--- Michael Neal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The ratings don't seem to agree with you.  Olympic
> hockey is completely
> destroying the NHL numbers.  Part of this,
> certainly, is the fact that it
> *is* the Olympics.  But the way that every network
> that tries to broadcast
> the NHL gets killed indicates that there is
> something else needed to tap
> that market.  Even within the arena, I get the sense
> that this worry is
> overblown.  While some fans would certainly be
> alienated by eliminating the
> fighting, I think there are at least as many who
> wouldn't be.  At the risk
> of stereotyping, I'd say that the dramatic increase
> in female hockey fans
> I've noticed around the NHL plays a role in this.
>
> And the Olympics certainly indicate that there would
> still be plenty of
> hitting; that's an aspect of the game that has been
> quite noticeable.
>

I agree. Opening up the ice can only be a good thing
for the NHL with regard to attracting more fans. If
opening up the ice will cut down on the
clutching/grabbing and the neutral zone trapping, the
games will most certainly be faster and feature more
offense, which is what I believe the people in general
like to see. Think about the lack of popularity of
soccer in the US. Is it because there isn't enough
fighting or hitting? No, everybody says they can't
watch soccer because there is no scoring.

Sure, the NHL may lose a few fans who only watch the
games to see the fights (and I think we'd have to be
seriously misguided to think that opening up the ice
will completely eliminate the physical aspect of the
game) but the fans they gain by making the games more
exciting to watch will surely outnumber these.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com