schulzte

I don't know if it should be at Michigan Stadium. It would be an awesome venue and I would like it outdoors too, but put 50,000 Michigan Hockey fans together and hide women and children!

Michigan has uncharacteristically overachieved this year. They were not expected to be this good. I don't like them, but it's good for college hockey in this state.

I vote for John Davidson. He's turned the St. Louis Blues around damn near on a dime.

Remember, it took a while for ESPN 2 to be carried by everyone, which is the most important thing right now. I don't think ESPN is going to make "The Tres" to show hockey games and extreme fighting.

Why does the NHL have to be on ESPN? The problem with Vs. is that it isn't on enough cable subscriptions. There are other networks besides Vs. and ESPN, believe it or not. It isn't an either or. For example, NBC is owned by the same company as USA, which does US Open Tennis, Golf, the Olympics and used to do NBA games. Would that be so bad? Everybody gets USA; I know it isn't ESPN but it is more credible than Vs. NBC would then have exclusivity over all national broadcasts (whatever that is worth!). I think that might be a good fit. What do you think?

I was at an MSU hockey game a Munn a couple years ago. The music guy played the swan lake ballet as the refs came out....and one of them actually did a toe loop jump! It was freaking hilarious! The crowd loved it. What would you think of having a real, live old-school organist at the Joe as opposed to this canned muzak which is mostly garbage. In fact, if there is a 10 second break in the action for a face-off, maybe I would rather hear nothing than 10 seconds of some stupid song I've already heard 100 times.

The 24 intradivision games is much better than the current 40. I would rather see the schedule split more evenly between Eastern and Western Conference teams. I think 30 games between the 10 other Western Conference teams would be plenty, and then the last 28 games against the 15 Eastern teams would be best, then at least your seeing just about every team in the NHL at home at least once. Wild Card Games Should be Colorado, Toronto and New York Rangers or Minnesota. But those extra games against the original six teams are going to be spread out, so I wouldn't count on them.

I wish Penn State would add hockey, I think that would be a really good school to have in the CCHA.

Winter Classic 2009; Detroit Red Wings vs. Toronto Maple Leafs at Michigan Stadium. Any takers?

I thought it was a good article too, other than the fact that the word Caesar was misspelled the whole time! A few thoughts 1) Playoff tickets will be cheaper this year, which is good. I think regular season tickets might come down once that second flush is available for 2008 games. 2) Expansion to Las Vegas is a BAD idea. I had family in Vegas, and the minor sports teams that are there are either moving or struggling from lack of support. The AAA baseball team has lower attendance than the Lansing Lugnuts. Their Arena football team just moved to Cleveland. I think there are way too many entertainment options in Vegas, and that the NHL would have a tough road, just like Nashville. 3) Where to expand if not Vegas? SEATTLE!!! Seattle had a team back in the day; the Seattle Metropolitans, who were the FIRST American team to win the Stanley Cup in 1917. The NBA is ready to turn its back on Seattle, the Sonics will move to Oklahoma City next year. The NHL needs to go in to Seattle and turn it from an NBA town into a hockey town. The fans would be primed, they will be pissed at the stupid NBA next year and the NHL needs to swoop in and take advantage of it!!

There has been much speculation about the Wings moving to the Eastern Conference. Personally, I think if Chicago and St. Louis were good like they used to be, things would be fine the way they are. However, the schedule and the division set up throughout the NHL needs to be changed. I think that realignment should look something like this. First of all, four conferences instead of two. Before you call this crazy, here is what they would look like. Eastern Conference New York Rangers New York Islanders New Jersey Devils Boston Bruins Montreal Canadians Philadelphia Flyers Pittsburgh Penguins Central Conference Detroit Red Wings Toronto Maple Leafs Chicago Blackhawks St. Louis Blues Minnesota Wild Ottawa Senators Buffalo Sabres Columbus Blue Jackets Southern Conference Atlanta Thrashers Nashville Predators Tampa Bay Lightning Florida Panthers Washington Capitols Dallas Stars Carolina Panthers Western Conference Los Angeles Kings Anaheim Ducks Phoenix Coyotes Colorado Avalanche San Jose Sharks Edmonton Oilers Calgary Flames Vancouver Canucks Here is how the Schedule would work out- The Wings (for example) would play the other seven teams in the conference 5 times each, for a total of 35 in conference games. The Wings would play the 22 other non conference teams twice each for a total of 44 games. The Wings could then have an annual third game against three other Western Conference teams to get an 82 game schedule. This way, the Wings would host every NHL team at least once, and not get bogged down playing Columbus 8 times per year. The New York Rangers, in a seven team conference, would play the six other teams in their conference 6 times each, for a total of 36 in conference games. They would then play the 23 other non conference teams twice each for 46 non conference games and a total of 82 games. This schedule would be fairer in travel, in the way talent is displayed throughout the league, and would pit original six teams against each other more often. Detroit would play Toronto and Chicago 5 times a year, and New York, Boston, and Montreal twice. The only weaknesses in this alignment are that Pittsburgh is West of Ottawa and Buffalo but would be in the Eastern Conference, and that Montreal and Ottawa, being so close, would be in separate conferences. I wanted to keep the Toronto-Ottawa-Buffalo trio in the same conference for obvious reasons, and I also wanted to keep Pittsburgh and Philadelphia together as well, so that is why the teams were placed as such. As for the playoffs- The top 4 teams from each conference would play the first two playoff rounds for the conference title. This is a convoluted change, but it means more hardware handed out earlier in the playoffs, which may help get more attention on the early rounds. The four conference champions would form a Stanley Cup "Final 4" semifinal and finals series'. I think this idea would help develop some great intraconference rivalries. Rivalries are born in the playoffs, and teams will be meeting up with intraconference teams early and often in the playoffs. I'm interested in your opinions! Visit my Olympia Stadium plan website

Here is another idea to improve scheduling in the NHL. Scotty Bowman has talked of having an "Original 6" Cup. This would be eazy to do as part of the regular season schedule. Simply schedule the original six teams to play each other in a five game round robin over a two week span say in early December. For example the Wings would host Montreal on Tue. Dec 4, visit New York on Thur. Dec 6 and Boston Sat. Dec 8, then host Chicago Tue. Dec 11 and Toronto Thur. Dec 13. Then after all the round robin games are played by all the teams, determine the two teams with the best records and move their game that is scheduled for later in the year to Sat. Dec 15 for Hockey Night in Canada. The winner of that game would receive the Scotty Bowman Original Six Trophy. I think this would be a cool paralell tournament to have mid-season. That Original Six Tournament Final would probably get more attention than the all-star game. Let me know what you think Visit my Olympia Stadium plan website

Good to be back, I just got back on line after being away for several weeks. There may be a silver lining to think about in all of this. Think about the city of Detroit for a bit and compare it between the mid 90's when the Wings really got hot, and today. I think one significant difference between then and now is the multitude of entertainment options available in downtown now compared to ten years ago (i.e. gambling, more bars, restaurants, more live music, a Tiger team that doesn't suck etc.) What else would you go to Downtown Detroit to do in 1995? A Red Wings game was the place to see and be seen. The Red Wings unquestionably rested on their laurals, not from a player personel stand point, but from a marketing standpoint and now have more competition for those dollars. The Atlanta Braves suffered much the same fate after the post-Olympic downtown boom. Luckily, the Braves changed ownership and are marketing their product better. Now a Braves team that is a shell of their former selves have better attendance than five years ago. The moral of the story; winning isn't always enough. The Wings must increase their marketing budget and, yes, lower their ticket prices. Now for some quick math. Let's say that ticket prices get lowered an average of $10 across the board. The $88 and $22 seats probably don't need to go that much lower, but the $54 seats should be about $40, and the $44 seats should be about $30. If an average of $10 is taken off every seat and the Wings average 17,000 a game, which seems realistic right now, the ownership will lose $170,000 a game in revenue. Multiply by 41 games, and that equals $7,000,000 in lost revenue. Now lets assume as a result of this price decrease, attendance increase by 1,500 a game and that the average seat would then cost about $45 instead of $55. Lets also assume that each added fan will make $10 in concession/souveiner purchases at the game. So now we're talking 1,500 more fans generating roughly $75,000 per game in added revenue, or about $82,000 a game, or $3,400,000. My opinion is that a significant drop in ticket prices would only lead to about a $3-4 million loss in revenue, which Mr. Ilitch ought to consider a small price to pay to fill the seats and get some new blood into the JLA. For those who purchased season tickets, credit the difference between the old and new prices toward the cost of playoff tickets, or just give them round one free. That seems like a fair settlement to that situation.

I think Hamilton will end up with the Predators. Hamilton is a larger city, and has a larger Metro area than the Waterloo area, and has an Arena in Copps Coliseum that is large enough to host NHL games right now; it was built in the hopes of getting an NHL expansion team. I like Nashville, had a lot of fun visiting. But I didn't see one Predators sign in one bar while down there. Every town has to believe in something, Nashville believes it will have another drink and listen to Kenny Chesney's 22nd hit single that sounds the same as the 21st and 20th and 19th; not the Predators. New Olympia Stadium

Echolalia, The reason I believe a "New Olympia" would work in Detroit is because hockey needs to celebrate and market its history, and there isn't a single building in the NHL any longer comparable to a Wrigley Field or Fenway Park in baseball. The NHL has a longer, richer history than the NBA or the NFL, but few realize it. The Red Wings have one of the few fan bases that appreciate and celebrate hockey history, and don't just view hockey as mere entertainment. This is why such a building would work in Detroit and not in Nashville or Atlanta or LA. Beside wanting great hockey with good sightlines and a good place to get something to eat and drink, what more do people actually expect in an arena? Even the new flashy arenas don't accomplish much more, and these new buildings have contributed little to the atmosphere of hockey. Ask a Leafs, Bruins, Canadians, or Blackhawks fan if they could trade their new arenas back in for the old ones. Chances are, they would. Sure, add some leg room (Good god, JLA has no leg room!), but replicating the old time atmosphere should be the goal of the New Olympia, not using the flashing lights and sparkle of the new crop of sports arenas. Joe Louis has a good hockey atmosphere, but the architecture itself contributes little to the experience. It isn't old, it isn't new, it hasn't aged particularly well, it just isn't really anything but nice and red inside. If you check out the floor plans at the New Olympia site, you will see two restaurants, two sports bars, a big Red Wings store, and a Red Wings Hall of Fame.

1. That was a good catch on the benches on opposite sides of the ice. I've watched too many MSU hockey games at Munn where that is how the benches are set up. If I get some time, I'll correct that boo-boo. 2. Many say it had the best sight lines of any original six arena. Comparing to Boston Garden, Maple Leaf Gardens and others, the case could be made that Olympia was better for hockey viewing. However, the Olympia had flaws. It was too small by the end of its tenure, it was in a deteriorated neighborhood, and there is no question that many seats had obstructed views. My plan for the new Olympia would eliminate all but about 100 obstructed view seats at the back of the upper arena. Old Olympia was much more intimate than Joe Louis, and probably had about 12,000 excellent seats and maybe 2,000 not so excellent seats, kind of like Tiger Stadium 3. I wouldn't get too hung up about a name. I don't like corporate names either, but naming rights are a better way to pay for a new arena watching an owner beg for public funding. Its what's inside the arena that counts more than the name on the front door.

I not the first one to think of the New Olympia concept, but I might be the first to illustrate how such a concept may be applied to the actual building, inside and out. Many of you may have seen the plan already. If not, check out New Olympia Stadium

If tickets were the same price as they were for the regular season, I think they could sell 30,000+ tickets. I certainly can't afford Red Wings playoff tickets, but if they were $30 instead of $100, me and my friends would be beating doors down to get them. I think the message has been sent, and prices will come down next year; at least I hope so. Its too bad people outside the state will mistake this for disinterest in hockey, its just not so. I'm wondering if the Fox Sports Net ratings at similar to last year.

That is a cool picture of the Thunderdome pre Devil Rays. It actually looks like a decent hockey set up, better than I thought. I think hockey capacity was 28,000. I think they drew very well there when the hockey team and the dome was very new. Tampa has really been a good hockey market overall, probably the best in the South other than Dallas

Back in the Early and Mid '80's, the Joe was too big. 20,000 is plenty big for an indoor arena; there is a reason that no arena in the NHL is bigger than 21K and 22K in the NBA. The seats, isles, legroom, and bathrooms at the Joe are small, but not the number of seats. If there were more mid-level club seats and suites, those high-rolling no shows could buy tickets there instead of near the ice. The level of fan interest was bound to wane after a while too, a great hockey team year after year is wonderful, but it isn't a novelty any more. I think in the late '90's you could sell 30K tickets/game, but not now.

Maybe Mr. Illitch is going to use my New Olympia Stadium plan (ha ha)! That building is right in the middle of the plot of land I described in my plan for a new Olympia Stadium. If you want to see the map, its at www.newolympia.blogspot.com. There is nothing particularly wrong with JLA building itself, but its like a stand alone fortress, cut off from the rest of town by the Lodge Fwy and Cobo Center. I think a new building is imminent.

Do people like Ken Kal? I like Ken Daniels and Mickey, but I don't particularly like Ken Kal. He kind of sounds like he's getting kicked in the groin every time the Wings score.

I think the thumb of Michigan is underserved by pro sports. I think the Maple Leafs should move to Bad Axe. It even has a venue, the Huron County Fair show arena. They would do great there, we could call them the Huron County Lakers. I'll give Maple Leaf management a call.

I like the sound of the Kansas City Predators. Just wait until the Predators have a rebuilding year and attendance drops to 10,000 a game. Give it 2 years. They are the only team that really is a serious threat to move. Florida has sucked for a long time, and fan support is still decent. And I just don't think the Islanders will move, though the New York market is obviously saturated.

1. I don't know why so many people want to move to the Eastern Conference, other than so all the games are at 7:00. The Wings are in a GREAT division from a rivalry standpoint; IF the Blackhawks and Blues can get their act together. The Blues are doing just that, and will challenge for a Stanley Cup by 2009. The Blackhawks will not be terrible forever. Moving to the East, you are giving up a budding rivalry (Nashville), and two long standing rivalries which will be reborne as the opponents improve (Chicago and St. Louis). And don't dismiss St. Louis. They aren't orginal six, but they are orginal 12 with a forty year history. Despite the lack of a Stanley Cup, they are one of the most successful hockey franchises in the NHL, regardless of the two years of difficulty they've had. Don't be shortsighted about this arguement about moving back to the East. The problem is we don't see the Eastern teams enough. This can be remediated by playing each Eastern team twice a year, hosting each Eastern team once a year. Remember, Detroit is the farthest East Western team and would be the farthest West Eastern team if a change were to be made. They are on the line between East and West, so its not as if its an obvious decision. Somebody has to be in the West, and Detroit hasn't exactly had bad luck being in the West either. 2. Regarding the TV deal. This shouldn't be an ESPN vs. Versus arguement. The NHL isn't going back to ESPN until ratings and interest improve. There are how many other channels that the NHL could go to besides Versus though. The USA idea was great, and there are five or six other channels that would be better than Versus.