What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

RaceBoarder said:
Ugh... I am really beginning to hate the Hawks bandwagon being SRO at the moment... People are taking the Hawks/Wings rivalry and making tomorrow's game out to be a Game 7 or something....


It's Oct. 7! Calm down... Neither team really has anything going for or against them this year so far... Just go out and play the **** game :mad:
Click to expand...
It's the North American opener for both teams, it'd be a pretty big deal regardless of who their opponents were. A rivalry matchup makes it a bigger deal to fans. Relax.
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

kennedy said:
It's the North American opener for both teams, it'd be a pretty big deal regardless of who their opponents were. A rivalry matchup makes it a bigger deal to fans. Relax.
Click to expand...

I assume some people don't want hockey to be popular so it becomes harder and harder to watch on TV and eventually just goes away completely.
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

Rimbaud said:
I assume some people don't want hockey to be popular so it becomes harder and harder to watch on TV and eventually just goes away completely.
Click to expand...

Besides, Chicago fans have to get excited about something after watching both of their baseball teams kick them in the taint for six months straight.
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

Rimbaud said:
Can we call up any of our other 73 goalies? Not sure what's worse...whatever the hell Nabby was doing last night or coughing up a goal when the guy is shooting 2 feet behind the net from 20 feet away.
Click to expand...

Apologies to our UMD cohort on the board, but I want to see Sexsmith, if for no other reason then to pick up his jersey.
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

Coyotes @ Penguins isn't on center ice because __________ .

Please complete the above sentence.
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

state of hockey said:
...it's on NHL Network.
Click to expand...

And curiously despite purchasing Center Ice, I don't get the NHL Network and would have to subscribe to a separate digital tier to get it [and ESPNews (which I already get in HD with basic cable?), Big Ten Network, NBA TV and YES].

****ing NHL, I already dropped $140 on your product and I can't watch every game?
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

AMC said:
And curiously despite purchasing Center Ice, I don't get the NHL Network and would have to subscribe to a separate digital tier to get it [and ESPNews (which I already get in HD with basic cable?), Big Ten Network, NBA TV and YES].

****ing NHL, I already dropped $140 on your product and I can't watch every game?
Click to expand...
I'd be pretty ticked too.
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

It is pretty weak. We have it because I think Comcast here packages it with other sports channels we didn't get otherwise. Probably wouldn't have it if we were in your position.
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

AMC said:
And curiously despite purchasing Center Ice, I don't get the NHL Network and would have to subscribe to a separate digital tier to get it [and ESPNews (which I already get in HD with basic cable?), Big Ten Network, NBA TV and YES].

****ing NHL, I already dropped $140 on your product and I can't watch every game?
Click to expand...

If if makes you feel any better, the first period was like watching paint dry.
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

state of hockey said:
It is pretty weak. We have it because I think Comcast here packages it with other sports channels we didn't get otherwise. Probably wouldn't have it if we were in your position.
Click to expand...

Correct. I don't mind, simply because I want the sports tier anyway for the NFL network, the NHL network, and the FoxSports Channels.

That, and I can't afford to drop $150 on the Center Ice package. :(
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

funny, comcast chicago placed the nhl net + nfl, nba, and mlb nets into their digital premium packaging. digital starter subscribers can only get them by adding the sports pack (which gets you fox college sports).
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

aparch said:
funny, comcast chicago placed the nhl net + nfl, nba, and mlb nets into their digital premium packaging. digital starter subscribers can only get them by adding the sports pack (which gets you fox college sports).
Click to expand...

I think I just get the Starter + sports tier. I don't have HBO/Cinemax/Showtime/etc. Don't need it, or want it.
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

Brenthoven said:
I think I just get the Starter + sports tier. I don't have HBO/Cinemax/Showtime/etc. Don't need it, or want it.
Click to expand...

I decided today to cancel Showtime ($10/month) and buy Center Ice ($140/year). So I call Time Warner, explain this, and they act like I ran over their dog. "Why do you want to cancel Showtime? Do you realize you will lose the Movie Channel?" I explained yes, I realize that, no I don't watch it much, I want Center Ice but I can't afford both. I get transferred to "Retention" because the customer service rep can't cancel packages. The guy goes through the whole spiel again. I explained that I was going to end up spending MORE money on the NHL package than I would on Showtime. No sale. I offered to cancel both, if he would prefer.

Why is cable so difficult?
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

AMC said:
I decided today to cancel Showtime ($10/month) and buy Center Ice ($140/year). So I call Time Warner, explain this, and they act like I ran over their dog. "Why do you want to cancel Showtime? Do you realize you will lose the Movie Channel?" I explained yes, I realize that, no I don't watch it much, I want Center Ice but I can't afford both. I get transferred to "Retention" because the customer service rep can't cancel packages. The guy goes through the whole spiel again. I explained that I was going to end up spending MORE money on the NHL package than I would on Showtime. No sale. I offered to cancel both, if he would prefer.

Why is cable so difficult?
Click to expand...

They're not the sharpest bulbs in the drawer.
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Well, Vancouver was certainly POed.
Click to expand...

It helps when your opponent had the life drained from them in Calgary the night before and are giving too many minutes to Hal Gill. Vancouver punished them physically tonight.
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

GreatLakerMohawk said:
It helps when your opponent had the life drained from them in Calgary the night before and are giving too many minutes to Hal Gill. Vancouver punished them physically tonight.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed Hal Gill losing a fight to Rick Rypien.
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

AMC said:
I enjoyed Hal Gill losing a fight to Rick Rypien.
Click to expand...

That was a bit unfair for Gill, Rypien is a total dick whose sole job is to fight people and hit everyone. That was like John Ruiz and Roy Jones Jr. and Gill should've tried to hug Rypien til the linesmen stepped in.

Just to show how crazy Rypien is, Vigneault told his guys not to fight (Laraque was trying to start with Hordichuk and the Canucks bench was barking at Hordichuk to not do it). Instead, Rypien makes Gill look bad to help pile on.
 
Re: The 2009-10 NHL regular season thread: Slightly less meaningless hockey

GreatLakerMohawk said:
That was a bit unfair for Gill, Rypien is a total dick whose sole job is to fight people and hit everyone. That was like John Ruiz and Roy Jones Jr. and Gill should've tried to hug Rypien til the linesmen stepped in.

Just to show how crazy Rypien is, Vigneault told his guys not to fight (Laraque was trying to start with Hordichuk and the Canucks bench was barking at Hordichuk to not do it). Instead, Rypien makes Gill look bad to help pile on.
Click to expand...

Hal Gill is 6'7" 250 lbs.

Rick Rypien is 5'10" 170 lbs.

John Ruiz is 6'2" 230 lbs.

Roy Jones Jr. is 5'10" and weighed in at 193 for their heavyweight title fight.

I don't care who you are, you should be able to handle someone 9 inches and 80 pounds smaller than you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top