IMO, this is why people don't like hockey

[Eleven]

As individual countries, yes, but I'd have to think that if you grouped all eurpeans together, they'd give the americans a run for their money at this point.

 

This is taking the conversation away from the original point, but who would win a three-team tournament: Canada, USA, or all of Europe?

 

What about a four-team tournament: Canada, USA, Russia, rest of Europe?

[SwampD]

This is taking the conversation away from the original point, but who would win a three-team tournament: Canada, USA, or all of Europe?

 

What about a four-team tournament: Canada, USA, Russia, rest of Europe?

Let's see, the U.S. would lose to Canada and Russia would get knocked out early against the rest of Europe. :D

[tom webster]

Not even close. The leauge has to be at least at 60% canandian. 40% american would leave nothing left for the decent number of europeans in the league.

 

 

As of November 2008.....

 

http://www.fromtherink.com/2008/11/26/673622/the-nhl-by-nationality-52

[shrader]

This is taking the conversation away from the original point, but who would win a three-team tournament: Canada, USA, or all of Europe?

 

What about a four-team tournament: Canada, USA, Russia, rest of Europe?

 

Here's an idea I had right around Olympic time earlier this year. I was thinking about the possibility of some sort of 4 team international tournament. US and Canada are two of the teams, then you'd have to come up with some combination of euros to fill the other two. The Scandinavian countries would be a good combination, but then filling that 4th team is tough. I guess you'd just have to combine the rest of europe, but it really doesn't have that nice geographic tie in like the rest does.

 

In a dream world, that would be a pretty cool thing to watch. Obviously the Canadians would be the strongest, but that scandinavian combo is something I'd love to see on ice.

 

As of November 2008.....

 

http://www.fromtherink.com/2008/11/26/673622/the-nhl-by-nationality-52

 

Wow. It's nice to see that I was dead on with the percentage of americans, but I really underestimated the number of europeans.

[Guest Sloth]

You just described every single pro sport. There are plenty of reasons why hockey has a weaker following around the US. I'd say one of the big one's is the fact that the league is about 20% american. So many people are always big on buying american and things like that. Hockey can never offer that. The typical american can't relate to some guy named Gordie from Alberta. Well they can, but they're just too short-minded and think that Canada is as different from the USA as China is.

 

Then there's the fact that all the other sports are based on something that any healthy person can do, running. Hockey involves learning a new method of movement that many people have never done or are too lazy to learn. They can't relate to it.

 

Then there's the big one. The other sports can be played at just about any time, anywhere. Hockey calls for a specific atmosphere, location, and equipment. The more complicated the setup gets, the more likely a group of kids are to do something else all together.

 

People disliking hockey complain about two other things. One, they think the puck is too hard to follow/see. Two, they think hockey is a boring sport. How they think baseball is more entertaining than hockey completely baffles me.

[shrader]

People disliking hockey complain about two other things. One, they think the puck is too hard to follow/see. Two, they think hockey is a boring sport. How they think baseball is more entertaining than hockey completely baffles me.

 

HD tv should go a long way to taking care of the seeing the puck issue. There's something to that idea though because the game of hockey is so horribly shot. There are a few producers out there who seem to have an idea on what cameras to use a the right times, but most are complete idiots who decide to focus on a guy going to the bench while a semi-breakaway is happening.