AZ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjYa-gPOFBQ&NR

Kovy, you bet on these games? Seems like it.

cwgatti, right on. Like anyone who only has a middling interest in hockey is going to stop their Saturday in its tracks to watch a game, most often between struggling teams. And, unfortunately perhaps, hockey just isn’t made for TV. I love it, sure, but how many times have I taken a friend who doesn’t follow the game to an arena and had them say “wow, this is awesome live, but i have no idea what’s going on when i try to watch on TV.” Even a golf ball is easier to track on TV for people who are unfamiliar with the sport.

And, wow, the NHL has done a terrible job promoting its personalities. They’ve done a couple decent ads recently featuring Ovechkin and a few others, but the only place I’ve seen them has been on youtube…

I agree about HDTV. Here in Hartford, I find myself watching the Bruins more when they’re on because my cable system carries NESN in HD. When MSG is on, they don’t provide it in HD. Not sure I would pay $300 for a HD Center Ice package, but it truly is a different game watching in HD.

On the trade front, please, please, please no Rucinsky. If we’re going for nostalgia bring back Barnaby for cripes sake. Of all the names mentioned the only one that interests me is Brewer, but I’m sure the price would include Prucha and I’d rather see if one of the Hartford kids can do the job at D than give up Prucha at this point. However, I remember Slats using Mike York’s “durability” as an issue when he shipped him off, I can imagine the same things being said about Prucha if they trade him. Also, they have Ryan Russell in the system who’s been described as a Prucha clone who fights so they probably feel that Petr is expendable.

I’m not sure this describes Brett Hull, but it sure describes most athletes-turned-broadcasters I know.

Sam, in view of what you’ve written (above) I have to comment (even though it’s not specifically a Rangers-driven one).

What you’re describing there is a symptom of a larger problem, specifically that as to “the business of sports” the NHL in 2007 remains in the Dark Ages.

Go back more than fifty years – the National Football League, led by Bert Bell, the first of a number of forward-thinkers who headed it embarked on an enlightened television policy, one that recognized that although the teams were bitter on-field rivals, they were also partners away from it.

Because of what Bell did (and what his successors added through the years), even a market that the NHL wouldn’t consider (Green Bay) not only survived but continues to thrive. Contrast Green Bay with the much-larger markets represented by Hartford, Kansas City and Pittsburgh (and ones that are comparable such as Winnepeg and Quebec City).

There’s been in the NFL a continuity from Bell through Goodell and although there is reasonable criticism that could be levled at such as Rozelle and Tagliabue, the fact remains that the attitude/and approach, the leadership that Bell personified, continues.

Even baseball, which hardly could be called visionary in the “Bell sense” and the NBA recognize, at least to an extent, Bell’s attitudes and principles.

Not so the National Hockey League where the attitude has been, from its beginnings in 1920 as “every man for himself.”

The post World War II NHL has been personified by leadership such as the pliable Clarence Campbell (who described his job description as being “suitably ornamental”), to one Gary Bettman whose has proven to consistently be glitz rather than substance.

Be it buzz words and phrases (“cost certainty” a glaring example), to crass commercialism (the playing surface festooned with ads and in less than optimum condition after the first period due to it not having proper time to refreeze after resurfacing because of on-ice promotions), to bonus points for failure distorting the objective regular season performance measurements (SOL/OTL), to next season’s form-fitting spandex outfits, Bettman has been 98% appearance and 2% substance (and that’s being generous).

Yes, television’s representation of hockey is less than optimum (pun unintended) with regards to production and penetration.

Television is one symptom, sadly there are numerous unaddressed problems.

But the problems being experienced by the NHL are not going to be addressed until those who own it recognize the wisdom of those such as Bell.

If it were up to me the first move would be dismissal of Bettman.

The second would be to hire the best available replacement

*I don’t know if he’d be available or amenable, but IMHO, that would be Bob Gutkowski.