Adding the WHA teams is ok because those were pre-existing teams. They had a history already, even though it was in another league. The American League/National League and the AFL-NFL mergers were also OK for the same reason. Even the Mets were created from the ashes of the NY Baseball Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers. You'll see merch from both of those teams sold at the stadium, and lots of Mets fans wearing them because they are considered the same team.
What bothers me is when a team is created from thin air just for money. If you want to add a new NHL team, then add the AHL champions. ZOMG, just looked up the AHL champs, and it's Binghamton, NY!
I'm ok with teams moving. I'm ok with existing teams moving up to the big league. I just don't think it's right to create a team from thin air and for them to instantly be in the biggest most important league there is. If you want to create a brand new team, start in a minor league.
You do realize that the WHA was a league created specifically to make money? Because there were a bunch of people with money who loved hockey but weren't allowed into the old boys club of NHL owners and thought that they could compete with the NHL and siphon money out of markets the NHL wasn't accessing? Every single team in the WHA was created solely for the purpose of making money. So was every single team in the NHL before the merger, and every single team after it. It is a business and all the teams are equal in it.
The idea of adding AHL clubs is ridiculous as well. The AHL operates on a much smaller scale and in far smaller markets, which couldn't possibly support an NHL team. That's the reason why the Hartford Whalers moved, and why the original Winnipeg Jets and the Quebec Nordiques moved when the Canadian dollar was incredibly low. The NHL already has a problem with teams losing money, and you think a team in Binghampton could, whose player salaries are almost entirely paid for by the NHL club it is associated with anyway, could compete?
You may think that the model of european soccer leagues is nice, but that just tells me that you have no clue how they work or the result of them. There are in fact teams that win lower leagues, but refuse to be relegated up because they can not even pay league dues. And even if they pay, they do not have the economical strength to be competitive. That's why in european soccer there is always the same teams competing for the top spots. Despite teams switching in and out of the leagues, the championships are in complete stagnation. At least in american sports you have a mostly level playing field and due to revenue sharing you have a lot of parity in the NHL where seemingly any team could win a championship within 5 years.
Scott, you are so fucking far off base it's laughable. The line you are attempting to draw in the sand is arbitrary and idiotic, and the alternative solution you propose is beyond ridicule.
Just being in the major league of a sport is a big deal. It means there is an assumption that no team in a lower league has any chance of beating you. You are literally and figuratively on another level.
Even though the NBA could lose a few teams, they actually get this right. Take the worst NBA team, Charlotte. They suck big time, but are still miles above any non-NBA team. If they played against a college team, even the best college team, that team probably would have no chance.
This actually happened with Dream Team 2 vs college All-Stars in 1994. Final score 113 to 75. Easily could have been much more devastating if the Dream Team played to the max, which they did not do in a exhibition game when injury would have been devastating.
The NHL has this as well. When you watch some NHL hockey and then go back to watch college hockey, it's like everything is in slow motion. It's a completely different level of play.
What I'm saying is you shouldn't be able to just walk in off the street and get to play at the highest level. You first have to demonstrate your worth. Show us that you can play on that level before we let you in. Peasants don't get to joust against lords.
False equivalency, Scott. You are now arguing about skills of the players, when the argument you put forth is about whether or not a city deserves a team, and how many teams there should be NHL.
You are also building up a convenient cop-out standard that would never allow any team to join the NHL, because you already admitted that no team not in the NHL could compete with a team in the NHL.
To cut this short, the only measure that makes sense to advocate adding or contracting teams from a professional league in the U.S. should be economic viability. Your narrow-minded argument from your own personal belief about whether a city or market deserves to have a team are most definitely not valid reasons to do so.
Economic viability can't be the only thing. Think about it in the reverse situation. Let's say that people stopped going to games in Montreal. You can't move them or shut them down. They're the Habs. End of story. As long as the league exists, they will still play in that arena, even with every seat empty. It will be subsidized by the league. Even with all the greedy owners and realities of the world, there are still some other things that matter.
Economic viability can't be the only thing. Think about it in the reverse situation. Let's say that people stopped going to games in Montreal. You can't move them or shut them down. They're the Habs. End of story. As long as the league exists, they will still play in that arena, even with every seat empty. It will be subsidized by the league. Even with all the greedy owners and realities of the world, there are still some other things that matter.
A team isn't going to stay in a city just because some person somewhere wants them to keep them there. We've also seen very popular teams such as Quebec and the original Winnipeg Jets move because of economic considerations. Tradition and pride are luxuries that are dependent on the existence of the team, which is not a given of the team isn't economically viable. Though I would gladly agree to cut loose a team like Columbus if it meant to keep a more successful and more traditional team like the Islanders around.
Anyway, to cut things short, statements a la "Oh, your home arena is located in Tennessee? Your team isn't a real hockey club." do nothing except make you look like an ignorant and arrogant buffoon. Not to mention that the unusual situation in the Western conference this year arose because the big name traditional powerhouse clubs like Vancouver, Chicago and Detroit failed to compete and advance, which speaks to the athletic superiority of the teams that beat them. We are seeing Nashville vs. Phoenix because Nashville and Phoenix earned it and that is definitely worth more than some shmuck sitting around and deciding by fiat who has the right to compete and who doesn't.
Professional sports should be about the battle of the legends. Goliath vs. Goliath. There's no room for David.
There is plenty of room for David in professional sports. Some of the greatest sporting moments are when a small team or underdog beats someone they have no right on paper defeating.
"In exhibitions that year, Soviet club teams went 5–3–1 against National Hockey League (NHL) teams, and a year earlier, the Soviet national team had routed the NHL All-Stars 6–0 to win the Challenge Cup.[10] In 1979–80, virtually all the top North American players were Canadians, although the number of U.S.-born professional players had been on the rise throughout the 1970s. The 1980 U.S. Olympic team featured several young players who were regarded as highly promising, and some had signed contracts to play in the NHL immediately after the tournament."
I think it's hard to argue that since the team mainly consisted of college players and very few NHL players.
I think it's hard to argue that since the team mainly consisted of college players and very few NHL players.
Or rather, no NHL players. Professional athletes weren't allowed to compete in the olympics at the time. All the players on the U.S. 1980 Olympic Mens ice hockey team only graduated from College a couple of months before. Meanwhile the players of the USSR were playing together for years and made their living by playing hockey for the glory of the USSR. They were for all intents and purposes professional athletes, but formally not considered such.
The russians also beat that very same U.S. team 10-3 at Madison Square Garden on February 9th, just days before the olympics were set to begin. Consequently the Russians were heavily favored to win the gold medal.
To be honest the winner of the east is coming out of NY and Wash because both teams could easily sweep NY and PHL. Sadly my mind is stronger than my gut...
To be honest the winner of the east is coming out of NY and Wash because both teams could easily sweep NY and PHL. Sadly my mind is stronger than my gut...
Washington sweeping the Flyers. That's a good one. Rangers worry me though. Not because they are somehow a better team. They aren't. But for some reason or another the Flyers match up terribly with them. It won't be a sweep though, and it will definitely not be easy.
The Devils on the other hand annoy the fuck out of the Rangers, but I don't think the Devils will go to the finals in any case.
Also, I love how the Garden has created the great OVI SUCKS chant whenever there are 8 minutes left in the period. You should be honored. The last person to get get a chant directed at them was Denis Potvin.
Ya, the Coyotes totally lost last night 2 to 0. It was pretty frustrating, because they had absolutely no forechecking at all throughout the game and were totally getting swarmed whenever they were on the offensive. Even when it was three on five in the Coyotes favor, we still didn't score. I really do hope they pull themselves together for the next match, I would hate to see them begin to lose it after coming so far.
Comments
What bothers me is when a team is created from thin air just for money. If you want to add a new NHL team, then add the AHL champions. ZOMG, just looked up the AHL champs, and it's Binghamton, NY!
I'm ok with teams moving. I'm ok with existing teams moving up to the big league. I just don't think it's right to create a team from thin air and for them to instantly be in the biggest most important league there is. If you want to create a brand new team, start in a minor league.
there were a bunch of people with money who loved hockey but weren't allowed into the old boys club of NHL owners and thought that they could compete with the NHL and siphon money out of markets the NHL wasn't accessing? Every single team in the WHA was created solely for the purpose of making money. So was every single team in the NHL before the merger, and every single team after it. It is a business and all the teams are equal in it.
The idea of adding AHL clubs is ridiculous as well. The AHL operates on a much smaller scale and in far smaller markets, which couldn't possibly support an NHL team. That's the reason why the Hartford Whalers moved, and why the original Winnipeg Jets and the Quebec Nordiques moved when the Canadian dollar was incredibly low. The NHL already has a problem with teams losing money, and you think a team in Binghampton could, whose player salaries are almost entirely paid for by the NHL club it is associated with anyway, could compete?
You may think that the model of european soccer leagues is nice, but that just tells me that you have no clue how they work or the result of them. There are in fact teams that win lower leagues, but refuse to be relegated up because they can not even pay league dues. And even if they pay, they do not have the economical strength to be competitive. That's why in european soccer there is always the same teams competing for the top spots. Despite teams switching in and out of the leagues, the championships are in complete stagnation. At least in american sports you have a mostly level playing field and due to revenue sharing you have a lot of parity in the NHL where seemingly any team could win a championship within 5 years.
Scott, you are so fucking far off base it's laughable. The line you are attempting to draw in the sand is arbitrary and idiotic, and the alternative solution you propose is beyond ridicule.
Even though the NBA could lose a few teams, they actually get this right. Take the worst NBA team, Charlotte. They suck big time, but are still miles above any non-NBA team. If they played against a college team, even the best college team, that team probably would have no chance.
This actually happened with Dream Team 2 vs college All-Stars in 1994. Final score 113 to 75. Easily could have been much more devastating if the Dream Team played to the max, which they did not do in a exhibition game when injury would have been devastating.
The NHL has this as well. When you watch some NHL hockey and then go back to watch college hockey, it's like everything is in slow motion. It's a completely different level of play.
What I'm saying is you shouldn't be able to just walk in off the street and get to play at the highest level. You first have to demonstrate your worth. Show us that you can play on that level before we let you in. Peasants don't get to joust against lords.
You are also building up a convenient cop-out standard that would never allow any team to join the NHL, because you already admitted that no team not in the NHL could compete with a team in the NHL.
To cut this short, the only measure that makes sense to advocate adding or contracting teams from a professional league in the U.S. should be economic viability. Your narrow-minded argument from your own personal belief about whether a city or market deserves to have a team are most definitely not valid reasons to do so.
Anyway, to cut things short, statements a la "Oh, your home arena is located in Tennessee? Your team isn't a real hockey club." do nothing except make you look like an ignorant and arrogant buffoon. Not to mention that the unusual situation in the Western conference this year arose because the big name traditional powerhouse clubs like Vancouver, Chicago and Detroit failed to compete and advance, which speaks to the athletic superiority of the teams that beat them. We are seeing Nashville vs. Phoenix because Nashville and Phoenix earned it and that is definitely worth more than some shmuck sitting around and deciding by fiat who has the right to compete and who doesn't.
I think it's hard to argue that since the team mainly consisted of college players and very few NHL players.
The russians also beat that very same U.S. team 10-3 at Madison Square Garden on February 9th, just days before the olympics were set to begin. Consequently the Russians were heavily favored to win the gold medal.
Lest we forget March 19, 2012:
Rangers worry me though. Not because they are somehow a better team. They aren't. But for some reason or another the Flyers match up terribly with them. It won't be a sweep though, and it will definitely not be easy.
The Devils on the other hand annoy the fuck out of the Rangers, but I don't think the Devils will go to the finals in any case.
Also, I love how the Garden has created the great OVI SUCKS chant whenever there are 8 minutes left in the period. You should be honored. The last person to get get a chant directed at them was Denis Potvin.
Don't think he can hear you...
Most beautiful hockey I ever seen.
But, we're going to a god damned hockey game this cycle. I think I'm willing to spend around $300 a seat.
They played a whole lot better tonight! Stanley Cup, here we come! One more game hopefully till the third round of the playoffs.
If we go up 3-1...