ESPNHL
I want to congratulate the crew at ESPN for coming up with one of the worst “new league” proposals I’ve seen yet. I’ll throw in this mandatory thought: I like reading a lot of what the hockey people have to say on espn.com, but what they’ve basically done is say: besides new teams and new players - we’re getting new fans too, because their proposal would certainly kill off a large percentage of the fan base with the assumption that they’ll attract new fans.
The main concepts:
- Smaller team - smaller roster, 3 less dressed players (they specifically single out forwards), and coaching limited to coach and two assistants
- Bigger, pushed back nets
- Limited goaltender movement, smaller goaltender equipment
- Mandatory visors
- Shootout added, helmet may be removed during it
- Automatic icing
- No fighting
- 20 team league, 60 game schedule
- Tiered-luxury tax economic model
Some of my favorite parts:
- There’s a team back in Hartford. I understand they said it’s where the “ESPNHL offices” would be (as they’re based in Bristol, CT), but having Hartford there just takes away from a city that should have a team from their model. No one’s saying Carolina is better - but if Nashville outdraws you…
- Oh, there’s also a team in Jersey, where they can barely draw a crowd when winning the Stanley Cup. There’s a team in Miami, but not Tampa; one in LA, not San Jose. The premise being for most: big cities, not whether or not they’ll have a good fan base.
- Having just 20 teams, they still have 16 making the playoffs. This is one of the ways hockey, and hockey’s regular season, used to be mocked in the past. Good way to bring that back.
- Despite having 55% of people in a previous poll telling them to get rid of the instigator rule, they’ve banned fighting. At this moment 48% of people said they wouldn’t watch the game anymore because of their ban. Hosting a SportsNation chat, Sherry Skalko of espn.com told a fan that said he’d no longer watch that they’d bring in 5 more and that he’d come back too. Sure.
I have some more “bah"s about some of their other rule changes, but I’m running short on time.
As to not be totally critical, let me point out a few things I do like:
- Putting a team in Vegas. Let’s forget about the gambling - most players who have any impact on the game make so much money that throwing a game by being paid off shouldn’t be much of a concern, especially since betting on hockey isn’t that popular and something like that would probably stand out. It’s a growing city and still a major tourist attraction. You could probably make a lot of new fans with a team there. Oh, I don’t think they’ll have a problem with fighting in Sin City by the way.
- Teams only supply wooden sticks. Composites are too costly and break too often.
- Automatic icing and tag-up offsides
- Moving the nets back (although I wouldn’t make them bigger)
Next entry: Warming Up to Russia
Previous entry: Kiss That Season Goodbye
Comments