World Cup of Hockey

[RunninWithTheDevil]

This team is an absolute disaster

[njdevs89]

USA! USA! USA! 

Lmao, sorry fwiends, but Canada ownssss you. 

[CommonDreads]

This in conjunction with his gig in Columbus is going to be Torts' last gigs coaching NHL level hockey. It's 100% clear that he's just not equipped to be a modern day NHL coach, you can't reject speed and skill in favor of grit anymore, gotta embrace the way the league is transitioning and Torts refuses to do so.

[njdevs89]

1 minute ago, CommonDreads said:

This in conjunction with his gig in Columbus is going to be Torts' last gigs coaching NHL level hockey. It's 100% clear that he's just not equipped to be a modern day NHL coach, you can't reject speed and skill in favor of grit anymore, gotta embrace the way the league is transitioning and Torts refuses to do so.

Ring a bell? 

[Marshall]

Sub-optimal roster + bad coacing + bad deployment + bad play + bad luck. Not the best recipe.

[vadvlfan]

Things will change my friends. I know post mortem we'll hear "wouldn't change a thing, we'd do it all over again" Torts will not be back to coach this team.

[MadDog2020]

http://deadsp.in/dH2Vqm0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DevsMan84]

54 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

http://deadsp.in/dH2Vqm0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Author is 100% correct.  It seems team USA executives and coaches are trying to re-create 1980 with Herb Brooks wanting the right players, not the best players.  Who cares that was 36 years ago right?  Pathetic showing by USA last night and especially against team Europe.

[Nicomo]

https://mobile.twitter.com/PKessel81/status/778426548651163648

 

[mfitz804]

40 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/PKessel81/status/778426548651163648

 

That is awesome. 

[DevilMinder]

That Kessel tweet is amazing lol

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

[moustic]

Europe ! Europe! Europe! 

[thecoffeecake]

On 09/20/2016 at 0:45 PM, Triumph said:

2 intermissions are an enormous stumbling block to hockey on television.  100%.  Hockey has 34 minutes of dead time built right into the game - it's much longer than any other major sport in America.  I consider a sport a television success when people are willing to watch a non-regional game.  The NFL has this.  The NBA has this for marquee matchups.  MLB doesn't really have this, but the sheer volume of games on the schedule means this matters an awful lot less.  Baseball is in some trouble, though - the audience for the World Series is smaller and older every year.  Regardless, the NHL has no non-regional presence in the US.  People just do not watch non-regional hockey - they watch a bit in the playoffs,  but for your average Wednesday Night Rivalry game which tends to be the only game on the schedule, the non-regional ratings for an NHL game are dismal.  People just aren't interested.  

Soccer's rise in the United States is fueled by two things - A: the popularity of the game among youths as a less dangerous and rigorous alternative to football - it was one of the widest played sports in the US even when its ratings on television drew flies and B:  the increase in immigrants from nations where soccer is the #1 sport.  MLS is not very popular nationwide or on television and not what's at the root of the soccer 'revolution' in the US, though there are some cities where it is quite popular.  Hockey will never get to where soccer is culturally - it's too expensive and difficult to play, not to mention dangerous.  It just has no chance of ever doing this.  Oh, and there's two intermissions.

You can repeat "2 intermissions" all you want, it doesn't make it a legitimate hurdle in the NHL attracting more casual fans. No one is going to watch hockey, be thrilled and excited with all the action, and say "nah fvck this, they're taking a second break". Football only has barely over 10 minutes of actual time in play, how was that not a barrier?

Neither of those things are what fueled soccer's rise in the United States. Did we get our first wave of immigration from soccer loving countries in the last 20 years? Has soccer only recently become a game widely played at the youth level in this country? No and no. MLS had everything to do with the sport's rise here, directly or indirectly. In 1995, we didn't have professional soccer in this country. Today, from MLS down to the lowest level leagues like the ASL and NPSL, we probably have somewhere short of 200 professional or semi- professional clubs operating in just about every corner of the country. For some people, that means access to a team to support at the professional level, and although support for professional American soccer is lower than support for other pro sports here, we're still talking about millions upon millions of people who otherwise would have no interest in the game. For other people, MLS and the 150-200 other major clubs whose existence is possible because of MLS have a major trickle down effect to local youth development. Because the money is there and the need exists to develop American players to fill out MLS rosters, youth soccer isn't a bunch of kids chasing a ball around on a patch of grass until they're 12 and quit like the case has been in previous generations. We're developing skilled and serious soccer players like we were never able to do before MLS existed. The USSF has resources it never had in the past to truly develop soccer in this country.

You can't talk about MLS' popularity in terms relative to the popularity of 4 other sports that have pretty much existed status quo since before soccer was played professionally on this continent. No kidding MLS doesn't compete nationally with the NFL, but it started from scratch 20 years ago. You wouldn't have talked MLS and NFL popularity together in the same conversation in 1999. MLS' relative unpopularity has nothing to do with how much it has spurred the growth of soccer here.

Soccer has been a major, if not the primary, sport of youths in this country for generations. We've had numerous influxes of immigration from soccer loving countries as long as the sport has existed. Just a coincidence those two factors spontaneously grew the sport just as MLS rolled around, huh?

[Triumph]

3 hours ago, thecoffeecake said:

You can repeat "2 intermissions" all you want, it doesn't make it a legitimate hurdle in the NHL attracting more casual fans. No one is going to watch hockey, be thrilled and excited with all the action, and say "nah fvck this, they're taking a second break". Football only has barely over 10 minutes of actual time in play, how was that not a barrier?

Neither of those things are what fueled soccer's rise in the United States. Did we get our first wave of immigration from soccer loving countries in the last 20 years? Has soccer only recently become a game widely played at the youth level in this country? No and no. MLS had everything to do with the sport's rise here, directly or indirectly. In 1995, we didn't have professional soccer in this country. Today, from MLS down to the lowest level leagues like the ASL and NPSL, we probably have somewhere short of 200 professional or semi- professional clubs operating in just about every corner of the country. For some people, that means access to a team to support at the professional level, and although support for professional American soccer is lower than support for other pro sports here, we're still talking about millions upon millions of people who otherwise would have no interest in the game. For other people, MLS and the 150-200 other major clubs whose existence is possible because of MLS have a major trickle down effect to local youth development. Because the money is there and the need exists to develop American players to fill out MLS rosters, youth soccer isn't a bunch of kids chasing a ball around on a patch of grass until they're 12 and quit like the case has been in previous generations. We're developing skilled and serious soccer players like we were never able to do before MLS existed. The USSF has resources it never had in the past to truly develop soccer in this country.

You can't talk about MLS' popularity in terms relative to the popularity of 4 other sports that have pretty much existed status quo since before soccer was played professionally on this continent. No kidding MLS doesn't compete nationally with the NFL, but it started from scratch 20 years ago. You wouldn't have talked MLS and NFL popularity together in the same conversation in 1999. MLS' relative unpopularity has nothing to do with how much it has spurred the growth of soccer here.

Soccer has been a major, if not the primary, sport of youths in this country for generations. We've had numerous influxes of immigration from soccer loving countries as long as the sport has existed. Just a coincidence those two factors spontaneously grew the sport just as MLS rolled around, huh?

2 intermissions is definitely a barrier to people watching games they're not invested in on television.  And that's everything for sports now - you can get people into the arenas, and the NHL certainly packs them in; attendance numbers are high, even if you just consider the US, they're pretty high.  But the television money is much lower than the other '3 major sports'.  And once you're selling out arenas, you don't have a ton of market to expand to if people aren't going to watch your games on television.  You can only increase ticket prices so much.

As for soccer's rise, you are deluded about the MLS's contribution - it's certainly there, but youth soccer was the most popular sport for American children before the MLS even started.  The founding of the MLS was a condition for getting the World Cup in 1994 which was itself a large contributor to the soccer culture the United States has.  Regardless, the point was that vis a vis hockey, there is just no chance of this happening; hockey is too hard to play even at the most basic level and playing, while not the only way that people get into a sport, is a huge reason why they do.

 

[mfitz804]

The intermissions are no longer a TV issue because of DVR. I haven't watched an intermission in at least 6 seasons, unless it was a 9-10pm start and I didn't have time to let the DVR run a bit before starting the game. 

Its like people who complain about commercials. Who watches commercials anymore??

[Steadevils]

25 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

The intermissions are no longer a TV issue because of DVR. I haven't watched an intermission in at least 6 seasons, unless it was a 9-10pm start and I didn't have time to let the DVR run a bit before starting the game. 

Its like people who complain about commercials. Who watches commercials anymore??

I'd argue "who can watched taped games anymore?" With score alerts, twitter, facebook, accidentally opening a sports app/website and exchanging texts with friends during games it is difficult to avoid seeing live scores on games. At least for me...I'd have to lock my phone away to not have some idea of what is going on during a Devils game.

[mfitz804]

1 hour ago, Steadevils said:

I'd argue "who can watched taped games anymore?" With score alerts, twitter, facebook, accidentally opening a sports app/website and exchanging texts with friends during games it is difficult to avoid seeing live scores on games. At least for me...I'd have to lock my phone away to not have some idea of what is going on during a Devils game.

I disable those alerts unless and until I know I will be missing the game. I admit it does take a little work.

i think I did accidentally find out the score during 2 games last season. But I'm less attached to my phone than most. Generally speaking when I'm home for the night, and while watching a game I usually am, phone gets shut off. 

Now my iPad, however...

[Triumph]

3 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

The intermissions are no longer a TV issue because of DVR. I haven't watched an intermission in at least 6 seasons, unless it was a 9-10pm start and I didn't have time to let the DVR run a bit before starting the game. 

Its like people who complain about commercials. Who watches commercials anymore??

I'd imagine less than 2% of the viewing audience does this on a regular basis.

[thecoffeecake]

11 hours ago, Triumph said:

2 intermissions is definitely a barrier to people watching games they're not invested in on television.  And that's everything for sports now - you can get people into the arenas, and the NHL certainly packs them in; attendance numbers are high, even if you just consider the US, they're pretty high.  But the television money is much lower than the other '3 major sports'.  And once you're selling out arenas, you don't have a ton of market to expand to if people aren't going to watch your games on television.  You can only increase ticket prices so much.

As for soccer's rise, you are deluded about the MLS's contribution - it's certainly there, but youth soccer was the most popular sport for American children before the MLS even started.  The founding of the MLS was a condition for getting the World Cup in 1994 which was itself a large contributor to the soccer culture the United States has.  Regardless, the point was that vis a vis hockey, there is just no chance of this happening; hockey is too hard to play even at the most basic level and playing, while not the only way that people get into a sport, is a huge reason why they do.

 

I just can't buy the two intermissions argument. You're not even giving me a reason why it affects viewing habits, you're just saying it does. I would guess it would help get people to watch who aren't invested, as they don't have to watch a game for 2 consecutive hours that they aren't invested in. Who doesn't get up or change the channel during most games they're watching when their favorite team isn't involved?

You're right about the World Cup, that was a major help, too, but you can't grow a sport without a domestic professional league. It just won't happen. You won't generate any support at the professional level outside of hardcore fans, and there wasn't a serious effort to develop players before MLS. The fact that the youth game was so popular before MLS illustrates my point. Plenty of kids played, but soccer had no presence outside of  youth rec leagues.

That's one of the reasons why I think you overstate the importance of youth participation in the popularity of a sport at the professional level. Growing up, none of the kids I knew played organized football until high school. I don't know what it's like now or how and when it peaked, but as long as I've been alive, it hasn't been the top youth sport, but obviously far and away the most popular professional sport here. I can't count how many times I've heard something like "baseball is fun to play but boring to watch". Kids love playing little league but won't sit around to watch a game.

[mfitz804]

2 hours ago, Triumph said:

I'd imagine less than 2% of the viewing audience does this on a regular basis.

Well the other 98% should give it a try, its awesome to watch a game that way!

[Triumph]

1 hour ago, thecoffeecake said:

I just can't buy the two intermissions argument. You're not even giving me a reason why it affects viewing habits, you're just saying it does. I would guess it would help get people to watch who aren't invested, as they don't have to watch a game for 2 consecutive hours that they aren't invested in. Who doesn't get up or change the channel during most games they're watching when their favorite team isn't involved?

You're right about the World Cup, that was a major help, too, but you can't grow a sport without a domestic professional league. It just won't happen. You won't generate any support at the professional level outside of hardcore fans, and there wasn't a serious effort to develop players before MLS. The fact that the youth game was so popular before MLS illustrates my point. Plenty of kids played, but soccer had no presence outside of  youth rec leagues.

That's one of the reasons why I think you overstate the importance of youth participation in the popularity of a sport at the professional level. Growing up, none of the kids I knew played organized football until high school. I don't know what it's like now or how and when it peaked, but as long as I've been alive, it hasn't been the top youth sport, but obviously far and away the most popular professional sport here. I can't count how many times I've heard something like "baseball is fun to play but boring to watch". Kids love playing little league but won't sit around to watch a game.

What?  It would help?  What world are you living in?  If I'm watching something on TV and it takes a 17 minute break, I'm going to either find something else to do or find something else on TV.  After 17 long-ass minutes, am I going to come back to that thing?  I have no idea.  Anyway I'm sure that the inability to gamble well on hockey is probably as big or bigger a stumbling block, but it's there.

I never said that people have to play an organized form of the sport to enjoy watching it. I don't think that many people play organized football - far fewer than actually enjoy NFL football - but I do think a lot of people play some form of football growing up.  All you need is a football and an open space to play pickup football.  For even the most basic hockey, everyone needs a hockey stick, you need a ball/puck, and you should probably have some sort of goal.  That's a lot more stuff, and it makes it that much harder to play.

 

[Matteau#32]

On 9/20/2016 at 10:36 PM, CommonDreads said:

This in conjunction with his gig in Columbus is going to be Torts' last gigs coaching NHL level hockey. It's 100% clear that he's just not equipped to be a modern day NHL coach, you can't reject speed and skill in favor of grit anymore, gotta embrace the way the league is transitioning and Torts refuses to do so.

I haven't watched any of this tournament, as I just do not like the format.  Regardless, I do not understand why he would have Dubinsky on the team and not play him against Canada, specifically Crosby.  He has always been able to check and get under Crosby's skin and throw him off his game a bit.  When I saw Dubinsky made the team way back when, I honestly figured this was the exact reason.  Then, Lombardi comes out and says they made a mistake by building the team to beat Canada, but ignored everyone else.  Tells me, that my thought on Dubinsky making it were right, but Torts doesn't play him.  <shake head smiley>

[Zubie#8]

I run two miles during one of the intermissions when I am at home lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

['7']

I'm not saying two intermissions isn't an issue, but it's far down on the totem pole, as is gambling. The fact that intermissions were extended after the last lockout to 17 from 14 or 15...whatever they were, was a mistake. Though I guess the players getting some extra time for treatment and such isn't so awful

The lack of fighting, scoring, and the tempering of rivalries is the real problem. Plus hockey never gained a US foot hold until maybe what...60's expansion? Baseball and football were firmly entrenched by then. Before 1967 the NHL was in 4 U.S. cities. That's a late start and a small footprint. 

I'm not saying the NHL needs to be Mutant League Hockey on ice, but UFC has left them in the dust and the WWF gets talked about more on ESPN. The MLB saw a scoring decline...baseballs were juiced last offseason. The NFL makes sure offense is off the charts.

The NHL has done a bad job in tailoring the game to its audiences wishes.

And I think marketing up their players is not necessarily a recipe for success. A lot of these guys are foreign born and probably uncomfortable in that sort of limelight, or are modest Canadian/American kids from a cold climate.

Edited September 22, 2016 by '7'

[thecoffeecake]

1 hour ago, Triumph said:

What?  It would help?  What world are you living in?  If I'm watching something on TV and it takes a 17 minute break, I'm going to either find something else to do or find something else on TV.  After 17 long-ass minutes, am I going to come back to that thing?  I have no idea.  Anyway I'm sure that the inability to gamble well on hockey is probably as big or bigger a stumbling block, but it's there.

I never said that people have to play an organized form of the sport to enjoy watching it. I don't think that many people play organized football - far fewer than actually enjoy NFL football - but I do think a lot of people play some form of football growing up.  All you need is a football and an open space to play pickup football.  For even the most basic hockey, everyone needs a hockey stick, you need a ball/puck, and you should probably have some sort of goal.  That's a lot more stuff, and it makes it that much harder to play.

 

I don't buy that. Kids find ways to play the sports they love, I really don't think it's the other way around. And again, you're overstating the difficulty to play pick up hockey. I certainly didn't grow up in a well to do family, but I always had hockey sticks sitting around, as did all my friends who never were hockey fans, but we all played every night. Every day I see milk crates nailed to telephone poles every day that kids use as basketball hoops. Inner city black kids don't roll out a soccer ball because it's easier to facilitate playing. Baseball players from Latin America often talk about fashioning baseball gloves out of milk cartons and things like that.

1 hour ago, '7' said:

I'm not saying two intermissions isn't an issue, but it's far down on the totem pole, as is gambling. The fact that intermissions were extended after the last lockout to 17 from 14 or 15...whatever they were, was a mistake. Though I guess the players getting some extra time for treatment and such isn't so awful

The lack of fighting, scoring, and the tempering of rivalries is the real problem. Plus hockey never gained a US foot hold until maybe what...60's expansion? Baseball and football were firmly entrenched by then. Before 1967 the NHL was in 4 U.S. cities. That's a late start and a small footprint. 

I'm not saying the NHL needs to be Mutant League Hockey on ice, but UFC has left them in the dust and the WWF gets talked about more on ESPN. The MLB saw a scoring decline...baseballs were juiced last offseason. The NFL makes sure offense is off the charts.

The NHL has done a bad job in tailoring the game to its audiences wishes.

And I think marketing up their players is not necessarily a recipe for success. A lot of these guys are foreign born and probably uncomfortable in that sort of limelight, or are modest Canadian/American kids from a cold climate.

I agree with most of this. My original point was that the NHL is very marketable to a casual audience if the game is tailored, as 7 put it here. But 95% of hockey fans don't want to see bigger goals to facilitate more worrying l scoring, but it would increase broad appeal.

I don't agree that most hockey players would be uncomfortable in that spotlight. American and Canadian players put on a modest front in the media, because that's what's expected in the culture of hockey, but I don't think they're any more shy or uncomfortable in the spotlight than other athletes (save for maybe football and basketball players). I played in high school, I have family that played the game, it's the same as other sports when it comes to the personality of the best players. I played with guys who played with JvR, I met a guy who knew Jack Eichel at BU, they're not humble, personable guys. The only difference is cocky hockey players are privileged and white. European players, at least from outside Russia, I don't get the same impression from.