jetsniper Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Just noticed a little blurb about this in the Sun this morning so I went and found an article I could actually link you guys too, not sure if anyone has heard about. http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...hyoEXre3cYSaEXQ Basically to summarize, during tonights Caps/Flames game, a station will be broadcasting the game in a split-screen format with one camera on the game and one camera on Ovechkin (even when he's just sitting around on the bench) Good idea or should it be tossed in the trash can with the glowing puck? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycing Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 If the entire game will be split screen - I'd have to say that'd be pretty annoying. If they just watch him with one camera and pull out the highlights during stops in play and intermissions - that's fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Good idea or should it be tossed in the trash can with the glowing puck? Aside from the comet tail on hard shots, I always thought it was a great idea. It didn't bother me at all and made it a lot easier for non-traditional hockey watchers to follow the puck. Plus it came in handy along the boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mils Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Aside from the comet tail on hard shots, I always thought it was a great idea. It didn't bother me at all and made it a lot easier for non-traditional hockey watchers to follow the puck. Plus it came in handy along the boards. I agree, that was a good idea that, for reasons that are beyond me, was outright rejected by "hockey people" everywhere. It was a creative, if not brilliant, move by Fox. "People can't see the puck..... okay, let's make it easier to see the puck." Groupthink at its worst killed that. We forget so quickly that the hockey market will only expand, thus growing the sport, if we appeal to NON-hockey people. Traditionalists limit the expansion of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I agree, that was a good idea that, for reasons that are beyond me, was outright rejected by "hockey people" everywhere. It was a creative, if not brilliant, move by Fox. "People can't see the puck..... okay, let's make it easier to see the puck." Groupthink at its worst killed that. Don't forget the canadian inferiority complex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAussiePosse Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Don't forget the canadian inferiority complex. They refuse to compensate by making the 'important bits' glow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycing Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I am Canadian and I hate the puck shadow whatchyamacallit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 I am Canadian and I hate the puck shadow whatchyamacallit. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Figures a couple of guys from the states liked the glow.. funny they don't have glowing golf balls on TV..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 (edited) Figures a couple of guys from the states liked the glow.. Don't put words in my mouth, I never said I liked it. I simply said it was useful and a good idea to attract fans. Aside from the comet trail, I was impartial about it, since I don't have any problems following the puck. It certainly didn't bother me or take away from the game. If something simple like that could make the game more popular, then I'm all for it. And joke or not, I'm not thrilled about the implication of your statement. Edited March 13, 2008 by Fanpuck33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 Figures a couple of guys from the states liked the glow.. funny they don't have glowing golf balls on TV..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parksville habsfan Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 With big screen high definition tv who needs a glowing puck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markierung Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 i saw the Ovechkam last night, it was way too big. It took up over half the screen, you couldn't even see the game properly. I though that it was going to be like the Koivu cam when he came back from Cancer. This was ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 With big screen high definition tv who needs a glowing puck. Yeah, because we can all afford a big screen HD and HD service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Don't put words in my mouth, I never said I liked it. I simply said it was useful and a good idea to attract fans. Aside from the comet trail, I was impartial about it, since I don't have any problems following the puck. It certainly didn't bother me or take away from the game. If something simple like that could make the game more popular, then I'm all for it. And joke or not, I'm not thrilled about the implication of your statement. attract fans? I've never understood this, hockey has been around forever, this isn't introducing curling into the U.S. (which will now suck because Chevrier died people watched curling, fell in love with curling because the two announcers were hysterical and explained the game well enough for people to understand). Curling has since become a cultural phenomenon every 4 years on NBC. Hockey is the same way. For most of the country Hockey is something we root for every 4 years at the olympics. Its a novelty outside of the upper midwest and Northeast. As a Phoenix resident told me on a flight to Phoenix "Why do we have a hockey team, I don't get it, this is a desert, nobody pays attention." Everybody knows what hockey is, the whole country watched '80 Olympics, but its a novelty. Again another failure of Bettman failing to realise that hockey would never be a cultural force in the states and break its regionalism. Fox did this once during a saturday blues game. It was "Chase Cam" they'd have a camera following Kelley Chase as he beat up on people. Then they did it for Hull a few times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 It's pretty damn simple, Pierre. Lots of people don't watch because they can't follow the puck, so they made it easier to follow. More people can follow the puck, more people are likely to watch games. It was that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Boagalott Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 (edited) D'oh!! Too bad I just noticed this now, I would have loved to have seen that. Personally I think its a great idea if they do it properly but it doesnt sound like they did. Not any 1 channel should go completely split screen on A.O. That would definitely be frustrating if the only channel playing the game was like that. However if you have a Hockey package like NHL centre Ice then why not have 1 feed as the OvechKam? It would be a great gimmic. As much as I despised the glowing puck it was a great gimmic too. It was popular with a lot of non traditional hockey fans but hated by the majority of hockey fans so they did away with it. They could bring it back so that everyone would be happy if NHL centre Ice package added 1 extra channels for every game feed so you could watch it with or without. Fox gets criticized for using it in MLB too but I like when they do that because they only do it in replays so you can see the balls movement past the batters swing. The A.Ocam is an original idea to hockey but its not a completely original idea. NASCAR does it with their satellite package and they do even more with it. I've never actually seen it so I always wondered why there is so many NASCAR channels, 10-15 different feeds when there is only 1 race at a time. All the extra channels are actually in car cams of different drivers so you can flip through the channels and see the race from different drivers perspectives. I'm not into NASCAR at all but the idea intrigues me and I'd like to check it out after seeing a commercial for it. The NHL could take it 1 step further like NASCAR and put helmet cams on quite a few players so you could change between the players you choose. Edited April 3, 2008 by Sir_Boagalott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_hat_trick Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 It would be cooler if they put a micro-cam on his helmet showing the game from an Ovechkin "First Person" perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 camera in the puck. lol headache! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InsaneHABSfan Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 It's pretty damn simple, Pierre. Lots of people don't watch because they can't follow the puck, so they made it easier to follow. More people can follow the puck, more people are likely to watch games. It was that simple. What evidence do you have to back up this statement? I partially agree, however without a closeup on a baseball game you cannot see the ball either. Yet this sport does quite well in the USA. And golf, well lets not go there because watching paint dry on the wall is much more interesting then watching Tiger check over a lie for a long putt. Face facts, AMERICANS hate snow Kidding, I know the northern States love this sport and that is the growth area for hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 lol the only reason why americans watch golf is because of Tiger. Its like people only watched Michael Jordan when he was playing with the Bulls. Cultural phenomenons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InsaneHABSfan Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 lol the only reason why americans watch golf is because of Tiger. Its like people only watched Michael Jordan when he was playing with the Bulls. Cultural phenomenons. I normally do not get into sports heroes as they make so much money that it is hard to relate. I have watched golf two times when my mother was in intensive care in the hospital and had the pleasure of watching Tiger Woods. I like how he handles himself. MJ was one of my favourite NBA players. I never read anything about his personal life as I respected him for his game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.