Is There Anything Better Than NHL Playoffs?

[PTS]

Shame on America for being so brainwashed by the NFL and ESPN to relegate hockey as middle tier professional sports league. In my opinion, there is no greater team sport in the world than hockey.

 

And when you say Stanley Cup Playoffs, I don't think there is any other sports competition outside of the World Cup that matches the intensity and complete unpredictability. The NFL, NBA, and MLB playoffs are so incredibly predictable, it takes away from the luster, and makes it boring.

 

I blame this on TV networks and the NHL. The NHL playoffs should be on Network TV, at least games four and on. How can a casual sports fan not fall in love with a game like tonight's Edmonton vs. Detroit game? The passion by players and fans alike is unmatched in North America.

 

Maybe the NHL should stop trying to force cellar dwellers like the Blues vs. the Penguins next year on NBC and show a game like Buffalo vs. Toronto or Montreal vs. Boston or Colorado vs. Vancouver. Watching two crap teams play does the NHL no good in the long run.

 

I guess this thread is pointless because the NHL will be what it is ... a niche sport for Northerns and snowbirds who migrated down south. Instead, I should return to caring about the NFL Draft where 75% of the players won't pan out but will still have millions of dollars to play with.

[SDS]

There's lots of reasons hockey is not popular...

 

1st, it is a hard game to follow if you have never played it, at least casually. Even if you have played it casually, like myself, if you have never been involved in it organizationally the subtle details are nearly impossible to pick up when sitting at home alone, unless you watch gobs and gobs of hockey.

 

Football is made for everyone. You can be dumb as a box of rocks, but still understand someone catching a long pass, or running for a TD is good. There is an interruption every 8 seconds where someone explains to you what just happened. The announcers are more informative and allow the more casual fan to pick up enough of the rules/strategy to follow a game with little difficulty. It's also detailed and nuanced enough to devote your life to it. There is an interruption every 8 seconds where you can analyze the upcoming play.

 

Second, too many foriegn players that Americans don't identify with. Names like "Afinogenov" don't sound like the boy next door who went to Ohio State and made the big time. Picking up the paper and trying to follow the box scores is hard when you can't even pronounce the names.

 

Most hockey fans are snobs who don't want the game dumbed down while they are watching it, yet don't understand why more people don't learn it. When/how can someone learn about the game? Who explains the left wing lock? WTF is boarding? Interference? When can someone be checked? Why doesn't the defenceman just pick up the loose stick and hand it back to the goalie?

 

The Prevent Defense gets explained in every NFL game, every week. The penalties are explained. The plays are explained, alternatives are suggested. The game is revealed to the viewers every week, every season.

 

No one can expect a game to gain in popularity if the game itself remains a mystery, safely guarded by those who would freak if the rules were repeated every week during the broadcast (which may be impossible with the play-by-play).

[Eleven]

Just answering the topic question. No, no there is not.

 

Don't care if it's popular; it works for me. Hey, some guys wanted to date the popular prom queen who didn't put out. I want my satisfaction. Sorry if the metaphor is crude.

[Stoner]

I don't think it's so much that hockey is hard to follow if you haven't played it -- it's that it's so hard to follow on TV. It's a game you have to see live. Football, I've found, is just the opposite.

 

You make a good point about foreign players. It's one reason I love the NHL, but the average American sports fan is probably very xenophobic. Heck, the average Bills' fan has trouble accepting a quarterback from Southern California, let alone Southern Slovakia.

 

As for the complexity of the game being beyond the average fan, I don't know. Skate puck, shoot puck, red light come on, forecheck, backcheck, paycheck. Not that complicated. Of course every sport, even professional badminton, has its nuances that only the most rabid fan can appreciate.

 

You make another great point about the announcers. They should do a better job of explaining the game. Even most of the posters on this board could use an occasional lesson. Note to Sabres: not just women need a class called "Understanding Hockey."

 

Sports commentator Frank Deford once likened the RC Cola to the NHL: it tastes good, it's refreshing and it has plenty of fans, but it's always going to behind Coke and Pepsi. I'm not even sure RC Cola is still around, but you get the point.

 

Great topic PTS. I connected with what you wrote immediately because watching the Oiler game, you could just see the passion in the crowd. People hugging and kissing. Probably some tears. Shades of our "May Day." When was the last you saw that much emotion in an NFL crowd?

[Taro T]

There's lots of reasons hockey is not popular...

 

1st, it is a hard game to follow if you have never played it, at least casually. Even if you have played it casually, like myself, if you have never been involved in it organizationally the subtle details are nearly impossible to pick up when sitting at home alone, unless you watch gobs and gobs of hockey.

 

Football is made for everyone. You can be dumb as a box of rocks, but still understand someone catching a long pass, or running for a TD is good. There is an interruption every 8 seconds where someone explains to you what just happened. The announcers are more informative and allow the more casual fan to pick up enough of the rules/strategy to follow a game with little difficulty. It's also detailed and nuanced enough to devote your life to it. There is an interruption every 8 seconds where you can analyze the upcoming play.

 

Second, too many foriegn players that Americans don't identify with. Names like "Afinogenov" don't sound like the boy next door who went to Ohio State and made the big time. Picking up the paper and trying to follow the box scores is hard when you can't even pronounce the names.

 

Most hockey fans are snobs who don't want the game dumbed down while they are watching it, yet don't understand why more people don't learn it. When/how can someone learn about the game? Who explains the left wing lock? WTF is boarding? Interference? When can someone be checked? Why doesn't the defenceman just pick up the loose stick and hand it back to the goalie?

 

The Prevent Defense gets explained in every NFL game, every week. The penalties are explained. The plays are explained, alternatives are suggested. The game is revealed to the viewers every week, every season.

 

No one can expect a game to gain in popularity if the game itself remains a mystery, safely guarded by those who would freak if the rules were repeated every week during the broadcast (which may be impossible with the play-by-play).

Scott, you are correct that hockey is a hard game to pick up on one's own on TV. When I was living in the south, the NHL would have preseason games and 2 regular season games played at neutral sites. I would buy tickets to a preseason game each season and take about 4 friends to the game with me. After that, I never had a problem getting people to go watch the playoffs with me. Hopefully HDTV will make it easier for people to pick up the game.

 

I will also give you the fact that football is played for 8 seconds and then discussed for the next 30 or so, makes it ideal for TV. I would also agree with you, had you stated it, that the NFL is the best marketed sport in NA by far. I won't agree with you completely that football announcers are more informed, nor that they are more informative. I would take Bob Cole (not even bringing RJ into this discussion, there is no need to bring out nuclear weapons) over Theismann any day, any time, any where. Yes, there are some terrible TV announcers for hockey, but when you consider that there are roughly 36 different broadcast teams (30 for each team plus a handful of network guys that aren't affiliated with a particular team) and only 16 tops for football, I would take a mid-pack hockey team over the typical Fox crew broadcasting Cardinals games. Also, I am not certain how informative hearing Madden go "doink" (or whatever) is.

 

The foreign sounding names bit, I will not agree with you with. I am certain that I could come up with a couple of hundred names in the NFL that are "unusual" and/or difficult to pronounce. Ditto with the NBA. I also don't agree that it is foreigners playing the game that keeps Americans away as baseball doesn't seem to have a problem with fans following guys from Japan or the DR. Don Cherry still makes a bit of an issue about Europeans playing, but who cares? I would give more credence to the fact that a lot of sportswriters are lazy SOBs (not all, but enough) like the fat guy from Philadelphia. I remember watching him on the Sportsreporters (when Schapp was still alive; the show is unwatchable now) and he said flat out that he didn't like hockey because with following football, baseball, and basketball it was too many players to keep track of and he just didn't care for it. He's also one of the idiots who refuses to ever let a player get into the Baseball HoF unanimously, so I take his opinion with a grain of salt. But I do think it is laziness on the part of reporters more than ethnocentrism on the part of sports fans that is the cause of that issue. (Basketball has how many baskets scored per game to show a highlight of? Vs. how many goals per hockey game? I seriously chalk that one up to laziness.)

 

I also disagree, to an extent, your comments about hard core fans. Yes, absolutely we are snobs. We are members of a (relatively) small fraternity and we do look down (to a degree) on the great unwashed which is the American non-hockey sports fan. However, I think you would have near unanimous approval of "Peter Puck" among the hard core fans. PP was strictly devised to explain the rules of the game and the strategies in an entertaining manner. If we really didn't want people to "get" the game, why would we love that cartoon puck? While it is difficult to fully explain what just transpired during the play (not impossible, but difficult), there are stoppages of ~15-20 seconds when plays are whistled dead which could be used for "explaining" what just happened. Additionally, there are 2 - 15 minute breaks which could contain at a minimum 1 2-minute "Peter Puck" cartoon to explain the game.

 

You didn't make the argument, but it is also used, that hockey is less popular because no one knows the players; this is another situation that could be improved upon via a 2 pronged strategy.

 

1st, have the league and players coordinate their marketing of the players. It is my understanding that in the new CBA there is supposed to be more of a collaborative effort. That would be extremely wise, because the old system of the teams and players basically being on their own was extremely short-sighted. (One more way the players "won" the last CBA. They got a bigger percentage of an unnecessarily smaller pie.)

 

2nd, when NBC (maybe it was during CBS's tenure) had the games in the 70's, they would have "shootouts". Each broadcast game, they would have 2 goalies face 4 (maybe it was only 2) shooters on penalty shots. It was exciting and gave the players a chance to get some face time and recognition. The league could set up these competitions in the off-season and then broadcast them during the regular season; or do something similar along those lines.

 

The last thing I would do, were I commissioner for a day, is pay Syracuse University (or any school with a great communications program) $250k - $1MM (whatever it reasonable) to have a grad student or 2 or 4 work on their PhD with the research project being - how do we (the NHL) put a better product on TV. Focus on exploiting the benefits that HDTV will provide. It will definitely make the puck easier to see. One thing I might suggest (don't know if it would help or hinder) would be to have a smaller overhead view in one corner of the picture with a shadow box showing what portion of the ice was on the main screen. That way (casual) viewers would have a better idea of what they were actually looking at. It could NOT be any lamer than blue/red streaks following the puck. (IMHO, we don't hate efforts to make the game more accessible, we hate moronic efforts to make the game more accessible.)

[Orange Seats]

I'm sorry but there is no way you can say that hockey is boring or too complicated to follow when people are watching Texas Hold Em' on TV for hours - there is nothing more boring or confusing than watching people play cards.

 

I think the "new" NHL will make for a more exciting TV game. And as for the names... if Joe Sportsfan can get used to Garciapara he will have no trouble with Afinogenov.

[Corp000085]

No, nothing is more exciting or intense than the NHL playoffs.

 

 

 

As for the NHL popularity, its an overused metaphor, but it will take time for the NHL to gain popularity. The only difference between now and pre-lockout, is now the NHL has somehting to market. You cannot market a 2-1 trapfest or a tie game. You can market 3rd period comebacks and shootouts. In 5 years, the NHL will still be a second fiddle american sport, but it will be more popular than today (hell, maybe more popular than basketball... ESPN only makes basketball their #1 sport due to the tv contract)

[deluca67]

I love playoff hockey but sex still has to be number one.

 

I'm not sure if I want the NHL to take off like the other major sports. The last thing I want is for the NHL to price it's self out of the market like the Bills have done. I want the NHL to do well and to be strong but I couldn't careless if inbreed, bible thumping, republicans in the "Bible Belt" watch the NHL. Strengthen the markets they are in and the NHL will be fine. ;)

[mrjsbu96]

Shame on America for being so brainwashed by the NFL and ESPN to relegate hockey as middle tier professional sports league. In my opinion, there is no greater team sport in the world than hockey.

 

And when you say Stanley Cup Playoffs, I don't think there is any other sports competition outside of the World Cup that matches the intensity and complete unpredictability. The NFL, NBA, and MLB playoffs are so incredibly predictable, it takes away from the luster, and makes it boring.

 

I blame this on TV networks and the NHL. The NHL playoffs should be on Network TV, at least games four and on. How can a casual sports fan not fall in love with a game like tonight's Edmonton vs. Detroit game? The passion by players and fans alike is unmatched in North America.

 

Maybe the NHL should stop trying to force cellar dwellers like the Blues vs. the Penguins next year on NBC and show a game like Buffalo vs. Toronto or Montreal vs. Boston or Colorado vs. Vancouver. Watching two crap teams play does the NHL no good in the long run.

 

I guess this thread is pointless because the NHL will be what it is ... a niche sport for Northerns and snowbirds who migrated down south. Instead, I should return to caring about the NFL Draft where 75% of the players won't pan out but will still have millions of dollars to play with.

 

 

One point that I will add that is yet to mentioned is that a lot of it starts at a young age. Just about every kid, young or poor, suburb or urban, will throw a football, shoot a basket, or put on a glove and play catch with a baseball; but not enough kids get the chance to put a stick in their hand and shoot a slapshot (or hack someone over the shin for that matter) and that is where a lot of interest is born.

 

I don't get the American viewer and I still can not undertand why the NBA does so well - I despise the league. I don't want to settle for 2nd best, but in a country where poker and NASCAR are often in the Top 5 of most viewed, it is best that we enjoy the game we have, and hope the the league does not attempt to "outgrow" itself again. Market to your niche and everything should be allright.

[apuszczalowski]

I don't get the American viewer and I still can not undertand why the NBA does so well - I despise the league. I don't want to settle for 2nd best, but in a country where poker and NASCAR are often in the Top 5 of most viewed, it is best that we enjoy the game we have, and hope the the league does not attempt to "outgrow" itself again. Market to your niche and everything should be allright.

I can't understand how Nascar and Poker are considered sports

 

You don't have to be athletic to participate in those events. Poker is a game, Nascar is auto Racing, they are not sports. Just like I think Golf is also not a sport, it is also a game. But it won't stop the US from trying to get either of the 3 an olympic sport

 

As for Hockey, typically alot of yopunger kids don't have a chance to play it cause there is alot of equipement and the cost to play is very high, atleast where I live it is. Its probably the same in the US like Pee Wee football (we never had football as a recreational sport around me in Canada) To play hockey in a league you need a helmet, skates, a stick, gloves and the rest of the safety equipment, but to play baseball all you need is a glove, to play soccer its shin pads, to play basketball nothing. They are cheaper alternatives so alot of parents will put their kids in those sports cause the costs are relatively small.

 

I like alot of different sports (Baseball, Hockey, Football) and have noticed, football is most marketable cause of the short season and games being played always on the same days (Sunday and Monday) The playoffs and Championship game is not a series so you have to watch that game or miss it all. Baseball has been around as a league for so long and its part of you heritage. The prroblem is it can be a slow game and a very long season, but in September/October the playoffs get really hyped and it does very well. Hockey is thought of more as a Canadian sport and its popularity only rises the closer north you get to the 100th meridien. Its a game played on ice so the people living in warm climates aren't used to it so it doesn't interest them. Its kind of like how something like surfing is popular in California, but come around this area, and its not even thought of.

 

I don't know, this is just my rambling, who knows why hockey is not as popular, all I care about is that I like it.

[sabregoats]

I am completely fine with the popularity of hockey, everyone on this board knows it is the most exciting game to watch on TV or live. I don't care if the people that find cars driving around circles for hours or watching cards get flipped find hockey entertaining, becuase honestly their grip on reality must be fairly weak. I tried watching NASCAR once and it was about as exciting as watching my lawn grow. I like that Hockey is niche sport, I think that makes it more fun to be a fan.

[apuszczalowski]

I am completely fine with the popularity of hockey, everyone on this board knows it is the most exciting game to watch on TV or live. I don't care if the people that find cars driving around circles for hours or watching cards get flipped find hockey entertaining, becuase honestly their grip on reality must be fairly weak. I tried watching NASCAR once and it was about as exciting as watching my lawn grow. I like that Hockey is niche sport, I think that makes it more fun to be a fan.

Nascar is only fun (IMHO) if your driving the car or if there is a crash

 

As for Poker, I don't see what the hype is all about, I have friends that pretty much live for it, spending alot of time at the casino or online playing for fun. To me, its just something else that ends up taking some more money away from me :angry:

Although the Celbrity one can be entertaining in small doses (depending on who is playing)

[Stoner]

Dave's comment about exploring the capabilities of HDTV got me to thinking. I thought I heard recently that technology was being developed that will one day allow viewers of sporting events to basically direct their own telecast, picking and choosing which camera feeds they want to see at any given moment. Anyone else hear that? That would be amazing. I've always preferred the high camera that looks down on the ice. I also enjoy the view from behind the net on the power play, but only when we have the power play. When the other team has it, and they show that view, I am convinced we are about to get scored on.

[ThePolishSabre]

There's lots of reasons hockey is not popular...

 

1st, it is a hard game to follow if you have never played it, at least casually.

 

Football is made for everyone. You can be dumb as a box of rocks, but still understand someone catching a long pass, or running for a TD is good.

 

 

Well i never played hockey, and this is my second favorite sport to watch.

 

The main reason why football is popular is because it's just 1 day a week (for the most part)

 

 

 

Just answering the topic question. No, no there is not.

 

Only in North America tho.

[topshelfcookies]

I've always preferred the high camera that looks down on the ice. I also enjoy the view from behind the net on the power play, but only when we have the power play. When the other team has it, and they show that view, I am convinced we are about to get scored on.

 

This is one of the reasons I love playoff hockey. In general, you get more camera options than a normal game in mid-January on MSG. The behind the net camera, mounted on top of the glass should be made mandatory during every man- advantage...it looks so great. Also, I enjoy mixing up the camera shots, showing the in-the-net views, and quickly switching to the camera mounted on the glass at center ice during a neutral zone rush, or while play is caught up along the boards. The production crews have to be good, and make the switch quick, or it can look like crap, but when done right, those angles are great.

 

I agree that the biggest challenge facing hockey is that it simply isn't condusive to TV. It's hard to get decent analysis in when play is pretty much continuous. The problem is, it sounds better on TV when the announcer actually calls all the action (like what RJ does), but when does this give time to allow detailed explanations of boarding, interference or (insert hockey nuance here). Football, baseball and basketball are perfect for TV, with the downtime between each play that allows broadcasts to show replays, give analysis, etc. Too often in hockey, a sweet check or near miss will not be replayed for almost 4 minutes if there are no whistles.

 

Finally, a good example of how hard hockey is to follow on TV. I was at my parents house watching games 1 and 2 with my Dad and brother. With all the yelling (especially during Game 2) my Mom and sisters came in to watch as well. Even on the slow motion highlights of goals my mom would get all confused and say "Wait!!! Where is the puck!" Only once I told her exactly where to look could she finally see a shot going in the net. My mom is pretty good in terms of watching sports, and enjoys going to hockey games in person, but just has a hard time following the puck. This leads me to believe that watching hockey is somewhat of a skill one must develop...you have to know what to watch for and where to look when you lose sight of the puck. The basic structure of hockey simply isn't suited for TV...long stretches of play, bad camera angles, fast moving small puck. Unless you've gone to a hockey game, it's hard to really appreciate how exciting the game is. Most areas in the "Bible Belt" don't even have rinks, let alone hockey clubs. I went to college in Indiana, and the nearest skating rink was 45 minutes away from the college. No one really cared though...it was all b-ball all the time from about October-June.

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

To answer the thread question, the majority of people in this country are stupid, literally. If they would rather watch 60 minutes of football interrupted with 2.5 hours of commercials than watch a 60 minute hockey game with 3 - 90 second commercial breaks a period, and that is fine by me.

 

But let's look at the benefits of hockey not being as popular as basketball, football, nascar, baseball, etc:

 

1) Commercials are far and few in between (and the hockey based ones can become classics i.e Zhitnik and Hasek "can't see, can't see")

 

2) You don't have to listen to any ignorant rednecks give interviews with a drawl and blank look on their face while thanking the good lord 10 times in the same interview even after spending 3K the night before on strippers and blow

 

3) Teams aren't making over 100 million dollars and complaining they can't survive in a "small" market

 

4) Terry Bradshaw who?

 

5) Nobody dresses like a pimp because THEY ARE NOT PIMPS, a concept lost on most other athletes

 

6) Hockey fans are the best fans in the world

 

7) The rink helps keep your beer cold at the game

 

8) There are no "tight-ends" or "wide receivers," and at no point is it ok to put your hands between the legs of your center.

 

9) Hockey players don't have to wear jumpsuits and have Viagra and Home Depot logo's all over their jerseys.

 

10) It is still perfectly within the rules to beat the living #%^$#! out of some guy for being a during the game.

 

Let's be grateful for what we have, I know I am.

[BuffalOhio]

To answer the thread question, the majority of people in this country are stupid, literally. If they would rather watch 60 minutes of football interrupted with 2.5 hours of commercials than watch a 60 minute hockey game with 3 - 90 second commercial breaks a period, and that is fine by me.

 

But let's look at the benefits of hockey not being as popular as basketball, football, nascar, baseball, etc:

 

1) Commercials are far and few in between (and the hockey based ones can become classics i.e Zhitnik and Hasek "can't see, can't see")

 

2) You don't have to listen to any ignorant rednecks give interviews with a drawl and blank look on their face while thanking the good lord 10 times in the same interview even after spending 3K the night before on strippers and blow

 

3) Teams aren't making over 100 million dollars and complaining they can't survive in a "small" market

 

4) Terry Bradshaw who?

 

5) Nobody dresses like a pimp because THEY ARE NOT PIMPS, a concept lost on most other athletes

 

6) Hockey fans are the best fans in the world

 

7) The rink helps keep your beer cold at the game

 

8) There are no "tight-ends" or "wide receivers," and at no point is it ok to put your hands between the legs of your center.

 

9) Hockey players don't have to wear jumpsuits and have Viagra and Home Depot logo's all over their jerseys.

 

10) It is still perfectly within the rules to beat the living #%^$#! out of some guy for being a during the game.

 

Let's be grateful for what we have, I know I am.

 

Thumbs up, Shaaaught!

[blugold43]

I can't understand how Nascar and Poker are considered sports

 

You don't have to be athletic to participate in those events. Poker is a game, Nascar is auto Racing, they are not sports. Just like I think Golf is also not a sport, it is also a game. But it won't stop the US from trying to get either of the 3 an olympic sport

 

i've loved racing my whole life, including nascar, but i hear you. nascar is sort of "racing for dummies," just in the same way that the nfl (which i also love) is "ball sports for dummies."

 

not to hijack the thread, but you might be amused to know that in the world of auto racing, formula 1 racing (which i like MUCH more than nascar) fans have the same discussions. specifically, we wonder how it could possibly be, that f1 is not an popular as "nascrap," as we like to call it. and the "answers" turn out to be roughly similar: too complicated, too "foreign," etc.

 

so as a fan of hockey and f1 over foot ball and nascar respectively, it's funny to be having this converstion here too.

 

ok, carry on.. :rolleyes:

[SDS]

i've loved racing my whole life, including nascar, but i hear you. nascar is sort of "racing for dummies," just in the same way that the nfl (which i also love) is "ball sports for dummies."

 

not to hijack the thread, but you might be amused to know that in the world of auto racing, formula 1 racing (which i like MUCH more than nascar) fans have the same discussions. specifically, we wonder how it could possibly be, that f1 is not an popular as "nascrap," as we like to call it. and the "answers" turn out to be roughly similar: too complicated, too "foreign," etc.

 

so as a fan of hockey and f1 over foot ball and nascar respectively, it's funny to be having this converstion here too.

 

ok, carry on.. :rolleyes:

 

But my point about the NFL is that you can enjoy it on many, many different levels. You can have a poor understanding of the game or a great understanding of the game and it can still be enjoyable.

[blugold43]

same with nascar, actually. there is an unbelievable amount of engineering and strategy that goes into running one of those race teams. the more you understand it, the more interesting it is. or you can just dig the crashes.

[apuszczalowski]

i've loved racing my whole life, including nascar, but i hear you. nascar is sort of "racing for dummies," just in the same way that the nfl (which i also love) is "ball sports for dummies."

 

not to hijack the thread, but you might be amused to know that in the world of auto racing, formula 1 racing (which i like MUCH more than nascar) fans have the same discussions. specifically, we wonder how it could possibly be, that f1 is not an popular as "nascrap," as we like to call it. and the "answers" turn out to be roughly similar: too complicated, too "foreign," etc.

 

so as a fan of hockey and f1 over foot ball and nascar respectively, it's funny to be having this converstion here too.

 

ok, carry on.. :rolleyes:

I have the same feeling about F1 and Indycar racing as Nascar, I would rather be driving the car (or being with my girlfriend Danica Patrick, LOL) or watching crashes, watching a race typically gets boring for me.

 

As for football, It is one of my favorite sports to watch (besides hockey and Baseball) becuase it is a short very competitive season. Its not ball sports for Dummies, there is alot of strategy to it. They have to run precise plays. Its not like rugby or soccer, or even basketball where they are pretty much just running around trying to score. Some of the positions don't require rocket scientists to play the position, but alot do require good, quick thinkers and athletic players. I think one of my reasons for disliking basketball (besides the gianormous salaries to these players) is the fact that the games are so high scoring. Someone scores almost everytime someone goes across the court.

[blugold43]

 

 

Its not like rugby or soccer, or even basketball where they are pretty much just running around trying to score.

 

tell ya what...i went to new zealand last summer and caught the all blacks/british-irish lions rugby test matches. i didn't know crap about rugby when i got off the plane, but i got ADDICTED to that sport in the month i was there. the action is constant, there is plenty of hitting, and some of the skill players are unbelievable. i can't even mention basketball or soccer in the same sentence as rugby...at least not at the international level.

 

granted, you need somebody to explain the basics to you initially, but once you figure out what is going on it is fantastic.

[bob_sauve28]

Just answering the topic question. No, no there is not.

 

Don't care if it's popular; it works for me. Hey, some guys wanted to date the popular prom queen who didn't put out. I want my satisfaction. Sorry if the metaphor is crude.

My thoughts exactly. Hell, I like it better because it's a regional sport. Imagine if people like Terrell Owens or Michael Irving were in the league shaking their after each gaol? No way. I hate hype. The NFL is 50% hype, 40% tv commercials and 10% game time time.

[Assquatch]

I love playoff hockey but sex still has to be number one.

 

So you hear.