millbank Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 Interesting to see this years out door game from Wrigley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 Yup, watching it. Pretty good so far. Chicago up 2-1. Lots of penalties and getting more physical as the game goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knightrider Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 3-1 at the end of the first on a nice effort and quick hands bu Ben Eager... I really like the outdoor view of the game. I sort of didn't want to see another, but after seeing this, I wonder if the NHL could orchestrate the schedule to have more of these. Maybe have New Years outdoor only? It certainly would provide some good competition for bowl games... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FearTheReaper Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 How many people does wrigley hold? They had a nice overhead view of the field,and it appears,imo, as if Baseball stadiums look like a better forum for these out door NHL games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted January 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 a quick google says 41,118. Both last years at the Ralph and this one at Wrigley both certainly do have their own special attributes. This year the weather is cooperating. They made mention because of Wrigley field being flat , it was somewhat easier for ice to be made. The camera views of the outdoor games are special. How many people does wrigley hold? They had a nice overhead view of the field,and it appears,imo, as if Baseball stadiums look like a better forum for these out door NHL games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cereal Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 Haha the Toews' 1997 pond hockey home video was awesome. (during 2nd intermission) "There's a real hockey mother with her boys out there, eh?" 1997 wasn't that long ago...... and he was so little in that video haha...... Favorite parts of the game so far: Seabrook checks Cleary into CHI bench, who then gets a Too Many Men; Eager strong play behind the Conk with a wraparound goal; Datsyuk fancy stickwork on his goal. Cheers to all! Happy New Years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 Ah, good old Brian Campbell. Has an assist on a PP goal and was on the ice for one Chicago even strength goal, but was also on the ice for three of Detroit's even strength goals! Datsyk pretty much made him look like a traffic cone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 I want a pair of those socks Detroit is wearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dietlbomb Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 I want a pair of those socks Detroit is wearing. seconded! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 pretty good game. I just wish Chicago had pulled Huet sooner, he didn't look great today. I can't deny I love the Winter Classic gimmick. Keep on doing it. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 seconded! My team wears red, so those would be perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 I can't deny I love the Winter Classic gimmick. Keep on doing it. :thumbsup: I agree even though it never feels like a real game; more like an exhibition game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMTTACWC Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I can't deny I love the Winter Classic gimmick. Keep on doing it. :thumbsup: I agree. BTW, how much of an effect would the 75mph winds have had on a Winter Classic game at RWS? Would they have caused an unlikely deflection? Or two? Or three? Or more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 While the ice was better than last year(because of the snow), it was still really slow. It was noticeable from the get go. I laughed when Pierre McGuire or someone else said "there is nothing wrong with the ice". PS I see Brian Campbell still doesn't have a clue as to how to play defense as evidenced by Datsyuk's goal. <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 While the ice was better than last year(because of the snow), it was still really slow. It was noticeable from the get go. I laughed when Pierre McGuire or someone else said "there is nothing wrong with the ice". struck me that the ice quality was measurably better than last year - it appeared that the temps were about the same as for our game last year - so barring some learning curve issues at our game, i suspect it was the absence of snow falling that improved the playing surface. the game was slower than normal, for sure, but datsyuk's goal was something to watch amd could have never happened last year. i only tuned in for the second period, and quite enjoyed myself. PS I see Brian Campbell still doesn't have a clue as to how to play defense as evidenced by Datsyuk's goal. he was abused on a couple of goals there in the second. i laughed at the suggestion that datsyuk needed a gust of wind to push him past/around campbell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 As much as fans enjoy railing on the NHL this is definitely one thing they got right. It will be interesting to watch future "Classics" to see in they can outdraw the number of fans at 'The Ralph' and in as short a period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cereal Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 As much as fans enjoy railing on the NHL this is definitely one thing they got right. It will be interesting to watch future "Classics" to see in they can outdraw the number of fans at 'The Ralph' and in as short a period of time. Agreed. What other cities/venues would be good for Classics? Canadian cities next? I think Minnesota could be cool: http://stadium.gophersports.com/ 80,000 seats. Who would they have play the Wild? Any in their division would be good... I'd want to see VAN or another Canadian team. List of largest stadiums: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity I've heard an idea of PHI-PIT at Beaver Stadium in State College, PA..... could be cool except the Pens were just in one. Buckeyes' stadium too, but would they actually put the BJ's in a Classic? haha Lastly, that site lists Wrigley at a capacity of 41118, for those wondering. NHL Boxscore shows attendance of 40818 yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tulax Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I actually asked Pierre Lebrun on one of his chats for ESPN whether he felt that the 2009 winter classic would be better than the 2008 winter classic and also whether he felt that this would be a yearly tradition. His response was that this years winter classic had placed even more on the fans and making for an exciting atmosphere (as seen from the universal giveaway and the search for the missing reebok sign) and therefore it would be better. He also stated that his sources at the NHL and NHLPA were both in agreement that they wanted to make this a yearly event. Judging from the attendance at both events, they seem to be profitable. I thought it was interesting that commentators felt that the crowd played an even larger factor than last year because the way the ice was set up much closer to the stands. Could it be that baseball stadiums will be used more than football stadiums? I'm in no way a Yankees fan, but in hindsight it would have been cool to have the winter classic be the final event at the old Yankee stadium. That's not to say that the Wrigley event wasn't a good location. I also thought the technology for the ice turned out to be extremely successful. The boards seemed to be real active, looked like a game in Montreal. As for places in the future I've heard Denver mentioned, State College, New York, Fenway in Boston, Minnesota, any of the Canadian cities. I though it would be nice if they made it a yearly tradition at New Years with a bit of a US vs. Canada rivalry. Every year, the beat American team from the previous year (in terms of record) and the best Canadian team from the previous year would play outdoors. If the American team played in a climate not suitable for outdoor play, then you could have it in the Canadian team's city. If an American city could host the outdoor game due to climate, then they would host. Just a thought, I think it would be a great way to market the only major sport with more than one team in another Country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Is it required that Ty Conklin be one of the starting goaltenders in the outdoor games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 The TV ratings this year were up 12%. Won't be suprised to find out a large chunk of that increase comes from Buffalo. Add the 50 thousand from Buffalo that went to the game last year (I'm giving the other 20K to Pitt & others) as well as the large number of Buffalonians who last year went to parties and bars to watch the game that didn't get counted last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 The TV ratings this year were up 12%. Won't be suprised to find out a large chunk of that increase comes from Buffalo. Add the 50 thousand from Buffalo that went to the game last year (I'm giving the other 20K to Pitt & others) as well as the large number of Buffalonians who last year went to parties and bars to watch the game that didn't get counted last year. Once again Buffalo proves that it really loves hockey. http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_dadd...?urn=nhl,132003 Third only behind Chicago and Detroit. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM8-PL16 Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 I don't know if any of you were at the game at RWS last year, but the sight lines were great and I don't understand these people saying baseball stadiums may be better for these types of games. Are you HIGH??? although a few hundred seats are closer at two corners of the rink, the majority of the seats are VERY far away and not even facing the rink. I would like to talk to an objective person that went to both games and see what they say about watching it. Did you see how far away some of those seats were??? Football only stadiums are at least the same shape as the rink and give an equal sight line to just about everyone and hold WAY more people. Baseball stadiums are not set up for that at all. AND it really bugged me how the presentation was ALL ABOUT Wrigley Field. They showed more Gayle Sayers and Cubs highlights than they did hockey ones. All the baseball references were VERY annoyed during the braodcast as well. I tuned in to watch a hockey game, not hear about Wrigley Field. I've watched the game from last year and I don't recall seeing Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed and Bruce Smith highlights or really any references to the Bills and/or football. It's a hockey game and last year they treated it like one (like they should have) and this year it was all about Wrigley Field. Freaking annoying. <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 I had the pleasure of going to Wrigley--it was a great time, but it wasn't nearly as much fun as the game in Orchard Park last year. Tailgating is more fun than bar-hopping before and after games, and the fans in Buffalo last year (all fans, not just Sabres fans) were more friendly and more knowledgeable about the game. Frankly, a lot of the Chicago "fans" were people who wanted to go to an event, not hockey fans, and the conduct of both teams' "real" fans was very different than what I expected out of the Midwest. These folks hated each other. In fact, some Hawks fans seemed to hate any non-Hawks fan; i.e., they were picking on folks wearing Dion Phaneuf jerseys, etc. There was none of the "hey, let's celebrate hockey, and may the best team win" spirit that I saw last year. (But those Hawks fans were much less surly after the game. Wonder why.) The view was just fine. Yes, the 300 level at RWS is closer to the rink than the bleachers at Wrigley, but when you're talking about that kind of distance, it really doesn't matter. I had to look up at the jumbotrons a few times on Thursday, but I had to do that from the 100 level RWS last year, too. I don't think it's a big deal to play the game in a baseball stadium rather than a football stadium. (And since up until 12/28, the Bears were a candidate to host a home playoff game, it would have been tough to schedule Soldier Field. For some reason, that just wasn't as much of a concern last year....) The game itself was a better game. Division rivals, who had just played two days before, and all that. Plus, no snow to slow down the skaters. It felt like a league game, whereas last year's contest really felt like an exhibition. All in all, an excellent game and an excellent trip, and if the NHL has another outdoor game next year, I'm going to try to make it three in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM8-PL16 Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 cool. Thanks for the info Eleven! it does sound like the atmosphere was better last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 a quick google says 41,118. Both last years at the Ralph and this one at Wrigley both certainly do have their own special attributes. This year the weather is cooperating. They made mention because of Wrigley field being flat , it was somewhat easier for ice to be made. The camera views of the outdoor games are special. That wasn't the always the case with Wrigley... I think it was just last year that the whole original drainage system was upgraded... The field is actually lower know and totally level... I think in the old days the field was wickedly sloped in one direction to facilitate drainage... If you were viewing the players in the outfield from the dugouts, one could see the whole player! I take this is why the NHL could pick Wrigley know... Maybe even a year ago it would not have been possible for this kind of ice rink venue... They would have had to shore it up by leveling the rink... IMO, it would have been more difficult than dealing with the crown at the Ralph. Rooftops probably had the best views... They say people along the lines had to stand to see over the boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.