LOTCB Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 We all agree that there needs to be some sort of change on the ice to improve the game, I for one am in favor of shortening the season by 5-7 games and maybe even contract a team (even my favorite team Buffalo may need to go) in order to improve the product on the ice. But here is something that is eating me up every time i go see a game now or read the standings: Would it kill the NHL to consider going back to the old division names? How bland and boring does "Atlantic Division Champs" and "Northeast Division Champs" sound? The division names like the Patrick Division or the Adams Division was something unique that NO other major sport could say they had, it had meaning...now we are reduced to generic division and conference names, another Bettman-isim that needs to be abolished at once!!!!! If you could bring back the old division names, what 2 names would you like to see added to complete the process? Looking forward to your thoughts on this issue.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJayDevil Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 The Lou and McMullen Divisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOTCB Posted February 10, 2004 Author Share Posted February 10, 2004 The Lou and McMullen Divisions. I was thinking the Orr and Gretzky Divisions...but hey, any input is appreciated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 I am an avid supporter of this topic Legend. You and I have discussed it before. I loved the old names because it gave the NHL some identity. I know that's not the right word I'm looking for. I mean the NHL had it's own legacy. The Wales and Campbell Conference were recognizable. And the Adams, Patrick, Norris and Smythe divisions made sense. I never understood why Bettman had to regionalize it like the NBA. Of course, that's where he came from too. I have always believed a Gretzky division and an Orr one made sense. It would honor two of the greatest players ever to lace up the skates. Or how about a Howe division. Now that would be perfect! I don't think they should get rid of a team like Buffalo. They have been in existence for 33 years. It would be wrong to contract a franchise with that sort of history. You got a new owner in there that wants to change things. Give it some time. They'll be back. I am not an advocate of cutting the schedule. I am more in favor of making the schedule more balanced. Meaning no more giving one team five more games than another in a short timespan so that the other team has five games at hand. That's ridiculous. Balance out the schedule for every team and cutdown that way. Make sensible schedules. That would help fix the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJD Jester Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Would it kill the NHL to consider going back to the old division names? In Bettman's NHL, it would. You have to remember that the name changes to the divisions and conference, the demise of fighting, the overexpansion, 4-on-4 OT, and half the other major bastardizations of the sport are a result of the owners and the commissioner's office amending the game for Southern U.S. markets and phantom television viewers targeted as "casual fans." As long as The Ice Weasel is in charge, the game will never be what it once was. <JESTER> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Anything that brings the NHL closer to what is was is a change for the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njdhockey Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 I would like to see a 84 game shedule as well as the old division names. I also think the over time loss should be abolished with 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 all loses. I like the way the game is and i dont care about seeing more scoring. I wish they would stop trying to change this great game into something like the nba and football which is all about scoring and impressing the crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias 2662 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 I thought the NHL was trying to attract more viewers and fans. Sorry but the Average Joe is going to feel confused by Patrick and Adams Divisions. As much as we hate having the NHL keep trying to attract these "casual" fans, it wouldn't survive without them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njdhockey Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 As much as we hate having the NHL keep trying to attract these "casual" fans, it wouldn't survive without them. Can't argue with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njdevils_info Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 I doubt anyone can argue with that. The Canadian teams are surviving, but barely, and you even have an American team that's doing poorly (Penguins), but hopefully will be out of fiscal trouble as time goes on, and hoping that the CBA passes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJD Jester Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 I thought the NHL was trying to attract more viewers and fans. Sorry but the Average Joe is going to feel confused by Patrick and Adams Divisions. As much as we hate having the NHL keep trying to attract these "casual" fans, it wouldn't survive without them. Two points: 1. That the NHL thought the divisions and conferences were too "complicated" is an insult to anyone who got past the third grade. 2. When will people realize that the "casual fan" is a myth? The NHL has done nearly everything it can short of going 4-on-4 for 60 minutes to attract these mythical fans. There aren't coming, because they don't exist. Those extra pairs of eyes that gravitate towards the World Series, Super Bowl and the NBA playoffs? They don't watch hockey. Never will. Meanwhile, Bettman has done more to alienate the NHL's diehards than he has to attract these phantom fans. Or, perhaps, he simply miscalcuated the fact that everybody likes a good scrap... <JESTER> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KYdevil Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Honestly, at this point, I am past caring what changes they make. Just do whatever they're gonna do, so we can just enjoy the game. Dont get me wrong, some changes would have me furious, others wouldnt affect my opinion at all. But How much tinkering with the game will they do before its a new game all together? Might as well give it a new name and start a new league. Those are just my opinions, I could be wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Why do people want to get rid of the 1 point for an OTL. OT is the best part of the game because teams will go for the extra point knowing they won't lose one. Would you like two teams just sitting back and taking the point because they are scared when they try to put pressure and score they might get caught on a two on one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 (edited) The old NHL division names mean nothing to 95% of hockey fans. As usual, people take it as a symptom or a symbol of what's wrong with the game, or something like that. It made the whole thing a hell of a lot simpler. Would you advocate baseball going to a Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, and Landis divisions? Of course not! So why would hockey go to the old division names? To get all the fans that canceled their season tickets and decided to stop buying jerseys when their team was no longer in the Campbell Conference? The NHL casual fan does exist. He exists when his team is in the second round. Then he comes out in droves to go to playoff games, or to watch the playoff games. The old NHL division names just made the game sound even more esoteric to a non-hockey fan. It's already esoteric enough. And the fact is that the NHL can't survive without the casual fan. Or do you really think that those people at the CAA every night shouting "hit him!" when the Devils are on the penalty kill, or who think in 2003 that #17 is Petr Sykora are die-hards watching the waiver wire every day. And the instigator rule, I've kind of come around on, so don't think that's something I defend. Edited February 11, 2004 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njdevils783 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 The old NHL division names mean nothing to 95% of hockey fans. Couldnt agree more.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJD Jester Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 The old NHL division names mean nothing to 95% of hockey fans. As usual, people take it as a symptom or a symbol of what's wrong with the game, or something like that. It made the whole thing a hell of a lot simpler. Would you advocate baseball going to a Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, and Landis divisions? Of course not! Well, no, of course not, because baseball has always been about east and west, National and American, just like football. Hockey dumbed things down because Gary Bettman didn't think Joe Fan in Tampa Bay would understand what an Adams or a Smythe was. As for the "casual" fan, the fan you describe isn't the fan Bettman and the NHL are trying to attract. They already have those fans; they want the ones that aren't watching hockey to watch hockey. And that leads to glowing pucks, vanilla conference names, no fighting and the same six teams on ESPN every week. <JESTER> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Mac Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Actually thought of this a while back and wanted to write an article about it, but never did. I still should though. Go back to the Whales and Campbell. Bring back the Lester Patrick, Charles Adams, Conn Smythe and James Norris divisions. And then the other division would be: The South East - The Brooks Division And the South West - The Gretzky Division. Without them both half those teams would never be in those cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Mac Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 2. When will people realize that the "casual fan" is a myth? The NHL has done nearly everything it can short of going 4-on-4 for 60 minutes to attract these mythical fans. There aren't coming, because they don't exist. Those extra pairs of eyes that gravitate towards the World Series, Super Bowl and the NBA playoffs? They don't watch hockey. Never will. Meanwhile, Bettman has done more to alienate the NHL's diehards than he has to attract these phantom fans. Couldn't agree with you more. The problem is that most casual fans in the US don't even bother since following the puck on TV is too difficult. (At least that's what they say) They would go to a game and enjoy it, but the "casual fan" would rather sit and watch something else on TV bofore watching a Hockey game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Mac Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 the same six teams on ESPN every week. To be fair, when they had the game of the week in baseball in the 70's you had the Yankees, Dodgers, Reds, Royals, Phillies and O's. They can't do that now since there is no national game of the week. And ESPN changed their deal for sunday night to put the more popuklar teams on as well All sports do that when they want to attract an audience. The NFL can't do it now since they don't know who will be good from one year to the next. And flip on a nationally televised NBA game and you can name one of six teams that is on as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Mac Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, and Landis divisions? I know this is off topic, but Judge Landis did more to hurt the game of baseball than help it. That racist SOB, who seized power when the game was the weakest annointed himself king for life and wouldn't allow the game to intergrate, due to his racist beliefs. If baseball took a more open commissioner than Landis, Jackie Robinson would have been a nice player who wouuld have had a hall of fame career. AND to add to that, since the Yankees (And Red Sox for that matter) were bigotted too these Yankee dynasties may have never existed since the competition and tallentent pool out there would have been bigger. Just my 2 cents, now back to hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nieuwy25 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 As a fan who came to the sport in 1993, I can say that when I heard Smythe, Norris, Campbell, Wales, etc., yes I was confused. But I was also confused about the Adams, Hart, Smythe, Vezina, etc. awards at first. Did that stop me from watching hockey - of course not! There was no need to "simplify" terms for fans. I like the more distinctive names for things in hockey. It reminds me that hockey is from a slightly different culture, with a different way of looking at things than the American sports I grew up with. Division & Conference names are certainly not a big deal, but I liked them the way they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 (edited) That's a good point Nieuwy. I just don't see them representing anything at all anymore, though. I wouldn't mind going back to the old division names, but not the old conference names. Keep it Eastern and Western. Campbell and Wales.. meaningless. Jester, if you could argue simply within division name changes, maybe I'd respect your argument a little more. But though your arguments are laid out better than the average reactionary, you list the litany of other changes Bettman (through the owners) has brought about. This just shows that what you really care about is the other things, not this, and that if only this had been changed, you wouldn't have a problem with it. Edited February 11, 2004 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Yes -- like the retro sweaters everyone is undeniably crazy about, I think we ought to go back to the retro division titles! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 That's a good point Nieuwy. I just don't see them representing anything at all anymore, though. I wouldn't mind going back to the old division names, but not the old conference names. Keep it Eastern and Western. Campbell and Wales.. meaningless.Jester, if you could argue simply within division name changes, maybe I'd respect your argument a little more. But though your arguments are laid out better than the average reactionary, you list the litany of other changes Bettman (through the owners) has brought about. This just shows that what you really care about is the other things, not this, and that if only this had been changed, you wouldn't have a problem with it. history is meaningless to Tri of all people As the popularity of the retro sweater illustrates, hockey fans seem to feel that history is not meaningless. And it IS marketing we're dealing with here not mere facts figures and conference titles. Does a conference title by any other name smell as sweet? As a metter of fact -- yeah, it probably DOES! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJD Jester Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Jester, if you could argue simply within division name changes, maybe I'd respect your argument a little more. But though your arguments are laid out better than the average reactionary, you list the litany of other changes Bettman (through the owners) has brought about. This just shows that what you really care about is the other things, not this, and that if only this had been changed, you wouldn't have a problem with it. I still would have had a problem with it, mainly because I'm a Devils fan who grew up watching the Patrick Division. That name meant something. It meant a certain style of hockey. It meant Dale Hunter. It meant blood on the ice. It meant an entertaining game every time two teams hooked up, because they hated each other. But that was as much a product of the playoff format than anything else. I meant something to me, and still does. It was just the first of many changes Bettman made while pissing all over the history of this great league. <JESTER> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.