| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 12:24:13
Next season's winter classic is going to be WSH vs. PIT, OVIE vs. SID.
It's a great matchup, and will be played in Heinz field on January 1st, 2011.
My question to you guys is, do you agree with how teams are chosen? |
| 32 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 19:49:42
I can agree that having a game in Canada cater to the rabid Canadian fan. However, does it not make sense in the marketing sense that the NHL uses their most powerful tool to market in areas that hockey are not as popular??
Let's face it, every Canadian NHL team will more than likely have a sell out in each of their 41 home games. There is no need to market the game in areas where the game is already strong.
Think about a place like Buffalo or NYI or whatever else that do not sell out every game. Don't you think that an Outdoor game will totally spike the attendance in that area, at least for a short period of time?? Is that not where the marketing value should go??
I love the idea of a Rideau Canel game, as that is true Canadiana. But I don't think that TO should get an Outdoor game just for a sake of it.
Let's not forget, there will be an outdoor game in Canada this year. Calgary against Montreal at McMahon stadium in Calgary on Feb 20th.
I am sure if TO really wanted to get involved in an outdoor game, they could. Something tells me the Leafs are not interested as I think it would be virtually impossible for the NHL to say no to their cash cow.
|
| FLYING -V |
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 18:13:29
I'm sorry, but since when did the winter classic become such a big deal. I mean, for those at home watching, it's really not that different from everyday games. It's the experience at the rink for the hometown crowd that makes it cool. Here are a few ideas...
1. Hold multiple outdoor games per year, here are some matchups i'd like to see:
-calgary edmonton
-boston montreal
-toronto ottawa
-vancouver chicago
-pittsburgh washington
Just a thought, imagine how sick that would be.
2. This idea's a little zanier, but why not combine the winter classic with the all-star game. And....wait for it...... revert to the NHL's old all-star game format of cup champs vs. all stars. I know, this sounds crazy, but how much harder do you think you'd be cheering if it was your team up against the all stars from the other conference, with home-ice advantage for the playoffs on the line. Also, never under estimate the value of chemistry, the defending champs would actually have a chance (unless they absolutely got gutted in the off season or devastated by injuries). But if that happened, why couldn't they just draft replacements for injured players from within their own conference. I don't know, it's just an idea, and it obviously wouldn't work for sun-belt teams(there's always road hockey), but maybe if we moved all those teams north or folded them, except the ducks of course ( actually no, move em' to red deer!), it could be a possibility.
3. Another, more realistic possibility, this one also involves merging the winter classic with the all-star game and tweaking the format. Return to North America vs. World, or better yet North America vs. Russia( you couldn't make it canada vs. russia, my first choice, because we have to sell the game to americans.) Anyway, going back to NA vs. World, it would give the fans someone firmly to cheer for. Unlike today's all-star games, in which the winning team doesn't seem to matter, the fans would have a team to cheer for. I don't know, maybe there really is no way to fix the all star game.
Just thinking out loud, everybody, personally, i like idea #1 the best.
Its not worth winning if you cant win big! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/31/2010 : 09:15:22
I'm pretty sure that any Canadian city hosting an outdoor game would be an instant sell-out in that city. If Vancouver could actually guarantee weather and host an outdoor game, they could easily fill BC Place or Empire stadium, many times over.
What I think would be sweet - an outdoor game in Whistler between VAN and someone. You'd have the weather, and the scenery would be awesome. If only Whistler had an 80,000 seat stadium... |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 18:29:53
quote:
Originally posted by Deaner
honestly i love watching the pitty vs caps games but come on pitty just had one and seriously why don't they do leafs vs habs??? that would be insane. i also like the idea of president trophy winner taking on the champs, that would be a good turn out i think.
Leafs habs would be a guranteed sellout no matter how big the Venu,, it would have to be hosted by toronto, unfortunatly montreal does not have a big enough outdoor stadium.... the rogers center would be cool,, whats the capacity 70 000? habs leafs could easily double that
Pasty |
| Deaner |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 17:23:28
honestly i love watching the pitty vs caps games but come on pitty just had one and seriously why don't they do leafs vs habs??? that would be insane. i also like the idea of president trophy winner taking on the champs, that would be a good turn out i think. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 17:00:45
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
Alex:
I don't think having three outdoor games, on the same surface, in the same day, is reasonable.
You have to contend with daylight. Using lighting at night, would create too many shadows. To NHL standards (compared to us playing in our backyards), is unacceptable.
You have to have fans willing to stay for 12 hours. Due to 9 periods (or more) of hockey, intermissions, re-doing the ice, breaks in between, etc... or, you have to enter/exit fans after every game, for new people to come in (if differing tickets for each game), which takes more time.
You also have the ice conditions. Which, outdoors, would become mush with pro athletes playing 3 games of hockey on it in a single day. Doesn't work, I don't think.
Irvine/prez.
Irv, although i was really just dreaming and certainly not expecting it, you do bring up some good points. I will say this, i wouldn't expect many fans to endure 12 hours in the cold but that's not to say they couldn't have 3 separate games. We witnessed that here during the Olympics where the arena was cleared, cleaned, etc and then ticket holders for the next game came in. Even if you had tix to back to back games, it required you leaving, waiting, and then going back through the security screening.
I do agree, light, shadows and ice / weather conditions could make it very difficult.  |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 08:55:09
Yeah, the Talbot tirade was pretty hilarious... I'm thinking the same as Irvine. I'm also thinking OV is back in Russia lying in bed with 3 gorgeous women, sipping vodka and eating caviar off their thighs, saying to himself "who the hell is Maxime Talbot?"
Why is it the bit players always lay into the superstars?
And to add some conspiracy - some are saying that Bettman or PIT management put him up to it, in order to fuel the rivalry on the same day that the outdoor game is announced. Get out your tinfoil hats boys! |
| irvine |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 02:54:38
In other news, focused somewhat on the upcoming Winter Classic...
Max Talbot, has officially blasted Alex Ovechkin. Talbot, during an interview (radio), said that he hates Ovechkin. He said ovie was a "real BLEEP".
Talbot then went on to say that, he hated him from the first time they met off the ice. When, Malkin introduced the two. (Talbot - Ovechkin). Talbot would not say what happened, but said he knew he didn't like him.
--
My guess is that, Talbot, whom is a very funny and easy going guy, likely finds Ovechkin to be too egotistical. Ovechkin does portray himself to be a bit self-centered. Only concerned with himself, and the focus around him.
Atleast, that's how I feel he portrays himself. And, something tells me, Talbot feels the same.
Irvine/prez. |
| irvine |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 00:23:20
Alex:
I don't think having three outdoor games, on the same surface, in the same day, is reasonable.
You have to contend with daylight. Using lighting at night, would create too many shadows. To NHL standards (compared to us playing in our backyards), is unacceptable.
You have to have fans willing to stay for 12 hours. Due to 9 periods (or more) of hockey, intermissions, re-doing the ice, breaks in between, etc... or, you have to enter/exit fans after every game, for new people to come in (if differing tickets for each game), which takes more time.
You also have the ice conditions. Which, outdoors, would become mush with pro athletes playing 3 games of hockey on it in a single day. Doesn't work, I don't think.
Irvine/prez. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 18:43:50
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
Patsy, you read correctly. This is the first year that they have bowed to pressure and decided to hold 2 games. It will play on Feb 20, which I think is also hockey day in Canada?
How about "Hockey Day In Canada" where there's a triple header at Winnipeg Stadium (or whatever they call it?) with all 6 Canadian teams playing!!!
Tor vs Mtl
Van vs Ott
Edm vs Cgy
Hmmm......dream on, i know.....  |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 09:09:23
Patsy, you read correctly. This is the first year that they have bowed to pressure and decided to hold 2 games. It will play on Feb 20, which I think is also hockey day in Canada? |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 01:11:09
Am i wrong but di i not read at the same time this Pitts Caps game was announced that the habs will be playing the Flames in Calgary aswell?
Pasty |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 20:46:50
I just wish I knew what magic potion Bettman & CO sip from when choosing the teams.
PIT-BUF was reasonable - showcase Sid, let host BUF play.
CHI-DET was logical - one blooming with youth and talent, the other a storied powerhouse
BOS-PHI ??? was Bettman afraid Philly fans would beat him up? - kidding, both have good fanbases-funny that Philly made the finals.
The choices are good, but wouldn't it be better if there was some sort of way to determine next year's teams?
If the Cup Champs would play every year, would it have been so bad to watch the champs versus hosts:
ANA-BUF
DET-CHI(funny, same team choice....)
PIT-BOS
and this year would be CHI-PIT
With this method, you can still entice local fans, and in fact, even entice cities that can host an outdoor game but have NO NHL team!
That way you can really grow the game. |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 20:38:40
Totally agree with guest 3153
Honestly, I think the NHL is doing well with the Winter Classic in choosing "exciting" teams. Catering only to Canadian fans (and let's face it we are unhappy unless there is a Canadian team every year, and then, we complain why it isn't our team) is not the best marketing strategy.
There have been many rumours that there will be a second, Canadian only "Heritage Classic". If that happens, we'll all be happy to watch (and pay?)
The game needs continual promotion, and choosing a matchup like PIT/WAS is good for the game. |
| Guest3153 |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 17:17:55
Ottawa is not an original six team, nor do they have a winning history. But anyway, you are seriously telling me that a match between a team that finished next to last in the league last year and a middle-of-the-pack team would bring more viewers than last year's president trophy winner against the team that won the stanley cup the year before, and that features two players that I can say with confidence are the consensus picks as top two players in the game? Why, because of history? I am Canadian, and I can tell you that I would watch Pittsburgh vs Washington over Toronto vs Ottawa any day of the week. Toronto is history. Sid and Ovi are making history.
It's kinda like this. Look at the NFL. Say they were trying to get more Canadians to pay attention to their sport. Would you suggest a match between the Chicago Bears and the Cleveland Browns, two of the more storied and older teams in the league (and currently bottom to middling teams)? Or do you make a match between the Colts and say the Patriots or the Saints, teams that are currently strong, successful teams and that might have something of a rivalry? I know what game has me sold.
And anyways, the point as to which game would make more money is moot: I think you are missing the point of marketing. You keep on mentioning long term gains, but then focusing on ticket sales. Marketing isn't meant to bring in money now, but later. Advertising is marketing: costs money but hopefully increases sales later. Promotional giveaways: costs money now but hopefully increases sales later. Even if a game in Ottawa would bring in more money now (which I think is questionable), I can see no basis at all for thinking that it would have better long term benefits to sales. There is probably more of an untapped market in New York state than there is in the entirety of Canada. A vacuum salesman doesn't just keep knocking on the same door trying to sell the same vacuum; he goes door to door.
I think you either a) underestimate the hold hockey already has on Canada, b) underestimate the potential market in the US, or c) just assume the US market is impossible to invade. |
| Leafs81 |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 16:20:22
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Guest 6269 - I was the one that first brought up the fact that the Winter Classic was a marketing tool.
The thing where nuxfan and I differ, is that he thinks Bettman actually makes more money in the long run marketing to americans, and I think there would have been more money made marketing it to MOSTLY Canadians, but also to AMERICAN MARKETS THAT CARE.
Please read the teams I talk about - original 6, and teams with winning histories.
How does a game in Ottawa make more money than in Pittsburgh? Easy: they sell more tickets, and at a higher price, no less. And, the viewership on tv is slightly higher, I'd wager, although it might be a saw-off.
That's how.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
You just said it, short term they would make more money for Ottawa vs Toronto, but think about it, long term they make more money marketing it in the US.
Not only the tickets but if it becomes a tradition for many american families to get together and watch a winter classic on january 1st, the kids will enjoy watching hockey, asking questions about it, and starting to look up to stars like Ovechkin and Crosby. Nobody can argue that Ovie is one of the most entertaining hockey player, and to put him on the spotlight will just do good for the game. And Crosby's name is everywhere already. The Americans are all about traditions and events, this is an event becoming a tradition. The winter classic gets more viewing then the Stanley cup final, because they love that it's a one game thing, during a holiday, and the whole shabam. I know it's far from the superbowl but if it can grow year after year after year, maybe it will generate big tv contract because more and more fans will demand to watch their favourite team on tv.
But I'm with nuxfan, I think their should be two every year, one on january 1st with all the good teams, and players you want to put on the spotlight, and the other one during Hockey day in Canada with an all canadian matchup.
As for the teams in Canada that's a whole different story I also believe their should be at least 8 teams in Canada and many teams in the US shouldn't be there. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 16:01:40
quote:
How does a game in Ottawa make more money than in Pittsburgh? Easy: they sell more tickets, and at a higher price, no less. And, the viewership on tv is slightly higher, I'd wager, although it might be a saw-off.
ticket prices for the last winter classics:
2003 in Edmonton
- ??? - I cannot find original ticket price, Beans?
- 57,200 tickets sold
2008 in Ralph Wilson stadium (BUF)
- $10 to $229
- 71,000 tickets sold
2009 in Wrigley Field:
- $75, $225, $325
- 41,000 tickets sold
2010 in Fenway Park:
- $50 to $350 per ticket
- 38,000 sold
2011???
I don't know what the prices and number of tickets sold will be, but this shows that other cities have been able to fill their stadiums at inflated prices as well. Canadian cities are not alone in having hockey fans willing to pay high prices to see their team play in a spectacle. And yes, in all cases the demand for tickets was way higher than the capacity, and in all cases scalpers made a killing.
As for TV viewership, I think it will be more if the game is in the US with US-based teams. If the game is in OTT, you'll get a ton of Canadians watching, but very few Americans. If the game is in PIT, you'll get a ton of Canadians watching, and a lot more Americans. And they'll all be watching on a network that the NHL covets a long-term agreement with.
quote:
The thing where nuxfan and I differ, is that he thinks Bettman actually makes more money in the long run marketing to americans, and I think there would have been more money made marketing it to MOSTLY Canadians, but also to AMERICAN MARKETS THAT CARE.
Slozo, its not as if Canada is long forgotten or anything - the Canucks do a ton of marketing in Vancouver, I'm sure Toronto is the same with the Leafs. Bettman knows that he just doesn't have to do much to get the attention of the average Canadian, cause we're all halfway there already.
We agree that Bettman should cut his losses and get out of American cities that don't matter and will likely never embrace hockey. IMO he has to come to his senses, and be happy with half of America, rather than the whole thing. But that means abandoning a whole pile of owners that have made significant investments in their teams.
If Bettman ever gets that long-coveted long-term deal with NBC or whoever - even if it is for a paltry (by US sports standards) 500M per season for a few seasons, that would be a huge success in the eyes of the owners. Even MLSE and Orca Bay. |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 13:52:43
Guest 6269 - I was the one that first brought up the fact that the Winter Classic was a marketing tool.
The thing where nuxfan and I differ, is that he thinks Bettman actually makes more money in the long run marketing to americans, and I think there would have been more money made marketing it to MOSTLY Canadians, but also to AMERICAN MARKETS THAT CARE.
Please read the teams I talk about - original 6, and teams with winning histories.
How does a game in Ottawa make more money than in Pittsburgh? Easy: they sell more tickets, and at a higher price, no less. And, the viewership on tv is slightly higher, I'd wager, although it might be a saw-off.
That's how.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest6269 |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 13:36:31
Agree with nuxfan 100%. The winter classic is a marketing tool. It is not about getting that one last big score and riding off into the sunset. It is about increasing the value of the NHL as a league long term.
Let's put it this way: hypothetically, you have a product and you are trying to increase your market share. You have two target markets for your product: one you have created 90% product loyalty, the other say, 10%. In addition, the 10% target market is much larger and more lucrative than the one that you currently enjoy 90% in, and the 90% is more likely to support your product regardless of your efforts. Now who are you going to focus your marketing towards?I hope the answer is obvious.
Of course the NHL is focusing on growing the business in the US. It already has Canada sold. Now you can argue that the winter classic is an ineffective marketing tool. I don't think any of us have the data to say one way or the other. But to wonder why the NHL is catering towards the US is pure naivety.
Do you really think that Toronto will not watch a showdown between the NHL's two biggest stars and two of its biggest superpower teams? Do you really think that, North America wide, a Toronto-Ottawa game would get more viewers than an Pitts-Wash game? Come on. Sure, complain that Canada's game is being pimped to the US. It is. But don't think for a second that this is not the sounder business move. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 12:55:38
quote:
The Canadian fanbase is far from 100% saturated, and there is a lot more money to make . . . from the outdoor game specifically, I think there is more money to make from a game in Ottawa, as opposed to in Pittsburgh. That is the power of having a rabid fanbase.
How so? How does the NHL as a whole make more money from an outdoor game in OTT over PIT? I think it is you who is missing the point now - getting money out of the locals in Pittsburgh is not what the winter classic is about.
As I stated before, Bettman works for the NHL owners, and his job is to get the most money for the owners as possible. Ticket, stadium and local marketing revenues are one way to get that money, and some teams do very well in that regard - TOR, MTL, VAN certainly, CHI, NYR likely. However, the rest of the league looks to outside sources for that revenue, and TV contracts are the best hope for them.
The NHL currently earns about 285M per year from various TV rights:
- CBC: 100M per season, thru 2014
- TSN: ~ 35M (200M for 6 seasons) thru 2014
- NBC: ~ 40M (revenue-sharing deal, size unknown, this was an estimate I saw
- Versus: 60M (120M for 2 seasons) thru 2011
- Other: 50M (wag value only, I'm not sure who else is out there that is worth mentioning. Could find nothing for Sportsnet for example, and there are probably regional TV rights)
According to what I could find on the internet, this translates into about 5M in revenue per team in the NHL. Compare to:
- The NFL has deals with NBC/CBS/Fox/ABC that pay a combined 4B per year, that translates into 40M in additional revenue per team.
- The NBA earns 700M per year from TV rights, adding an additional 25M to each team's revenue.
Whether you like it or not, for the *entire NHL*, Bettman's success (or failure) hinges on him being able to land a major contract with an American network - the NFL and NBA represent the model that he wants the NHL to follow. He has not gotten it yet, and until he does, you will see him relentlessly pursuing it - often to the detriment of the Canadian fan. The winter classic being held in large American hockey markets, shamelessly pimping the Crosby/OV rivalry (ironically neither one is American), and showcasing the sport in the best light possible to as large a potential fanbase as he can get.
I don't argue that there are some US areas where hockey should not exist - all the teams you mentioned fit the bill, and more - and Bettman is probably wasting his time there. But in the areas where the fan base is present (where teams exist or are close to where teams exist in the northern and NE states) there a huge population (roughly 3 times larger than all of Canada) and a lot more untapped potential than Canada will ever have. That potential market is why he devotes his marketing efforts there.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 11:12:24
nuxfan - you missed the point.
The Canadian fanbase is far from 100% saturated, and there is a lot more money to make . . . from the outdoor game specifically, I think there is more money to make from a game in Ottawa, as opposed to in Pittsburgh. That is the power of having a rabid fanbase.
I would also argue that any future revenues coming from potential new fans in the US who might spend future money on hockey/NHL stuff from having that game in the US are absolutely, infitesmally tiny - we are talking small, small potatoes.
This same argument was used for having hockey in Phoenix. Look at the teams that had better advertising than any one-time event like an outdoor game - the teams that won the cup, or made the finals - Carolina, Florida, Tampa Bay . . . where did that much better advertising get them?
There is a LOT more blood in the Ontario stone. You'll see when/if another hockey team comes to southern Ontario . . . but I would argue there is hardly any more money to squeeze out of Pittsburgh (they won the cup, they have one of the top stars in the game) and only a bit more to squeeze out of Washington, and that would happen only with a cup win.
Who is going to watch an outdoor game . . . think about it. Who would attend?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 08:37:18
I personally would like to see 2 winter classics played each year, one in Canada and one in the US. Despite my last post and although I feel I understand why, I also am discouraged that Bettman seems to ignore Canada and Canadian fans. The object of a Canadian outdoor classic would not be so much to generate revenue as to reward fans with a spectacle that they want to see.
Sadly, I think Vancouver is the only Canadian city that would have a hard time hosting one...hockey in the rain is not something anyone would pay for.  |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 08:35:34
Another perspective...
quote:
This is one thing that Bettman has NEVER understood - the intrisic value of hockey being a near religion for many Canadians, and it being a unifying sport
Actually, I think he understands it all too well, and takes it for granted.
Bettman understands marketing and how to grow a business, and ultimately for him, that is what the NHL is. He can be a fan (or lack of fan) all he likes, but at the end of the day his job is to grow market share for the owners and increase league revenues. You can argue how successful he has been in this regard, but its his mandate.
The best way to do that is to sell the game into markets that do not currently make a boatload of money from hockey, expand the brand. He has some strong US markets that could be stronger, and therefore plays to them, in order to build market share. He knows who his stars are, and who he can build a marketing campaign around (Crosby, OV, Kane and Toews, others). And all the while he knows that, even when the winter classic is is in the US between PIT and WSH, that a boatload of Canadians will still watch and the NHL will still make money from the Great White North.
How much added value to the league would a game between OTT and TOR generate? Ontario is already a hockey hotbed, the fans are tuned in and tons of money is generated. There is no more blood to squeeze from that stone.
Expect to see a lot more winter classics in the US than in Canada each year. They have a lot of stadiums that seat 80K+ that will fill up for the novelty, and a lot of good markets that could be strengthened even more by having such an event. All the Canadian fans will watch it, and hopefully a lot of US fringe fans will watch it too - the latter is what Bettman cares about.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 07:46:41
From the experience of the -36 temps in Edmonton for the first Heritage Classic, the cold means nothing. 65,000ish at Commonwealth and they easily could have/would have sold out a 100,000 seat stadium.
Not to mention that every bar in the City was filled to capacity 2 hours before the first game even started!!
Ya, as much as Bettman doesn't control things like not having anyone to buy a team in Winnipeg I do think he is 100% resposible for this. If he had 1/2 a brain, he would be looking at this and would be able to see something is not right. |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 05:55:17
Well, it's heartwarming to hear those opinions from you non-Leaf fans out there. It's a Canadian game, eh?
This is one thing that Bettman has NEVER understood - the intrisic value of hockey being a near religion for many Canadians, and it being a unifying sport. He doesn't understand that 15 years of losing money in the desert was chosen over what would have been maybe 7 or 8 seasons in the Peg of losing money, and probably making money the other half of the time (after the Canadian dollar rebounded, and when Phoenix became competetive now it would have been sell-outs, real sell-outs). All of it was the lure of making meg-bucks for himself . . . and keeping the huge core of fans happy - we Canucks - never entered into the picture. We know this, because of how quickly and painlessly the clubs left from Winnipeg and Quebec . . . there was no effort made by the NHL to temporarily take over either franchise at that time, was there?
And then a cool idea like an outdoor game - a totally Canadian made event, something that evokes a warm fuzzy feeling for all Canadians as we remember backyard rinks and playing hockey as kids - is americanised. Now, it's a gimmick . . . a marketing ploy, if you will. And instead of following and giving homeage to any kind of history or fairness or fanbase, it becomes a tool to yet again try and make more money from the US, which is still totally indifferent to the whole thing.
Any of your ideas about having the game in Canada would make more than double in terms of ticket proceeds, and would have at LEAST a substantially larger tv viewing audience, I'd wager. But even that simple economic principal escapes the Count.
Rideau Canal, a game between the Sens and Leafs? Guaranteed sell-out despite the potential -20C temps. Would be the biggest tv audience barring the Leafs making the postseason.
Game in the 'Peg, between Leafs and Calgary? Huge sell-out despite the -35C with windchill and it would be a huge boost to Winnipeg and would also be a huge tv draw.
At the very least, every original 6 tem should have had a game by now, and any other team with a rich winning history (Edmonton, Calgary, Islanders, New Jersey, Detroit, Colorado) should have been involved in a game as well.
Polishexpress, I have one question for you, after I have opined and whined and gone on here long enough: If your question to us is, "Do you agree with how the teams are chosen (for the Winter Classic)?", my question right back to you is this:
How are the teams chosen in the first place? 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| redneck76ca |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 00:42:16
quote:
Originally posted by MrBoogedy
I am also sick of the non-stop effort to americanize hockey, and as much as i hate the leafs , they do deserve an outdoor classic. canada should have like at least ten teams, there's the fan support, but no, instead its always about trying to reach more Americans, its sickening. Next thing you know they'll be trying the glowing puck again... "Blue means pass, red means shot." *groan*
Hockey Day In Canada should all be outdoor games. Can you imagine a day where all the Canadian teams played an outdoor game? Wouldn't be that hard to do. Dreaming, of course. |
| MrBoogedy |
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 21:00:00
I am also sick of the non-stop effort to americanize hockey, and as much as i hate the leafs , they do deserve an outdoor classic. canada should have like at least ten teams, there's the fan support, but no, instead its always about trying to reach more Americans, its sickening. Next thing you know they'll be trying the glowing puck again... "Blue means pass, red means shot." *groan* |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 20:39:44
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
If it's not obvious to everyone by now this is ALL about marketing, this should make it very, very clear.
And the biggest draw you never need to advertise - the Leafs - get left out again.
This kills it for me, actually.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Agreed. The Leafs are the biggest draw in the NHL, like it or not, and them being left out for how many games now??
I still think one of the best things for hockey would be either a Leafs/Sens game on the Rideau Cannel or an outdoor game in Winnipeg with really any of the Canadian teams involved.
I am getting pretty sick of the continuous American influence.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 20:24:20
If it's not obvious to everyone by now this is ALL about marketing, this should make it very, very clear.
And the biggest draw you never need to advertise - the Leafs - get left out again.
This kills it for me, actually.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 14:30:23
quote:
OR, and this is my favourite but probably least feasible option to choose teams, is to have the host city be rotated every year, but have the game be between the President's Trophy winners vs. the Stanley Cup Champs. (If one and the same, take the runner-up from the playoffs or regular season)
That'll be the year after TB and PHX play against each other in the finals  |
| Jumbo Joe Rocks |
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 14:03:49
I like your idea,I was a little angry that Pittsburgh just got another winter classic.
GO SHARKS GO |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 12:27:54
Personally, I would love it if they would have the Stanley Cup Champs have an automatic berth in the Winter Classic.
Then, choose the host city and team based on venue and rotation.
OR, and this is my favourite but probably least feasible option to choose teams, is to have the host city be rotated every year, but have the game be between the President's Trophy winners vs. the Stanley Cup Champs. (If one and the same, take the runner-up from the playoffs or regular season) |
|
|
