HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

MetCenterFan wrote:Why eliminating fighting is good
• More drawing power. The game would become more family-friendly and could attract a new group of fans.

• Improved national image. Sportscasters would have to show video of goals and saves instead of fights. Right now, those highlights make fighting seem more prevalent than it is.

• Safer. The league won't have to live with the knowledge that someone likely will be seriously injured in a hockey fight.

• More roster options. Fighters with low skill level could be replaced with scorers.

• Good for business. Some sponsors who don't like the NHL's image might sign on.

• "My honest answer is that if you (legislated fighting out of the game), there would be an adjustment period, but I think the league would be fine."

— Nashville Predators general manager David Poile

Let me quickly prove everyone of your points wrong. The first two, I don't think I'm the only true hockey fan who doesn't care what the national image of the sport is as long as I continue to be entertained by the product. And if you honestly think that there's a lot of kids out there who go up to their dads and say "Dad, I really want to go to a hockey game tonight" and the dad says "No, we can't because there's too much fighting" then you might need to reevaluate what color the sky is in your world. Safer? Are you serious? How many years has the NHL been around? How many times have people been seriously injured in a fight? How many times have people been seriously injured by just being out there playing the game? I rest my case. More roster options? I bet there's a lot of teams out there passing up top notch scorers so that they can have an enforcer on their team. If there were a lot of high quality guys out there that would be more valuable to the team than the enforcer, they would be out there. If there isn't enough sponsors lining up to back a professional sport in the United States of America, then the league has problems a lot deeper than just a image of fighting.

Sorry

flatontheice wrote:Anyone know why Nick Mattson did not travel with the US National Team to this tournament? I see alot of the U17 kids are playing.

What U17 players? I didn't see any.

flatontheice wrote:Anyone know why Nick Mattson did not travel with the US National Team to this tournament? I see alot of the U17 kids are playing.

Because NTDP brought the U18 team up for the tournament. I believe the U17 team plays a league schedule in the NAHL.

breakout wrote:

flatontheice wrote:Anyone know why Nick Mattson did not travel with the US National Team to this tournament? I see alot of the U17 kids are playing.

Because NTDP brought the U18 team up for the tournament. I believe the U17 team plays a league schedule in the NAHL.

I think you're right!

Hockeyguy_27 wrote:

breakout wrote:

flatontheice wrote:Anyone know why Nick Mattson did not travel with the US National Team to this tournament? I see alot of the U17 kids are playing.

Because NTDP brought the U18 team up for the tournament. I believe the U17 team plays a league schedule in the NAHL.

I think you're right!

You a right. I was looking at the wrong roster

It's also important to know that there is very little fighting in the NAHL Division that most Minnesota HS players play in. I'd say it's even less in that division then it is in the NHL.

I know that the NAHL is not as good as the USHL but the U18 Nat'l Development team played in the recent showcase and was 3-1 but most of their games were very competitive eg beat Topeka 3-1, beat Express 2-1, beat Texas 3-1 and lost to Fairbanks 3-2.

Then they also played Chicago in the USHL and beat them 3-2. Chicago beat Green Bay 6-3. I'd say Chicago and Green Bay might be in the lower quartile of the USHL but who knows for this year.

I guess there can't be that big of a difference, if any, between the very good NAHL teams and the middle to lower USHL teams.

I know this only a few games but it still says something...