7 replies to this topic

[sheeps]

I'd say the majority of fans here would say that hockey has been in a rut, at least to an extent, prior to the lockout. The clutching and grabbing was reaching ridiculous levels yet they still refused to call interference properly. And hey maybe most of us don't want shoot-outs but the new rule changes are mostly good, such as the smaller goalie gear.

Now the CBA is finally complete, a few months prior to the start of the season. Fans know the NHL will be back and they know it will be a bit better. I'm not saying it's going to be perfect but after a year of no hockey, hockey with a few improvements seems like heaven. And not only is hockey slightly improved, Sidney Crosby will be playing.

All we wanted at the outset was hockey to be back. Many of us would have rather played under the old CBA and avoided a lockout. But, through the course of the lockout, we primarily supported the pro-owner side. That pro-owner side has received just about everything they wanted.

What I'm saying is that the majority of fans now have the CBA they wanted and then some. The CBA is no longer one-sided, sensible rule changes are coming in (even if you don't like all of them, you have to like some, and they can always take away rule change(s) in the future), and we have phenom Sidney Crosby to look forward to.

Doesn't it already seem like the NHL post-lockout is better than the NHL pre-lockout? Could the lockout actually be good for the NHL? Could it have turned the casual fan away only to re-ignite their interest with a much better spark? Could it have turned the hardcore fan away only to bring them back with rule changes they wanted in the first place?

The NHL before the lockout had aging and lazy superstars, overpaid players, and a weak game. The lockout gave the NHL a better system of compensation that makes it more fair and more competitive, a new and definitely not old or lazy superstar in Sidney Crosby, and rule changes that impress the casual and hardcore fan (again, you don't have to like all, just some).

If this make the NHL significantly better, the question is: could the lockout turn out to be good for the NHL?

"The peanut is neither a pea nor a nut. Discuss!"

[NJDevs4978]

Well I'd term it more as a 'neccesary evil'.

I actually thought this was going to be an article till I read the post. Good thoughts, nice to see some healthy optomism.

I don't neccesarily agree that diehards wanted 'all' the changes, judging by this board anyway and my own feelings about some of the changes, but some of the changes ARE VERY good (goalie equipment, more rivalry games, etc). People have been in such a rush to tear down the bad or contreversial changes that the good ones are getting ignored. And maybe the shootout is more universally popular than we give it credit for, though I'm still not in favor of it - particularly not the three shooter mode they have, penalty shots always have five players involved in hockey or soccer.

I personally fit one of your points, though I'll watch all the Devils games I haven't really gone out of my way to watch hockey when the Devils aren't on. Having not had hockey for a year I might be more apt to do that, particularly early on, and maybe watch a few more playoff games too.

Edited by Hasan4978, 23 July 2005 - 07:13 AM.

[vadvlfan]

It couldn't have been avoided. After it was started it was a runaway train.
I think the changes addressed all the shortcomings the game had. I had no problem with the game the way it was, but maybe this will make it more exciting.
The fact that it gave small market teams the ability to compete and make $$$ is great.
Bettman deserves a lot of credit.

[Satans Hockey]

It couldn't have been avoided.  After it was started it was a runaway train.
I think the changes addressed all the shortcomings the game had.  I had no problem with the game the way it was, but maybe this will make it more exciting.
The fact that it gave small market teams the ability to compete and make $$$ is great.
Bettman deserves a lot of credit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's still hard for me to give anyone credit when we lost a whole season and there was no Stanley Cup awarded.

Edited by Satans Child, 23 July 2005 - 11:12 AM.

[RowdyFan42]

Well said, Sheeps.

Some of us may not have been able to see this going in, but now that it's all said and done, I think the ends justified the means. The NHL needed to get to this point somehow, and if that meant blowing away an entire season, so be it. The rule changes could have been accomplished without a lockout, of course, but that was never the issue. The league's financial system was beyond broken, so much so that even a guy like Lou was starting to have trouble keeping the ship afloat. Tacking on the new rules was just a way for Bettman to say that they fixed the game on the ice as well as in the boardroom.

[elias2600]

yeah, what are you going to do really, it was never a bright situation, but it had to be done. I am just glad that the league should be able to support itself now. *crosses fingers*

[brylin18]

the point of the lockout was to improve the league. if there were no improvements to be made, the lockout would not have happened to begin with. before the lockout, the league was in a crisis. after the lockout, the crisis has been at least partly resolved.

[Derek21]

Good points. It will depend on how the league does in the future.