Stats aside, your argument is that hockey sucks right now?

Because I think it's the best I've ever seen it.

_________________
Wheelhouse

I didn't say the game sucks. I said the talent levels of the players in the game lend teams to play a more defensive / protective style of play, which is boring.

I feel like I'm watching more and more games that teams are just locking it down when leading after two. Last season, Columbus was the WORST in the league in this category with a record of 24-7-4 (.686) when leading after 2. The majority of the league was at .800 or better, with the Sabres being perfect (30-0-0) when leading after 2.

The league wide average last year is higher than 80% of games played where the 3rd period didn't matter if one team was leading. That's BORING.

In the early 90s, a 2 goal lead going into the 3rd wasn't safe. Even bad teams could close that out on occasion, and good teams could do it with regularity. After the southern expansion and 94 lockout, that trended the other way. Part of it was the trap, but part of it were those extra roster spots. Teams now needed bodies to fill their rosters out, so career AHLers that just didn't have the skill set to compete in the NHL were your new 3rd and 4th liners. They didn't have the offensive talents, but they could sure clog up space. So, coaches did what worked, and prefered an early lead and defense over offensive strategy.

When leading after 2 periods:

97-98: 8 teams below .800 after 2.
98-99: 14 teams below .800 after 2.
99-00: 12 teams below .800 after 2.
00-01: 9 teams below .800 after 2. ** First year with 30 teams.
01-02: 13 teams below .800 after 2.
02-03: 14 teams below .800 after 2.
03-04: 12 teams below .800 after 2.
04-05: LOCKOUT***
05-06: 4 teams below .800 after 2.
06-07: 9 teams below .800 after 2.
07-08: 5 teams below .800 after 2.
08-09: 5 teams below .800 after 2.
09-10: 6 teams below .800 after 2.
10-11: 5 teams below .800 after 2, with 6 right at .800 so far.

Seems to me it wasn't expansion that created this problem. The drop off in those 2nd period comebacks didn't occur until after the lockout.

I don't think it had anything to do with southern expansion. I think it's just an overall improvement in defensive areas of the game.

Goaltenders got a lot better. Coaches started running more intricate systems. Players trained harder.

By the stats shown above, Southern expansion didn't tighten things up; it opened things up.

Either way you look at it, hockey is in very good shape right now, and it's still growing. The NHL isn't in worse shape than it was when Bettman started, so he hasn't done everything wrong.

_________________
Wheelhouse

That explains why the league owns one franchise, and 7 teams are playing in front of less than 80% capacity arenas.

All Bettman has done is increase revenues. That's it. Hockey is still an afterthought in the national sports consciousness, aside from the Winter Classic, which he really didn't come up with on his own. The league still has no national TV contract of substance, and still doesn't matter in the southern teams that he created or moved teams to.

Your historical stats also help reinforce my point. When those teams were new, their teams couldn't hold on to leads because their players weren't good enough defensively, and didn't have enough offensive talent to keep up. Once the lockout happened, and the rules were (allegedly) adjusted to promote offense, teams realized they couldn't keep up offensively, and played a tighter trap and collapse style.

Teams go to a defensive shell for one major reason; they can't score enough to win. They play for a goal or two early, then sit back in a shell.

Watch a game from 1992, then watch one from today. Those early 90's games were much better.

Buffalo just won two games in a row, both of which they were trailing after 2.

I think it's a crock that the game isn't as exciting anymore. It's more exciting. It's faster, it's more physical, and it's gaining ground mainstream.

The NHL playoffs have increased viewership.

Southern expansion teams are struggling to fill arenas right now, but that's because they suck. Would you want to spend money to go see the Florida Panthers struggle to win, year after year after year?

Tampa's winning now, and they had their arena 85% full on Tuesday night against the Leafs.

It'll be interesting to see the attendance of these southern teams if there's an NFL lockout next season.

_________________
Wheelhouse

Alex's spreadsheet pretty much blows this up. Even when the teams are successful , people don't show up. Exception being the Lightning, who drew well in their first season after winning the Cup.

Interesting. I haven't seen that. I'd like to see what the definition of "well," is by that spreadsheet though; one season of success followed by a poor one, or continued success.

I can't imagine if a team won consistently that they'd struggle to fill the stands.

_________________
Wheelhouse

It's hard to argue against what your eyes see, even if you can find stats against it. I also think you should have said "much, much better". Forcing Cindy down people's throats(marketing) is less effective than providing an entertaining game. End of story. Buttman sucks. Like Squanto said, he watered down the booze, and just gave it a fancier label.

Personally What I see is the same interest in hockey as before, just now people know who Crosby is. I know who Lindsay Lohan is but I'm not fucking interested in her. Want proof? Dish Network shows nearly nothing in HD on their Center Ice package because the demand isn't high enough. Try getting away with that on the MLB or NFL packages. The shootout shit was fun at first but when the novelty wore off it got old seeing 60 minutes of hockey decided like that. It's shitty constantly hearing about southern teams floundering. It's doubly shitty watching southerners who won't watch a single fucking game all year cheer for a Cup win when fans up north would kill for that feeling. (I lived in Tampa after the Cup run and couldn't find hockey cards after they won the Cup...WTF?)

I don't know if this is because of Bettman or not, but I would like to see someone in there that would try and balance the whole "Force Americans Hockey" march with some reality.

_________________

They have Hockey Cards?

I've never even seen football cards or basketball cards ever before either.

_________________

Yup. I get the whole box set from Upper Deck each year as a future 18th birthday present to my son. In Tampa they had football, baseball, basketball, NASCAR and GOLF!! fucking gold cards....but no hockey cards after they had just won the Stanley. Now I order online but back then I had just moved back stateside from Germany and my computer and everything was in storage. I wasn't shocked when I first looked in Fort Walton beach but when I visited my Grandma in Tampa I at least expected sports memorabilia shops to have them if not everywhere else.

_________________

I got a lot of games in HD on Dish Network when I had Center Ice.

_________________
Wheelhouse

I don't know if it's a local thing but I only get one game a night (maybe) in HD. Not a single Sabres game has been in HD yet for me.

_________________

Ouch! I don't know what SD would do to my newly adjusted HD retinas.

It would make your retinas throw a beer at your 62 inch HD tv

_________________

really? they have cards for everything. i even have soccer cards from the spanish premier league when i lived in spain as a kid.

_________________

Thats my biggest Bettmen issue... his TV package SUCK BALLS!!! He sould be promoting HD hockey EVERYWHERE! HD has made hockey SOOOO much more enjoyable to watch!!! And you can barely find games.... VS. coverage sucks! And while Center Ice is pretty damn enjoyable, is it available on any other services other than Direct TV... The league is really missing out with piss poor TV deals.... and not promoting HD hockey... hockey aint your same old hockey in HD!!!

_________________