SI: Future Cup Final to be played at neutral site?

[Antilles328 0]

I was flipping through this weeks Sports Illustrated and the Pierre McGuire's "In the Crease" mentions the following

"Inspired by the energy of the 40,000-plus fans at the Winter Classic at Wrigley Field Red Wings G.M. Ken Holland will propose that the first two games of the Stanley Cup finals be played at a neutral site with promotional rights sold for millions of dollars. This could creat a Super Bowl-like environment at the star of the finals and potentially expand the NHL fanbase."

I'm assuming this means that the remaing 5 games would be 2-2-1.

I think this is going to go over like a glowing puck...

[wingschamps 0]

Not a fan of the idea...

[Saran 1]

it would be wicked.. if the red wings weren't in the finals. if you play hard all season u should be rewarded with as many home games as possible in the finals.

[Blueliner 69]

i think it would be cool if the wings played the first two games at Ford Field. But otherwise, I'm against it.

[RWK23 0]

I don't like the idea at all.

[Wings_Rule_1010 4]

it would be wicked.. if the red wings weren't in the finals. if you play hard all season u should be rewarded with as many home games as possible in the finals.

I agree. It sounds too much like the NFL. Neutral fields. If you go through the grind of being the best team in the 82 regular season games, you deserve home ice advantages. Before we know it are they going to try and adapt the what ever conference wins the allstar game gets home ice advantage i.e. MLB?

[ComradeWasabi 109]

In the Crease

in da kreese

out of da kreese

in da kreese

out of da kreese

[Z and D for the C 712]

I definitely think playing the first game would be awesome, it would definitely propel it to superbowl like publicity. Then it could be 2-2-2 after that. I think that would be an awesome idea.

[lets go pavel 2]

Agreed, bad idea. Personally, one of my favorite things about the playoffs (and really any good game where the crowd is into it) is the atmosphere that is created by the crowd ... the cheering, booing, the energy and hum. NFL playoff games have that, but often the Super Bowl doesn't, at least not in the same way, because much of the crowd doesn't care who wins, they're just there for the game. I don't even understand what the energy of the WC has to do with this idea ... the WC wasn't at a neutral site. The energy would not have been anywhere near the same at Wrigley had the Coyotes been playing the Leafs.

[Wings_Rule_1010 4]

IMO the problem comes when it is a "neutral site", but lets say the site is in New York and then New York makes the finals, despite having the worse of the records. Then it becomes a "home" game for them. The chances are slim that that would ever happen, but still something to think about.

[lets go pavel 2]

I definitely think playing the first game would be awesome, it would definitely propel it to superbowl like publicity. Then it could be 2-2-2 after that. I think that would be an awesome idea.

Definitely, huh? The Super Bowl doesn't get the publicity it receives because it's played at a neutral site, it gets the publicity it receives because it's the championship game for the most popular American sport. The SC finals will never reach that level ...

[stlwing14 0]

Wings vs Devils live from LA! Sharks vs Pens live from Miami! Hawks vs Habs live from Detroit! Wild vs Rangers live from St Louis!

Stupid.

[stormboy 47]

initially i'm opposed to the idea, but i'm not sure sure it would be terrible. yes, it's a break from tradition. i'm not saying that that's NOT a good reason to be opposed to it, but i think on some level you have to look at things practically, and then decide if tradition outweighs potential benefits (if there are any).

i see a few good points:

- the potential for expanded exposure is there, i think. because it's different than a normal playoff series, there will inevitably be more fanfare surrounding it. additionally, it seems to me that at a neutral site, you could do more superbowl-esque pre-game celebrations that might not necessarily be possible in one team's rink because, obviously, it's going to be all about that home team at that arena. while this might not be great for the top seeded team, i do think it would attract more attention.

- currently, home ice advantage isn't really that much of an advantage. yes, you start (and potentially end) at home, but you play 57% of the games in a 7 game series at home as it is now. discounting the first neutral-site games, the top team would now play 60% of the remaining games at home. not significantly higher, but higher indeed (more importantly, not lower).

- you could complete a sweep without ever having to go into the other fan's barn. put differently, you wouldn't ever have to play with the other team being the "home team" until the fifth game of the series, which may be more of an advantage for the home team. the second seeded team has to wait until game five to get home ice, instead of being able to turn it around after just two at the other team's rink.

- you still get the game 7 clincher at home.

so i'm not positive that the "it screws the top seeded team" is entirely valid here.

i do think the question of where the "neutral" site is located is crucial, though. like if the bruins are playing the ducks in the finals and the first to "neutral" games are held in phoenix, it is obviously an advantage to the ducks (especially if they are the lower-seeded team). i don't think you'd want to have the game in two arenas (unless they were close) because you don't want to add MORE travel for the players. because they're only two games of a seven game series (which will be played in both teams' arenas eventually) it's unlikely that, in the example above, a lot of bruin fans are going to fly to the desert when the series is eventually (most likely) coming back to boston anyway.

hmmm...so maybe not a terrible idea. i'd have to hear more about it.

[Saran 1]

IMO the problem comes when it is a "neutral site", but lets say the site is in New York and then New York makes the finals, despite having the worse of the records. Then it becomes a "home" game for them. The chances are slim that that would ever happen, but still something to think about.

the chances are more than slim, two eastern conference teams cannot make the finals

[stormboy 47]

the chances are more than slim, two eastern conference teams cannot make the finals

i think he was saying new york and some other western conference team, which had the better of the records. thus new york, given that the finals are IN the "neutral" site of new york city, gets effectively home games despite having the worse record..

edit: this is a concern of mine as well, but i think if you look at football history it has rarely occurred that one team got a vast advantage from the stadium being very near their home city. i don't *think* it's ever happened that the team from the super bowl city has played in the super bowl, but my history could be wrong here (not a huge NFL fan).

i say that just to point out that statistically, it's not very likely that that scenario would occur...

also, perhaps they could write a clause into the "agreement" or whatever that has a back-up city in the rare event that one of the two finals teams is FROM the city where the final games are to be staged. the original city, then, would become the host for next season (so they don't get screwed on revenue).

Edited January 16, 2009 by stormboy

[Ms_Hockey 0]

I was flipping through this weeks Sports Illustrated and the Pierre McGuire's "In the Crease" mentions the following

"Inspired by the energy of the 40,000-plus fans at the Winter Classic at Wrigley Field Red Wings G.M. Ken Holland will propose that the first two games of the Stanley Cup finals be played at a neutral site with promotional rights sold for millions of dollars. This could creat a Super Bowl-like environment at the star of the finals and potentially expand the NHL fanbase."

I'm assuming this means that the remaing 5 games would be 2-2-1.

I think this is going to go over like a glowing puck...

I think you're right.

[Lovin Jiri Fischer 147]

I think that whatever teams are in the finals, those fans deserve to be able to purchase tickets and go see them play at home. If it were like the Super Bowl, then just the rich people from everywhere would go just because it's the Stanley Cup. Not because they love one of the teams playing.

Plus last year Detroit and Pittsburgh made it to the finals and earned the right to have this extra revenue for their stadium. How unfair would it be for the Wings and Pens if those two games worth of revenue from tickets, food, beer, jerseys, etc. goes to say Atlanta? We know Bettman would put have it in the south or in Vegas in a heart beat.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

in da kreese

out of da kreese

in da kreese

out of da kreese

I love that Holmer thing.

[Yzersyukstromberg 0]

Horrible idea...

This is the NHL, not the NFL. Let's not f*ck with tradition. It's worked just fine for over 100 years, why even consider altering it now???

We, as fans of whatever team we're fans of, deserve to see our team play at home if and when they reach the finals. It would be a HUGE mistake by the league to consider this as an option......which is exactly why they might just do it....because the NHL unfortunately has their head lodged inside their ass.

[2probert4 8]

IMO the problem comes when it is a "neutral site", but lets say the site is in New York and then New York makes the finals, despite having the worse of the records. Then it becomes a "home" game for them. The chances are slim that that would ever happen, but still something to think about.

They could have it in Toronto, because the Leafs wont get there to have a home game !!!

[Pasha13 0]

I'd like to join most of you in saying, "Wow, that's....really stupid."

I would like to see the All-Star Game decide home-ice advantage in the SC Finals though, just like in baseball. I know teams work hard to clinch home ice throughout, but I would just like to see something done about the All-Star game being a really slow soft boring game that displays players who have the best organized internet fanbase. Honestly...as it is, the All-Star festivities are the suck.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Pasha13

[VM1138 1,921]

Don't like the idea. It coudl work, but it's more likely to backfire horrifically. Neutral Winter Classic, neutral Final game, popularity contest for the ASG, damn. The NHL is becoming a prostitute.

[Antilles328 0]

The strange thing is that its Holland proposing the idea not Bettman or some other idiot unaware of what fans want.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Did McGuire make that up? The real clincher is that might just be a balloon being floated by that balloon-head is the line:

"This could creat (sic) a Super Bowl-like environment at the star (sic) of the finals and potentially expand the NHL fanbase."

How the Clubs should be doing that is exactly the way Mr. Holland and the DRW organization is, and has been, doing: Putting a winning product on the ice.

Sometimes, McGuire just hasn't seemed the same ever since he took that puck to the head, and got the super-glue to the scalp, when he was doing colour commentary at ice level.

[ben_usmc 253]

seems like it would be harder to sell tickets