiddleGA

01-29-2004, 09:34 AM

I'm just happy to see that losing a team hasn't turned the citizens of Winnipeg into bitter whiny bitches or anything like that.

Tekneek

01-29-2004, 09:36 AM

'Gate' is already the primary revenue stream for all professional hockey clubs, at any level. This extends to luxury boxes, 'club' seats, and all that junk.

Fidatelo

01-29-2004, 09:48 AM

I'm just happy to see that losing a team hasn't turned the citizens of Winnipeg into bitter whiny bitches or anything like that.

Don't paint us all with that brush, I'm sure MikeVic is less whiny or bitchy than me. I think the cold has made me cranky this week.

Blade

01-29-2004, 10:08 AM

I think I just need to talk about the "Outdrawing" of Southern teams over some Northern teams. We could see in that attendance chart that the Oilers are not one of the top teams in regards to attendance, but that is simply due to arena size...our capacity is under 17,000. That said, we are almost constantly selling out the games, as it seems Oiler tickets are getting tougher and tougher to come by.

JonInMiddleGA

01-29-2004, 10:25 AM

... but that is simply due to arena size...our capacity is under 17,000.
Absolutely, and that's one of the reasons I almost didn't post the numbers but decided to do it with the disclaimer about arena sizes at the beginning of the post.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that new/larger arenas would become a factor (maybe a significant factor) in determining what teams could be jeopardized in any league contraction.

bbor

01-29-2004, 11:47 AM

I'm just happy to see that losing a team hasn't turned the citizens of Winnipeg into bitter whiny bitches or anything like that.

lmao

Chief Rum

01-29-2004, 03:13 PM

Chief,

This to me is a perfect case in point. If this really was such a strong, heated rivalry that people cared about, it would be a lock to be on TV. You can't tell me that they wouldn't have it on if they didn't think it would generate some interest. To me, the old adage about Chicago's hockey fans really seems to apply to a lot of the newer NHL cities: "There's 20,000 hockey fans in this town, and all of them were at the game."

ice, it was the first game ever in the series that has not been televised. The only reason it wasn't was because of a quirk in our local sports stations where they happened to be committed to some other sports entities that mean a whole lot to SoCal fans (FSW had the Lakers and FSW2 had the UCLA-USC basketball game).

That's the only reason it wasn't on. I thought it was kinda cool I was going to the game that wasn't on TV.

CR

Chief Rum

01-29-2004, 03:19 PM

Hmm, so owners demanding new arenas because they need the revenue from 200 extra box seats, that's all in my mind? Attendance figures that are nowhere near the actual amount of people who enter the turnstiles, that's a figment of my imagination? Despite the fact that you can turn on your TV and see it for yourself by looking at all the empty seats?

That was about your insulting ehtnocentrism, not hockey. Considering I don't make $20,000 per year and get around on a bus, your post was very insulting and showed a tremendous lack of knowledge of life in the warmer areas in the U.S. You seem to think it's only rich folk who go to these games, but I saw plenty of what I would call pretty normal folk going to the game last night, and having been there many times, I know this is pretty much the case every game.

Hockey isn't financially healthy here or in Canada. Little tricks like you suggest will no doubt go on in every city at one point or another. I'll tell you this. Not a single seat last night was filled by a phantom person in the Pond. That place was chock full.

CR

Chief Rum

01-29-2004, 03:21 PM

Don't paint us all with that brush...

Pot...kettle...

CR

RPI-Fan

01-29-2004, 03:38 PM

a gritty guy like Garnett Exleby

That is about the silliest thing I have ever read in my life. Exelby is probably one of the 5 or 6 worst defensemen in the NHL right now. He can't skate a lick, nor does he show any kind of offensive sense. He's like Kasparitis times a million, except he doesn't hit as hard. He is simply a terrible player who really hurts his team. When I was in Atlanta, I was shocked and dismayed at how much appreciation people had for this guy. <i>He's bad, folks.</i>

Aside from that little bit, I enjoyed your post. I'm glad you and your son have found enjoyment in the sport of hockey - I know me and my dad growing up, and still do today.

WSUCougar

01-29-2004, 03:39 PM

Yeah, but does anybody know a release date for EHM:FE?

;)

Fidatelo

01-29-2004, 03:53 PM

Pot...kettle...

CR

I was actually trying to make light of his comment, which was one of those "I have the balls to say it on a message board but would never do so face to face" comments that I love so much about the internet. Notice that I was basically trying to say that MikeVic wouldn't want to be associated with my comments? It was a little bit of self-depricating humor. So quit using racist terms ok? <-- note: the part about racism is sarcasm. Watch The Apprentice if you don't get it.

As for this discussion, I'm done. I said my piece, you don't agree. I've somehow insulted you by insinuating that the NHL 'succeeds' in large southern cities because it is funded by rich folk, even though your argument against having the NHL in small northern cities is that we don't have enough rich folk to support it. I've also somehow insulted you with my 'ethnocentrism', even though your thinly-veiled digs at Canadians were what prompted my first rant. Yet oddly you didn't seem to get insulted when I insinuated that paying $75 to watch a game is stupid, which was really the only intentional dig I took, and which I was expecting to get called on.

So anyways, I apologize for insulting you, intentionally or not. I'm glad to see you take hockey so passionately. And although I stand by my belief that cities like Winnipeg and Quebec theoretically 'deserve' a hockey team more than one such as Anaheim, I'm glad that you are enjoying and appreciating what you have.

Later.

Chief Rum

01-29-2004, 04:05 PM

JonInMiddleGA

01-29-2004, 04:13 PM

That is about the silliest thing I have ever read in my life. Exelby is probably one of the 5 or 6 worst defensemen in the NHL right now. He can't skate a lick, nor does he show any kind of offensive sense. He's like Kasparitis times a million, except he doesn't hit as hard. He is simply a terrible player who really hurts his team. When I was in Atlanta, I was shocked and dismayed at how much appreciation people had for this guy. He's bad, folks.

Aside from that little bit, I enjoyed your post. I'm glad you and your son have found enjoyment in the sport of hockey - I know me and my dad growing up, and still do today.
Maybe "gritty" isn't the right word, it's hard to define what he brings but whatever it is, the team plays much better with him on the ice than without him (see Saturday night vs NYI for an example). I also believe he's been the single most consistent reason the PK unit has been so effective this season, stopping short of calling him the biggest reason because that would shortchange the contributions Savard has made when he's been healthy.

WSUCougar

01-29-2004, 04:15 PM

I think it's time to start handing out some Thread Misconducts in here.

C'mon, guys. Bury the hatchet and move on.

Maple Leafs

01-29-2004, 04:26 PM

(Throws a water bottle at WSUCougar)

WSUCougar

01-29-2004, 04:27 PM

That's a 2:00 minor for, erm...Water Bottling. Off the ice, Leaf Boy! :D

Maple Leafs

01-29-2004, 04:32 PM

I'm warning you... give a penalty to a Maple Leaf and Pat Quinn will be on your ass before you can blink.

WSUCougar

01-29-2004, 04:35 PM

Sundin...on my shoulderrrrrrrrrrr...makes me happy.

Sundin...in my eyessssssss...can make me cry.

Fidatelo

01-29-2004, 04:46 PM

You insulted me by suggesting that we're all rich bastards who don't give a damn down here. I'm informing you that we have probably the same or maybe even higher percentage of poverty and middle class as most anywhere else in non-Mexico North America, and your classification of us as otherwise was very insulting. It suggests exactly what you think of us, just because we live in a warm area.

As for my insinuation, maybe you should read a little better. I never said there is a lower percentage of rich folks. I'm stating bald facts. Passionate ro not, there just aren't as many people in some northern cities. There is a limit to what they can provide, economically, to hockey. If you somehow contrived that into some comment on the peoples of Alberta as being poor, then you need to remove the Edmonton-colored glasses and re-read it. It was a sheer statement of population facts.

I didn't comment on the ticket price because those prices are asinine anywhere. And to my knowledge they are essentially being charged everywhere, at least for the lower seats...including Edmonton and New York as well as Boston and Atlanta.

I'm not saying your view of the hockey financial landscape isn't flawed. I am saying that you would rather have "your" hockey league and watch it fall apart, than have it in a few southern cities with more people (but less passion) that might end up saving it economically.

CR

Wow I thought I was done and burying the hatchett and then this?!? OK, lets clear some things up NOW:

1) I don't give a shit how many of you are poor. Where did I state that you are all rich? Find this for me please, I implore you. I implied that because there are so many rich people in the southern US the NHL can afford to exist. I didn't state PERCENTAGE, I stated QUANTITY. Which is your point as well: there are MORE of you, rich AND poor. I also implied that of those lots of rich people (and corporations) many fund the NHL by purchasing box seats for 10's of thousands of dollars. You CANNOT deny this, as this is a fundamental piece of the current NHL financial landscape.
2) Where did I state that you don't give a damn? I said you don't DESERVE the team as much as a true hockey city. I even congratulated you on you passion. You can give a damn all you want, I never once argued that you don't care about your team.
3) I never once got an inkling in my head that you were calling people in Canada poor. Where are you getting this stuff from? Why does this seem to be so much of your argument? And for what it's worth, I'm from Winnipeg, not Edmonton. And Winnipeg is not in Alberta.
4) I never said that American teams charge more for their seats than Canadian teams did. I never said that American fans were stupid to buy them but Canadian fans aren't. ANYONE who pays that money is dumb. But you know what? I did it myself a year ago in Calgary. Was it a dumb amount to pay for hockey? Yes. I am not excluding myself from any of this.
5) Why would "my" hockey league fall apart? Why would a league that pays far less money to its players, to such a point that small-market Canadian cities can afford to prosper, fall apart? My whole point is that the CURRENT league is falling apart, and that league is YOUR league.

Even after typing this I'm still in shock at your post. It makes no sense. Did someone else type a bunch of shit in my name that I haven't read? Where do you get all this stuff from? And why did my one comment about a guy riding home in his convertible take you to the conclusion that I thought everyone in the south was rich? And why does that piss you off so bad? Seriously, I'm completely flabbergasted at all of this. :confused:

Chief Rum

01-29-2004, 05:19 PM

Wow I thought I was done and burying the hatchett and then this?!? OK, lets clear some things up NOW:

1) I don't give a shit how many of you are poor. Where did I state that you are all rich? Find this for me please, I implore you. I implied that because there are so many rich people in the southern US the NHL can afford to exist. I didn't state PERCENTAGE, I stated QUANTITY. Which is your point as well: there are MORE of you, rich AND poor. I also implied that of those lots of rich people (and corporations) many fund the NHL by purchasing box seats for 10's of thousands of dollars. You CANNOT deny this, as this is a fundamental piece of the current NHL financial landscape.

Here you go Einstein. I also quoted this above.

So we will go out there and freeze our nuts off, and love every minute of it. Because that's what hockey truly is. It isn't sitting in a box seat your company bought, drinking a $7 beer in your suit and tie, watching millionaires play the trap. It isn't driving home with the top down in your convertable while chatting with your buddy Sal to see if you should hit the beach this weekend. And it certainly isn't the willingness to 'support a winner'.

You can argue now you're only talking about a small percentage of people down here, but in this post, it is a comparison between the hockey-loving fans of your area and the people in mine. You don't state any percentages here. Maybe your intent was to pick on a small few, but your decsiion to completely ignore establishing that context and leave it as an implied commentary on all warm city hockey fans is where you erred. And what pissed me off.

2) Where did I state that you don't give a damn? I said you don't DESERVE the team as much as a true hockey city. I even congratulated you on you passion. You can give a damn all you want, I never once argued that you don't care about your team.

I don't care what you think about how much I care about my team. I care about how much you think the people of my area care about my team. You seem to think there aren't many. I'm letting you know you're wrong. As a percentage of hockey-obseessed population, we won't be as high as those in Canada, of course, but there's a fair percentage of sports fans here who do care for much for our hockey teams. Once again, the post I quoted above in the response to your #1 indicates what you really think of the people down here. Does it seem like such a person, driving his convertible and sipping $7 beers while talking to his pal Sal gives a damn about hockey? You may not have said the words, but gimme a break if you think I can't read throught hat bullshit.

3) I never once got an inkling in my head that you were calling people in Canada poor. Where are you getting this stuff from? Why does this seem to be so much of your argument? And for what it's worth, I'm from Winnipeg, not Edmonton. And Winnipeg is not in Alberta.

I misunderstood your comment on that, so I apologize for that. What happened was you made an inaccurate mistake when characterizing how I felt you insulted me. You said I felt insulted that you suggest there are more folks with money in the south. You completely missed the boat there. As I have stated numerous times already, I was insulted by your characterization of the warm city hockey fan. It had nothing to do with the numbers of rich people in southern cities or in Canada.

Anyway, I didn't read that too closely, and I assumed (silly me) that you actually understood what I was insulted at. So when you returned with the comment of me saying there are less rich people in Canada, I thought you were countering that I had done the same as you did, but characterizing Canadians as poor. To which, of course, I vehemently denied it.

So I'm sorry I didn't read what you wrote clearly there. But it led from something you also clearly didn't read earlier. Do you now know what I am insulted about? Read #1 again if you haven't got it yet.

4) I never said that American teams charge more for their seats than Canadian teams did. I never said that American fans were stupid to buy them but Canadian fans aren't. ANYONE who pays that money is dumb. But you know what? I did it myself a year ago in Calgary. Was it a dumb amount to pay for hockey? Yes. I am not excluding myself from any of this.

No, you instead leave it all there for us to read between the lines. You talk about the rich convertible-driving, berr-sipping yuppies in the warm cities and later mention ridiculous $75 seats as a reason to return to a more traditional (i.e. non-south) hockey league, and you expect me not to read that as an indictment on warm city ticket prices?

Maybe you should work on the clarity of your arguments a little. You seem to leave a lot unsaid that isn't what you are now stating you meant. Maybe if you were a little more clear, your exact meaning would be rather more obvious.

5) Why would "my" hockey league fall apart? Why would a league that pays far less money to its players, to such a point that small-market Canadian cities can afford to prosper, fall apart? My whole point is that the CURRENT league is falling apart, and that league is YOUR league.

And my whole point is that the league needs money to survive. And it's not economically smart to ignore population-rich metropolitans that can provide that money just because they don't get snow and ice all year in their weather. I'm not even going to go into a straight criticism of your league setup, because that would take forever. I would be very interested in hearing how you would get the world's best players to take much less pay to play in your icebound league. I'm sure Bettman would, too. Maybe you should email him some suggestions?

I think we're headed to a bad lockout, but I'm not so certain the league is about to fall apart. Things need to be reworked, but I'm smart enough to know that I don't know enough about the process and numbers to say what is the best way. I'm just stating that, from an economic standpoint, it makes sense to have teams in cities with populations sizable enough to support them. That has always been a main point of mine in this thread.

Even after typing this I'm still in shock at your post. It makes no sense. Did someone else type a bunch of shit in my name that I haven't read? Where do you get all this stuff from? And why did my one comment about a guy riding home in his convertible take you to the conclusion that I thought everyone in the south was rich? And why does that piss you off so bad? Seriously, I'm completely flabbergasted at all of this. :confused:

Asked and answered. One last thing...I just noticed the following quote in your previous post...

I've also somehow insulted you with my 'ethnocentrism', even though your thinly-veiled digs at Canadians were what prompted my first rant.

Would you mind showing me where these "thinly-veiled digs at Canadians" are? I haven't said (nor do I feel) one bad thing about Canadians. I think Canadians are a fine people. If you see a dig somewhere, point it out to me, because that certainly wasn't my intention.

Mu suspicion is that you read far more into something I wrote than I was actually saying.

CR

Lord Bob

01-29-2004, 05:32 PM

Maple Leafs

01-29-2004, 05:33 PM

Lord Bob

01-29-2004, 05:41 PM

Is that still the same arena they had back in the 80s?
Yep. Was Northlands Coliseum > Edmonton Coliseum > Skyreach Center > Rexall Place. They love superfical name changes.

RPI-Fan

01-29-2004, 05:42 PM

Atlanta has a LONG way to go, attendance-wise. They run all sorts of specials (including $10 for students for red-line 2nd-level seats!). They also do lots of promotions and whatnot. I'll give the Thrashers fans credit - those who do show up are usually decked out in gear. They don't appear to be the most knowledgable, but they're supporting their team very well and were willing to pick up on a new game in a city that has very little hockey experience.

But to have Kovalchuk and Heatley (and when Savard is back, one of the top 3 skill lines in the NHL) and not sell out a class facility for solid prices is ridiculous.

For me, though, the closest NHL arena is Boston or Montreal, both ~3 hours away. I may make it to a game at one of these places some day, but for now at least, I'll stick with good ole' college hockey live, and the NHL on the tellie.

Chief Rum

01-29-2004, 05:55 PM

I should point out that Edmonton's arena, Rexall Place, is one of the smallest arenas in the NHL. I haven't got exact figures, but I'm 99% sure it's in the bottom five with a capacity of 17100. And let me tell you, as a guy who's seen a few games there, it's a shack compared to a lot of the high-tech facilities in most of the NHL.

In addition, to the chart courteously provided on page one by JonInMiddleGA, Edmonton is 15th in attendance, which doesn't exactly have me thinking 'let's contract them to get a 20-team NHL'. Are they the NHL's most important market? Oh, God, no, not even close. But to dump on the Oilers while praising the fans in cities that can't sell out the building on 2 for 1 ticket night isn't logical, to me.

The Atlanta Thrashers can't come close to filling a quality facility with a team boasting two of the league's most electric young stars, Dany Heatley and Ilya Kovalchuk. Anaheim is consistently mediocre attendance-wise no matter how many Jean-Sebastien Gigueres, Sergei Fedorovs, and Paul Kariyas they've had in their history. Then you have cities like Pittsburgh and Calgary, cities that love hockey but can't afford to ice winning teams because the salaries are outrageously high, driven up by the fat cats in big cities who made all their money in the bra trade and can afford to hand out $10 million salaries. I love hockey, but I wouldn't pay $75 to see Mario Lemieux, Marc-André Fleury and a bunch of borderline American Hockey Leaguers take on the New Tral Zone Trap...I'm sorry, New Jersey Devils.

Money, not attendance, talks in today's NHL. The Minnesota North Stars were beloved (just look at how well the Wild are doing today, and my God are the Wild boring!) by the city, and Minnesota is a terrific hockey town, but the North Stars moved to Dallas anyway. With cash being thrown about by owners who can afford it, the car salesmen who own small market teams like Edmonton and Calgary simply couldn't keep up. And the product started to suffer, because they couldn't pay the bills.

NHL contraction would be good, but an NHL salary cap would be better. Because contraction without a salary cap would be chopping out the fan-drawing hockey towns and leaving cities who's owners have cash and who's citizens can't identify three NHLers.

Don't worry, Bob. No one is suggesting taking hockey out of Canadian cities. The suggestions are aimed at taking hockey out of warm weather cities. It's the latter that I am against, being a warm weather hockey fan. I would never take hockey away from a Canadian city unless things came to an extreme. I wish the Canadian government would allow exemptions for their teams to compete with the U.S. teams economically, because hockey without Canada is just wrong.

Now, on the other hand, with teams like Atlanta, I feel people are jumping to the conclusion hockey can't work in warm weather cities, and that's just plain wrong. I mean, you guys are honestly using the passion of Canadian fans in a country where hockey is king and where they have had a team in this league for decades (like I said, people have grandparents and great=-grandparents ins ome of these areas who rooted for the same team) as the standard. Don't you understand that that kind of devotion and passion can't come to a new franchise city in ten or even twenty years (at least unless they have a great team like Dallas or Colorado). And especially in fair weather cities where hockey isn't already played by all the kids.

You need time to let these things develop. I think it's ridiculous to assume hockey can't work in warm weather cities when you haven't even given it a chance. It's going to take a while before we can really know. I'm talking a generation needs to grow up and have kids who are fans sort of time here.

CR

Maple Leafs

01-29-2004, 06:02 PM

Don't worry, Bob. No one is suggesting taking hockey out of Canadian cities. The suggestions are aimed at taking hockey out of warm weather cities. It's the latter that I am against, being a warm weather hockey fan. I would never take hockey away from a Canadian city unless things came to an extreme. I wish the Canadian government would allow exemptions for their teams to compete with the U.S. teams economically, because hockey without Canada is just wrong.
Chief, I see where you're coming from, but if you don't take teams from cold-weather and city and you don't take them from warm-weather cities, where do you take them from? Or are you saying that the NHL can work with the current number of teams?

Chief Rum

01-29-2004, 06:17 PM

That's exactly what I am saying, Sean. I'm not certain hockey can't work as is. We need a better system. That is obvious. But I haven't given up hope for the current incarnation of this league, and I am hopeful that the players and owners will realize they need each other to survive come this fall. I believe it can be done, but some people are going to have to make some sacrifices on all sides.

CR

Maple Leafs

01-29-2004, 06:29 PM

That's exactly what I am saying, Sean. I'm not certain hockey can't work as is.OK, in that case I can see where you're coming from. I don't agree with you, but neither one of us has enough information to really know for sure. I guess time will tell.

bbor

01-29-2004, 08:01 PM

Edmonton can't afford a new arena...but they CAN afford to change the name every few years and slap a can of paint on the place:D

Karim

01-29-2004, 10:11 PM

I'm not sure what cold weather teams you're talking about, so this comment maybe somewhat off, but you also need to consider the teams that have played in front of them. Is Calgary right at league average attendance? Just about. But look at the team that's played in that city recently... what would happen in some of the southern cities if they had a team like that?
Thank-you for mentioning this. For 7 years we've suffered will non-playoff teams and the average has always hovered around 15,000 (I'm not sure of the exact figure). During the glory years of the late 80s and early 90s, you couldn't get a ticket at the Saddledome. Whether non-traditional markets would support a perennial loser is a question I can't answer.

It really hurts to see Calgary and Edmonton being considered among fans as unworthy to compete with Toronto, New York and Dallas. But, I guess when one of your owners says the team will fold without a salary cap, what can you do?

:( Regardless, as bbor said, hockey will never die in Canada.

bbor

01-29-2004, 10:24 PM

I agree with the fact that hockey prolly can survive in the cities that it is in now(as well as maybe Vegas,Seattle,Portland,Winnipeg,Quebec) but the system must change.To survive in all those cities i think there will have to be a hard salary cap ala the NFL.

I am all for a hard cap,even though i am in a city that it would hurt the most in since we can afford to pay stupid sums of money on mediocre players.

Vinatieri for Prez

01-29-2004, 10:48 PM

From a transplanted Canadian:

Since when was the NHL in trouble, like you are all talking. Why do we need contraction? Sure the talent is a little diluted, but I think having the NHL in as many cities as possible is good. It gets you the greatest exposure. Its on the local news, local papers, radio broadcasts. It's all good. I think the attendance for the NHL is pretty darn good. Look when teams start filling only 7,000 or 8,000 of a 16,000 facility, then you have problems. What are we talking here -- most of the worst selling teams have 14,000 of 16,000 attendance. The bigger issue is making the league a little bit more entertaining to expand the TV audience and to the lesser die-hard fan. This can easily be accomplished by two things: Salary Cap and higher scoring/less interference. The latter could easily be solved by going to Olympic sized rinks. You simply cannot clutch and grab enough on the big surface. That won't happen so you gotta change the rules a little bit to inject scoring. Do that and the league will thrive.

So quit talking doomsday, ok. The league has been around a long time and will continue to do so. Maybe a team drops out here and there, but there is enough interest in North America to stay incredibly profitable (with a salary cap). It's never going to be NFL or MLB, but it doesn't have to be. I think the prospect of a lockout/negotiations will be good because it will bring about the the few changes that will keep the league flying along for years to come.

The bigger question is: when is the EHM release date?

Oh yeah. Go Canucks!!!!!!!

Karim

01-29-2004, 10:52 PM

To the smaller northern markets of Winnipeg and Quebec, and to a lesser extent, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa (each at or around 1 million people), the hope is a salary cap enables them to retain the stars they develop and compete with the likes of New York, Philadelphia, etc. If Green Bay can support a NFL team, you'd think a Canadian city of 1 million could support a NHL team.

riz

01-30-2004, 09:17 AM

I live in korea I might have a hard time of getting EHM:FE so where can I download the original EHM.I was checking out the FHOCKEY.COM site but couldn't the game just all the patches and add-ons.I also checked out the developers site but sorry don't speak Finnish.

If you go to the fhockey site, you should be able to nowadays download most of the versions of the game (goes back pretty far). If you click on "EHM Game" on the left, you should get a list of all the downloadable exes and setups there.

As for those asking about the release date, I can at the moment only say "ready when done". Things are looking good and we are working to have licenses but we haven't set a definate release date. We will be doing a beta/demo version before the release though at some point.

Until then...keep watching the skies :)

Oh, and don't tell me about my Rangers. We just find all new ways to sink to even lower depths :(

SoxWin

01-30-2004, 05:46 PM

From a transplanted Canadian:

Since when was the NHL in trouble, like you are all talking. Why do we need contraction? Sure the talent is a little diluted,

Oh yeah. Go Canucks!!!!!!!

Snip.

Sorry, couldn't agree less with this. The talent level is fine, it's the coaching and the defensive "systems" that need to go.

Sure there are more jobs in the NHL now, but that doesn't = dilution of talent. Remember the 21 team NHL and how many Euros played? Not many. More talented Euros coming over have nicely filled the extra 180 spots that expansion created.

Tekneek

01-31-2004, 08:03 AM

The problem is that when defense wins, and winning gets you more money, how can you convince a team to not play a defensive system? Until somebody comes along that can shatter that and force a team to run-and-gun with them, these systems are here to stay.

bbor

01-31-2004, 12:02 PM

The best defence is a good offence:)

JonInMiddleGA

01-31-2004, 12:30 PM

Until somebody comes along that can shatter that and force a team to run-and-gun with them, these systems are here to stay.
I hope you're right. I find the NHL today to be at least as interesting as it's ever been, and have no interest whatsoever in seeing scores like 6-5 or 5-4 become the norm.

Y'know, that said, I wonder if NHL fans/followers might be split along the lines of AL vs NL fans in baseball?

Maple Leafs

01-31-2004, 12:42 PM

I hope you're right. I find the NHL today to be at least as interesting as it's ever been, and have no interest whatsoever in seeing scores like 6-5 or 5-4 become the norm.Really? Wow... I'm stunned at that, I really am.

I'm not against low-scoring games, and I agree that a sloppy 6-5 game can be just as bad or worse than anything we've seen today. Hell, the best game I ever saw was the Blues/Leafs game one from the '93 series, and that was only 2-1 in double OT.

But today's games are different... it's one thing to see a 2-1 game where the goalies are standing on their heads, players are selling out to block shots, defencemen are diving to poke pucks away from the crease at the last second, etc. That's not what we get today. Today we get one team skating into the neutral zone, turning the puck over, and watching it get shot back into their zone. Rinse and repeat.

I don't want to go back to the mid-80s when everyone was scoring 50 goals. But it would be nice if more than one guy a year could do it. Grant Fuhr has 25 career shutouts -- Kevin Weekes already has 19, and he's never barely ever been a full-time starter. Getting a point-a-game makes you a superstar. This is ridiculous.

I'm tired of goalies make 12 saves for a shutout. I'm tired of seeing games go five or ten minutes without even one scoring chance. I'm tired of seeing teams come to town with a leading scorer who's on pace for 60 points. I'm tired of 0-0 games where both coaches are quite happy with that result.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions and there's no reason why yours is any less valid than mine. But... wow. Really? You like the NHL today? What is there to like? I don't mean that rhetorically, I really would like to know what you're seeing that I'm not.

Ksyrup

02-11-2004, 11:06 PM

Getting back on point...what are the odds that we see an announcement on a release date for this game today? At least, based on what www.sigames.com (http://www.sigames.com) has to say.

Karim

02-12-2004, 01:17 AM

Maybe. I'm still holding onto the idea that they'll release it at the start of either the playoffs or the Stanley Cup final.

ice4277

02-12-2004, 06:41 AM

If you go to Sega's European website, it says the game has a Summer 2004 release.

Blade

02-12-2004, 09:32 AM

If you go to Sega's European website, it says the game has a Summer 2004 release.

Yah, they are supposedly saying that on the SIgames site too according to this link:

http://community.sigames.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=21019056&f=6461934525&m=908103412

grdawg

02-13-2004, 08:59 AM

I don't post much, but lurk a lot. As a big hockey fan, I figured I'd jump into the discussion with a listing of some of the "proposed" rule changes and my opinions. I'd like others to comment:

1) The hot one now is having goalies not be able to handle the puck behind the net. One argument for this is that if goalies can't leave the crease, then defensemen will have to come back to play the puck and it will create more chances for other team to forecheck. I can see that, but I don't think you should penalize a goalie who has the ability to play the puck, I'd prefer that they make goalies fair game if they leave the crease, this would make them think twice about coming out.

2) Reducing goalies pads to 10" - I don't think this will make a huge difference in scoring, so I don't really care if this happens or not

3) Tag-up offsides - I would like someone to comment as to why this would be a bad thing. I can't think of any reason why not to do this

4) Remove the red line - I like this idea, yes it really would change the game, but it would open it up. Great passing Defensemen would be able to make that long pass and breakaways would increase, I'm sure a defensive system would be created to offset this, but let's give this a shot

5) Shootout at end of tie games- I love this idea, the purist will say that this isn't traditional hockey, well 4 on 4 for 5 minutes isn't either. I say play a 10 minute 4 on 4, if its tied, then have a shootout for a point. I would scratch this for the playoffs and just continue the normal 5 on 5 sudden death format that is there today. Fans would love this. It would definetly increase the excitement level and you wouldn't have the disappointment of leaving a game with a tie.

All the above rule changes are being proposed to increase scoring in the game and make it a more exciting product with less of a restrictive defensive system and increase fan interest. I think the key is to get back to calling the game of hockey the way it should be called. Clutching and grabbing is a penatly, I hate the way they will call it very tight for a few months and then let it go back to the way it was. I say if there needs to be 20 penalties a game to curb it, then let that happen. Clutching & Grabbing has ruined the game of hockey and it's time the league really do something about it. I for one see a long lockout coming and I really think hockey needs to do something to reinvent itself.

Maple Leafs

02-13-2004, 09:24 AM

3) Tag-up offsides - I would like someone to comment as to why this would be a bad thing. I can't think of any reason why not to do this
The problem with tag-up offsides is that it means a defenceman who gets the puck in the neutral zone after it's cleared can turn around and just dump it right back in. Under the current rules, he at least had to handle it (or pass it off) while he waits for his teammates to get onside.

The thinking ten years ago when they changed the rules was that getting rid of the tagup would force defencemen to be creative for a few seconds at least, rather than just hammer it right back in. Not a bad idea in theory, but I don't think it's really worked that well in the era of tight neutral zone checking.

Pumpy Tudors

02-13-2004, 10:16 AM

Clutching and grabbing haven't ruined the game for me. Go Devils!

Karim

02-13-2004, 07:41 PM

Clutching and grabbing haven't ruined the game for me. Go Devils!
LOL! :p

Tekneek

02-17-2004, 06:34 AM

The best part of the tag-up offsides is that the clock will stop far less often than it does now. I'm all about keeping the game going.

Instead of making a rule about goalies playing the puck, I think they should just say that once a goalie leaves the crease he is treated just like any other position player. For example, if you go behind the net and get the puck you can be ran over just like your defenseman would be. After goalies get wiped out a few times, and easy goals are scored, they will stop running behind the net on their own.

moore4807

02-17-2004, 07:07 AM

my $.02
1) Goalie is fair game outside the crease? A B S O L U T E L Y ! ! ! - for the stated reasons - let all players beware!
2) The biggest problem is not diluting talent - I agree the world stage of hockey proves it every 2-4 years... The question is talent (brawny non skating 4th liner winger or small speedy limited skill 4th line winger for open ice... todays answer is the brawny clutch-n-grabber. Tomorrow? depends on the rules adopted by the NHL Board of Governors.... and they dont do it for the integrity of the game, just show them the money and your looking at a pack of Pavlov's pooches!!!!
3) yes a hard cap is needed, yes the players have a RIGHT to the open books, or just bring in the Europeans to play in the AHL/Minors rinks as an alternative and you will see the owners cave when we attend to get our hockey fix! That is a pipe dream - but not altogether unrealistic.... ( regional play of national teams has been done outside of the NHL before... remember Alan Eagleson - before he stole the money...)