Knicks-Nuggets megabrawl??

That's right. Hockey players go toe-to-toe when they fight. Basketball players bitch-slap each other and then prance away like the studio gangster/wannabe tough guys they are.

Only true if you consider fighting to be a problem, which most true hockey fans do not.

Nothing wrong with that rule, which has been in place for decades. If it ain't broke...

Many hockey fans like fighting, which the NHL recognizes. Again, it's not a problem.

We also don't give a shit how low hockey's ratings are in the United States. We also disagree with the NHL's continuing attempts to dumb down our favourite sport in order to attract the kind of fan who would be more comfortable watching something on a par with an XFL game.

What franchise turmoil? Although the NHL has teams in some questionable places, it hasn't seen a franchise move in 10 years. It also has never seen the likes of Al Davis or Robert Irsay or Art Modell. It also has no teams operated by the league office, as were the former Montreal Expos.

And if you don't think visual manipulation exists in broadcasts of other team sports, what do you make of the virtual first-down line used by networks in every football game ever broadcast these days? Virtual strike zones in baseball? Shall I go on?

If you don't like hockey, that's fine. Don't watch it. Don't participate in threads about it. But if you're going to talk about it, at least make sure you have some idea of what you're talking about. Otherwise, as is often the case with you, you're just babbling.

 

Yes, because the NHL is the only sport where players fight. I must have missed the Cowboys-Titans love-in earlier this season. Nothing happened tonight. No sir. And there's never been a brawl in baseball. The NHL clearly needs to take lessons from MLB, the NFL, the NBA and the NCAA. Oh wait. There are fights in those leagues/sports, too.

Fighting has been part of hockey since its inception. It's part of the sport's working man fabric. To take fighting out of hockey is akin to taking the basket out of basketball. Hockey is a game that rewards hard work. Sometimes that work is physical. Note that most fights, the combatants agree to drop the gloves. There's no sissy shit, like what Carmelo Anthony pulled tonight. Also in every NHL fight, when it's evident that one player is getting pummeled and has no hope of winning, the linesmen step in and drag the participants away.

I didn't forget about the Knicks-Heat riot. It took place on my birthday. But the NHL had the "no-players off the bench" rule in place since the late 1970s.

You're right, the NHL has its problems. The NHL is also trying to draw more viewers to a great sport. Too bad insignificant assholes, like yourself, just parrot "it sucks!" Go to a game and fucking learn about it, shithead.

Everything the league has done, has been for the betterment of the league. Look at the "lost season." What happened because of it? The NHL game is much more viewer friendly. Rules that were beneficial for offense were implemented. The league and Fox Sports tried the glowing puck and shelved it when it was a colossal failure. And it's certainly fair to compare the NHL, which has only been around since 1917-1918 to the one-and-done XFL.

Shall I go on?

 

Dude, it takes a blink of an eye to refute each of your arguments.

First of all, my responses have shifted because you've shifted your "argument" from what's wrong with fighting that goes into the stands to fighting in the NHL is good because it doesn't go into the stands.

Let's go really slowly so you can try to keep up. In the NHL, you see that barrier that keeps the puck from flying into the stands? That keeps the fights from going into the stands. Comprende?

And saying the NHL has accepted fighting, so it's OK, is flat-out moronic.

One league deals with the problem; the other doesn't. I'll let you puzzle out which is which.

 

The last NHL fight that went into the stands happened in the 1970s. Since then, there have been plenty of heated, hate-filled rivalries (Avs-Red Wings comes to mind). If the Rangers and Bruins could go up into the stands, why didn't the Avs and Red Wings?

 

The U.S. broadcast networks do care about ratings, though, which is why hockey has been relegated to Vs.

If fighting is to hockey as the basket is to basketball, then that only reinforces my argument: Hockey sucks. Always has, always will.

No other sport had to put a halo around the sport's main feature. First down markers and such are annoyances I wish the networks would drop. But that's not the same as having to enlighten the object of play.

As far as franchise continuity, the NHL's record is far worse than any other league. I believe there was just a push for the league to step in at Pittsburgh.

No other league has dropped as many teams as the NHL in recent years. That's because no other league has dropped any teams. Every league has expanded.

To summarize:

The NHL is on par with the WNBA in terms of franchise continuity.

It's on par with no other league in terms of ratings, broadcast continuity, penalties for breaking the rules, etc. It lags behind all of them.

 

Barrier. A-round. Stands.

Not sure why this is difficult.

 

OK...just saw it for the first time. Anyone else notice as Anthony is backpedaling past mid-court, there's a photogapher probably 10 feet out on the court shooting pictures, following the action up the floor. What an idiot. I kept waiting for him to get drilled like the trombone player in the end zone.

 

It's only a problem if it's not a) accepted or b) part of the game or c) in the rules.

And fighting in hockey is a) accepted - by EVERYONE involved b) part of the game and c) well within the rules.

So, simple math: It's not a "problem" in hockey.

The only problems are people like you, who don't understand the game, have never liked the game to begin with and have never played the game (or, more likely ANY game at all), so you don't understand passion, physical contact nor cheap shots (outside of the verbal ones you toss from time to time) in sports.

Also, let me understand this: You say if there wasn't a barrier in hockey, fighting would undoubtedly spill into the stands?

And, if you think hockey could be played without a barrier, you're a bigger idiot than I first thought.

 

And Versus is on every major cable carrier in the nation. Is it the best network to showcase hockey? Of course not. In a perfect world, ESPN would air NHL games. But for a league that was supposed to be dead, it's surprisingly vibrant. The NHL's next step is to get on a bigger cable network. I'll also point out that a majority of teams' games are broadcast by a local Fox Sports affiliate, much like...wait for it...Major League Fucking Baseball and College Basketball.

What an argument. What a wordsmith. What a tool. I presume you once watched Slap Shot and didn't like it. Go back, watch it again, and come back with another stupid argument about fighting.

It is the same thing. Because people like you pissed and moaned that they couldn't see the puck, the league and network relented and "lasered" the piece of frozen vulcanized rubber. The NHL realized that it was stupid and eliminated it. Meanwhile, the first down marker will pop up hundreds of times tomorrow and Monday. And I can't wait for the K corner during baseball season.

Yes, no MLB team has threatened to move or shut down. Hey, how are those Expos doing?

NHL has expanded too. No NHL team has shut its doors.

Read above. I refuted every single argument you made. Quite simply, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Well, the California Golden Seals/Cleveland Barons went away, being melted into the Minnesota North Stars.

 

Not difficult to understand. I'm just pointing out that if teams really wanted to fight each other in the stands, the glass isn't that tough to take down.

 

That happened in the 1970s, correct?

When did the Expos become the Nationals? Two seaons ago.

Dye, feel free to pull another lame argument out of your ass.