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

[stormboy 47]

I don't like this. The fans suffer all year for their team and deserve to see their team at home as much as possible in the finals! Also, teams work hard for home ice advantage. No, I think the NHL could spend their energy elsewhere like a great TV contract for the regular season, say with a network people have actually heard of. God, Bettman should have been on his knees with lips parted for ESPN. Losing that deal showed, to me, he is inept. He should have given away the virginity of all his daughters on that one. No excuse, no excuse.

while i agree that the NHL needs a better TV deal, every person employed by ESPN mocks the NHL whenever they have a chance. if it's not football, baseball, and often basketball, no one gives a s*** on that network. and the thing is, it's about supply and demand. most american sports fans watch ESPN; most of them don't want to hear about hockey. football players' off-season, off-the-field antics get more coverage than the SCF when it's going on. ESPN will pay attention to hockey when paying attention to hockey generates revenue for them. while i agree that bettman and others need to do more to promote the game, you realistically can't except any kind of ESPN coverage at this point.

i know you weren't blaming ESPN for not covering hockey, necessarily, but it's the reality of the league and the market right now.

one of my points in an earlier post was that, yes, some fans might be unhappy about it...but if it grows the game, that means better tv deals which means more viewers -> more fans -> more league revenues -> higher cap...which also, incidentally, means the wings will be even better.

just a thought.

[Rivalred 630]

Decision for the Cup should be 1 game then instead of 7.

[YoungGuns1340 1]

So imagine a scenario where the Rangers win the President's trophy, and also win the bid to host the first two games. Whichever western conference team faces off against the Rags is essentially going to be playing 4 straight away games. Not only unfair, but stupid.

[T.Low 1,011]

in da kreese

out of da kreese

in da kreese

out of da kreese

Thanks for the reminder, that was great!

Not sure what I think of the idea of nuetral site.

[Chunkylover 26]

Bettman should have been on his knees with lips parted for ESPN. Losing that deal showed, to me, he is inept. He should have given away the virginity of all his daughters on that one. No excuse, no excuse.

I say, screw ESPN. Is football, baseball, or basketball better than hockey? No! There is nothing on that channel worth watching.

The correct thing for hockey fans to do is stop complaining about how obscure the channel our national contract is with and actually encourage more people to tune in to the hockey games they broadcast and quit complaining about things because they are different. Sure Doc Emrick has goofy mannerisms, so did Gary Thorne. Just because someone was a fixture for a few years doesn't mean they were all that good.

If we are half the fans we think we are we can make Versus a viable competitor (with the help of the UFC fans) of ESPN and make them regret their arrogance.

As to the proposition of a neutral site game: I'm against it. It's a stunt and stunts distract from a lack of substance and hockey sure doesn't suffer from that.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Chunkylover

[Chelichic 12]

Dont like the idea at all. If you are the home team you play at home and all the fans from that are can come and not have to pay travel/overnight costs (other then gas to and from home, for the most part).

Its like saying here's your home team the Detroit Red Wings in Dallas... WTF

File the idea in section 13 of the trash can.

[shoe 165]

I wonder if neutral site means a place that the nhl dosnt have a team in eg Newfoundland, or just an existing city that team didnt make it eg Toronto (safe bet) lol

It would create some wierd senarios eg, lets say last year the 1st game was to be played in Dallas. Detroit beats Dallas and then has to stick around till the penguins fly in so they can play them twice? How many people in Dallas are going to want to go watch the team they just lost to in the playoffs? Seems strange to me.

I think this idea would cause more problems than create a good name for the game.

[Electrophile 3,554]

What a dumb idea. I don't know where people come up with these, but apparently they fell asleep at the creative wheel. Personally, if I lived in Detroit and my guys made it all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals and we couldn't be rewarded with seeing them play for the Cup on home ice at least twice, I'd be pissed. Hell, I don't even live there and I'd be pissed if it happened.

I don't get why the PTB want to turn the league into some kind of Vegas sideshow. I get they want viewers and I get they want more media coverage, but what exactly would this do? What good would come of it? How would it better the game and bring in more people next season?

[shannyfan1414 0]

Hate it. The cup finals should be enjoyed by the fans who teams make it to the finals.

Hope this never happens.

[TheSupafly 50]

- currently, home ice advantage isn't really that much of an advantage.

I guess it depends on what team you root for.

I didn't like the idea at first. Now that I've given it more thought, I still don't like the idea. So many things still not discussed. How they pick the location for the game, is it flexible/possible to change sites if a team in that city makes the finals...

As a season ticket holder, if my team *i'm praying here* ever were to make the finals, I'd be pissed the F off if I got to go to less games because the NHL wanted to promote the game in other areas. I've shelled out my money season after season and when the cup finals finally come around, I want to be there...not watch fans in a neutral city get the pleasure.

[Nev 1,085]

What a horrible idea. The NHL should worry about more important things - like getting games 1 & 2 of the finals off Vs and on network TV

[Spinner 6]

I think it's a stupid idea. If they are trying to get more viewers, show more T & A on the breaks. I'm not trying to be sexist but the reality is that it seems to work for all the other sporting events.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Not really a fan of the idea. One of the good things about playoffs in a long season, whether it is NHL or NBA or another league, is the playoff series being at home and the crowds being even that more excited and jacked up. A neutral site would take away from that I think.

[GoWings1905 2,694]

Ken Holland usually has solid ideas, but this isn't one of them.

I really hope the NHL doesn't go for this. Teams that win during the regular season have earned that home ice advantage especially on the biggest stage. I want to see the Red Wings at JLA in front of their fans, not at some random site in another city.

[Earthhuman 8]

Are they going to put hockey players on roller blades? Ice is just not going to make it in June, unless you send it way out of the population bubble up north, in which case you're going to make more money with the current format.

[cirov19 1]

It wouldn't make sense to do this.. maybe it would create a Superbowl like environment but there's only 1 game in the SB whereas in the SCF there's a possible 7.

Unless they want to do all games at a neutral site which is an idea I dislike even more. It just doesn't make sense. Stop trying to make money, and play hockey.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

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.

2-2-2? Do you mean the team with the better record would get Games 2 & 3 at home, Games 4 & 5 would be on the road and then Games 6 & 7 would be at home? That further penalizes the the lower seed by taking away one of their 3 home games.

If you're talking 2-2-1-1 after the initial neutral sight game, I would be against that as well. Under that scenario you penalize the top seed by stealing one of their home games which they earned throughout the regular season. Now, you've got a completely balanced SCF, which somewhat trivializes the accomplishment of being the higher seed.

[LIDDYGIBBY5 1]

Maybe this could be an even worse idea by playing in seven different cities that don't have NHL teams in order to get more fans "hooked on hockey"

:puke:

[Guest Shoreline]

No. It is only good for leagues who play a single elim game for it all, i.e. NFL. Otherwise, 7 game series, it is much better to have a home crowd for one of the two teams for every game of the series. f*** the additional revenue. Bring more fans, lower the prices, Gary Twatman. Then more money will come.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Shoreline

[Z and D for the C 712]

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 ...

Like you said the superbowl is THE championship game, it places a lot more importance on it and creates an "event" out of it. If the NFL had a best out of three type thing, do you think that there would be three superbowls? No, it's one game with a huge amount of importance. The SCF won't reach that because there are seven games, but if you make the first game of the Stanley Cup Finals an event, it might gain more popularity and become LIKE a superbowl. It's all about the marketing.

[BlakChamber 8]

Unless they want to do all games at a neutral site which is an idea I dislike even more. It just doesn't make sense. Stop trying to make money, and play hockey.

You realize that above all, the NHL is a business? And the goal of any business is to make money?

That being said, it seems to me there's only a few cities this could even work in. Too many teams have a hard enough time filling their own rink. You really think the people of St. Louis (for example) are going to fill the rink for a Ducks/Devils Cup final? Like others have said, the Superbowl works because its only one game.

I understand what the NHL is doing. How great would it be (from a money making prospective) to have two games of the Cup in Toronto if the two Cup teams aren't original six or Canadian teams?

[Yzersyukstromberg 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.

No way in hell the All Star Game should have any bearing whatsoever on home-ice advantage in the SC Finals. That's just foolish. If that was the case, the league can go ahead and shorten the regular season down to about 60 games instead of 82. There would be no point in such a long a grueling regular season. I can't ever see it happening, and if it did, I'd be extremely dissapointed.