If u were the nhl comminsher what would you do on the following?

Question

- icing, touch or no touch, why?

- puckbunnies, keep or let go, why?

- add 2 teams in (what city) or take away 2(what teams). why?

- Crosby or Ovechkin, as the next icon for the nhl, why?

- european expansion yes or no, why?

- cap or no cap, why?

- day to day coverage on espn or 24 access on versus, why?

- should NHL players attend to the winter Olympics, why?

Answer 1

-touch icing - leave it, make the d hustle to get the puck

-keep, its better to have a couple bunnies than none at all

-i wouldnt add any, take away islanders and phoenix

- Ovechkin - better, more personality than crosby.

- no, they have their own leagues

- no cap, its only driving up salaries, see Chris Drury

- ESPN, bigger audience

- Yes, they have the personal choice to play, and they all choose to play, so if they want to play i'd let them

Answer 2

i dont know the first thing about hockey, at all so i could'nt say what to do if i were a nhl commisser

Answer 3

-Icing: Touch. The race for the puck is exciting, and creates unique scoring chances.

-Puckbunnies: You mean the ice girls with the shovels? Keep em. Better to have them doing that job than some fat mustachioed zamboni driver.

-Add 2 teams : Hamilton, ON and Milwaukee, WI

-Take away 2 teams: Atlanta and Florida (or Phoenix if you need one from each conference).

-Next Icon: Crosby. People still have a hard time getting behind a European player as the face of the league. Sad but true.

-European Expansion: Won't happen. The road trips would be way too long. The only way something like this could ever happen is if they did it like MLB used to do : the only time the Euro teams and the North American teams would meet would be for the championship series.. and even then, it just doesn't make good financial sense.

-Cap or No Cap : Gotta have the cap, the game isn't popular enough for the teams with smaller markets to be able to compete with the big spenders. (And I'm a Detroit fan, too.)

-ESPN or Versus: I miss the days that I could see all of the games without cable. I don't have cable, so I don't care for either. Thank goodness CBC shows the playoffs. (I'm close enough to Windsor to get a decent signal)

-NHL players in Olympics: I think the best players of every country should compete in the Olympics, so I am in favor of NHL players playing.

Answer 4

-Keep touch icing--reward the offensive players who work hard to get to the puck.

-Keep the puckbunnies definitely.

-Neither add nor detract the # of NHL teams--it makes sense economically.

-You gotta have both, Ovechkin is the most natural goal scorer in the league. Crosby is the most natural playmaker.

-No expansion into Europe. Western conference teams would be killed by the travel.

-Keep the cap, we don't want player salaries skyrocketing again.

-It would be nice if the NHL got more coverage from ESPN. NHL channel is great.

-NHL players should play in the olympics. It should be an honor to play for your country, not a distraction.

Answer 5

1. No touch. It's been that way for years and while they've had a few injuries occur, it's not out of hand. You want to prevent injuries, require all players wear a face shield.

2. Has nothing to do with hockey.

3. I hate the idea of moving teams, as fans get hurt in the process. That said, I'd like to see the conferences realigned to better match geography. Detroit and Columbus should be in the East. Adding a team in Las Vegas would be a brilliant move for dozens of reasons - too bad Bettman doesn't have the guts to do it.

4. NHL doesn't need 'player' icons like the NBA. The league would better be served if they promoted the teams and the game over individual players. The NFL does it that way. That said, Stamkos will be the next poster child.

5. No. I went to the London Games this year and the turnout and enthusiasm was amazing... but the travel will make it all but impossible.

6. Cap. Parity is good for the game.

7. Until VS gets into more homes, ESPN would better serve the public. However, making VS into a viable competitor for the NHL contract has long term revenue benefits for the league.

8. Yes. While it's not in the leagues best interests for players under contract to risk injury. The Olympics are a amazing world wide event, and the best players should be allowed to represent their country.

Answer 6

1. Touch, as others mentioned, theres something to say about the offensive player

2. What the h**l, they buy tickets, too. Whatev.

3. I'd never take away a team, if theres people in that city who want to support it, go nuts. I don't care where they add 2, either.It might intially make sense to add some more Canadian teams for tradion's sake, but there's a reason why more US cities are supporting their teams...even if Canada provides a bulk of players. It wouldn't bother me either way, and its nothing against Canada, I just think its stupid to ignore the gross majority.

4. Kane, the Ovechkin...I still don't have much faith in Crosby's longevity, but prove me wrong, kiddo. Das ok.

5.  Theoretically, it makes sense, but the travel and expense would destroy the industry, with much less pull down as a trade off.

6. Cap, Im all about making it rain in the hockey arena, but I think newer and developing franchises would suffer before they gain enough "ice cred" to play hardball. Then again, thats the monopoly theory isnt it? Only the strong survive? The hardass in me says TS soemtimes, but overall I think its would be a big hinderance to the expansion and advancement of the sport to phase out teams that just haven't had enough time to become contenders, but who could come out swinging.

7. Suicide? I think day to day on ESPN, only because I grow tired of hearing football terms used in hockey coverage. The term "2 point conversion" should never be uttered within 500 feet of an arena.

8. No, and neither should other pro athletes. You chose to earn money for what you do, and I aint knockin how you pay the bills, but the Olympics has always been noted as an amature competition. If you're a pro and wanna live like one, you stick to your sports championship. Yes, the modern Olympics were devloped to be solely an amature competition, and as long as their are athletes competing them who can't accept NCAA scholorships and placement fi they agree to accept cash during that career, there is no fair reason why soemone contracted for millions should be able to take their opportunity.

Answer 7

-the touch icing is exciting, keep it.

-let go of the puckbunnies, they're a useless commodity (although they do give certain Y!A users something to complain about)

-Add 2 teams to Canada (Hamilton n hhmmm Nova Scotia what the heck)

-take away one California team and Florida

-Nope, not deserving of it yet.....sorry

-No European expansion, traveling and time difference would be tough to overcome

-Cap, spreads the talent throughout the league more

-24 access on versus.....ESPN gave up on hockey, s***w em

-I think Olympics should go back to non professionals, it gives the whole Olympic thing more meaning

Answer 8

- Touch.  There is always that chance the offensive player beats the defensive player to the puck.

- Keep them.  They provide entertainment in the hockey section.

- I'm not going to add any teams but I wouldn't mind the NHL removing some.  Atlanta and Florida would be my choice for removal.  I just think it makes sense economically plus it would less teams means more talent on other teams, if that makes sense.

- To late, it's already Crosby.  

- No European expansion.  

- Well the cap must remain.  We saw what happened with no cap.  This is another reason why I would like to see the NHL downsize a little.  It would ultimately help the salary cap.

- I would like to see the NHL get more coverage on ESPN.  I'm not a big fan of 24 hour exposure about anything really.  

- Yes they should play in the Olympics.  It is an honor to represent your country in such an event.

Answer 9

well to answer one part of your question I would have two more teams 1 In Wimpeg and 1 In Halifax because hockey is a Canadian sport and we  need more Canadian teams

Answer 10

touch

keep

winnipeg and Glenboro ,MB,

Ovenchicken

no

cap

i don't care

yes

Answer 11

-Touch

-Keep!

-Move Florida up north, maybe Canada

-I don't have a problem w/ either

-No! The travel would be awful

-Keep the Cap

-VS

-Yes, there is nowhere it states it's for amateurs. The best of the best should be allowed to compete.

Answer 12

no touch - injuries for 20, alex.

keep the puckfunnies for the lads.

take any two teams from the south (texas, florida, cali) and put them north of the great lakes because I said so.

Pat Kane is the next icon. watch other teams other than the easiest Division.

no expansion. gives them nothing to aspire to.

cap yes. keeps someone honest.

24 hr hockey channel, free to everyone. versus is limited.

no, it's for amateurs.

Answer 13

-Definitly keep!

-Definitly keep!

-Neither. I think its perfect right now. Dont wanna s***w up the divisions.

-Both. Crosby is kinda the pretty boy and Ovechkin is the shaggy one.

-No. I dont think the Europeans would even want a league. Plus of course the travel distances and fan differences.

-Cap. The Nfl and Nba handle it well and it seems to work. Just dont get it get too out of hand.

-ESPN doesnt really cover NHL and you really only get to watch your home teams. There should be more on every sports channel.

-If they feel like it. Of course there shouldnt be any restrictions.