|
|
Post by Montrealer on Dec 2, 2003 17:38:59 GMT -5
Atlanta, Florida, Carolina: Bring 'em to Canada! Bring back the Jets and the Nordiques! While I prefer this to contraction, I think it's unfair. As of current count, Atlanta's average attendance is about 250 under Boston's. And about a hundred above Chicago'sSo do you blame Atlanta, or do you find the real reason attendance is suffering league-wide? |
|
|
|
Post by Kareem on Dec 2, 2003 17:50:05 GMT -5
Yes the league is too big, theres too many boderline NHLers but mostly there are too many cities that have no fan support. Just like the Expos here in Montreal, we definetly don't deserve a baseball team and we can't even afford to. The league made its expansion too quickly and it hasn't payed any dividends. Although I've thought about the fact that euros make up for the new teams, wouldn't it be better if there we're fewer teams? Its not like most of their fans care, again just look at the Expos, they could be gone and no one would notice, especially now that they've lost Guerrero.
Applying the rules, reducing the league to about 22 to 26 teams and changing the economical system would be great step towards more entertaining and balanced hockey.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 2, 2003 18:25:46 GMT -5
It's difficult for fans to support their hockey teams when ticket prices have zoomed into the stratosphere. I don't attend as many games as I used to. The attendances for some of the newer franchises seemingly aren't bad, but who knows what will happen when the novelty wears off.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 2, 2003 18:56:03 GMT -5
Atlanta, Florida, Carolina: Bring 'em to Canada! Bring back the Jets and the Nordiques! Bring back the Maroons, the Scouts, the Golden Seals! I lived in Winnipeg during the begging years (and in Ottawa duing the Bryden years). I tired of the noise. I'd like to say "if a city doesn't support the team find another city". However, (1) there aren't any other cities and (2) I'd miss being in a hockey town! There are no easy answers. Contraction sounds good but that doesn't answer the main problem: owners paying outrageous salaries and players demanding and getting the outrageous salaries. A cap would be nice, but the owners would get around it somehow (see: CFL). A generous TV revenue package would be nice, but many in the US (one reason for expansion was possible TV revenue) don't care about hockey: MLB summer and fall, NFL fall and early winter, NBA early winter and spring--why hcokey, a sport most people can't play. Maybe an NRHL needs to start (National Road Hockey League) so kids develop a taste for the real thing (and I don't mean Coke--um, Coca-Cola). Ad nauseum. I'll stop now. Oh, ya: Crosby. Be nice to have him. Contract five or six teams, we'll be last, we'll get 'em all. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 2, 2003 23:19:47 GMT -5
I remember spending hours creating a study about the amount of players in the league vis a vis European content, comparing 1989-90 and last season. It proved that the same amount of Canadians (indeed a few less) are playing in the NHL, and the increase in number of teams over the past thirteen years has been more than made up by European (and to a lesser extent, American) players. I'm think that expansion has lowered the quality of NHL hockey. Proving that the number of Canadians, in the NHL today, is similar to that of 89-90 does nothing to refute that argument. Introducing a new team adds a full roster's woth of minor league talent to the NHL's player pool - where they come from is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Dec 3, 2003 10:35:02 GMT -5
I'm think that expansion has lowered the quality of NHL hockey. Proving that the number of Canadians, in the NHL today, is similar to that of 89-90 does nothing to refute that argument. Introducing a new team adds a full roster's woth of minor league talent to the NHL's player pool - where they come from is irrelevant. Completely ignoring new sources of major-league talent is faulty reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 3, 2003 17:15:41 GMT -5
Completely ignoring new sources of major-league talent is faulty reasoning. Can you please elaborate as to why it’s faulty reasoning? |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Dec 3, 2003 17:47:27 GMT -5
Can you please elaborate as to why it’s faulty reasoning? Sure. Based on what you wrote, you must believe one of two things: -Canadians, on the whole, are poorer hockey players than they used to be. Or, -Europeans, on the whole, are the equivalent of minor-league talent. Otherwise, you must take into account the fact that the amount of players necessary to populate the expansion teams is roughly equivalent to the increase in number of Europeans playing in today's 30-team NHL as compared to the 21-team NHL of 1989-90. My reasoning is deductive, as I point out generalities and come up with a specific conclusion. -There are 9 more teams in the NHL than in the 21 team era. -There are roughly 180 more players in the NHL. -There are roughly 180 more Europeans in the NHL than there were in the 21 team era. -Therefore, the talent level of the average player, therefore, should be approximately the same in both eras. Simply ignoring this fact, and continuing to promote your point of view while ignoring this fact, results in this sort of argument: -There are 30 teams in the NHL. -The level of play in the NHL is poorer today than before. -Therefore, the talent level of the average player is lower today than before. If we are talking about the talent of the players, you must look at the supply of talented players. If you don't, then your argument could be used in this way: -There should be a seperate Canadian Hockey League. -Then Canadians would not be in the NHL. -The NHL would go from 30 to 21 teams. -The average talent level of the average NHL player would then be higher than before. Ignoring supply means your argument is supported with faulty reasoning. At least in my opinion. I could write this a lot better if I had a good solid hour to write out a full explaination. Unfortunately, I can only get a few minutes here and there at work. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 4, 2003 4:32:05 GMT -5
Based on what you wrote, you must believe one of two things: -Canadians, on the whole, are poorer hockey players than they used to be. Or, -Europeans, on the whole, are the equivalent of minor-league talent. Thanks for elaborating. I can see the logic in your reasoning - which does hold some merit. While it's difficult to argue that expansion has directly reduced the overall NHL skill level, I will argue that it stopped what would have been a steady increase in talent which would have yielded a much more concentrated talent pool. The most skilled European players would have combined with the most skilled NA players to produce higher quality rosters. If you look at concentrating talent on an extreme scale, you have the Olympics, and upcoming World Cup of Hockey. The Olympic rosters consisted of mostly elite talent, and yielded a more entertaining product than I've seen in the NHL in recent years. Rosters comprised the quickest, smartest, most skilled, best skating players in the world. Granted there are other factors (rink size, no red line, national pride, short schedule). My opinion, however, is that the concentrated talent was the predominant factor in producing such an entertaining product. Having said all that, my beef (as appears to be yours) is boring hockey. I'd love to see the NHL do something to make it more exciting. Contraction is merely one suggestion. Changing the rules, or rinks is another. There isn't much point in holding to tradition if it's putting people to sleep. I like the idea of bigger rinks and no red line. It would be more difficult to trap, and clutch and grab. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Dec 4, 2003 10:13:24 GMT -5
Having said all that, my beef (as appears to be yours) is boring hockey. I'd love to see the NHL do something to make it more exciting. Contraction is merely one suggestion. Changing the rules, or rinks is another. There isn't much point in holding to tradition if it's putting people to sleep. I like the idea of bigger rinks and no red line. It would be more difficult to trap, and clutch and grab. Agree on this, except for the contraction (as you know by now...  ) I agree that you're concentrating talent - however I find that it is too destructive and there are better, more encouraging ways. As you said, remove red line (except for icing), enlarge the goal nets, etc.. I really, really, really hope someone in the League offices is looking at this. Or else, this era of NHL management will be akin to Nero's reign in Rome. |
|
|
|
Post by Psycorp on Dec 9, 2003 23:37:17 GMT -5
Guys, tonight was supposed to be my great report on Crosby as i was going to the Sageneens vs Oceanic game... Sadly Rimouski chose not to dress him, he got a slight neck injury and management didn't want to take chance...understandeable but so disapointing  so much for my first junior game in ten years... Anyway, this was a good game nonetheless You might want to keep an eye on an Oceanic kid named Francois Bolduc: 6'5" 218lbs defenseman with very good mobility already showing leadership qualities, he's draft eligible this year. also a kid named David Desharnais, he's got no chance to make it at 5'6" but he was the best player tonight getting 2g and 2p, very spectacular and fast  |
|
) I agree that you're concentrating talent - however I find that it is too destructive and there are better, more encouraging ways. As you said, remove red line (except for icing), enlarge the goal nets, etc..
