TropicalFruitGirl26

I would assume this simple podcast was simply for the author to vent?

That's what it sounds like. 
I tuned in thinking he was going to drop some enlightenment on the situation.....what he would do if he were owner to try and improve attendance.

But no... all I got was grumping and griping about the empty seats.

Oh sure, I agree it looks bad. And I can't see a major network wanting to do a Florida home game national game because of it....but the author griped about revenue and paid attendance...well, if corporations ARE buying up seats and people are just not showing up, then the paid attendance revenue IS there...but in the optics part of it, sure, it does look bad when there is hardly no one in the stands.

Author then goes on to "wonder" about why the NHL and other league owners "put up" with this. He doesn't understand.
I believe that. That he doesn't understand. 
Because a lot more goes on behind the scenes than just people sitting or not sitting in seats.

IMO, a bad decision was already made on arena location. I can't stress this enough, because it seems no matter what sport, if the arena is located in a poor location, it works against fans wanting to go games. Plain n simple.
Location and what else is there to do around the arena come into play.
Obviously, a winning team is a given to help things along as well.

In lieu of a new arena in a new location (this bed has already been made), then perhaps ownership should look into better marketing.
Look at the Carolina Hurricanes...those "bunch of jerks".
Traditionally poor attendance as well....but they at least try to come up with creative ways to keep fans engaged and going to games.

So this is just a simple matter of "move to Quebec or Hartford" eh?
Not that simple, apparently.
Both those cities had their shots with a team. What happened? I thought those fanbases wanted hockey? I guess not.
Or maybe things would be different if they had a team now? Who knows.

Ultimately, the Florida Panthers may get moved.
But I think the NHL as a whole is trying to find ways to make things work....and if Florida ownership really does want to put the team over the top, again, I suggest marketing gimmicks, create a culture in South Florida that hockey DOES belong there, and give something to the fans that DO show up to games something to be proud of (develop and KEEP NHL caliber players for one), and make having a hockey team "a thing" that bandwagon fans then want to jump on.

This in turn could attract other businesses to Sunrise, FL (the suburb in question here) and things can grow from there.

Maybe this would work, maybe it won't.
I do know this.... teams in Tampa Bay, Raleigh NC, and Nashville certainly are not "die hard" hockey fanbases.....yet ownership in each of those places has gone out of their way to market the team, its players, and keep high profile players, which leads to winning teams, which leads to more fans, which leads to more marketing and gimmicks (no matter how silly outsiders may view it) in order to keep fans engaged.

Florida needs to do the same as long as they are where they are.
I give this podcast episode a C+ grade...not awful, but hardly insightful, and just seems to exist as a way for the author to express discontent, with no real insights of any sort or even fantasy solutions.

Agree with the pros n cons mentioned.
Also, hard to make out the names, numbers and badges...at least on TV.

Would have LOVED some hint of Bolt blue worked in there, maybe a pinch of silver.

But hey, the less "Leaf-like" or "Kings-like" that the Lightning look, the better. 

Personally, I think the whole six division idea would be a huge mistake.

Once again, you are diluting the talent within the divisions...spreading it too thin across too many divisions, and, while it may not show right away, it WILL lead to weak division leaders getting in, and a weaker second place team getting in too.

Then people will complain about THAT, and the NHL will sit there scratching their heads saying, "Man we gotta change this again".

I still do like the two Conference set up (East-West) and keep FOUR divisions! Less divisions means each one is deeper, which in turn means the weaker teams will sink to the bottom and will have almost zero chance claim a playoff spot!

And for the love of puck, just go back to the top 8 teams in each Conference getting in with the two division winners getting seeds 1 and 2!! Everyone else, by points, goes 3-8, and then you go 1v8, 2v7 etc.

With 32 teams (once Seattle joins), again, division leaders should be strong, while 3-8 SHOULD be teams above .500 with seeds 7 and 8 being, at minimum, .500 teams (with less teams in the league before, some sub 500 teams seeded 7th or 8th).

And if anyone is concerned about "Seattle is Pacific, they should go in the Pacific...that will create too many teams in that division!"

Not a problem.

Move the Coyotes to the Central.

They are in Mountain Time (just like the Avs are), have no natural rivals in the Pacific anyways, and due to how bad they have been, are basically a "clean slate" team moving forward that could settle in nicely with current Central teams.

And yes, I know Edm and Cgy are Mountain Time teams also, but not only do they have a natural rivalry with each other, but also with the Pacific Time Vancouver Canucks.....those three teams should stay together.

Sometimes the best answers are the simplest. I find it extremely difficult to understand why "professionals" in the NHL have such trouble with things like setting up proper and long lasting alignments and playoff formats.

It's almost as if they are "overcooking the steak" or "over seasoning the soup".... ya know?  

It's not a 'stat' per se, but the fact that the Dallas Stars had been on top of the entire West for so long while having little in the way of defense, and certainly not much goaltending to speak of is a shocker.

No doubt the Stars have a very talented OFFENSIVE bunch, but defense and goaltending rule this league and the Stars had gotten by without having much of either this season...oh, but they have been slumping lately, and now perhaps that lack of 'D' is coming home to roost? We will see....

Oh, and @flyercanuck , that's because just when you men think you have all the answers, we women change the questions.... and THEN we ask you to re-arrange the furniture for the 3rd time in 6 months...

Good list.

Not so sure I agree with Toronto and St. Louis on there though.

Leafs ARE bad, but really, I would not recommend watching garbage hockey (the kind they seem to play more often than not) to anyone who wants to enjoy the game.

I get the whole "they are so bad, they are fun to watch" type schtick, but frankly, I could think of other teams who are bad, but more fun to watch due to the talent and potential to turn things around...such as Buffalo and the Colorado Avalanche.

Blues? Bunch of big bodied, slow moving lane cloggers. Outside of a few players, this team just plods along for the most part. And if they find themselves against a really fast skating team, they look almost out of place on an NHL ice sheet.

Yes, they win, but they do so IN SPITE of the plodding ways...guys like Tarasenko don't fit that description, but most of the rest of the team DOES....hence why they find ways to lose in the post season....

So yea, I'd take out Toronto and St. Louis and put in  Buffalo (or even Florida) and Colorado in their place.

Thank you @ScottM , very interesting stuff!

Sorta like an 'expansion done right' sorta thing....as opposed to some of the heinous ideas being thrown around nowadays (**cough...VEGAS...cough...**).

The league as a whole has come a long way since its infancy, which if you think about it, in the grand scheme of things, the 60's weren't that far back....we are talking drastic, drastic changes and exposure for the league many times over what they previously had.......not to mention making a TRUE world sport and league by now having talented Europeans as staples on any given roster.

Haven't commented on your stuff before Scott, but you always seem to come up with some very nice topics for your blogs.

Good work!

No obvious reason for the Sharks' drop in the standings from last year??

How about a surprising Calgary Flames team playing real well along with a Vancouver Canucks team playing a bit better than others had predicted.

Those two right there are cause for the Sharks not being near the top of the standings, even if one assumed that the Kings and Ducks WOULD be...and yea, I know the Kings are currently BEHIND the Sharks, but they are just being the Kings...sleepwalking through the regular season before coming alive in the post season...no big reveal there.

Sharks are also working in some new guys in bigger roles to replace some departed vets and still trying to decide whether Stalock or Niemi is THE facto number one.

Personally, even though the Sharks can't really be considered 'locks' to be Stanley Cup contenders this year as in year's past, I think when all is said and done, they will be fine.

Even this whole 'game in hand' thing..MUCH too early for them to worry about that.

Come April and they are in the same precarious position, or even out of the playoff group, then they can worry about games in hand.

Well, I suppose pre-season predictions are.........unpredictable, but I sense a specific kind of cock-a-mamy in these particular ones....lol....

Oh well, they could happen this way..the wonderful thing about overall NHL parity....but picking the Pens and Avs to finish as low as they have here while picking Philly to be the absolute tops in the Metro followed right behind by the Caps is a bit suspect to me.

I also think Dallas may have been given a hair too much credit to finish in a guaranteed top 3 playoff position.

We shall see.

Let's drop that puck!!

@yave1964 pretty much summed up the major flaw of the Instigator Rule, @hf101 .

Opponents of it such as myself look at the "free shot" being given to, say, a rat player who doesn't get much ice time, but takes the opportunity to deliver a questionable and/or dangerous hit on a star player...even if it means he may be removed from the game.....without worrying at all that an enforcer on the other team (or anyone else) would retaliate unless they are willing to risk taking additional penalties themselves.

And the rat player in question would only then, if confronted, simply turtle up, refuse to answer for what he's done to the other player, and pretty much get what he wanted accomplished done: removing a star player (or at least limiting his effectiveness) through questionable means...and in the same stroke, possibly take with him off the ice anyone else on the opposition who may look to repay him for his deed, due to the, you guessed it, the Instigator Rule.

Take the Instigator Rule out, and yes, you WILL have retaliation for questionable plays, but then again, because a rat player KNOWS he will have to answer for whatever he is thinking of doing at some point in the game (and answer for it quite unpleasantly, generally speaking), he would probably think twice about any hair-brained type play to begin with.......case of players policing themselves.

That's the way I see it anyways, but there are many who view it that way as well.

As we can see, there are many facets to his issue...hopefully, the NHL finds some middle ground and doesn't let either the goon enforcers or rat agitators get an advantage over the other....because at that point, the star players the league is trying to protect, lose their effectiveness, and possibly playing time due to unnecessary injury.

Instigator rule is, and always has been, a TERRIBLE idea...its like giving a free shot to the other team with no fear of retaliation. Bogus.

It reminds me of warnings to both dugouts in baseball, AFTER only ONE batter on one team has been hit.....meaning no retaliation, essentially giving the beaning team a free shot.

Couldn't agree more.

Ban fighting from the NHL, and the league will surely see a rise in rat play, which in turn will lead to more injuries to key or star players than the NHL will know what to do with!

And for those non-hockey fans or those pseudo-fans who watch games for fights, thinking enforcers are these Cro-Magnon maniacs, I can tell you from personal experience that usually, hockey enforcers are some of the NICEST, considerate guys you are ever going to meet...off the ice anyways.

Granted, there ARE some goons who give enforcers a bad name, but thankfully those are being weeded out as the game has become more skilled based, and teams simply aren't stocking up their rosters with a bunch of fighters.

I've had a chance to meet guys like Andre Roy and Enrico Ciccone.

Two enforcers, who when they played, were two of the most feared in their primes. Both acted a bit crazy on the ice, both drove their coaches nuts with some of the penalties they took...but they were essential to keeping order on the ice, keep their star players from harm, keep the rat players in check....and both are some of the coolest PEOPLE one could ever meet! 

Never got to meet the late Derek Boogaard (RIP), but I hear the same about him from longtime hockey fans who have met the guy...monster on the ice, very cordial human being off.

The hated on-ice Chris Neil is another one, and I am sure there are many more.

But back on point...

If the NHL really does value its stars, its skill players and its product as a whole, then it best think very carefully before they banish any and all fighting from the game......unless of course, their plan is turn the ice rink over to the rodents.........

Even though I am late to the party on this entry (I am a newbie here after all...hehe), I think this was a nice read.

I've long been an opponent of losing teams being awarded anything.

The NHL is the only league of the 4 major leagues in the US and Canada that reward teams LOSING via overtime.

The NFL doesn't give anything to teams losing on a field goal in OT, MLB doesn't give a half game to a team losing in extras, and even the NBA (boy do THEY have a boatload of issues), is smart enough to know losers shouldn't be rewarded..even if they DID take a game to OT.

Ahh, but the NHL does, due to the point system, and I think it's seriously flawed.

IMO, the NHL should go to straight up win-loss records, not mattering HOW the teams arrived at a 'W' or an 'L'...OR, at the very least, turn regulation wins into THREE points, then splitting any OT or SO wins by 2 pts for the winner, 1pt for the loser.

Heck, you can even make the OT count for three as well, and leave the SO a 2-1 split....if you are going to reward the loser anyways.

I bet the standings would look a bit different and ppl won't be so surprised when some team who had enough points to make the playoffs due to 'loser points' gets totally owned in the playoffs, because then we would have seen beforehand that they weren't as good as their point totals suggested in the first place!

It drives me absolutely NUTS when analyst call a team that is 8-6-6 as being 'above .500'.

Bull!  The team is 8-12. Plain n simple. The point totals may say they are a better team, but straight up wins and losses don't.

Would anyone really be surprised that a 8-12 team gets totally owned by a truly superior team? No, probably not....but that same team, labeled as 8-6-6 getting owned may have some people saying, "Well they have played pretty well till that game.."

Just illogical.

Again, nice read @Pagulaville26 !

I am all about teams having enforcers (though I know they are a dying breed), but they also have to be at the very least, decent hockey players as well.

John Scott struggles to be even a marginal hockey player, let's face it, so really, his only value is as a Cro-Magnon on skates.

That in itself wouldn't be so bad, however, when you pair his 'skill', with uncontrolled play like he displayed in his latest adventures, you just have a guy who really doesn't need to be in the league any more.