HOCKEY NIGHT IN CANADA FEELING HEAT

A couple columns this week, one from each side of the 49th parallel, have touched on something we've felt in our gut for a long time but never been able to properly articulate: Namely, there has to be a better way to present hockey than the way it's been done for 50-some years.

Norman Chad, the Houston Chronicle contrarian, plays it more for laughs, but suggests two changes that I haven't read anywhere else:

1. "The game needs to be televised north-south, not east-west."
2. "The game needs to eliminate one intermission."

Chad's argument:

"Hockey simply translates better if the action is coming at you. Ever wonder why, when someone scores, they show multiple replays from behind or in front of the net? Because it's easier to see the goal, you knuckleheads."

(snip)

"The NHL should not continue to give viewers two 15-minute opportunities to find a more violent TV option. Let's say you're grazing around during the second intermission of a Penguins-Rangers game and come upon The Godfather. Are you going to reject Vito Corleone and return to Jaromir Jagr? I think not.

"NHL games should have two 30-minute halves rather than three 20-minute periods. And don't tell me they need that extra intermission due to technological limitations in smoothing the ice — I'm sure Toyota makes a Zamboni that can deliver twice the performance of its American counterparts."

Out in Van, The Province's Tony Gallagher says that Hockey Night in Canada is looking pretty stale in comparison to Versus and (gasp!) NBC these days, or at least very least, its days as the unquestioned gold standard of hockey broadcasts are numbered. But he points out that play-by-play as we know it is an anachronism:

"It's always been a bit strange if you think about play-by-play on television, but high definition has rendered it absolutely absurd, the only question being when people producing these broadcasts will figure it out and come up with something better than dead air. But on and on it goes, completely stuck in a time warp."

You can probably hear someone saying already, "Well, I like it the way it is," as if that's even an argument. Truth is, we've never really seen anything all that different from the original concept of putting a camera halfway up the stands and using it to convey most of the action. Besides, the NHL really isn't in a position to dismiss any TV-friendly change out of hand.

Related:
Only radical changes can save NHL on TV (Norman Chad, Houston Chronicle)
Stanley Cup television coverage is getting competitive (Tony Gallagher, Vancouver Province)

That's all for now. Send your thoughts to neatesager@yahoo.ca.