The other relevant reason is that there are a LOT more financially literate baseball writers.
2022-2023 NHL Misc. Thread
- Thread starter CanadaCanes
- Start date
perfectstormhits
Well-known member
Bettman releases his State of the NHL.
www.espn.com
Bettman: No expansion or playoff changes coming
In wrapping up the league's GM meetings, commissioner Gary Bettman said the NHL was "not in an expansion mode," and that no changes were planned with the playoff format.
Pucking Lamplighter
Well-known member
Hmmmm, Nothing about the state of officiating for the playoffs...so it's just gonna suck, like usual?Bettman releases his State of the NHL.
Bettman: No expansion or playoff changes coming
In wrapping up the league's GM meetings, commissioner Gary Bettman said the NHL was "not in an expansion mode," and that no changes were planned with the playoff format.
I'm a believer of what was a penalty on Day 1 of the season should also be a penalty on Game 7 of the Cup Final. Too bad the powers that be don't see it that way too. Hell, they can even get consistent calls from one period to the next in the same game, much less the entire length of the season...So, We're screwed. Let's just make shit up as we go.
Jim
SlapShots
Well-known member
With Bettman reaching out to the NHLPA to discuss raising the salary cap, the price hikes for next season, the fact that games are televised on multiple networks and ESPN+, and now the bankruptcy, it’s getting a bit too rich for me now…
I hear that.
Yeah, there's a reason I'm planning to downgrade my seats next season. And I fully expect my per game outlay for road games on TV to be roughly double what it is now.
CanadaCanes
Well-known member
If Bettman thinks doubling the cost to watch his circus animal officials butcher games on his streaming services next year is a good idea then he is dumber than he looks. You start fucking around enough you’ll find out…
Wait, you think Bettman WANTS this? C'mon now. There's no bigger critic of the troll lawyer than me, but there's a zero percent chance he sees this as an opportunity to be seized or something. And the costs for us won't be going up so somebody can pocket profits. Prices will be going up for the same reason Sinclair can't get out of that debt black hole ... because it costs more to televise these games than the revenues they're bringing in.
At this point, you'd have to think more than a couple of his teammates want the refs to let somebody just wail on him in hopes that he'll figure out that this is a stupid way to conduct yourself. They've got to be sick of his BS by now.
They could charge people to be the play by play and color analyst. Get a lineup of 3 teams per game (one per period) and vote on the best. Then make it round robin and the winning team gets the playoffs.
you could also spin off the prep and process and back stories as a reality TV show.
if Tripp and Mike want in they probably could afford the entry costs.
presto. Extra revenue and better broadcast team.
could do the same with the refs!
you could also spin off the prep and process and back stories as a reality TV show.
if Tripp and Mike want in they probably could afford the entry costs.
presto. Extra revenue and better broadcast team.
could do the same with the refs!
cmaleski2
Well-known member
At this point of my hockey fandom, I'm ok with no fighting. The players would get used to it (or get suspended).
Whether or not 'banning fighting' leads to an increase in other types of 'aggressive actions' would be something I would be interested in monitoring. That is always the age old argument, get rid of fighting and you will get more stickwork or cheap shots as the only way to 'answer for' a massive transgression will be 'eye for an eye'. We won't know how true that is unless they actually ban fighting. The inconsistent application of the instigator penaly hardly deters anyone.
It's stupid that anyone has to 'answer the bell' for a clean hit or hockey play. I would worry though that if someone makes a questionable hit absent fighting as an option, we will see more 'retaliation type of plays like Todd Bertuzzi - Steve Moore. But we won't know for sure until fighting is actually banned.
Whether or not 'banning fighting' leads to an increase in other types of 'aggressive actions' would be something I would be interested in monitoring. That is always the age old argument, get rid of fighting and you will get more stickwork or cheap shots as the only way to 'answer for' a massive transgression will be 'eye for an eye'. We won't know how true that is unless they actually ban fighting. The inconsistent application of the instigator penaly hardly deters anyone.
It's stupid that anyone has to 'answer the bell' for a clean hit or hockey play. I would worry though that if someone makes a questionable hit absent fighting as an option, we will see more 'retaliation type of plays like Todd Bertuzzi - Steve Moore. But we won't know for sure until fighting is actually banned.
NoMich
Well-known member
The solution for that type of retaliation play is what should've happened to Bertuzzi: lifetime banishment at all levels of the game. The only things Bertuzzi accomplished with his assault on Steve Moore was to injure another player and give the game a severe black eye. That was an act that was detrimental to the game of hockey. Lifetime banishment and loss of future revenues from the team/league.
Neither has International hockey, it’s a match penalty and immediate ejection.