Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 76

Thread: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

  1. #1
    is not your buddy, guy.

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Saskatoon, SK
    Age
    32
    Posts
    21,373
    vCash
    4797
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    First off I'd like to congratulate Shinobi, mike & Rags on their new roles here in the Empire. *Foley cheap pop*

    I love stealing ideas from other mods and I'd like to thank the lovely people at www.reddit.com/r/nfl for this idea. With the NFL playoffs starting today they started a thread for anyone to ask questions about the frightening sport that is American football, completely judgement free. I love that idea and I think we can apply it to all sports.

    We all flock to the sub-forums we like here in the Sports Empire and find our niches in the sports we grew up loving. In my books, that makes us experts in those sports, and scared little dummies in the others, depending on the topic. Maybe we're afraid to ask in those forums because we want to be accepted. Maybe we want to look like we know more than we do in order to be part of the deeper conversation going on. Maybe I'm alone in this and this thread is a terrible idea, who knows if we don't ask!? (if this takes off I'd like it stickied too, if that's ok with the mods...I mean the fitness questions thread lasted this long...)

    You ask the question that you've always wanted to ask, the pros will answer in their professional pro manner. #pro

    I'll get the ball rolling:

    Soccer tournaments, particularly in the UK, fuck me up. What is the FA Cup? Why do I care that Arsenal is spanking Tottenham right now and might advance?

    I grew up with sports that only had one trophy. The Stanley Cup. The Vince Lombardi Trophy. Whatever the World Series trophy is called..."Ol' Flaggy"? That was what every team wanted and that's all that mattered. To me, when you have teams playing for a different trophy every week, it loses its grandeur. Is that the feeling over there? Help me understand.

    Thank you for your time. Carry on never browsing this forum until the Olympics.

  2. #2
    #throwback mikec's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    @mikec31
    Age
    34
    Posts
    19,645
    vCash
    17097
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    What is icing in hockey? Also how does overtime work, cause sometimes teams win in overtime, sometimes they win in shootouts, etc.

  3. #3
    is not your buddy, guy.

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Saskatoon, SK
    Age
    32
    Posts
    21,373
    vCash
    4797
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    If, after regulation, both teams are tied, a sudden death overtime period is played. It lasts 5 minutes, the teams play 4-on-4 instead of the usual 5-on-5 and if a team scores, they win. Both teams get a point for going to overtime and the winning team gets the full two points you would get for a win.

    If nobody scores in the overtime period, a shoot out is held. Coaches choose players in sets of 3 to take penalty shots (the player is given the puck at centre and a free path to the net) and the team that scores more goals after three shots are taken by each team wins.



    That was the shootout between the Maple Leafs and Red Wings at the Winter Classic on Wednesday (I'll use any excuse to post that). Had Tyler Bozak not scored on his attempt, the shootout would've continued until someone scored. If Detroit scored, Toronto would be given a chance to tie, but not the other way around since Toronto was shooting second.

    Side note: if a player is chosen for the shootout, they can't be chosen again until all other players have taken a shot.

    As for icing, it's an interesting question, since the rules on icing just changed this year. Basically it's like this:

    -Zones are marked by the two blue lines on the ice. If Team A is inside their zone (closest to their net) and they shoot the puck down the ice to Team B's end without it being touched AND it crosses the goal line (last red line on the ice marking the goal), it's icing.
    -The puck comes back to Team A's zone for a face off. Team A is not allowed to make a line change, but Team B can if they want.

    The puck has to cross the goal line and Team B has to be on the clear path to touching the puck (sans the goaltender..he can play the puck, but if he does it isn't icing anymore and play continues). In the past, Team B had to actually touch the puck and if a player from Team A got there first, play continued and they now had possession inside their opponent's zone. Team A had incentive to do whatever it took to get there first and races towards the boards were ending in injury quite often. The rules changed this year so that nobody had to touch the puck for the play to be blown dead in order to try and avoid stuff like this happening

    EDIT: Forgot to mention one thing..if your team is killing a penalty, you are allowed to ice the puck as many times as you want. Play will always continue until the penalty is over.

  4. #4
    Bish Bash Bosh sen.'s Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Scotland
    Age
    28
    Posts
    15,201
    vCash
    2000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by RT View Post
    Soccer tournaments, particularly in the UK, fuck me up. What is the FA Cup? Why do I care that Arsenal is spanking Tottenham right now and might advance?

    I grew up with sports that only had one trophy. The Stanley Cup. The Vince Lombardi Trophy. Whatever the World Series trophy is called..."Ol' Flaggy"? That was what every team wanted and that's all that mattered. To me, when you have teams playing for a different trophy every week, it loses its grandeur. Is that the feeling over there? Help me understand.
    It has lost some of it's appeal the past few years, has the FA Cup, and I can see the lack of appeal to oversea football fans. It's the oldest association football competition in the world and you have teams from the Premier League right down to amateur teams playing in little district leagues over England, so this season, a total of 737 clubs entered the tournament. A good amount of appeal was because of the games you could end up seeing. For example, you could have the greatest team in Premier League history, Manchester United, travelling to play West Didsbury & Chorlton, who play North West Counties Football League Premier Division. There's just so many potential matchups, smaller teams from lower leagues getting dream ties against teams they never thought they'd come up against, and potential for giant killings and fairytale cup runs. Anyone can beat anyone. Proven last season with Wigan beating Man City in the final. Proven in 2008 when Cardiff, then in the Championship made it to the Final.

    Along with those fairy tale cup runs, back in the day, there weren't many opportunities to play at Wembley. The FA Cup Final was the season climax. It was at Wembley, and for some players, it'd be a once in a lifetime appearance. Hell, even though I'm Scottish, I remember as a kid looking forward to the 3pm kick off on the first Saturday after the end of the season. It was the same with the Scottish Cup. Just being excited about the domestic competition. Seeing your team play at the national stadium. The chance to win the trophy and make history. For some players, this is their best opportunity to win a domestic trophy. It's a shame it doesn't get the appreciation it used to.



    Love the thread idea btw RT. Kudos for bringing it to the table.
    TBG Poster Of The Year 2011
    TBG Poster Of The Year 2009 (w/ Froggy & HitmanHBK)

  5. #5
    RUNAWAY FROM ME BABAY Tenks's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The People's Republic of Irelandia
    Age
    25
    Posts
    11,961
    vCash
    2000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Why the fuck do some NBA jerseys have sleeves now?

  6. #6
    #throwback mikec's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    @mikec31
    Age
    34
    Posts
    19,645
    vCash
    17097
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    They want to make some more money on alternate jerseys is what I've read.

  7. #7
    RUNAWAY FROM ME BABAY Tenks's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The People's Republic of Irelandia
    Age
    25
    Posts
    11,961
    vCash
    2000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Ah, should have known. They look horrendous though.



    The face says it all.

  8. #8
    is not your buddy, guy.

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Saskatoon, SK
    Age
    32
    Posts
    21,373
    vCash
    4797
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    They look like lost volleyball players.

    sen. gave me exactly the answer I was looking for. That's what I needed to hear to be sold on something like that. My dad was really good at hockey when he was a teenager and played for his local team (Aurora Tigers). Imagine if he had the possibility of playing a championship game against a bigger club at Maple Leaf Gardens. Crazy to think about.

    GO FA CUP! WOO!


  9. #9
    The Devil's Eyes BigRed's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Haddonfield
    Age
    26
    Posts
    16,681
    vCash
    2000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    I have absolutely no idea what constitutes a catch in professional football. The most I know (and I'm not even confident about this) is that, as opposed to college, the NFL requires two feet to touch the ground upon catching the ball. For instance, just watching the Bengals/Chargers game today, there were like 4 different reviews over catches and I had no understanding of what was going on.


  10. #10
    #throwback mikec's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    @mikec31
    Age
    34
    Posts
    19,645
    vCash
    17097
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Both feet have to be in bounds when you gain possession of the ball and you have to maintain possession throughout the "process" of the catch. That means if you're falling to catch it you have to hold on through the fall and not let it come out. If you catch it on your feet in the middle of the field you show possession by making a football move. For instance in the Bengals game on the fumble at the end of the first half, Bernard caught the ball and had possession as evidenced by him taking two steps with the ball before losing it.

  11. #11
    is not your buddy, guy.

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Saskatoon, SK
    Age
    32
    Posts
    21,373
    vCash
    4797
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    I thought you had to make two "football moves" to have possession?

  12. #12
    Moderator UT's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    22,969
    vCash
    0
    Mentioned
    130 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by RT View Post
    I thought you had to make two "football moves" to have possession?
    In the playing field , and its technically only one "football move" , although that seems to be more subjective depending on the referee.

    On the sidelines , mikec summed it up beautifully.

  13. #13
    They still play defense? The Real LT's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,891
    vCash
    2000
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    What exactly are the rules and objectives in Cricket? I literally have no idea what I'm watching with that game.

  14. #14
    Hat Guy guy Baker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    4,948
    vCash
    2000
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by RT View Post
    Soccer tournaments, particularly in the UK, fuck me up. What is the FA Cup?
    I had the same problem for a long time. My cousin explained it to me a few months ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Real LT View Post
    What exactly are the rules and objectives in Cricket? I literally have no idea what I'm watching with that game.
    This was going to be my question.

  15. #15
    Moderator Oncall's Avatar
    Tetris Champion!Tournaments Won: 1

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Age
    29
    Posts
    14,706
    vCash
    0
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    I'll have a go at answering about cricket though I wish I saved all those PM's I had with Ice when he asked about cricket. The base objective is the same as baseball. The batting team tries to get as many runs as possible and the fielding team tries to ensure they score as little as possible.

    Instead of 3 outs, the fielding team has to get ten before a team can be considered all out. In baseball I assume there could technically be unlimited pitches per inning if someone just kept fouling it off, mind you I know next to nothing about that sport so some comparisons may be off.

    A bowler (pitcher) gets six balls which equals one over (half an inning).

    A batter can score anywhere between one and six runs depending on where the balls and how fast he can run between the creases. A six (home run) or four (ball that hits the wall and runner gets into second.)

    I'm typing this and realising it may sound confusing. Perhaps individual questions about what confuses you about cricket would be more beneficial. The basic objective is what I outlined initially, whichever team scores the most runs in a certain period (or in test cricket it's when the captain declares or his side gets bowled out twice) wins the game.


    A ton and a half of credit to Rad for this superb artwork


    Quote Originally Posted by The Miz
    I'd rather you all hate me for everything I am than love me for something i'm not
    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    It's so nice knowing i'm no longer alone

  16. #16
    Hat Guy guy Baker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    4,948
    vCash
    2000
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Oncall View Post
    The base objective is the same as baseball. The batting team tries to get as many runs as possible and the fielding team tries to ensure they score as little as possible.

    Instead of 3 outs, the fielding team has to get ten before a team can be considered all out. In baseball I assume there could technically be unlimited pitches per inning if someone just kept fouling it off, mind you I know next to nothing about that sport so some comparisons may be off.

    A bowler (pitcher) gets six balls which equals one over (half an inning).

    A batter can score anywhere between one and six runs depending on where the balls and how fast he can run between the creases. A six (home run) or four (ball that hits the wall and runner gets into second.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Oncall View Post
    Perhaps individual questions about what confuses you about cricket would be more beneficial.
    Let's try it this way.

    If the bowler knocks over all the sticks (the wicket?) does that mean the batter is out? (Baseball equivalent of a strike out, perhaps?)

    I was under the assumption that all ten batsmen batted in an inning (or I guess "over" would be the proper term)? And they kept running the bases until they were out?

    For example: You hit the ball and run to one base for one run. Then you run to the next base for another run. But if you're called out running to the third base, you're off the basepaths, but you scored two runs for your team? And the inning is over when all ten players bat? But Oncall's explanation doesn't sound like that at all. Now I'm really confused.

    They don't have a diamond shaped field like in baseball, right? It's just two bases and the players keep running back and forth?

    Is there foul territory? I thought any hit, no matter where it went, was in play?

    How many innings are in a cricket match?

    Are they even called cricket matches? Or is cricket games the preferred term?

    What do you mean by "the bowler gets six balls?" Where do these balls go? Or does that mean six balls, as in the baseball equivalent of bad pitches? If so, what happens if he throws a seventh ball? A walk?

    Are there walks?

    What happens if the bowler bends his arm on a pitch?

    Is there a halftime? Every cricket match I see on British TV always has a bunch of people lying around drinking tea. Kind of like a picnic. These people are fans, but the players usually join them at some point. So, halftime?

    Does a caught fly ball constitute an out as in baseball?

    Does a fielder have to tag the baserunner like in baseball? Or is it more like plays at first base where the throw just needs to beat the runner?

    That's enough for now. I'll probably have more later if anybody bothers to answer these questions. Maybe I should have just PMed Oncall to begin with

  17. #17
    Moderator Oncall's Avatar
    Tetris Champion!Tournaments Won: 1

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Age
    29
    Posts
    14,706
    vCash
    0
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Ice did the same thing Baker and i'm not sure how much more he really understands the game. That list of questions works a lot better and I can answer them one by one.

    It does but generally only one stump of the three stumps is knocked over unless it's a really amazing delivery (pitch)

    The proper term is innings. In standard cricket matches that take one day to play each team will have one innings.

    There's no diamond, think of your driveway at home as a cricket pitch. Starting at one end and running down to the other equals one run.

    That's correct, there is no foul territory.

    That can vary. In one day cricket each team will have one innings that consists of 50 overs.

    Test cricket is where it gets tricky. There's always going to be at least 3 innings but if the team that bats first scores a lot of runs, say 458 all out and then the opponents only score 200, the captain of the team that scored 458 can force the opponents to bat again since they didn't score enough runs to eliminate that possibility.

    If the captain does force them to bat again and they score less then 258 runs in their second innings then the second team loses with only 3 innings being played.

    It's not something I give much thought to but games is the term I hear more often.

    The ball they use to play is what I mean and the six balls have to be good pitches, if a bad pitch occurs which in cricket can be called a wide or a no ball (explanation forthcoming) he has to bowl them again until he has bowled six good pitches.

    I don't know what to compare it to in baseball but in cricket there's a line on the pitch at the end where the bowler bowls. If he oversteps this line with his whole foot, the ball doesn't count, it's a bad pitch.

    There are no walks.

    He has to bend it, he can't just chuck it, otherwise it's a throw and considered a no ball (I'm fairly sure on that but another cricketing mind might correct me)

    In the one day games there is just an innings break at the end of the 50 overs or before if the team couldn't survive the 50 overs. In test cricket there's a lunch break and a tea break. There are also drinks breaks during the day.

    Yes it does, any ball hit in the air that gets caught is out.

    Nothing like that, there is something called running out where a fielder can throw the ball at the stumps and if the fielder hits the stumps before the batsmen is across the line (safe) the batsmen is out.


    A ton and a half of credit to Rad for this superb artwork


    Quote Originally Posted by The Miz
    I'd rather you all hate me for everything I am than love me for something i'm not
    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    It's so nice knowing i'm no longer alone

  18. #18
    They still play defense? The Real LT's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,891
    vCash
    2000
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Ok after watching some cricket highlights and that very detailed post I think I understand the game better.

    Next question....just how hard do cricket bowlers throw? Especially with that running start.

  19. #19
    "pure trouble" HR's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Age
    27
    Posts
    15,864
    vCash
    11150
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by The Real LT View Post
    Ok after watching some cricket highlights and that very detailed post I think I understand the game better.

    Next question....just how hard do cricket bowlers throw? Especially with that running start.
    Fastest guys playing right now can push it over the 150kph mark, but the quickest that's ever been measured broke the 100mph barrier, so pretty much the same as baseball.


  20. #20
    The Devil's Eyes BigRed's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Haddonfield
    Age
    26
    Posts
    16,681
    vCash
    2000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread



    Saw this was trending on my Facebook (yeah, FB does trends) and watched. So, what's the deal in hockey with fights? I read once that it's not so much the, "I want to beat the fuck out of this other guy," as it is a firing up the team kinda thing. A players thinks his team needs an extra boost, so he picks a fight with an opposing team's player.

    For instance, in that video, it seemed after the brawl, the players fought and then were like, "Okay, well that was fun, guys." No big deal.

  21. #21
    Senior Member Sea Slug's Avatar
    Space Invaders Champion! Hexxagon Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Ponchatoula, Louisiana
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,345
    vCash
    4324
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BigRed View Post


    Saw this was trending on my Facebook (yeah, FB does trends) and watched. So, what's the deal in hockey with fights? I read once that it's not so much the, "I want to beat the fuck out of this other guy," as it is a firing up the team kinda thing. A players thinks his team needs an extra boost, so he picks a fight with an opposing team's player.

    For instance, in that video, it seemed after the brawl, the players fought and then were like, "Okay, well that was fun, guys." No big deal.
    It's a little from column A and a little from column B. It is more a means of firing up a team than getting an opponent off the ice these days.

    There was a time though, when a team would generally designate one player an enforcer, who's role was partially to focus on an opposing player who was playing a little rougher than the game should allow. More to the point, there was often a "goon" who's primary purpose was ether to pick a fight with an opposing team's best player or to goad that player into picking a fight with him. These latter two roles have more or less been eliminated by recent rule changes regarding the active roster.
    If all of mankind minus one were of of one opinion, and only one person of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
    -John Stuart Mill

  22. #22
    is not your buddy, guy.

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Saskatoon, SK
    Age
    32
    Posts
    21,373
    vCash
    4797
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Fighting in hockey is underneath the world's biggest microscope right now too. This situation is particularly interesting because of that, and also because this happened on "Hockey Day In Canada", a day-long celebration of the game that we Canadians go absolutely batshit insane over.

    (I know you like to read, so here's some background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_night_in_canada)

    As Sea Slug already said, fighting serves a purpose in the game, however that purpose is slowly disappearing as players as a whole become bigger, faster, stronger and can better protect themselves. The 'enforcers' he was speaking of aren't needed as much anymore in a fighting role, but still serve a bigger purpose elsewhere (and are a big reason why this fight happened in the video you posted).

    Teams consist of 4 forward lines. Your top line is your best players and the line that should be scoring. 2nd and 3rd lines are support, the lines you use to control the puck, give the top line a rest, and hopefully add a point or two to your score to help out. 4th line is typically reserved as a checking line where you stick your big players. All you want them to do is go out and fight for the puck, keep it in the other team's zone, draw a penalty, etc. This is usually where your 'fighters' are sitting.

    (of course this all depends on the team, coach, etc. All teams are different, I'm just going by what you usually come across on a typical NHL team).

    Fights almost always happen when a momentum shift happens during the game (like you already mentioned). A team scores a couple quick goals, so the other team's coach sends out his 4th line to make something happen. You can almost always bank on a big hit or fight to come in this situation, but it's expected. Both teams send out their tough guys because they know it's coming, nobody gets hurt, the crowd roars and two guys sit in the penalty box to cool off for 5 minutes. In this situation however, it was a bit underhanded (but a tactic used by coaches more often than people think) where Calgary sent out their 4th line to face Vancouver's top line. Vancouver's coach said "Hey, fuck you," and called back his top line, sending out his 4th line too. Tempers flaired, then boom.



    Here's a similar situation that happened during the preseason. Buffalo sent their 4th line out to face Toronto's top line. Everyone knew what was going to happen, but Toronto's top line stayed out. You can see the differences between two 4th lines fighting and a 4th line fighting a line of smaller goal-scorers. At around 20 seconds you see a Toronto player coming off the bench to join the fight. That's David Clarkson, who served an automatic 10 game suspension for that.



    I could talk forever on this subject but I'll stop for now to keep the discussion going. If anyone has further questions by all means.

    EDIT: Fun fact in the Vancouver/Calgary fight..Kellan Lain, who was playing in his first NHL game for Vancouver, flew his family out from Ontario for the game. He was one of the players ejected for this fight. Played 2 seconds, received 10 penalty minutes and didn't play at all.

  23. #23
    Sega Boy ShinobiMusashi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Back arse of nowhere
    Posts
    12,623
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Awesome hockey posts here that have helped me understand a little more about the game. I've always been intrigued by the overall tough guy nature of hockey, but two things kept me from getting into it. 1). The rules and the overall un-beginner friendly presentation by TV networks. 2). No team in Houston. There was a minor league team that I followed for a few years back in 98-99, but I don't think they exist anymore. I would definitely get deeper into hockey if I had a hometeam to root for. I have something hardwired into my DNA that makes it physically impossible to cheer for Dallas sports teams.

    I know that Houston Texans owner Bob Mcnair came really close to buying an NHL franchise before they got the green light from the NFL. Do you think the NHL will ever have a team in Houston?

    ECW: Fuck The Bullshit

  24. #24
    Electro-pop music Leper Messiah's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Western Illinois
    Age
    28
    Posts
    7,313
    vCash
    1920
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Why aren't there more NHL teams in Canada? It's way more popular in Canada than it is in America. Cities like Regina and Hamilton could sustain one very well. Quebec City should still have one, IMO. At least Winnipeg got there team back.

  25. #25
    is not your buddy, guy.

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Saskatoon, SK
    Age
    32
    Posts
    21,373
    vCash
    4797
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Judgment-Free Questions Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ShinobiMusashi View Post
    Awesome hockey posts here that have helped me understand a little more about the game. I've always been intrigued by the overall tough guy nature of hockey, but two things kept me from getting into it. 1). The rules and the overall un-beginner friendly presentation by TV networks. 2). No team in Houston. There was a minor league team that I followed for a few years back in 98-99, but I don't think they exist anymore. I would definitely get deeper into hockey if I had a hometeam to root for. I have something hardwired into my DNA that makes it physically impossible to cheer for Dallas sports teams.

    I know that Houston Texans owner Bob Mcnair came really close to buying an NHL franchise before they got the green light from the NFL. Do you think the NHL will ever have a team in Houston?
    If you hate cheering for Dallas teams, cheer for the Minnesota Wild. The Stars used to be in Minnesota and moved, then Minnesota got a team back. They're not too bad.

    As for a team in Houston, I doubt you'll see one. Teams are failing in the southern US (Phoenix Coyotes, Florida Panthers specifically) and if teams move or the league expands there are bigger and more promising markets already lined up (more teams in Canada, Seattle wants a team, I've heard rumors of a 2nd LA team, etc).

    Quote Originally Posted by Leper Messiah View Post
    Why aren't there more NHL teams in Canada? It's way more popular in Canada than it is in America. Cities like Regina and Hamilton could sustain one very well. Quebec City should still have one, IMO. At least Winnipeg got there team back.
    There's a lot of talk that the Quebec Nordiques are going to come back. All the suits on TV seem to think it'll happen sooner rather than later, but they also said the Coyotes would be gone from the league by now, so who knows?

    There are a number of reasons why there aren't more teams in Canada, depending on who you ask. Some will tell you it's because Gary Bettman has a huge boner for the United States and their money, which to an extent is true, but not the sole reason.

    Saskatchewan is a tough market because of the lack of population and interest, and also because it would negatively affect other established teams that have fans there. You throw a team in Saskatchewan and if they are profitable (which they probably wouldn't be), then you're cutting away at the profits of Calgary, Edmonton & Winnipeg (and hell, the other Canadian teams too, but to a lesser extent). The NHL tested the waters recently by having preseason games played in Saskatoon and it was a massive failure. The city basically begged people to go to the game to show the league they could support a team and it didn't work.

    As for Hamilton or another southern Ontario team, you run the same problem of teams having a monopoly on a certain area. The Maple Leafs organization is never going to sign off on sharing an area code with another NHL team, and it's likely Ottawa and Buffalo would fight it too. Again, there are rumors that another Toronto team could happen sooner rather than later, but I honestly think it's a pipedream.

    Basically it comes down to there being 1/10 the population up here, and the fact that the majority of Canadian NHL fans are already dedicated to a team and wouldn't spend the money it takes to help a new team survive.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •