What if the NHL did away with the overtime ‘loser’ point?
One subject that circles around the world of NHL hockey is the discussion of how points are calculated in the standings. As you know, currently 2 points are doled out for wins…a single point if you lose in overtime or the shootout. This formula comes from the past when games ending in a tie score remained so without the need for overtime or the shootout to break it. As such, two points were given for wins and one for each team in games that end in a draw. When the league pushed to insure all games have a declared “winner”, they kept the extra point for teams that lost in extra time…as they would have gained that point in the “old way” of calculating the standings.
However, this point awarded for simply getting the game into overtime before eventually losing is what I call the consolation “loser point”.
Many I’ve spoken to about this cite the inequity of having some games worth 2 points, those that end in regulation…and some games being worth three, such as with any overtime games. To make things more fair, some argue for a three point standard where 3 points are awarded to winners in regulation and doing the 2/1 split when it goes to OT. To be honest…I would prefer this to the current system.
Alex Ovechkin and the Capitals would still be atop the Eastern Conference if only wins and losses counted in the standings...but would that lead be as comfortable? (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)
However, another argument is that if the league is going to insist that each game has a “winner”, then each game must simply have a “loser”…and as such, simply do away with the consolation “loser point”, then go with Ws and Ls. Nothing more, nothing less.
But if the league adopted such a change, would it make much of a difference in the way the standing look today with the current points system?
Well… let’s take a look, shall we, by reviewing theNHL division and conference standings as it looks now that we’ve reached the Olympic break.
In the east, the division leaders…and top-three playoff seeds…are Washington, (90 points)… New Jersey, (77)… and Ottawa, (76). The teams currently holding the wild card positions are Pittsburgh, (76)… Buffalo, (75)… Philadelphia, (67)… Boston, (65)…and Montreal (64). Those on the outside looking in are Tampa Bay, (63)… NY Rangers (63)…Atlanta, (62)…Florida, (58)…NY Islanders, (58)…Carolina, (55)…and Toronto (49).
Out west, it’s San Jose, (89 points), Chicago, (87) and Vancouver, (76) as the division leaders and top-three seeds. The wild card teams are Phoenix, (79)…Los Angeles, (78)…Colorado, (76)…Nashville, (71)…and Calgary (69). Those below the playoff line are Dallas, (68)…Detroit, (68)…Anaheim, (67)…St. Louis, (65)…Minnesota, (64)…Columbus, (60)…and Edmonton, (44).
Now…let’s see how the standings would take shape if only Ws and Ls were taken into consideration. Overtime losses are the same as regulation losses…you know, just like overtimes wins are just like regulation wins.
In this system, the standings would resemble those of Major League Baseball or the NBA…wins, losses and winning percentages are all that matters. Then, there is a calculation of “games behind” for all those who are not in first place.
EASTERN CONFERENCE
Atlantic Division
Team W L Win % GB
New Jersey 37 24 .607 —
Pittsburgh 36 26 .581 1.5
Philadelphia 32 28 .533 4.5
NY Rangers 28 34 .452 9.5
NY Islanders 25 37 .403 12.5
Northeast Division
Team W L Win % GB
Ottawa 36 27 .571 —
Buffalo 33 27 .550 1.5
Montreal 29 34 .460 7.0
Boston 27 33 .450 7.5
Toronto 19 42 .311 16.0
Southeast Division
Team W L Win % GB
Washington 41 21 .661 —
Atlanta 26 34 .433 14.0
Tampa Bay 26 35 .426 14.5
Florida 24 37 .393 16.5
Carolina 24 37 .393 16.5
Eastern Conference Playoff Standings – Division Leaders
Team W L Win % GB
1. Washington 41 21 .661 —
2. New Jersey 37 24 .607 —
3. Ottawa 36 27 .571 —
Eastern Conference Playoff Standings – Wild Card
Team W L Win% GB
4. Pittsburgh 36 26 .581 —
5. Buffalo 33 27 .550 2.0
6. Philadelphia 32 28 .533 3.0
7. Montreal 29 34 .460 7.5
8. NY Rangers 28 34 .452 8.0
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
9. Boston 27 33 .450 8.0
10. Atlanta 26 34 .433 9.0
11. Tampa Bay 26 35 .426 9.5
12. NY Islanders 25 37 .403 11.0
13. Florida 24 37 .393 11.5
14. Carolina 24 37 .393 11.5
15. Toronto 19 42 .311 16.5
WESTERN CONFERENCE
Central Division
Team W L Win % GB
Chicago 41 20 .672 —
Nashville 33 28 .541 8.0
Detroit 28 33 .459 13.0
St. Louis 28 34 .452 13.5
Columbus 25 38 .397 17.0
Northwest Division
Team W L Win% GB
Vancouver 37 24 .607 —
Colorado 35 25 .574 2.0
Minnesota 30 31 .492 7.0
Calgary 30 32 .484 7.5
Edmonton 19 42 .311 18.0
Pacific Division
Team W L Win% GB
San Jose 40 22 .645 —
Los Angeles 37 24 .607 2.5
Phoenix 37 26 .587 3.5
Anaheim 30 32 .484 10.0
Dallas 28 33 .459 11.5
Western Conference Playoff Standings – Division Leaders
Team W L Win % GB
1. Chicago 41 20 .672 —
2. San Jose 40 22 .645 —
3. Vancouver 37 24 .607 —
Western Conference Playoff Standings – Wild Card
Team W L Win% GB
4. Los Angeles 37 24 .607 —
5. Phoenix 37 26 .587 1.0
6. Colorado 35 25 .574 1.5
7. Nashville 33 28 .541 4.0
8. Minnesota 30 31 .492 7.0
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
9. Anaheim 30 32 .484 7.5
10. Calgary 30 32 .484 7.5
11. Detroit 28 33 .459 9.0
12. Dallas 28 33 .459 9.0
13. St. Louis 28 34 .452 9.5
14. Columbus 25 38 .397 12.0
15. Edmonton 19 42 .311 18.0
As you can see, there is no change in regards to the teams that lead the six divisions. However, out west, Chicago would be the top seed…San Jose would be the second. It’s the opposite using today’s NHL point system method.
New Jersey would still be the number two seed in the east, but would trail first-seed Washington by just three games for the top spot in the conference. Right now, they trail the Caps by 13 points. This is because the Devils have just 3 overtime losses…the fewest in the NHL… while the Capitals have eight.
Also, there are some changes in division positioning…case in point, the Thrashers would be in second place in the Southeast and the Lighting would be third. They would also be in 10th place in the conference instead of 11th and just one game out of the final playoff spot.
The Rangers and Flyers also would switch places as would Boston and Montreal, LA and Phoenix as well as Dallas and Anaheim.
In the conference standings, Montreal would move from the eighth and final spot in the east up on notch to seventh…while Boston would fall from 7th to 9th and out of a playoff spot altogether. In their place would go the NY Rangers.
Martin Havlat, Guillaume Latendresse and the Minnesota Wild would benefit most in a Ws & Ls only environment (AP Photo/Tom Olmscheid)
Out west, Minnesota would move all the way up from 13th to 8th, while Calgary would lose it’s playoff spot, going from 8th to 10th. The Wild only have 4 overtime losses, the Flames have 9.
The Dallas Stars and Detroit Red Wings are benefiting most from the current points system given they each have 12 overtime losses. This is why they are but 1 point removed from the playoffs. With just Ws and Ls considered, they drop to the 11th and 12th spots in the Western Conference…but still just 2 games out.
Also worth noting is how Carolina would not be alone in the southeast cellar…they would actually be tied with Florida. The Panthers currently posses 10 “loser” points while the Hurricanes have just 7.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
175 comments Add your comment
J (Z)
February 15th, 2010
8:09 pm
Perty! Now how about standings if we used the olympic style 3 for a reg win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for an OTL????
rob
February 15th, 2010
8:17 pm
The problem with the NHL is the consistant changes. The only rule that I think has been benefitial to the league is the 2 line pass. Go back to the old when you tie, you tie, and get 1 point each, win in OT you get 2, lose you get zilch zero nada nothing. If you want a definite winner, than the loser gets nothing. I don’t like the shootout myself. This is a TEAM sport, not an individual one. Give them 4 on 4, which I do enjoy, in OT for 10 minutes, and call it a game. 1 point each if no one has scored in 10 minutes.
Brian
February 15th, 2010
8:34 pm
I prefer this : 3 for regulation wins, 2 for OT win, 1 for shootout win, and 0 for losing. This encourages teams to win in regulation, and rewards them for being able to close the deal there. Only 2 points if you require extra time for that victory. 1 point if you had to go to the shootout. 0 for losing, because we don’t give out points for not winning.
If they don’t want to do that, they should simply do away with the shootout and OT and let there be ties/draws and simply accept it.
World Be Free
February 15th, 2010
9:00 pm
Nice work Bill-you are burning the midnight oil while Vivs takes a break. I say leave it the way it is with the loser point, because it’s tough to take something away once you put it in.
And I totally agree with rob on the two line pass. It really opens up the neutral zoner and keeps the d-men looking behind them. I played in a B league in the early 80’s that took out the center line. That is real tough on defenseman, especially on teams like the ones I played on with lazy forwards that don’t backcheck. You know, like Jagr, Ovechkin and Kovalchuk.
Brendan
February 15th, 2010
9:02 pm
I LOVE this blog topic. And my vote does go to straight up wins and losses. And let me explain why.
When the CBA “allegedly, supposedly” leveled the ice surface between Detroit and Phoenix (Pfft!), the need for “pity points” disappeared, once you factor that the new CBA also introduced a shootout. Well, forgive me for stating something obvious. Ready for it? Every game is both “won” and “lost.” I can support the “pity point” system, but only to a degree, because it addresses the “financial inequities” that exist among teams. Even now, post lockout. When the floor of the cap exceeds the initial ceiling back in 2005, there’s plenty of financial disparity. Now, I hear ya, whoever just shouted, “But Brendan, there’s revenue sharing dollars getting pumped into Phoenix from Detroit, to the tune of $19 million. $17 million goes to Atlanta, etc.”
Well, do Phoenix and Atlanta, or even San Jose, spend to the cap limits? I guess, “sometimes yes” and “sometimes no” is the technical answer. But I’m not buying into revenue-sharing fixing everything. You’ve still got to attract Tier I players to your ARTIFICALLY PROPPED UP market. And that’s a tough sell. But I digress.
Even with the uphill ice surfaces that Atlanta, Edmonton, Buffalo, and Phoenix face, it actually doesn’t radically alter the outcome of shootouts. Bear with me. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Edmonton is the smallest, poorest market in the NHL. And that … they have to resort to RFA offersheet tactics just to get a player like Dustin Penner into the fold. Still with me? Well, shouldn’t Edmonton’s record in shootouts be abysmal, since it’s so poor? And can’t attract top tiered talent? And so forth? Well, one might THINK that. But it’s simply NOT TRUE. The Edmonton Oilers are, historically, one of the very MOST SUCCESSFUL teams in the shootout. Detroit, for example, doesn’t really hold some shootout mastery statistic, despite their “windfall” of cashflow. If the Oilers face the Red Wings in a shootout, I’d actually bet on Edmonton to win it.
If someone can show me a valid statistic … that states that “poor teams have no shot against a RICH team,” then I’d have greater support for the “pity point.” Now, I do hear you, for those of you who just screamed, “But Brendan, just to GET to the shootout, or overtime, the POOR team had to skate uphill for 60 minutes. Before the puck was even dropped, the score read Detroit 2, Edmonton 0.” I’ll certainly listen to that as an argument. But Edmonton manages to get to overtimes and shootouts with pretty good consistency. And once there, tends to win. Moreover, what do the Oilers do with their revenue-sharing dollars??? Well, forgive me for suggesting that they should place them into payroll, to field a better team. And yes, I’m fully aware that the Oilers, like the Thrashers, have to OVERPAY to get good players to sign there. Or even mediocre ones, like Ron Hainsey. Fiiiiine.
But conceptually, forgetting the economics of the game, the mechanism is in place for wins and losses. Until the shootout goes away, we shouldn’t have to “prentend” that TIES still exist. They don’t. There are no TIES in the NHL, anymore. Let me state something for the record. “I never, ever viewed TIES as something evil or sinister, to be avoided AT ALL COSTS.” A “tie” was a perfectly fine outcome for a game, to me. But since the advent of the shootout, there’s NO PURPOSE to a “points system” for hockey. In fact, it NEEDLESSLY complicates things. For then… the mathematicians come out of the woodwork to explain what VALUE is. Sheesh. Spare me. I don’t want mathematical formulas, when the VALUE of a game, … is ONE GAME out of 82 on the schedule. You either win the game. Or you DON’T. And you face the CONSEQUENCES of losing it. If you FEAR the shootout, alter your strategy. Go balls to the wall in the 5-minute overtime, or gamble like crazy in the final 2-3 minutes of regulation time. For any way you lose the game, it’s still a LOSS, in the world of straight up “wins and losses.” But COURAGE isn’t the strongsuit of the NHL. They still have this misplaced notion of the “Welfare State.” There’s no longer a need for a “hand out” or “hand up.” Every single team … has the EXACT SAME salary parameters. And those who are poor, get revenue-sharing dollars. That owners decide to put those dollars into their back pockets instead of reinvesting it into team payroll … is a whole other issue. I think the NHL should FORCE the ownership to place every dollar they get in revenue-sharing into player salary. In short, I think every team in the whole league … should spend to the MAX CAP limit by the trade deadline, if they’re not already there, or close to being Maxed out, on “Opening Night.” Thus my concludes my seminar. Questions?
Brendan
February 15th, 2010
9:49 pm
Brian, I think your post is an intriguing one. I’d support ditching the shootout, and sharing the points with a tie. But I just don’t see the NHL doing that, since the shootout generates SportsCenter highlights and visibility for the league. And fans seem to like it. Though, I’d be the first one to say that “hockey is a team game; wins in the standings shouldn’t be decided by an individual skills competition.” But the fact is, they ARE. When a team wins a shootout, it counts same as a regulation time win. I don’t like it. But I live with it.
Now, regarding your points system, of 3 for a regulation time win, 2 for an overtime win, and 1 for a shootout loss, with nothing for the loser, that does sound tempting. There will be a lot of support for that, I would think. But it’ll bring out the mathematicians to argue what the “value” of a game should be. And then, it starts to get overly complicated. Should the team that’s down by 3-points in the standings, pull its goalie in the final 30 seconds, to try for the regulation time win? Or should it settle for the possibility of 2-points, by winning in overtime? And again, should they pull their goalie in the final 30 seconds of overtime, to try for the two points? Or, do they simply take their chances in the shootout, to try to salvage 1 point?
That’s a whole lot of scenarios. When simplicity tells us, “games are either won or lost.” Forget about the points, that complicate things. If you go to 3-points for regulation time win, some team will get 50 regulation time wins and earn 150 points, thus SHATTERING the Montreal Canadiens single season point record. Then the record book has to insert asteriks for Games Played and an explanatory note that indicates that, in that era, wins were counted for 2-points, not three. And so forth. Whereas, I think we can still “reasonably” argue that the standard of a benchmark season is 50 wins in lieu of “100-points.” 50 wins would equal 100-points, under the current formula. A record of 50-32 would certainly put a team in the playoffs. And yes, with straight up wins and losses, teams with a record of 37-45 will make the playoffs, too, at the #8 seed. This is what the Atlanta Hawks did two seasons ago. Sure, it looks bad. But really, playoffs are just about being the Top Eight teams in the conference, irrespective of whether that record is a winning one or not. I, personally, wouldn’t want to see a 30-52 team make the playoffs, but it could happen that way, at some point.
FlamesFan
February 15th, 2010
10:02 pm
I do not think you will ever see the “loser point” go away. It allows for more teams to have “winning” seasons, with more wins than loses (as long as you do not count an OTL as a loss). In an 82 game season, if you end up with at least 82 points, then you have at least a .500 season. I believe that the NHL marketing folks at the like the idea of more “successful” teams.
Rawhide
February 15th, 2010
10:26 pm
Brian & rob – For the record, I too have no issues with ties…and the shootout is an abomination. I hate that an individual skills contest decides a professiona team sport. That being said, it is a fan favorite and will be with us for years to come.
shrugs…it is what it is.
Brendan – As always, I enjoy benefiting from your “seminars”. Now, to take one small snippet from your eloquent posts…the Hawks did indeed make the playoffs two years ago with a record of 37-45…a .451 winning %.
That would be very similar to the Thrashers of 2007-08, who finished with 34 wins and 48 losses, (again, using just the Ws and Ls format), making the playoffs and taking the Detroit Red Wings, (54-28 that season), to a seventh and deciding game.
The Hawks then took the number one seed Boston Celtics…who went 66-16 during the season and ultimately won the NBA championship that year…to a seventh game in that series. The fan base in Atlanta was re-energized and the team benefited greatly from that thrilling series. It was amazing and fun to follow.
That’s one of the reason I believe it’s better to make the playoffs…even if it is as a lower seed…then to not, even if ya know there is no way you’re gonna win it all.
FlamesFan – I think you’re comments are not without merit…it inflates records.
kracker
February 15th, 2010
10:43 pm
I haven’t even read past the title yet! NO NO NO!! Awarding nothing for hockey players playing three grueling, bone-breaking NHL periods at even score is an absolutely abhorent idea. Then they play an OT/SO and still lose for nothing??? Total non-starter of an idea, imo. This will quickly and completely bury the several teams struggling early in the season and they will start mailing it in by mid-November or early December at the latest. duh! Just go back to wins and ties if the loser point ticks ppl off so much.
I’ll go on record again as favoring the 3 point games. 3 points for a regulation win. 2 points for an OT win. 1 point for an OTL. 0 points fort a regulation loss. You start every game with the possibility of earning 0 to 3 points. If the NHL wants excitement in the points race, this is it! If a team has a monster early month with a lot of regulations wins they can set themselves up. Unless they fade in the spring and get passed by the teams that get hot in the spring…etc etc etc, the possible scenarios are many.
kracker
February 15th, 2010
10:51 pm
Sorry. Let me clarify” “Just go back to wins and ties at the end of three periods if the loser point ticks ppl off so much.”
Brendan
February 15th, 2010
11:34 pm
Kracker, even a team 10-23 at Christmas, isn’t out of it. Not when 37-45 might get that very same team into the playoffs. (That’s 27-22 the rest of the way. Not exactly an impossible mission, either.) It’s a long, long season. Starting out 10-23 is a bad start. But even the team that begins 23-10 … hasn’t locked up a blessed thing at Christmas. The beauty of wins and losses is … you must keep on winning. If, at 23-10, they go on an eight game losing streak, 23-18 puts them right back in the middle of the pack. Likewise, the 10-23 team that strings eight wins together … is 18-23, good enough for about 7th or 8th spot, in any given year.
The W-L standings completely changes the “mindset” to a game. There’s no consolation prize. If Detroit leads Columbus, 3-1, with 1:23 left in regulation, but surrenders a PPG, and then the Blue Jackets pull their goalie for the equalizer, the game is going to overtime. Where, again, it will be won or lost. And let’s say it goes to the shootout. But Columbus wins. Guess what Detroit got? Guess what Columbus got? And the lesson learned by the Red Wings, on that particular evening, is that a game is 60-minutes long. If you don’t win it … you don’t win it. In that respect, it’s just like the playoffs. That’s why I like the playoffs so much! It’s “Win, or face the consequences. No pity points in the playoffs.”
Even good teams like San Jose, Detroit, and Chicago are going to lose games to Columbus and Edmonton down the stretch. Wins and losses also reinforce “accountability.” Just because games 80, 81, and 82 are against Edmonton, Columbus, and Anaheim doesn’t mean they’re three guaranteed wins. Those games MUST be played … and MUST be won. That’s the beauty of it. Results … and consequences. Seems fair to me. It seem “right.”
DWTOO
February 15th, 2010
11:38 pm
Go back to the original game. A regulation tie – both teams get a point. End of story.
Yung JB from MTL
February 15th, 2010
11:42 pm
Trade White & Kozlov, then the OT-point problem will be resolved
Brendan
February 15th, 2010
11:44 pm
And another things, imagine … down the stretch … that there were no “pity points” for losing, in the playoff race. And that it really were this simple. “We need TB to lose its last two games, while we win our last two games, and the Rangers split their last two, to make the playoffs.” You won’t ever see that. You won’t see something that “cut and dry.” For those consolation points will muddy up the waters of point totals. And push a team like the Rangers or Montreal right into the playoffs, even though they LOST their last four games of the season. Imagine it? Losing four or five games to end the season, but all in overtime or a shootout, to push them into the postseason.
Sickening, isn’t it? But it’s allllllllllllll legal. The NHL says, “That’s okay! Go ahead. Lose your way into the playoffs.”
@ least we'll always have 1999
February 16th, 2010
12:23 am
I was a goalie and as a goalie the shootout is awsome.
Thrashette
February 16th, 2010
12:29 am
Omg. There’s rumors all over on chat rooms that Thashers are moving to Winnerpeg? Any one see this. Sold to 24th richest guy in the world (David Tompson). Check out HF Boards under business section.
Wayne stuck in AL
February 16th, 2010
12:48 am
Dear Thrashette:
For the 1,249th time, the team isn’t moving to “Winnerpeg”. At least not for next season…
Tony C.
February 16th, 2010
1:20 am
I like the 3pts system;
Regulation Win=3pts
OT/SO Win=2pts winner, 1pt loser
Barry
February 16th, 2010
1:34 am
Interesting perspective. I’ll say this Atlanta 26-34 sure looks down right UGLY.
World Be Free
February 16th, 2010
5:33 am
You all make interesting points here guys, but I just don’t see the league changing the format as it is today. Eliminating the Shootout (exciting) or taking away points makes no sense because the fans like the points and the shootout. Fans say after regulation, “well, at least we got a point” for the team’s effort.
It’s like the 3 point shot in basketball; I hate the 3 point, but you can’t take it away because there’s not enough scoring in the NBA as it is. I hate the designated hitter in the American League, but you can’t remove it because it generates offense and fan interest.
I don’t see the league approving the sale of a team to move from Atlanta to Winnipeg.
World Be Free
February 16th, 2010
8:43 am
Some of you took issue with me the other day because of my general opposition to the Olympics. Well here’s a doozy concerning the U.S. Olympic Hockey Team.
The IOC is making Ryan miller remove “Miller Time” from his helmet because they are calling it advertising when it merely refers to his style of play. They are also making him remove his cousin’s name from his helmet, a kid who died from cancer. They are also making Jonathan Quick remove “Support Our Troops” from his mask because it’s considered propaganda.
The IOC is about as useful as the U.N. They have turned the Olympics into one big commercial disaster and now they want to shut it off when it pleases them. What a joke.
POTF
February 16th, 2010
8:45 am
Don’t really like the shootout. But if your gonna have it, how about a 2 on 2. Goalie/Defensman vs. 2 Offensive players?
MASHAPlayer7
February 16th, 2010
9:12 am
I agree with the shootout dissenters…but it’s an entertaining facet of the game and professional sports, well, it’s the entertainment business.
I completely agree with the “wins are wins” and “losses our losses” approach. I dislike consolation points. I’m sorry – you lose, you lose.
Given my position, I would say that the shootout needs to extended to 5 rounds…a slightly more equitable approach to finishing a game with “individual skills contest (Rawhide)”. The 3 round approach stenches of an NFL OT format where the team winning the coin flip wins the game on the 1st drive more than 50% of the time and the other team doesn’t even get a chance on offense.
LAC
February 16th, 2010
9:20 am
Very interesting concept Bill, Those three point games have hurt us more in the past than helped I think.
What if you got three points for a regulation win.
Two points for an overtime win.
One point for a shootout win.
With the losing team getting no points.
Thus the longer the games goes, the fewer points you can get. Would make the teams push harder in close games in regulation.
R. Stroz
February 16th, 2010
9:50 am
The IOC is making Ryan miller remove “Miller Time” from his helmet because they are calling it advertising when it merely refers to his style of play. They are also making him remove his cousin’s name from his helmet, a kid who died from cancer. They are also making Jonathan Quick remove “Support Our Troops” from his mask because it’s considered propaganda.
Both goalies should go on the ice with their masks adorned the way they please and dare the IOC to turn the situation into a “free speech” issue, the same “free speech” our ancestors have paid for with their lives.
Donovan McNabb
February 16th, 2010
10:16 am
Do away with the one point for loosing.
If they do eliminate the shootout the NHL needs to go to a full period OT like we have in the NFL and then if no scoring the game ends in a tie.
Rawhide
February 16th, 2010
10:20 am
Thrashette – Is this the “rumor” you are referring to? The “Classic Rock” radio station starting a “rumor” about the Thrashers moving to Winnipeg?
Yeah, I saw it….yawn
Same ‘ol male bovine excretion we’ve been having to deal with for years around here.
See this is much like the guys at Dave-FM posting up some comment about Ted Turner buying the Toronto Raptors of the NBA and moving them to Helena, Montana. Whatev…
Now…what’ll be interesting is what are they gonna say two weeks from now after the Olympics are over and no announcement is made…???
Nikita (in PA)
February 16th, 2010
10:27 am
I like the “loser’s point” — where I see the problem is that a game ending in regulation and a game ending in OT don’t count equally.
Zoomo
February 16th, 2010
10:33 am
I likr the idea of 3 points for a win. With 3 points being split to the Winner (2) and Loser (1) for OTs and Shootouts. The extra point is bogus.
And, Brendan – thanks for your thoughful reply post in the prior blog. I agree with you on most points. And ,I think you nailed it that winning backs fans will be harder than starting from scratch which is why I’d like to see the owners (we have owners?) do a better job aligning with the media for some more positive press regarding the entertainment aspect of hockey, if not postive news about the team.
I think the fact that hockey is a great, and addictive game, is lost here in Atlanta. I’ve seen it happen many times with people from work, who go to one game and are now fans. Gotta work that angle more now than ever.
J(Z)
February 16th, 2010
10:38 am
Ok, I crunched some numbers, I’m sure this won’t show up and be pretty, but if they went to a Win-Loss OTWin-OTLoss system, here’s your standings…
East Team W-L W-L(OT)(Pts)
1 Washington 34-13 7-8 (124)
2 New Jersey 29-21 8-3 (106)
3 Ottawa 28-23 8-4 (104)
4 Pittsburgh 26-22 10-4 (102)
5 Buffalo 26-18 7-9 (101)
6 Philadelphia 27-25 5-3 (94)
7 NY Rangers 25-27 3-7 (88)
8 Tampa Bay 20-24 6-11 (83)
9 Atlanta 20-24 6-10 (82)
10 Boston 17-22 10-11 (82)
11 Montreal 16-28 13-6 (80)
12 Florida 18-27 6-10 (76)
13 Carolina 19-30 5-7 (74)
14 NY Islanders 13-29 12-8 (71)
15 Toronto 18-31 1-11 (67)
West Team W-L W-L(OT)(Pts)
1 San Jose 33-13 7-9 (122)
2 Chicago 28-15 13-5 (115)
3 Vancouver 32-22 5-2 (108)
4 Colorado 29-20 6-6 (105)
5 Los Angeles 27-20 10-4 (105)
6 Phoenix 25-21 12-5 (104)
7 Nashville 25-23 8-5 (96)
8 Calgary 25-23 5-9 (94)
9 Anaheim 24-25 6-7 (91)
10 Dallas 22-21 6-12 (90)
11 Detroit 22-21 6-12 (90)
12 Minnesota 22-27 8-4 (86)
13 St. Louis 20-25 8-9 (85)
14 Columbus 20-28 5-10 (80)
15 Edmonton 14-36 5-6 (58)
World Be Free
February 16th, 2010
10:39 am
Stroz-totally and completely agree my friend.
Concerning the IOC, if you look at their origins, it’s a pretty good chance we had to militarily save their hides from speaking a different language. These pompous fat cats never fought for anything other than 4 star restaurants and 5 star hotels. Juan Antonio can shove his “most exceptional” up his best intentions.
World Be Free
February 16th, 2010
10:39 am
Sorry for getting off track, back on subject.
Smoothie
February 16th, 2010
10:41 am
The IOC is about as useful as the U.N. They have turned the Olympics into one big commercial disaster and now they want to shut it off when it pleases them. What a joke.
WBF – here, here! A complete unmitigated joke of an organization. Perhaps Miller should paint over Miller Time and have his mask read: “The IOC Sux” on it instead. What are they gonna do? Give him a game misconduct? Jack-legs.
As for the distribution of points issue, I’m with Bill on this one. After several years of the current system, it does seem to reward mediocrity and shoot-out specialists. If not for the likes of Hossa, Kozlov and Erik Christensen, would the Thrashers have garnered as many “winner” points as they have over the years?
The 3 point system in which more emphasis is put on a regulation win would be nice. It would separate the pack quite a bit more. But alas, the NHL doesn’t want that. They want everyone making their push to the playoffs in March. And with some teams better than others in shoot-out proficiency, we’re seeing too many “not to lose” efforts in OT in hopes of garnering the 2nd point. Rewarding a team 3 points for a regulation win might incent teams to at least try harder at the end of a game to score rather than be satisfied going to OT.
Bob
February 16th, 2010
10:43 am
The loser point is aptly named, points for losing? Ridiculous. At a minimum they should go to 3pts for winning in regulation, and then do the 2-1 split for the OT/shootout. The casual fan does like the shootout, as opposed to the old tie games.
“There’s rumors all over on chat rooms that Thashers are moving to Winnerpeg? Any one see this. Sold to 24th richest guy in the world (David Tompson). Check out HF Boards under business section.”
I just read that thread, let’s of smoke going on. Makes you go, hmmm, and wonder what may be true, when you consider what we do know from our end. Spirit would like to sell the Thrashers. Phillips looking to get out of the naming rights (they may have been told of a sale). Waddell kept in place year after year when we know he’s incompetent, yet the owners like him (for keeping to a budget?), and salary was just rushed to be dumped in the form of Kari, before the break, and no bid Kovy contract. Very interesting.
Toby
February 16th, 2010
10:43 am
Who wants to spend around $200 for a family of 4 to go with a hockey game and leave with the result being a tie? That’s awful. A tie should have no place in sports.
World Be Free
February 16th, 2010
11:02 am
Smoothie-just got my blood up.
Toby-ties are like kissing your sister during Kiss Cam!
Rawhide
February 16th, 2010
11:25 am
J(Z) – Well done, my friend…
Dwayne
February 16th, 2010
11:31 am
based on Atl’s last 3 games…4 points, do the same for the last 22 games, say we get a point for the 22nd game, Atl. has 91 points, games in hand against the 3 teams directly ahead, and games in hand on all 4 teams behind. Will 91 gets us in?
Dwayne
February 16th, 2010
11:35 am
name me ONE fan that would be happy with a tie…not a fan in my book, they might as well go…%&*@……..their sister. %&*@=kiss you filthy bestards.
Smoothie
February 16th, 2010
11:37 am
Bob, do you really think the Thrashers would be more viable over a 10 year period in Winnipeg? Perhaps they’ll be okay due to revenue sharing for a little while, but I don’t see ANY small market doing better than the other small markets right now or Atlanta in the short-term.
The NBA can’t make any money, the NFL is about to go into a lockout and the MLB has their own share of small markets suffering due to over-expansion. The problem isn’t with Atlanta, it’s a symptom of expansion and over-saturation of the market…not to mention ridiculous salary inflation in sports. How many casual fans have stopped going because they resent the high ticket prices and the overpaid athelete?
I bet Atlanta would be more successful if there were 6 fewer teams in the NHL. A 24-team league would be better and more economically sustainable. Plus the talent pool wouldn’t be as diluted and the team would be more talented more of the time regardless of superstar defection.
Do we really need hockey in Columbus, Tampa AND Miami, Phoenix, Anaheim AND San Jose? Winnipeg wasn’t viable then and it wouldn’t be viable now. The cty of Quebec couldn’t even keep their owner happy. And as we know, if your owner(s) aren’t committed, you’re screwed. Would you want to run a sports franchise in this corrupt, poorly run city?
Cut down on the number of owners to 24 and I bet you see everything improve. I’m all for hockey in the South, but not when there are this many teams in the league. If Atlanta loses its team, then Phoenix, Florida, Columbus, Colorado (have you seen their pathetic attendance?)the Islanders and a team in California should be contracted as well.
Smoothie
February 16th, 2010
11:40 am
Dwayne – yes, 91 points does it. Might even get us the # 7 seed. Oh how I would love a showdown with the “Kovy-led” Devils. 88-90 may be enough for the # 8 seed based on our schedule, the number of games-in-hand we have and the number of common opponents fighting for the same points.
jt
February 16th, 2010
11:45 am
The Thrashers are not leaving for Winnepeg or anywhere else right now.
MASHAPlayer7
February 16th, 2010
11:49 am
Hey everyone – off topic, but a nice article on Kulda. http://theahl.com/kulda-has-a-mentor-on-his-nhl-quest-p140775
Dwayne
February 16th, 2010
11:51 am
If Atlanta loses another hockey team, their new name should have to be the Nomads, The Wanderers, or The Island of Misfit Toys.
Darren
February 16th, 2010
11:54 am
I have never been a fan of the 3/2/1 system.
Make wins in regulation or overtime worth 2 points, make shootout wins worth 1 point. No charity point. Also, I think they should extend overtime to 10 minutes, making the shootout more rare, and thus, more special. Teams won’t just be able to trap and play for the 1 point tie in regulation, plus playing it safe in overtime means they lose out, too.
Viking
February 16th, 2010
11:54 am
In other countries, three points are awarded for a win, one point for losing in overtime, two points for winning in overtime or shootout, and zero points for a loss in regulation. This is how the Czech Extraliga, Finnish SM-Liiga and the Swedish Elite Leaugue does it. I do not know how it is done in KHL and other places. Additionally, if I am not mistaken, (at least in Sweden), you are not allowed to substitute the goalie for a regular player in OT, unless there is a power play coming up. Likely for reasons Brendan touched on earlier.
The current format in the NHL is horrible from a “sportsman’s point of view”. The fact that games can result in 2 or 3 points awarded is just awful. Especially for other teams at playoff crunch time. And it is highly aggravating when you check “Tonight’s Freebie Point Games”.
I guess the main reasoning behind this “NHL hybrid” instead of a 3 point only system is that the point spread between teams tightens. Which supposedly will put more butts in the seats. On the other hand, a coming from behind hot team will in a 3 point format be rewarded for regulation wins and can quickly advance in the standings. Which also will increase attendance.
I am sure they will not do away with the shootouts, but it will somewhat increase fairness to go 5 rounds instead of 3 (like MASHAPlayer7 suggested).
World Be Free, in my opinion it makes perfect sense to disallow personal messages on the Olympians. What the message is saying is irrelevant and it needs to be a clear cut rule like no messages – period. For instance, “Support our troops” or something of that nature sounds good to an American audience, but might be highly offensive to folks in other nations.
Dwayne
February 16th, 2010
11:59 am
What if the message was Support all Troops?
Bob
February 16th, 2010
12:08 pm
I agree with your points, Smoothie. The market is overly saturated, the ticket prices are too high, the athletes are being overpaid, it’s just another symptom of the excesses that have been going on all over the country for far too long.
Keep this in mind though, the Winnipeg rumor has a very rich guy buying the team (and apparently this guy just sold off one of his businesses raising major cash–huge red flag there, this isn’t the time to be buying and selling businesses). My point is when you’re a rich guy flush with cash, you spend the excess money on luxury items. And if the guy is a huge hockey fan, he would be willing to eat losses to bring his town a team and own an NHL club. You also have the appreciation of the asset over time. That’s what I’ve always hoped for here, one rich guy to own the club who loved hockey and wouldn’t run the club off it’s balance sheet and income statement, but would run the team out of love of the game, and to win.
Smoothie
February 16th, 2010
12:11 pm
“Chelios, who recently celebrated his 48th birthday, won his first Stanley Cup – with Montreal in 1986 – more than two years before the 21-year-old Kulda was even born.
As you might expect, the experience of playing with such an accomplished veteran has been invaluable to the up-and-coming prospect.
“He’s played a lot, he knows the game, and I’m trying to listen to everything he says,” said Kulda. “He always talks with me on the ice and off the ice, and he’s just a role model for anyone who wants to play the game for a long time.”
Kulda especially credits Chelios with improving his decision-making with the puck in the defensive zone, his positional play and his work on the penalty kill – a situation where the pair is frequently on the ice for Chicago.”
Three things:
1) Great link MASHA!! Kulda deserves some ink.
2) The fact that Cheli is 48 and still THIS effective, even at the AHL level, is amazing.
3) WBF and I have been hammering home the importance of a mentor for Zach and Cheli should be given a contract for the rest of the season. There are only 4 back-to-back games and we would have the depth to do it in March with Pops and Shubie on the bench / in the pressbox.
R. Stroz
February 16th, 2010
12:11 pm
I see nothing wrong with “Support Our Troops.” That’s about as tame a message as can be delivered.
Now, if the message was “Smash the Diaperheads”, that would be different.
I’ll laugh my butt off if the some medal winner says “I’m going to Disney World” after winning a medal.
Viking
February 16th, 2010
12:25 pm
Stroz, it is tame in our eyes, but again, the perception of the US is not the same around the world. I do not think we would enjoy to see a North Korean display anything that remotely could be interpreted as anti-american either.
Smoothie
February 16th, 2010
12:30 pm
“My point is when you’re a rich guy flush with cash, you spend the excess money on luxury items. And if the guy is a huge hockey fan, he would be willing to eat losses to bring his town a team and own an NHL club. You also have the appreciation of the asset over time. That’s what I’ve always hoped for here, one rich guy to own the club who loved hockey and wouldn’t run the club off it’s balance sheet and income statement, but would run the team out of love of the game, and to win.”
Bob, can’t really argue with this point either. Sports as a whole were better off when extremely rich owners with cash to burn started franchises as hobbies and for the love of the game. It’s such big business now that it is harder for newer teams to compete just like it’s harder to penetrate markets now as a new business without some competitive advantage. The only competitive advantage Winnipeg would have is a dedicated, loyal and extremely wealthy SINGLE owner. But don’t you think Bettman won’t try to steer him in the direction of Phoenix if he’s willing to pay more than $140 M (Ice Edge Holdings or whatever they’re called doesn’t seem like the most viable solution) for a franchise? We can only hope that Bettman will come to the rescue and steer new investors / owners in the right direction.
Hockey CAN BE SUCCESSFUL in this market. First, with better ownership. Second, with better marketing of US and Canadian born players (sorry Ilya & Kari), more advertising, community involvement in terms of growing youth hockey etc. Third, a bigger investment in the product not only in terms of players, but capital re-investment in the arena, better pay for low-end employees and more affordable tickets in the form of price-point adjustments for weekdays versus weekends, less attractive opponents and the like. In fact, NHL re-allignment in which Atlanta isn’t stuck with the other SE Division teams 6 times each per year would go a long way. Can you imagine how much better attendance would be if there were only 2 divisions and Atlanta played Buffalo, Montreal, Boston, Toronto and Carolina 6 or 8 times a year instead?
Bill – sorry for hi-jacking this thread, but I get bored with the NHL point distribution argument. Of all the things needing changing in the league, I think this will be towards the bottom of the agenda list for Mr. Bettman. They need to deal with stricter punishment for head-shots, flying elbows to blind-side receivers (see Salmela vs Carter), and hits to prone players along the board. Start levying mandatory fines and suspensions for certain types of hits and I bet you see the number of injuries decrease as well as the silly fights that erupt after someone delivers a solid, legal hit to a star player.
TommyT4
February 16th, 2010
12:37 pm
I would be in favor of a system that makes the records look reasonable when you look at them. In other words, something much closer to just wins and losses. I am further in favor of anything that extends the 4 on 4 OT period in length as I think that is the most exciting thing in hockey. Recognizing that the League is not likely to forego the shootout for the reasons that others have correctly deduced, I would offer the following: 2 points for a regulation or OT or SO win (OT would be 4 on 4 for a full 20 minute period, sudden death). If still tied after OT, there is a 3 round SO. Loser of OT or SO is SOL (i.e. no charity point). If still tied after 3 rounds of SO, both teams earn a point for the tie. This method would make ties quite rare, so as to avoid for the most part the complaints of the “kissing the sister” crowd. This also avoids the confusing 3/2/1 method that would change all of the record books as noted by another, and would require too much mathematical analysis to determine how your team is faring. Further, records would look reaonable in that teams might have records of something like 32-20-1 rather than 21-20-12 which looks assinine and can be read as an “over .500 record” or as “a crappy team that is way under a .500 team” dependent on your viewpoint (as we can attest with our hometown Thrash). I think this would work and encourages teams to go hard throughout regulation and OT.
kracker
February 16th, 2010
12:39 pm
Smoothie – “Oh how I would love a showdown with the “Kovy-led” Devils.”
Roger that!
Someone asked a week or so ago if the Thrash somehow finish higher than the Devils, do we still swap 2nd round picks (the Kovalchuk trade)? That would really be funny if Lou didn’t make it conditional on NJ having the better record!
World Be Free
February 16th, 2010
12:48 pm
Viking-most of the people that are offended by “Support our Troops” have at one time been saved by our troops. The guy is not dressing in fatigues or anything; you don’t notice it unless you zoom in on his helmet.
If we are going to stop these messages, then we need to initiate dress codes and strict regulations of what people say and do. No more victory laps draped in flags of any country, It should start and end with American goalies.
Propaganda-The Eastern Bloc nations used the Olympics as propaganda tools to further their ideology for decades. They had to pay their “amateur” athletes or give them bogus jobs in the respective governments. In contrast, our amateur athletes struggled to pay their bills; the AOC was funded by donations. As an American fencer once said- “there’s too much month at the end of my money”.
And finally, the Russian hockey players for decades played for “Central Red Army” which was never considered propaganda? And all one of our guys wants to say is support our troops.
Too many of us have lost family members who stormed beaches or jumped from airplanes in foreign countries to be too concerned about offending people who won’t pickup a gun to save themselves. Viking-I don’t disrespect your opinion, I just see a different angle.
TableHockey
February 16th, 2010
12:50 pm
Well whatever these Winnipeg rumors are – we will apparently know soon. Lots of buzz about a March 4th presser out there.
Generally I’m pretty dismissive about these types of rumors but I am a little concerned given the recent news about Phillips trying to get out of their agreement with the arena.
Of course recent comments from Bettman made it seem like he was bent on keeping hockey in ATL.
World Be Free
February 16th, 2010
12:52 pm
Smoothie-keep hammering my friend
Stroz-“Smash the Diaperheads” is a classic. Can we get those shirts for the March home games?
Brendan
February 16th, 2010
12:57 pm
Again, I think the points-based system is totally unnecessary, once you adopt the shootout. That’s where we are right now–the NHL has a shootout. In my view, points should have disappeared after the Lockout. If you ditch the shootout, then points come back into play. I definitely would prefer a game to have a decided outcome, in lieu of a tie. But I’d rather have the tie than the awarding of points for losing. Losing shouldn’t result in any points. A tie can result in a point, since it’s not a LOSS. I’m perfectly fine with one-point being awarded for a tie.
If the NHL asked me for a solution, here’s what I’d say. We ditch the shootout and we resurface the ice after 60 minutes, with a 7-10 intermission. The next 20 minutes of “sudden death” overtime play would be 4-on-4, until there is a winner. If there still isn’t a winner, we resurface the ice with a 7 minute intermission, teams remain on their respective benches. Then we put up another 20-minutes on the clock, playing 3-on-3 hockey. I really don’t think it would ever come to that. And, gasp, if 3-on-3 doesn’t produce a winner, after 20 minutes, then we introduce the shootout. But we WILL HAVE winners and losers for every game, with a W-L, pct., Games Up-Games Back type of legend for standings.
This whole notion of “trying real hard” is rediculous. Every team, in theory, tries really hard. But if the “really trying hard” team loses … they LOSE. That’s it. Period, the end. The notion of dispensing “points for effort” is laugh-out-loudable. The points, if points must be maintained, should be for actual results. I don’t favor the 3-2-1-0 approach. It’s too convoluted. The value of a game shouldn’t be measured in points. The value of a game should be the GAME, itself, representing 1/82nd of a season.
lilibeter
February 16th, 2010
12:58 pm
I am a huge believer in fairness, and the system as it exists today does not seem at all fair to me. I find nothing fair in the fact that teams who win in regulation are awarded the same number of points as teams who go to overtime or to the shootout. For that matter, I absolutely do not believe the shootout is a valid decision-making mechanism for deciding which team should win a tied game. As a perfect example, look at our shootout loss to the Blackhawks on Friday night – we played them hard from beginning to end, but because our newly minted goalie doesn’t have much shootout experience yet and because we didn’t happen to have any snipers or shootout specialists in the lineup, we lost the game. I simply don’t believe there was anything fair about that loss.
Without crunching a bunch of numbers or examining all sorts of statistics, to appease my sense of fairness, here is what I would do to fix the current system. Teams should have 2 points…and only 2 points…on the table. Let the teams play until one team wins and the other team loses. I hear FIF reminiscing pretty often about the “Easter Classic” in which there was no shootout or 5-minute overtime (although I do believe that one was a post-season game). For “overtime” though, the Isles had to play period after period after period until one team won the game. To me, fairness dictates that, if the teams are tied after three regulation periods, then let them play it out in full-period increments until somebody wins and somebody loses. Get rid of the loser point, get rid of the 5-minute overtime and get rid of the shootout altogether – the winner gets 2 points, and the loser gets none. Period.
The realistic part of me does realize that the league will never get rid of the “loser point” or the shootout now that they have been instituted though. Without going to a “winner gets 2 points/loser gets none” system within this format, I don’t know how to fix it. Giving 3 points to the regulation winner, 2 points to the overtime winner, 1 point to the overtime loser, and 0 points to the regulation loser still doesn’t seem fair to me. My primary gripe being that losing teams who don’t make it past the 5-minute overtime get the same 1 point that losing teams who make it all the way to the shootout get. I simply just cannot see a way to make that point system appease my sense of fairness.
Brendan
February 16th, 2010
12:59 pm
Whoever buys the team has to keep it here until 2019. If not, the buyer will go bankrupt moving the team. And what RICH person desires to be insolvent? I want some names. Right. They don’t. They won’t. And they can’t. The team is here until 2019.
kracker
February 16th, 2010
1:01 pm
I understand the feeling to extend the OT period to 10 minutes (20 has also been suggested) but it will make the games too long, especially the weekday games for working people and those with school children or teens attending the games. I already don’t go to many weekday games. Getting home following an OT game, trying to unwind and get to sleep and make it to work by 7AM…well I’m pretty much an exhausted zombie the next day. So extending OT 5 or more minutes plus adding 2 more SO rounds is not good for many people.
More importantly, it puts more wear and tear on the players. The season is already long and physically and mentally grueling. I don’t favor unnecessarily heaping more of a daily grind on an already taxing schedule.
Brendan
February 16th, 2010
1:01 pm
Again, I think the points-based system is totally unnecessary, once you adopt the shootout. That’s where we are right now–the NHL has a shootout. In my view, points should have disappeared after the Lockout. If you ditch the shootout, then points come back into play. I definitely would prefer a game to have a decided outcome, in lieu of a tie. But I’d rather have the tie than the awarding of points for losing. Losing shouldn’t result in any points. A tie can result in a point, since it’s not a LOSS. I’m perfectly fine with one-point being awarded for a tie.
If the NHL asked me for a solution, here’s what I’d say. We ditch the shootout and we resurface the ice after 60 minutes, with a 7-10 intermission. The next 20 minutes of “sudden death” overtime play would be 4-on-4, until there is a winner. If there still isn’t a winner, we resurface the ice with a 7 minute intermission, teams remain on their respective benches. Then we put up another 20-minutes on the clock, playing 3-on-3 hockey. I really don’t think it would ever come to that. And, gasp, if 3-on-3 doesn’t produce a winner, after 20 minutes, then we introduce the shootout. But we WILL HAVE winners and losers for every game, with a W-L, pct., Games Up-Games Back type of legend for standings.
Smoothie
February 16th, 2010
1:06 pm
Stroz – I indeed chuckled out loud when I read that. Now people will think I’m racist, but whatta ya gonna do?
T-shirt for the playoff “run”, well at least when Pavs is in net:
“You betta Czech yoself before you wrech yoself!”
Can I get an Amen?!
BTW – speaking of T-shirts for the playoff run, have y’all seen the latest team promo running on the team website featuring Marty, Zach & Kane (along with cameos by Pevs & Slates)? Now that is a marketing campaign that makes sense! Let’s hope some of that makes its way onto SportSouth and local TV networks.
Brendan
February 16th, 2010
1:12 pm
Zoomo, you’re quite welcome. I, too, hope for a more symbiotic relationship between the AJC and the Offices of the Atlanta Thrashers. But, Atlanta is going to have to start behaving like a pro sports franchise a whole lot more.
Midfield
February 16th, 2010
1:14 pm
Brendan, your format will make game schedule quite a tool. Imagine playing back-to-back game after one of those 3-hour outings.
kracker
February 16th, 2010
1:16 pm
Good luck Brendan getting the NHL and NHLPA to approve a format that will routinely result in games that are 3 or 4 hours long. It’s necessary in the playoffs but you just can’t do that throughout the long season. I’m figuring you’re not a working person
Viking
February 16th, 2010
1:21 pm
About the Olympic messages;
The message and what lies behind it is irrelevant. I had a feeling I would stir up things with my comments.
It would be an impossible task for the “Olympic Message Police” to guard against violations of the “Olympic spirit” in the dress code without a strict rule against any personal message whether it is of commercial or any other nature.
R. Stroz
February 16th, 2010
1:32 pm
Viking – If a North Korean athlete wanted to adorn the equivalent of “Support Our Troops”, although I would think the athlete is misguided, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Now, if the North Korean athlete wanted to adorn the following:
“Kim Jong-il is god, and not only that, but he is the worlds greatest golfer and has tapped more backside than Tiger Woods, without ever losing an endorsemenr dollar from a state owned Korean company.”
Well that’s would be another story.
World Be Free
February 16th, 2010
1:43 pm
Viking-my issue is with the inconsistencies of the IOC, not with supporting our troops or anything like that. The subject could have been something other than troops and I’d still have a problem with the IOC.
Bob
February 16th, 2010
1:55 pm
“Generally I’m pretty dismissive about these types of rumors but I am a little concerned given the recent news about Phillips trying to get out of their agreement with the arena.”
Ditto, I have been firmly in the camp of “b/s, they can’t move them because of the naming rights”. But now hearing that Phillips wants out of the deal and the bright light came on that if the Spirit is losing that much money on the team every year, that they’d prefer to get the cash from a sale now and plus the losses, it may be a net gain for them to give up the $9m per year Phillips owes until 2019 and take the cash now and stop losing money every year on the Thrashers. Plus, I’m sure they could sell the naming rights to someone else for $3m? per year. Couple that with the cash purge we’ve seen of not signing Kovy to a long term deal and then the rush to dump Lehtonen, and there’s a lot of smoke here. Oh, there was smoke coming out of Kovy’s camp as well with rumors that he was concerned about the franchise moving out of Atlanta. There’s a lot of smoke here, we need our crack reporter to get on it, Rawhide!
Alan R.
February 16th, 2010
1:55 pm
“Kim Jong-il is god, and not only that, but he is the worlds greatest golfer and has tapped more backside than Tiger Woods, without ever losing an endorsemenr dollar from a state owned Korean company.”
Stroz, I’d love to see them fit that on a goalie mask.
That said, I wouldn’t have a problem with that message, either.
Viking
February 16th, 2010
1:58 pm
World be free, I do not know what the IOC rules are when it comes to the Olympic dress code, but I hope it is not anything else than a “no personal messages” rule.
achmed abbdul da butcher
February 16th, 2010
2:29 pm
What if Iraq’s goalie had “Osama Bin Ladin rules” on his mask? Nevermind, his mask is a scarf, it would have to be embroidered on it. Anyway, its off to ShawarmaKing for a flalaffal…..
Bob
February 16th, 2010
2:41 pm
Hey, here’s some more smoke on the fire. Has anyone been contacted by a ticket rep recently to sign up for season tickets for next year and get playoff priority tickets for this year? The club is in reach of the playoffs, and it’s not a Mora Moment to talk about them, why aren’t they out there pushing tickets? I got pushed hard last year since I was on the former season ticket holder list, but no one this year has called at all. Anyone else getting calls? Mabye I just pissed them off last year when I said “call me back up when you fire Waddell?” and they’ve got me on the list to call when they actually do get rid of him. But anyone else getting pushed tickets for playoffs and/or next year?
BlueSpark
February 16th, 2010
2:47 pm
There is only one logical points system if you have OT and SO. Since there are 6 possible outcomes for a team, there should up to 5 points available:
W in regulation – 5
W in OT – 4
W in SO – 3
L in SO – 2
L in OT – 1
L in regulation – 0
This rewards teams for winning “earlier” but still provides an incentive for a team to keep playing in all phases of the game (regulation, OT, SO). Also, every game is worth 5 points and all 5 points are awarded.
The problem is it’s too damn complicated.
Tim
February 16th, 2010
3:32 pm
The only option that I favor it’s either the status quo or the option provided by Bill. Now, one can argue that we could get rid of the SO and end the OT with a point each in case of tie. But common fan love SO, it will be hard to think that NHL will just get rid of SO. And the “loser” point is there to make OT more interesting. Back in the old day, when game end with a tie, OT is just horrrible to watch because no team will try and risk to get out of OT with 0 pts. Both team will rather just sit back and help to that “point”, unless if they are in a playoff spot race near the end of the season. It also hard for a team to come out of SO without a single point in the Standing since it’s a individual contest.
Now, the three points system is definitly fair, but it will make playoff race less exciting. Most likely, for most of the time, playoff team will be set by this time of the year already, save for maybe the last two spot, which would be set with another week or two, hence the reason why I favor status quo. If you hate loser point, then just make sure you win in regulation.
Russ
February 16th, 2010
3:35 pm
Blue Spark – I think the casual fan would be turned off by records such as 24-6-10-3-11-28.
I don’t have a strong feeling one way or another with the point system. My preference would probably be what they had in place just before the lockout: 2 for a win, 1 for a tie or OT loss and no shootout. But I have no problem with the way it is or all games being worth 3 points. I had suggested before, and I think someone on here suggested the same, 3 for a win in regulation, 2 for an OT win, 1 for a SO win, and 0 for any kind of loss. This would encourage teams to finish off the opposition ASAP and would probably minimize the number of shootouts, which most hockey purists are against. Like Blue Sparks idea, you would end up with records that look like combinations to detonate weapons of mass destruction, but whatever.
jt
February 16th, 2010
3:41 pm
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/SourceNHL-will-make-it-7-possibly-8-Winnipeg-Quebec-or-Toronto/1/26358 I still refuse to believe this.
Viking
February 16th, 2010
3:44 pm
Tim, “If you hate loser point, then just make sure you win in regulation.”
The worst part of the current system is what is happening in the games your team is not a part of. You might have a great record of regulation wins down the stretch, but your worst enemies in the standings keep on getting these additional points… Extra troublesome is when two of your enemies play each other.
Rawhide
February 16th, 2010
3:48 pm
Don Waddell refutes the Thrashers to Winnipeg rumor.
Dwayne
February 16th, 2010
3:55 pm
If Don says it. I believe it.
Brendan
February 16th, 2010
4:06 pm
Team USA 3, Switzerland 0, 2nd period.
Lee
February 16th, 2010
4:09 pm
Don’s like Ilya Koalchuk, he lies. Watch the Thrashers move.
Don Waddell
February 16th, 2010
4:10 pm
Facilitated return of hockey franchise to Canada.
Doesn’t that sound like a good way to spin this on my resume?
Brendan
February 16th, 2010
4:13 pm
Well then, maybe the shootout, for the benefit of the “conservation of time” is the way to go? Otherwise, the games would go on and on and on. But I do really like the idea of 20-minutes, 4-on-4, to decide a game, before venturing into the shootout.
But, I suppose, it’s just not a workable plan.
Bob
February 16th, 2010
4:17 pm
Hoo boy. If Don The Spinner Waddell says there’s nothing to it, you best start packing your bags now, boys
Tim
February 16th, 2010
4:18 pm
Viking, again, if you win in regulation you get 2 points. Your ennemy lose on OT and SO and get 1 points so you’re still 1 points ahead. If you play against you ennemie and you win in regulation, they get 0. I don;t think Washington or San Jose cared about other team getting the “loser point” do they?
fes
February 16th, 2010
4:50 pm
3-1
R. Stroz
February 16th, 2010
5:07 pm
I predict the U.S. hockey team will win their first game 3 to 1.
Brendan – I wouldn’t want to disappoint you with my clairvoyant powers.
Brendan
February 16th, 2010
5:38 pm
R.Stroz, you’ve done it again! You are like, amazingly pyschic. I’ve never seen anything like it. Now, you did also say the Thrashers are staying in Atlanta, right?
Red Light
February 16th, 2010
6:00 pm
24 teams. Two 12 team conferences. No divisions. Knock regular season down to 68 games, four against teams from your own conference and a home-and-home against the other conference. That way, every team in your conference plays the exact same schedule making it more equitable for all to decide a true playoff team. Top four in each conference get a first-round bye, while the bottom eight in each conference play a three-game series (if necessary) at the higher seeds building, which clearly gives an advantage to seeds No. 5 through No. 8. Then, the top four teams get home-ice advantage and at least four days of rest while the first round winds up.
Everyone gets a shot at the playoffs rendering the BS bonus points useless during the season. Yes, no one wants ties, but no one wants false points just for enduring 65 minutes.
With a shorter regular season all games mean that much more, including those in October. You ask any NHL player, and they will fully admit some guys or teams don’t start playing until January.
kracker
February 16th, 2010
6:27 pm
Red Light, I think your plan leaves my city with no team. No, thanks.
Dwayne
February 16th, 2010
6:35 pm
At the end of regulation, the 2 captains meet at center ice and play paper, rock, scissors. Winner gets 2 points, loser gets nothing.
HookyBob
February 16th, 2010
7:03 pm
Were Don’s lips moving when he said “no truth” to the rumors?
Watching Olympics on CNBC,…curling. Winter’s version of golf (those Scots had their games down).
HookyBob
February 16th, 2010
7:31 pm
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB20001424052748703382904575059823465872254-lMyQjAyMTAwMDEwNjExNDYyWj.html
Must read for anyone who ever “Took a Christian to the arenea.” 50 .ago the,…….. 1st US hockey gold.
Darren
February 16th, 2010
7:57 pm
I respectfully disagree with both arguments that extending OT from 5 minutes to 10 is so much more taxing on players and fans than 5 minutes of overtime. Those players are professional athletes in top condition; they can handle an extra 3 shifts per night.
Also, I can’t believe adding 5 measly minutes onto overtime would be the breaking point for people not to go. If folks are worried about being up late, just skip it and watch from the comfort of home.
Besides, keep in mind the whole intent of changing the point structure would be to incentivize teams to try to end games earlier, not make them later.
LAC
February 16th, 2010
8:08 pm
Ted would most likely move the BB Team to Bozeman, nearer his home near Livingston, just east of the pass… Great area !
World Be Free
February 16th, 2010
8:42 pm
Vikings-what’s your thoughts on Sweden in Vancouver?
I think Canada and Russia are 1 and 1a, interchangable
Sweden #3 and USA #4 at best, maybe lower.
USA will be lucky to medal, unless the troops are playing for USA (ha,ha)
Thoughts?
Hockey Biltong
February 16th, 2010
9:07 pm
Oh man, can’t wait till the season starts again…..
Alan R.
February 16th, 2010
9:18 pm
100th.
B. Thenet
February 16th, 2010
9:33 pm
This will be my last post on this blog until you resign from that fraud Eklund’s site.
Not only did some clown from Vancouver post that absurd rumor, but then Eklund reports the same one and thinks it is a great idea that we lose our hockey team.
Rawhide
February 16th, 2010
9:44 pm
B. Thenet – Ya know, I just had someone post over there that he’s only gonna read me here at the AJC now because of that…
But hey…seriously…if I don’t blog over there then whose gonna represent Thrasherville on Ek’s site?
Brendan
February 16th, 2010
9:57 pm
Red Lights quote: You ask any NHL player, and they will fully admit some guys or teams don’t start playing until January.
We call that player: Jim Slater
Brendan
February 16th, 2010
10:08 pm
USA 3, Switzerland 1. We’re off to a good start. Before you laugh, Waddell’s Torino squad went 1-3-1, before losing its only playoff game. Why does THAT sound familiar? Anywho, in 2006, the U.S.’s only win came over Kazakhstan. To get a win over Switzerland … is a better result. Every game becomes that much more important now.
R. Stroz
February 16th, 2010
10:15 pm
You are like, amazingly pyschic. I’ve never seen anything like it. Now, you did also say the Thrashers are staying in Atlanta, right?
Brendan – After concerted comprehensive concentration, my clairvoyant clarity concerning this condition will reach a clear conclusion within the next six blue moons and two leap years.
World Be Free
February 16th, 2010
10:31 pm
You’d think the Canadian media would be too busy in Vancouver to start this stupid garbage again. If Bettman is going to hold the Yotes in Phoenix, you think he’s not going tot do the same in Atlanta? Helping Tampa find a new owner so the Bolts STAY in TB? I said it before, I have lost all respect for the Canadian media, they are like turds in a toilet. If Winnipeg and Quebec City were so great, why didn’t they do more to keep their teams? Same goes for their provinces, in the country where hockey is “their game”. Hypocracy in the first degree.
Brendan, remember Slater was in the press box for the first few weeks of this season. Like a few other players that have somehow escaped the cat bird seat.
kracker
February 16th, 2010
10:33 pm
Thanks for reminding me of the poor USA effort in 06, Brendan! lol…nowhere to go but up from there I guess. That team had way too many past-prime NHLers, this squad should fare better.
kracker
February 16th, 2010
10:35 pm
Oh, Rawhide, I like you on HB and the team/city needs you to be there representin’
R. Stroz
February 16th, 2010
11:10 pm
Brendan – Can you tell I “C” things others miss, the key to being a psychic.
Viking
February 16th, 2010
11:54 pm
World Be Free,
I do not know what to think about Team Sweden. With a few exceptions (Toby), it has almost been a requirement to suffer a substantial injury to qualify for the team. If everybody has recovered fully, they should be seen as a wild card for the final. If not, they will have a tough time to get a bronze medal.
Also, I think there are players (like Tomas Holmström) that I rather would have seen on the roster instead of Fredrik Modin, Douglas Murray and even Peter Forsberg. I have to admit though, it will be interesting to see “Foppa” in action again!
Viking
February 17th, 2010
12:17 am
Watching Kovy right now. Russia against Latvia.
Viking
February 17th, 2010
12:44 am
3-0 Russia after 1st period. Russia will be hard to beat. I think they will win the Gold.
That Nikulin guy would have been nice to have….
Viking
February 17th, 2010
1:49 am
Nice goal by Kovy. 7-1
stendec
February 17th, 2010
1:57 am
So the sorry son of a betch scored a goal against Latvia! Whoop dee do. Russia will win gold medal? No chance in Hell! This is Latia for the love of God. USA sucked in narrow victory over weak Swiss team! Hope Russia gets absolutely waxed before this damn Olympics bullshet is over. Nothing but ill wishes for Thrasher killer Ilya Kovalchoke. Bestard! ++STENDEC++ Have been happy with USA women however. Love beatdown they put on Russians. Hope IK and pals enjoyed it too Eh komrades?
Tony C.
February 17th, 2010
3:53 am
I know Federov hjas been quoted intimating that this Russian squad isn’t as good as the Soviet era, but man, I’ll take A-O, Datsyuk, Semin (1) & #17, Malkin, Afinegenov as my top6 any day.
World Be Free
February 17th, 2010
5:49 am
Viking-Swedish buddy of mine sent me some youtube videos of Foppa earlier this year. He’s not looking too bad. I am sure he’s having fun playing in the Swedish League this year, miss him in the NHL for sure.
Whoever has the hot goalie and The King can get hot.
World Be Free
February 17th, 2010
7:54 am
Isn’t funny to listen to the Canadian media. One of the excuses for the Winnipeg fans not totally supporting the Winnipeg Jets was because “well, they were the Jets”. But when Thrashers fans don’t fill Phillips Arena, it’s because we are bad hockey fans, with no reference to the quality of product on the ice for a decade.
Like I said before, hypocrisy, add stupidity to it as well.
And I have given up Eklund forever. Why I lasted this long is beyond me.
DWTOO
February 17th, 2010
8:18 am
Undoubtedly we have our problems in Atlanta – the ownership fiasco has been well documented. The funny thing is every town mentioned that we’re going to move to, except Hamilton (like the Leafs would allow that!) has failed hockey teams. Kansas City and Las Vegas couldn’t support AHL or ECHL teams. Winnipeg and Quebec both lost their teams.
We’re just the current whipping boy – remember a few years ago when Pitt burgh had ownership problems? Same thing they were moving too. Nashville too. The Bettman regime has worked hard to keep current franchises in place.
I do like the idea of expansion teams in these markets if they like.
One good point – if Eklund reports it unlikely to happen.
Viking
February 17th, 2010
8:54 am
Stendec, I am happy Kovalchuk is gone too. However, it will not stop me from appreciating a nice play.
World Be Free
February 17th, 2010
8:55 am
DWTOO-one day, I hope the “dominos” drop on Eklund’s head!
Get The Puck Out
February 17th, 2010
8:59 am
Leave the scoring system as is, just make the SO best out of five.
Get The Puck Out
February 17th, 2010
9:19 am
ESPN is also reporting Thrashers to Winnipeg. WTF? Bettman needs to come foward and end these rumors.
GaVaHokie
February 17th, 2010
9:59 am
Thrashers citing… Just saw an Olympic piece on the “Today Show” with Matt Lauer and Michael Buble skating with the Vancouver Giants… Evander Kane was practicing with the team wearing his Thrashers jersey.
Russ
February 17th, 2010
10:11 am
The scoring system should stay the same with the exception that the Thrashers should be awarded 3 pts. for each win. This would make up for the handicap that is DW and the ASG.
Rawhide
February 17th, 2010
10:12 am
sigh…OK, guys, have a look-see at this article from the Winnipeg Free Press which correctly points out there is no truth to this P.O.S. rumor.
So…can we now just stop giving this fabricated story more time then it deserves?
Alan R.
February 17th, 2010
10:13 am
Interesting reading here.
jt
February 17th, 2010
10:32 am
Thanks Rawhide and Alan R.
Smoothie
February 17th, 2010
10:40 am
Hope we see Evander Kane on Olympic ice in Socchi come 2014 as Jarome Igninla passes the torch to the youngster who idolizes him.
I can’t help be happy for Iggy after scoring a hatty against Norway in front of the home fans in Western Canadia.
DWTOO
February 17th, 2010
10:53 am
Wow – responsible Canadian journalism. Article does a good job in pointing out the problems and reasons re-location is unlikely.
I’d really like to see the NHL expand into a couple more Canadian markets, but, I’ve had my fill of their wanting to steal our team.
World Be Free
February 17th, 2010
10:58 am
Thanks for the link
Hockey Biltong
February 17th, 2010
11:00 am
Any word on the skate with heated blade that some players were trying out a few seasons ago??? It’s better than talking about points or re-location…..
Alan R.
February 17th, 2010
11:30 am
Here’s another gem from the Winnipeg Free Press.
somaatl95
February 17th, 2010
11:47 am
We should start up a website called HockeyBSRumors.com and talk about how under-performing Canadian teams (cough, Oilers, cough)will be moving to Mississippi or New Orleans or some place that would really irritate those rumor spreading hosers (how does the Hawaii Alohas sound as a team?)
Badger Bob
February 17th, 2010
11:55 am
WBF – great point on Jets moving because “the Jets were the Jets”. Atlanta’s attendance problems actually prove (despite what the Canadian press says) the Atlantans know hockey, and will pay to see good hockey. Why don’t these rumors swirl around Colorado, with so-so attendance that has actually dropped this year despite having a better team, or NJ, with attendance chronically below what it should be for such a successful franchise? Oh yes, because Canadians don’t hate those cities for having both an NHL team and beautiful weather. And DWTOO, that hatred/envy of the south is why they talk relocation rather than expansion – it accomplishes two goals.
Adios
February 17th, 2010
12:14 pm
The Thrashers are gone. Maybe not to Winnipeg and probably not next year but as soon as the ownership legal issues are resolved the team will be on the block.
There is only one way to put rumors to sleep. That is for the ASG to GUARANTEE in season ticket contracts that a NHL franchise will be in Atlanta for a minimum of 3 years. This term should be standard going forward.
If committed to the Atlanta market (the above proposed term does not limit the ASG’s ability to sell the franchise, so long that it remains in Atlanta) the ASG could easily do this. However they will not. That should tell you everything you need to know.
If they did I would probably step up and buy a full season ticket package myself. However I am not going to get burned again as this whole episode is history repeating itself again (Flames).
Alan R.
February 17th, 2010
12:28 pm
but as soon as the ownership legal issues are resolved the team will be on the block.
The court battle is long over. Just sayin’.
Barry
February 17th, 2010
12:33 pm
Going back to the comments about Chelios and Kulda…you could tell Kulda played like he knew what he was doing out there. He seemed to know what to do and exactly when to do it. There was no real hesitation to his game at all. Man I wish we could lock Chelios and Bogosian on an ice rink for a week to straighten Zach out. Most of the time Zach hesitates and doesn’t look sure at all what to do with the puck especially in his own zone. He’s constantly turning the puck over around our own goal line. Anyway, all the Wolves defensemen better take notes and learn all they can from Chelios. It will definately strengthen our defense in the coming years.
Adios
February 17th, 2010
12:41 pm
Alan R. – The court case may be resolved but Belkin is still technically an owner. Until he is bought out a cloud remains. That is one of the reasons the ASG are seeking additional investors. (The bigger reason is that they don’t have the deep pockets to absorb recurring losses.)
If you are a STH I encourage you (and other STHs) to seek a clause in your contract guaranteeing the presence of a NHL franchise in Atlanta. Let us all know if they agree.
Alan R.
February 17th, 2010
1:01 pm
The court case may be resolved but Belkin is still technically an owner.
Yes, that is correct. However, you’ve failed to mention “legal issues.” The only thing I could think of was the court battle.
The “moving the goalposts” method of debate looks oddly familiar.
Adios
February 17th, 2010
1:14 pm
Alan R. – I truly hope that you are correct, that I’m wrong, and that the Thrashers remain forever. Unfortunately I don’t see that happening. Certainly not the fault of Atlanta but rather incompetant ownership and, more importantly, financially challenged ownership that will necessitate a change. My only hope is that the league will step in and protect a top ten media market. As I stated last year, contrary to what many viewed positively, the supply of assistance provided to Phoenix and now to Tampa is of limited supply and the well will be dry when it comes to Atlanta.
Smoothie
February 17th, 2010
1:22 pm
Barry – preach it brotha! We should all chip-in and buy Zach a plane tkt to Chicago so he can secretly practice with Cheli and the Wolves. As we all know, the ASG is too cheap to provide the airfare and per-diem for Mr. Bah-go-zee-in.
GaVaHokie
February 17th, 2010
1:23 pm
If you are a STH I encourage you (and other STHs) to seek a clause in your contract guaranteeing the presence of a NHL franchise in Atlanta. Let us all know if they agree.
Huh?!… I’m pretty sure if the team moves to Winnepeg, you’d get your money back.
Besides, Season Tickets are renewed on an annual basis. So, why would they make any long term promise on a one year ticket package?
GaVaHokie
February 17th, 2010
1:32 pm
Yes, that is correct. However, you’ve failed to mention “legal issues.” The only thing I could think of was the court battle.
The “moving the goalposts” method of debate looks oddly familiar.
haha… yes, the last time I checked, “legal” was a term used for court systems.
Adios… since you’re so on top of the “legal” issues surrounding the team, maybe you’d like to share the two legal reasons why the Thrashers CAN’T be relocated.
Bob
February 17th, 2010
1:49 pm
No one has answered my question, so I’ll pose it again (and if no one’s answered, then does this mean that none of us have been contacted yet for playoff tix and/or season tix for next year?):
Has anyone been contacted by a ticket rep recently to sign up for season tickets for next year and get playoff priority tickets for this year? The club is in reach of the playoffs, and it’s not a Mora Moment to talk about them, why aren’t they out there pushing tickets?
Rawhide
February 17th, 2010
1:54 pm
Bob – I spoke with my contact at the Spirit Group. I was told that playoff ticket sales as well as STH renewals will go out in the next couple of weeks…end of February/beginning of March.
World Be Free
February 17th, 2010
1:59 pm
Badger Bob-thanks and you could say the same things about Quebec Nordiques. They were not properly supported; when the threat came about that the Nords were going to move, 50 people showed up in support.
All this garbage about Hamilton, Winnipeg and Qubec City being viable NHL markets is just that- garbage. You would be better off putting another team north of Toronto.
Smoothie
February 17th, 2010
2:06 pm
Bob, my tkt rep told me that they have not yet finalized the pricing for next year and that’s the reason he’s held back on “playoff calls”, but he’s more involved in group sales these days. He says that some reps have not hesitated in calling their people and asking them about deposits. However, most of the STH plans came with right of first refusal so I’m not sure why they would mount a huge campaign for the playoffs until early March.
Chris16
February 17th, 2010
2:13 pm
My idea I like 2 points for regulation win and win in OT No But if tied after OT then you get your loser 1 point.
Badger Bob
February 17th, 2010
2:19 pm
Bob, no, there’s been no contact. Then again, they’ve done all the ticketing different this year – no “Friends and Family” or “Upgrades” deals like previous years, and the December “ST for the remainder of the year” deal wasn’t nearly as generous (i.e., cheap) as the previous year. This doesn’t mean the team is moving. It means they don’t want to give away or subsidize as many tickets this year. But there’s no doubt they never do enough to sell tickets.
On the team sale front, who thinks ASG would offer an NHL record contract at the same time as they are trying to sell the team? ASG may not know hockey, but they are fairly smart business people and they would know that tying the hands of a future owner to a contract like that could diminish the franchise sale price. Thrashers were willing to pay Kovy a premium because he was the “face of the franchise”. A new owner moving a team to a new market would not need to overpay for a face – the arrival of the franchise itself would be enough to generate excitement. Plus, as owners of the arena, what’s their motivation to get rid of one of their major tenants? The ASG arrangement is a little like the Braves/TBS arrangement a few years back, when the Braves got way less than market value from TBS for TV rights because it was advantageous for Turner to show a baseball team making no money (like at Collective Bargaining Agreement time) and show a station making tons of money (like when you are selling to Time Warner). In this case, Thrashers lose money (and get subsidized) while the arena makes money.
R. Stroz
February 17th, 2010
2:33 pm
Then again, they’ve done all the ticketing different this year – no “Friends and Family” or “Upgrades” deals like previous years,
Badger Bob – Oh yes they did.
Bob – I’m awaiting a return call from my rep. I imagine “the marketing boys” are trying to figure out pricing with the loss of their “premiere player.”
After looking at nhlnumbers.com, the Thrashers are once again in the bottom quarter of the league in payroll, 25th to be exact, and that’s with full bonus payouts calculated in for Kane and Bogosian. If Kozlov or any other player with a substantive salary, even on a pro-rated basis, is dropped from the books, such as Kubina, the Thrashers will tumble quickly to the 27th position.
Here’s the link:
http://nhlnumbers.com/compare.php?season=0910
Bob
February 17th, 2010
2:33 pm
“I was told that playoff ticket sales as well as STH renewals will go out in the next couple of weeks…end of February/beginning of March.”
Hmmm, rumor was March 4th announcement. I don’t see why they wouldn’t be trying to lock people up early with the team in the mix for the playoffs, ticket sales are so bad, just another piece that has my curiosity piqued.
Badger Bob
February 17th, 2010
2:47 pm
Smoothie, I’m with you on seeing Kane play in Sochi. I just hope the NHL figures out that having the players there is good for the game, otherwise the Olys return to being the joke the World Championships are. Not sure all the Vancouverites were cheering Iggy – they remember him burning their Nucks in some playoff games.
R. Stroz
February 17th, 2010
2:49 pm
For those of you with inquiring minds, take a look at the benefits and STH discount pricing for the Nashville Preds:
http://predators.nhl.com/club/page.htm?bcid=30432
LAC
February 17th, 2010
3:33 pm
Please remember todd white is SIGNED through next season !
Alan R.
February 17th, 2010
3:36 pm
The Bulin Wall cited for DUI.
R. Stroz
February 17th, 2010
3:39 pm
Todd White will be “bought out” if he isn’t claimed off waivers, which isn’y very likely. Then again, maybe, some GM will be stupid enough to take him off our hands for a 8th round draft pick in 2020.
Jameson
February 17th, 2010
3:58 pm
I think I’m currently in favor of 2 points for a win, 1 point for a shootout loss, 0 points for anything else. Splitting the points in the shootout, but no where else makes since to me since as Brendan usually states it’s an individual skills competition being used to decide the winner of a team game.
R. Stroz
February 17th, 2010
4:09 pm
I kind of like the idea that someone else had one having five shooters vs. three, and, if they are still tied, then use extra shooters to decide the outcome. Also, to add a little flavor, the five shooters must consist of three forwards and two defensemen.
That shootout format makes it more of a team sport.
Russ
February 17th, 2010
4:26 pm
Jameson – If you give one point for a SO loss, but none for an OT loss, overtimes would become unbelievably boring. Both teams would play extremely conservatively to assure they at least get to the shootout and then take their chances to get the bonus point.
Smoothie
February 17th, 2010
4:34 pm
Just goes to show that the regular participants on this blog probably only make up a minute fraction of the actual paid STH-base. I would estimate somewhere in the neighborhood of .5% to 1% of STH. My tkt rep called me the day after Kovy was traded to make sure I wasn’t suicidal.
As if. Bergfors is better!
R. Stroz
February 17th, 2010
4:43 pm
Bob – Received a return call from my sales rep today concerning next season.
He said the “STH Package” should arrive on, or before, March 1.
Smoothie
February 17th, 2010
5:07 pm
Based on the new marketing campaign on the website, I’m fully expecting a call from Evander Kane, Rich Peverley or Jimbo Slater about my STH renewal and the “march to the playoffs!” Oh yeah eh?!
Viking
February 17th, 2010
6:22 pm
There have been quite a few proponents of a status quo or status quo with a twist in the later posts.
But tell us why is this format is better than a 3 point system!
World Be Free
February 17th, 2010
7:32 pm
I am for maintaining the current system. I just have not seen enough arguments to sway me toward any change
Brendan
February 17th, 2010
11:44 pm
Viking, the three (3) point system convolutes the “value” of a game. As in, why should the value sometimes be three, sometimes two, and other times one-point for the winner? Shouldn’t the value of the game be 1/82nd of the season? That’s my argument. That’s why I favor straight up wins and losses.
It’s not as if the bottom 10 teams in the NHL are abysmal at shootouts. They’re probably something comparable to the shootout records of the Top 10 teams. In my mind, you play every game to win it. It shouldn’t matter WHEN you win it, so much as that you win it.
Do you follow my argument? A team wins the game whenever and however it does (regulation time, Overtime, or shootout). And the “value” of the game … is one game out of 82 on the schedule. Is there anything “complicated” about that? In my mind, there isn’t. If the outcome of the game cannot be decided in 60 minutes, we have overtime, 4-on-4, for five minutes. If still no outcome is rendered, for the “constraints of time,” our beloved team game is reduced to an “individual skills competition.”
Uhhh, because people work and go to school in the morning. If they didn’t have to do those things, I’d much rather see a full 20-minutes of 4-on-4 overtime, before resorting to the shootout. That will, apparently, never happen. Which is a shame. Because for the integrity of the game, I think it’d be a big improvement over 5-minutes of 4-on-4 overtime. Oh well. Such is life.
If a 3-point system were ever implemented, all previously existing point records would decimated, even by our Thrashers. The NHL record book would be filled with asteriks and explanatory notes. In my view of things, there really isn’t any need for a points-based system in hockey. We can make an argument that, if ties were permitted, that points is a logical way to proceed. But the NFL allows ties, without a points-based system. Why can’t hockey? Other than, “because of tradition.” What would life be without the statement, “we got 2 big points tonight.” Well, my answer would be, “We got the win. And the win was huge.”
Tim
February 18th, 2010
12:58 am
Brendan, I agree with you there. Each game should worth the same number of points and a record of win/loss is the best way to do it. However, where I disagree is a loss based on shootout alone. I would have no problem if we getting rid of the shootout and play OT until we have a winner. Only problem is that Game could last forever in OT just like some games we saw in PO. However, I do believe that it tends to get shorter when it’s 4 vs 4 instead of 5 vs 5. Win/Loss record until we get a winner with 4 on 4 OT and I’ll be happy.
Tim
February 18th, 2010
1:01 am
Viking, because it’s make interesting PO race like we have since lockout
Viking
February 18th, 2010
3:54 am
While I would prefer a 3 point format, I think a 2 point system would be fine too.
But this current 2 or 3 point version is just plain awful.
Viking
February 18th, 2010
4:15 am
Ooops, I stated my position without a why…
Strictly 3 OR 2 points awarded in all games is fair toward the other teams not involved. Being used to soccer, I am perfectly fine with a tie as the result of a game. All or nothing is fine too.
But the fact that an extra point may be awarded in the current system and in a sense benefit both teams in a game is what can not stand.
Viking
February 18th, 2010
4:42 am
Another way to express my position against the current format would be:
“It should hurt both teams to tie in regulation”.
jerry
February 18th, 2010
7:20 am
I am going to propose something radical that will never be adopted. Instead of a shootout, each team will have a 2 on 1 happening simultaneously on each end of the ice and the 1st to score wins the game. That would somewhat keep the team concept in play.
Pittsburgh Pirate Fan
February 18th, 2010
7:33 am
Jerry, as long as we can put int he rules that Todd White cannot be on the ice for4 ATL when this occurs!
Rawhide
February 18th, 2010
9:34 am
Jerry – Fascinating idea…I like it. It waould be a heckuva lot of fun to watch, that’s for sure.
OK kids…here’s a new blog to have some fun with.
Brendan
February 18th, 2010
2:31 pm
Tim, I definitely agree with you. I’m much rather not see a team get tagged with a loss, from a shootout. Likewise, I’d prefer that a team not get a win from the shootout. But, due to the constraints of time, the shootout is, ostensibly, the fastest way to arrive at an outcome.
Brian
February 21st, 2010
2:48 pm
I still like the idea of 3-2-1-0, which I have felt strongly about since the shootout arrived in the NHL. A compromise might be 3 for regulation win, 2 for OT win, 1 for OT loss, and only 1 point for a shootout win (0 for loss). This keeps the incentive for a regulation win, letting you claim all 3 points. It gives a team an incentive to NOT play for the shootout, as they then face getting no points at all. The extra strategy involved could be lots of fun. If you have to keep the shootout in the game, it should never be worth the same in the standings as a 10-0 regulation win. A team that wins more games in regulation should see that reflected in the standings.