Return of the Glow Puck?

[MississippiWing 14]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say NO!!!!!!

[TheOctopusKid 19]

I guess from a personal standpoint, I'm indifferent to the tracking light on the puck. I don't find it distracting or detracts from the overall experience of watching the game. However I do have some thoughts/questions regarding it -

I have noticed that the most vehement opposition and criticisms of the glowing puck have been from "hardcore" fans - or the longtime fanbase of the sport. If these individuals could respond to these questions and observations that would be fantastic. Although I've followed the Wings for over 20 years, I still don't understand why there is so much hatred for this idea.

"It draws the wrong kind of fans to the sport"

The NHL, no matter how despretely we want to deny this, is a second tier sport in the eyes of the American public. This is evident and there is no denying the facts. Television viewership is lower than the other three "major" sports and NASCAR. We are oddly respresented in different and rather small markets (sorry Columbus, Nashville, Phoenix, etc.). We lack a full time national television contract (VS and weekend playoff games by NBC don't count). Hockey fans are some of the most devoted, knowlegdable, and passionate in the world - period, but that isn't enough of us. The NBA is a fine example - there are a core sect of hardcore NBA fans, who watch basketball for the sake of watching basketball. But where the NBA dominates the NHL is their ability to capture the casual fan.

Here's a test - ask 10 non-sports centric people who LeBron James is, Kobe, etc. Then ask them if they know who Evgeni Malkin is, Crosby, etc.

I understand the need to respect traditions and not to gimmick up the game - but guess what, our fan base no matter how random, annoying, etc. needs to increase and the tracking puck is an excellent way to do that. The larger the fan base, the more nationally televised games we see, the more covers of magazines Lidstrom is on, the more Coke commercials Crosby does, and the bigger the game gets. I love the NHL. I want it to succeed and prosper and it only does that if it makes more money.

And what's wrong with new fans?

We were all rather ignorant to the game at some point in our lives. It's fun to see people come over and get caught up in this great game. I think we forget how hard it was at first to follow the puck when we first started watching this game, esspecially on non-HD TV's. The puck is small and is fired around the ice at break neck speeds. It isn't until you understand the game, see the players move, and watch their plays that you can follow the puck without actually having to focus on it. New fans can't do that. The glow allows them to follow the game without being an expert, and keeps them from becoming frustrated and turning it off.

"It isn't traditional"

All things must change. Nothing is perfect and it takes a long time to get it right. Minor adjustments, tweaks, etc to reflect the demands and needs of the times. Yes, it is important to remember its origins and to respect them, but it is also necessary to add and change with the times. There are many great changes that we have glossed over, ignored or have taken for granted. Aluminium sticks. European players. Goalie cameras. The Shootout. Helmets! I mean, all of those things were met with similiar adversity based on the argument "it isn't traditional". I'm not saying that everything that the league has decided to change has worked out well: long pants on the uniforms, the Hartford Whalers to Carolina, the absolvement of the old divisions. But, like all professional sports leagues, it needs to evolve with the needs of its fan base to keep the game exciting and fair.

"Retarded/***/Stupid"

Not sure how to answer these - but if you could elaborate and give a real justification I'd love to hear it.

I'm not saying that the puck glow system is perfect and that it isn't quirky and gimmicky. It is. But so was instant replay when it was first introduced. So was the forward pass in football, this could be a great new way to try to improve the viewership, visibility and overall image of the sport to the masses.

Is it really bad?

[Datsyerberger 279]

I'm going to agree with TheOctopusKid here. Personally, I don't like it (for the live action anyway, I think it could be very handy in replays). But the fact is, that's selfish of me.. it helps casual fans a lot in following the puck and the play. I think a lot of us need to get over our selfish dislike of it and think of the broader picture.. which is if it will help the popularity of the game or not, and I think TheOctopusKid has that nailed. If I want to see the game with perfect realism and the most hardcore experience, I'll get a damn plane ticket and game ticket and fly up and watch it at the Joe. Not like I have the money for that, but I'm content to watch the game here on my ass on my own chair essentially for free, and a glowy puck isn't going to wreck how much I love hockey.

Let's face it, guys: if they add a glow to the puck, it's certainly not going to run off any of us hardcore fans and serious hockey lovers... we like the game too much. It'll help all the newcomers.. soccer balls and basketballs and other large objects are easier to follow in fast moving games than a little puck.

That, and I will admit it has one benefit to me: if I'm forced to watch a low quality flash feed or something off of my PC for whatever reason, it'll be much easier to follow the puck. It's VERY hard to see on those low quality feeds.

[Must Kill 0]

i wasnt a fan of the glow puck then, and i wouldnt be a fan today.

[Gordie Howe hat trick 110]

I don't like it, I know we need more fans...but If I can study over in Germany and get my roomate (A German), An Irish Girl, and a French guy into watching hockey, and they have no trouble following the puck after a period of play....losing the puck just doesnt seem to be a valid argument to me...seeing as how the Irish don't have a national team, and if you look at the way the French are doing in the world championship one could really doubt that it is a big sport there either.

[hockeysattva 8]

To the person/s who use "***" as though it is synonymous with "bad" -- grow up.

My biggest problem was the chip in the puck, many players said they could tell the difference and I am inclined to believe them.

I just hope if they want to introduce tracking technology they can use smaller and more accurate trail.

By no means do I think there should be a sensor for the line.

[WingsForever 2]

Oh man. To the guys who have to explain hockey to their women.

Dump them.

I'm engaged to a hardcore Wings fan who texted me every big hit/play/goal/etc of the game tonight.

Even had a neighbor come down and ask her to turn the TV down.

i love my woman.

Glow puck would be a good idea for "casual" fans.

But. You either understand hockey and want to take time to figure out all the quirks and plays and wouldn't need the glow puck or you're the "casual" channel flipper who will watch 30 seconds and change the channel because no one "scored"

It's just like this whole "no fighting" rule that seems to be set in place.

forget that. I went to alot of Fort Wayne Komets games last winter. My fiance and I looked at each othe and thought the same thing, "We went to a fight and a hockey game broke out!"

i miss THAT about hockey. I miss the fact the Ribiero would be seeing stars if this was 1998 and not 2008.

In my opinion, so many bad decisions being made for the NHL. Hockey isn't a sport like basketball where if you look at someone wrong you get a foul/penalty. Hockey is the sport where you settle your differences like men. FIGHT.

bring back the fights. bring back the feeling that you can't injure someone without having to keep your head up for the next 82 games. bring THAT back. not the glow puck.

People watch nascar for the wrecks for the most part. What would make watching hockey for the fights any different for "new" fans?

[sixer 37]

The glowing puck was the worst idea in history!

[McCartyFanForLife 17]

Glowing puck = retarded.

If I wanted to watch NHL 2008, I'd turn on the Playstation 3.

[betterREDthandead 58]

I always kinda liked the glow puck. It was kinda awkward looking when the puck was by the near boards. But the comet trail was cool. I don't understand how it wasn't "traditional". Neither is watching hockey on HD television with stats for your perusal at every stoppage, but nobody minds that too much.

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

Oh man. To the guys who have to explain hockey to their women.

Dump them.

I'm engaged to a hardcore Wings fan who texted me every big hit/play/goal/etc of the game tonight.

Even had a neighbor come down and ask her to turn the TV down.

i love my woman.

Glow puck would be a good idea for "casual" fans.

But. You either understand hockey and want to take time to figure out all the quirks and plays and wouldn't need the glow puck or you're the "casual" channel flipper who will watch 30 seconds and change the channel because no one "scored"

It's just like this whole "no fighting" rule that seems to be set in place.

forget that. I went to alot of Fort Wayne Komets games last winter. My fiance and I looked at each othe and thought the same thing, "We went to a fight and a hockey game broke out!"

i miss THAT about hockey. I miss the fact the Ribiero would be seeing stars if this was 1998 and not 2008.

In my opinion, so many bad decisions being made for the NHL. Hockey isn't a sport like basketball where if you look at someone wrong you get a foul/penalty. Hockey is the sport where you settle your differences like men. FIGHT.

bring back the fights. bring back the feeling that you can't injure someone without having to keep your head up for the next 82 games. bring THAT back. not the glow puck.

People watch nascar for the wrecks for the most part. What would make watching hockey for the fights any different for "new" fans?

QFT!!!!

I would also add this....hockey doesn't need to move forward, it needs to move backward.

But. You either understand hockey and want to take time to figure out all the quirks and plays and wouldn't need the glow puck or you're the "casual" channel flipper who will watch 30 seconds and change the channel because no one "scored"

Americans get bored very quickly. The media have conditioned us...flashing images so fast on the screen that the naked eye sees a blur. Information is picked up by a subconscious (unconscious) mind that is not thinking. I don't want hockey to go subliminal. If you can't follow the puck...sit your butt down and learn how to WATCH the game. All the "hardcore" fans learned how to do it so it IS possible. I say; don't teach new fans to be pansys. Show them old clips of fights, sit their asses down ant teach them the game. If they don't have the patience to learn...f*** 'em. I would rather the sport die out completely than to continue morphing into a non-violent, politically-correct bowl of baby food. To hell with bells and whistles and glow pucks shiny, pretty lights on jerseys with ads on them. Keep it up, Bettman. There will come a day when I won't turn it on anymore. Changing the game won't bring in new fans and make it more popular than the 4th sport at best. When you have driven all the people who care about the game it will die. I hate that man.

[toby91_ca 620]

See my post. I saw something about exactly this during tonight's game on TSN. It's a small thin red line behind the goal line spaced slightly further than the width of a puck. Putting some kind of chip in the puck allows the goal light to go off when the puck is between the two lines.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the the second line was simply placed just over the width of the puck behind the goal line, so if the puck were to touch that line, you know it has fully crossed the goal line. I'm not aware of any additional technology that goes into it (i.e. chip in the puck, etc.). Again, I could be totally wrong here.

[rbochan 15]

[Ziggy Stardust 0]

I mean seriously...if you place sensors inside the puck, and a corresponding set of sensors inside the goal frame, you could very easily and with existing technology build a system that determines conclusively if a puck enters the net. Won't have any say on the validity of the goal, other than that the puck entered the net. But that is often a major point of contention in goal reviews.[/font]

They are actually suppose to use sensors like this in the Euro 2008 (soccer).

[selkie 10]

Glow puck 1.0 had exactly one useful feature- it let you see where the puck was along the near boards in low camera angle situations. If it was only used for that, I'm cool with it. But no national boradcaster would stop at just that situation.

Signed,

A woman whose first date with her future husband involved watching Kevin Evans beat the heck out of someone at a Kalamazoo Wings game.

[Real1 2]

Dumbest thing ever.

[seeinred 1,488]

I don't like it, I know we need more fans...but If I can study over in Germany and get my roomate (A German), An Irish Girl, and a French guy into watching hockey, and they have no trouble following the puck after a period of play....losing the puck just doesnt seem to be a valid argument to me...seeing as how the Irish don't have a national team, and if you look at the way the French are doing in the world championship one could really doubt that it is a big sport there either.

Actually Ireland does have a team. They're ranked below such powerhouses as Mexico, Spain, and Israel but they do exist.

[Gordie Howe hat trick 110]

Actually Ireland does have a team. They're ranked below such powerhouses as Mexico, Spain, and Israel but they do exist.

Seriously? Well I'll be damned...

[TheOctopusKid 19]

There have been a lot of mistakes made by the NHL that I will most likely draft some kind of thread on later, however I don't constitute the glow puck to be one of these.

Baring responses like "dumb" "retarded" etc. because they don't provide a reason for it being "stupid", I can see the arguments being made that another can learn the game of hockey.

Yes, this is absolutely true. If you have a individuals who are consciousily trying to focus on the game and make a legitimate attempt to learn about hockey, then yes - they can learn to follow a puck rather easily. It's not exactly all that physically demanding. But as the point was made earlier in the thread, people are not willing to put forth the effort to do this if they are just "flipping" through the channels.

We are conditioned to have limited attention spans and seek out action. I'm not necessarily against it. I mean, I know I'd rather see fights and amazing breakaway goals that repetitive turnovers in the neutral from two unskilled trapping teams (cough Columbus and Carolina I'm looking in your direction). But I think the overall production of the NHL needs to improve drastically to capture the imagination of the casual fan who is looking for something to watch on television.

Look at the productions of the NBA back in the early 90's and how it is produced now. They have integrated sideline reporting, coach interviews during official timeouts, various new camera angles (above basket cam, below basket cam, two roving camera man, zip line camera, etc.) to provide new and interesting ways to see all the action from new viewpoints. During breaks, they can so computer tracking of where all the shots are taken in missed. Breakdown offensive sets with tags coming off the players heads to show you were they are and where they are going.

What I'm saying, not all of those are good ideas but they are ideas! The NBA makes a noticiable attempt to 1) connect the fans with the players on a noticiable level. 2) Educate the fan base of strategy and the game, 3) wrap up their presentation of the game in a fun and exciting manner to entice the fan to watch more of the game.

Professional sports are a business and we are the clients. They are doing a great disservice by not constantly trying to improve the quality of their product and hide behind "traditionalism". I've watched it happen with American viewership of tennis. I love tennis, but it is a third tier sport. There is no viewership beyond the hardcore fans which is small at best. After Agassi and Sampras retired, there was nothing for them to sell the game. No national media attention, no big time sponsers that ran spots. The number one complaint I hear from people who have flipped around and don't want the sport?

"Can't follow the ball" - Green ball, green surface, moving at 100+ mph, not really all the brilliant.

The ATP thought about integrating a tracking system for the ball to improve viewship (sans comet) back in the mid 90's. It was argue against by the traditionists who were their only viewers. They choose not to do it, and still over a decade later they still haven't grown, casuals fans still have the same issue with watching it.

[deker 0]

Octopus Kid-you make some good points, but I would argue that the problem with hockey today is that they've made too many changes to the game too quickly in an attempt to get the casual fan. (Over)expansion in order to get viewers from new TV markets, shootouts to get rid of ties, the trapezoid...etc. It's too much gimmickry. It's just like a good movie-you can have all the coolest special effects in the world, but if the story is bad, the movie won't be any good. We have a great game-speed, skill, hits...there are a lot of strengths to capitalize on there that the current regime has not done effectively.

I think that the NHL has done some good things in selling the players a bit more this year. I think getting fans familiar with their players is one of the most effective ways to create a lasting bond. And the third broadcaster in between the benches is also a good idea because you can be introduced to the strategies and things that go on during a game. (Although I chuckle when I think of someone trying to interview Scotty during a game...just would not happen!) Let that initiative take root and see where it goes before the Fox glow puck and the robots (remember those?)