Whom do you cheer for most... the players or the team?

[MarkZackKarl]

If the NHL does get to the point where it somehow gets a ruling and ability to use scabs, what gives you the impression that your 'precious' Vancouver Canucks would even be allowed to host games in BC' given the labour laws in that province?

Wow, gotta love those owners, maybe as much as you love the Canucks.

And unless I missed soemthing, putting a C on a scabs jersey and calling him a Canuck does not make him one....

 

[dakota]

If the NHL does get to the point where it somehow gets a ruling and ability to use scabs, what gives you the impression that your 'precious' Vancouver Canucks would even be allowed to host games in BC' given the labour laws in that province?

Wow, gotta love those owners, maybe as much as you love the Canucks.

And unless I missed soemthing, putting a C on a scabs jersey and calling him a Canuck does not make him one....

This where your opinion difers from other peoples... putting on a Canuck jersey and playing for the Canucks makes a player a Canuck... I would follow the team as I am sure many others would... there was a poll a while back where a clear majority of posters would watch replacement players.. something like 70%...

this doesnt mean your wrong... just in the minority... no big deal. if it does happen it will be very interesting to see...

 

[thinkwild]

I was so happy when Ottawa got a team in the NHL. It was a really exciting time. I couldnt imagine going back to cheer one of my old team if they left. Im cheering for our jersey and our players, whom we vigorously defend on messageboards.

But what if there were a new World league with a World Championship Trophy each year. Sweden, Russia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, USA, Finland, Czech ... etc. And watching the World juniors at Christmas, you realize all these top prospects will be playing in the new elite league. And all the top prospects we here at HF monitor will be going to this new league. Sens prospects will be the also-rans. What does this Sens team mean to me now when all the best players and top prospects are going to a new leagues teams? They are still my team. But I will also be following the best players no doubt. Seeing al these great players in this league, will be awfully frustrating on trade deadline day.

 

[dakota]

I was so happy when Ottawa got a team in the NHL. It was a really exciting time. I couldnt imagine going back to cheer one of my old team if they left. Im cheering for our jersey and our players, whom we vigorously defend on messageboards.

But what if there were a new World league with a World Championship Trophy each year. Sweden, Russia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, USA, Finland, Czech ... etc. And watching the World juniors at Christmas, you realize all these top prospects will be playing in the new elite league. And all the top prospects we here at HF monitor will be going to this new league. Sens prospects will be the also-rans. What does this Sens team mean to me now when all the best players and top prospects are going to a new leagues teams? They are still my team. But I will also be following the best players no doubt. Seeing al these great players in this league, will be awfully frustrating on trade deadline day.

players do not have to play in the NHL now... they can goto Europe, they can goto another league... they have a choice even if they are drafted... Crosby even if he is drafted by Ottawa can choose to play in Europe for as long as he wants.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

The players will go to the league that offers them the best 'bang for buck'. The league with the best compensation as well as the best competition. The NHL, unfortunately for the younger kids on this board, does not have a monopoly on elite hockey. Hockey does not live and die with the NHL. Maybe in the league's form it will die, but the sport never will. And those players will eventualliy gravitate towards a league all together, whether it be the NHL or some other competitor that arises out of its ashes... The best players in the world will make the most money regardless, and money will follow them around, not the brand names of the Leafs, Senators or Kings.

Sorry to disappoint all you pro owner souls though .

The owners only have leverage because the NHL currently attracts (pre-2004 at least) the best players, for the most part, in the world. Once that advantage is gone, there is little use for the NHL to continue operations as a 2nd tier sports league.; The pro hockey market will have moved on as will the fans.

Of cuorse most peolpe here are shortsighted and dont seem to be able to envision this scenario... Well its far more likely than fans sticking by their locked uot teams for years upon years nad the players thinking thehy have no other options but to submit to the NHL owners unreasonable demands.

 

[dakota]

The players will go to the league that offers them the best 'bang for buck'. The league with the best compensation as well as the best competition. The NHL, unfortunately for the younger kids on this board, does not have a monopoly on elite hockey. Hockey does not live and die with the NHL. Maybe in the league's form it will die, but the sport never will. And those players will eventualliy gravitate towards a league all together, whether it be the NHL or some other competitor that arises out of its ashes... The best players in the world will make the most money regardless, and money will follow them around, not the brand names of the Leafs, Senators or Kings.

Sorry to disappoint all you pro owner souls though .

I disagree the money will follow around the brand names of the Leafs, Senators and Kings. Those are the only constants... the fans will pay to see their TEAMS play, and players are "assets" who come and go.

If you are correct then what your saying is that the UHL can start charging $100 per ticket and sign all the NHLrs... for next season... they should give it a try and see how many fans go to the games...

 

[guymez]

The players will go to the league that offers them the best 'bang for buck'. The league with the best compensation as well as the best competition. The NHL, unfortunately for the younger kids on this board, does not have a monopoly on elite hockey. Hockey does not live and die with the NHL. Maybe in the league's form it will die, but the sport never will. And those players will eventualliy gravitate towards a league all together, whether it be the NHL or some other competitor that arises out of its ashes... The best players in the world will make the most money regardless, and money will follow them around, not the brand names of the Leafs, Senators or Kings.

Sorry to disappoint all you pro owner souls though .

The owners only have leverage because the NHL currently attracts (pre-2004 at least) the best players, for the most part, in the world. Once that advantage is gone, there is little use for the NHL to continue operations as a 2nd tier sports league.; The pro hockey market will have moved on as will the fans.

Well I am a pro owner soul and your post does disappoint me a little...but not for the reasons you think. How exactly is the NHL going to lose it's advantage? Even with the loss in revenues due to the cancelled season, there is no other league (future or existing) which can even hope to compete with the NHL. The players go to the NHL because thats were the money and the prestige are. The weak scenario you painted isn't even relevant.

 

[SPARTAKUS*]

This is a horrible poll. You cheer for the team of course because the team has the best hockey players in the world. So yes...the best players in the world come and go. If replacments come in then its not the same..ticket sales will dropped, and nobody is going to want there team to win the cup....well i know i wouldnt

The owners are not going to wait for Goodenow to start playing again. If the PA wants to make a deal than good but the owners are not going to sit around and wait for him to make up his mind. Come September the NHL will be open for business and then for the first time the fans will be able to make stand for or against the players.

 

[dakota]

The owners are not going to wait for Goodenow to start playing again. If the PA wants to make a deal than good but the owners are not going to sit around and wint for him to make up his mind. Come September the NHL will be open for business and then for the first time the fans will be able to make stand for or against the players.

get your season tickets soon... is this the "third option" scenario from the other thread? Go Canucks Go!!

 

[Habsolutely Awesome]

If the NHL does get to the point where it somehow gets a ruling and ability to use scabs, what gives you the impression that your 'precious' Vancouver Canucks would even be allowed to host games in BC' given the labour laws in that province?

Wow, gotta love those owners, maybe as much as you love the Canucks.

And unless I missed soemthing, putting a C on a scabs jersey and calling him a Canuck does not make him one....

Did u ever watch the Leafs in the 80's? They were just a bunch of fillers and people still cheered for the team! P.S And paid big bucks to do so.

 

[ArtG]

If the NHL does get to the point where it somehow gets a ruling and ability to use scabs, what gives you the impression that your 'precious' Vancouver Canucks would even be allowed to host games in BC' given the labour laws in that province?

Wow, gotta love those owners, maybe as much as you love the Canucks.

And unless I missed soemthing, putting a C on a scabs jersey and calling him a Canuck does not make him one....

According to several articles in the Vancouver Sun, these BC labour laws will not apply to hockey players because they are not considered specialized professionals of BC.

 

[Phanuthier*]

I cheer for the jersey, not the dufus's who wear it. When Scott Nichol, Jeff Shantz, Steve Begin, Greg Pankerwitz, Bobby Dollas, Stewart Malgunus, Dallas Eakins, Blake Sloan and Josh Green donned the Flaming C, I cheered for them. When (my favourite Flames) Denis Gauthier, Fred Brathwaite and Theo Fleury got delt, I never challenged my alligences.

Hell, when Vicent Lecavlier, Brad Richards and Martin St Louis played for the World Cup, I cheered on them, 2 months fresh from beating the Flames in the finals.

I cheered the clowns wearing the Flaming C from 1997-2003, I can do it again. I mean, just look at these players:
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000432001.html
Or hell,
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000432002.html
I don't think anybody would recognize more then 8 player for the Flames that year.

 

[Marconius]

Please elaborate on what you mean by 'cheering for the Buffalo Sabres'.

What/who are the Buffalo Sabres if the players are insignficant?

What exactly does 'cheering for the Buffalo Sabres' entail if the players do not factor in your decision to cheer for the Sabres? IF the players werent there, what would you cheer for?

Answer my questions, if you can (and I mean rationally, please).

If those players weren't there, I'd cheer for the ones who were. Thats the point. If you told me that if the Oilers traded all my favorite players away, but would be in the cup final, I'd do that deal in a second.

You begin to believe that certain players can get you to the cup, but their all simply an ends to a means. Rarely do you see an athlete outshine a team, usually takes something exceptional like talent (Gretzky) or courage (Koivu)

 

[me2]

The players will go to the league that offers them the best 'bang for buck'. The league with the best compensation as well as the best competition.

That is patently wrong. The NHL offered them much, much more compensation than any other league, anywhere in the world. A league that would have had the best players in it. THE PLAYERS TURNED IT DOWN.

How on earth can you suggest the UHL offers more bang for the buck for the players than the $42.5m capped NHL would have?

 

[codswallop]

This is a stupid question.

The teams and players are intertwined ,you cannot separate the two by idiotically saying 'I cheer for the logo!' or 'I cheer for the players!'

The logo has no meaning withotu a player to fill it. If you only cheered for the logo, and the players did not matter ,than you would be willing to spend 90 dollars to stare at a Leafs or Sens jersey lying on the ground for 3 hours.

Only delusional fans convince themselves that the players on their home team (Or their favourite team) have no bearing on them watching the games... most because of an irrational and petty jealousy against the players that provide them with excitement.

Most fans on here, ridiculously, would rather suppport Eugene Melnyk or Ed Snider DEPRIVING THEM COMPLETELY of hockey than the players getting a fair deal.

But with clowns on here that believe that their ticket prices are based on payrolls, I guess it makes 'sense to them'. But who should care what they think anyway, if they dont even understand basic concepts.

So all in all, this question is moot, because the things aren't really separable.

I did think of an elaborate reply. Point by point, debunking your comments. If time allows, I'd like to share it. But for now, I'll just skip to the bare bones.

Countless people who love/appreciate sports, spaning almost every region of the world, would violently disagree with you. Personal preferences do play a part. But that is heavily trumped by nationalistic and, much more so, regionalistic loyalities.

Loyalties for junior teams throughout Canada are very thick and of the long lasting variety. The same can be said of collegiate programs here in the US. We can shift sports and find dozens of exmples just here in North America where the team/city variable was the prevalent factor for fan loyality.

The football (soccer) community, pretty much everywhere in the world, would laugh at these comments. Their loyalities are that high, and that passionate. Regarless of what you or I or anyone else may believe, the fact is that regionalistic/team loyalty does and will always exist.

No matter what you think or what you believe, the concept of team and loyalty is very much a factor. And there is almost nothing to suggest that this will stop anytime in the near future.

 

[tripledekehockey]

team first, players second

 

[weaponomega]

Team first. When Bourque left, I was glad he won the cup, but I was more upset the Bruins didn't even make the playoffs.

 

[Roots73]

Thanks everybody for taking part in the poll and for the great viewpoints. I know that the question was very simplified and perhaps it could have used a little more clarification like " Would you watch NHL hockey with replacement players or PA hockey with the stars of hockey" , but I think that most of you get the point regardless.

The point is this, the vast majority of hockey fans cheer for their favorite team, plain and simple. To use "the players are more important" arguement is true to a point. But let's use this analogy. During parts of the 70's and 80's, the USSR was the dominant hockey force in international hockey. Did that make the NHL any less important because they did not employ any Russian hockey players?? Of course not. The NHL was still the number 1 league in the world despite the fact that some of the best players in the world like Tretiak did not play one single game in the NHL.

This is a stupid question.

The teams and players are intertwined ,you cannot separate the two by idiotically saying 'I cheer for the logo!' or 'I cheer for the players!'

The logo has no meaning withotu a player to fill it. If you only cheered for the logo, and the players did not matter ,than you would be willing to spend 90 dollars to stare at a Leafs or Sens jersey lying on the ground for 3 hours.

Only delusional fans convince themselves that the players on their home team (Or their favourite team) have no bearing on them watching the games... most because of an irrational and petty jealousy against the players that provide them with excitement.

Most fans on here, ridiculously, would rather suppport Eugene Melnyk or Ed Snider DEPRIVING THEM COMPLETELY of hockey than the players getting a fair deal.

But with clowns on here that believe that their ticket prices are based on payrolls, I guess it makes 'sense to them'. But who should care what they think anyway, if they dont even understand basic concepts.

So all in all, this question is moot, because the things aren't really separable.

You're entitled to your opinion ScaredSens, but answer this, why did the new Ottawa franchinse care to name the team after the last franchise that existed in Ottawa in the NHL??? If the "franchise" did not matter, they could have named Ottawa the Beavers or Loggers or whatever.

To use your argument, the fans simply wouldn't have cared what they named the team.But they did and so did the ownership group that formed the team in the first place. Remember all the rallies that they had before Ottawa was awarded the franchise to name the team the "Senators"??

And to your point about giving a fair deal to the players. If the Senators would still lose money with a 42.5 million cap, would you still consider it right to play the players that much if it meant killing the team financialy?? Do you realize how close Ottawa was to losing their NHL team as a result of all this mess?? I think if you were a true Ottawa fan, you would support Eugene Melnyk because he's the only reason why the Senators are still in Ottawa, period.

So to say that my question is stupid and moot, I say this, the PA right now are forcing the seperation between the team and it's players because they won't accept a deal that will keep the league viable. So then the question becomes valid. Who would you cheer for??

 

[xtra]

If i cheer for Peter zezel, Jamie Huscroft, steve washburn and bert robertsson then you can not tell me that i cheer for the players and not the jersey.


here is a question did you cheer for team canada with different players from different NHL teams or did you only cheer for the senators players?

 

[HckyFght*]

What is happening here is that some folks, for reasons they refuse to disclose, are trying to redefine or alter the semantics of what is essentially a basic premise: A sports fan, simply put, is someone who loves a game. If it's a team sport, the fan's allegiance is to the team that plays the sport the fan loves. Players, through their good efforts, can bring glory to that sport and pride to the team that plays it, and if they are fortunate enough to accomplish either of those things, they become heroes to the fans who watch them play. It is sophistry with a sinister intent to argue otherwise.
-HckyFght!

 

[two out of three*]

I cheer for the team, but would like the best players possible to play.

 

[nyrmessier011]

I root for my favorite team, but I refuse to with a bunch of washed up scabs. so with scabs/not the best players in the world I DO NOT CARE

 

[HckyFght*]

I wonder if those who say it's the players and not the team would stop rooting for Team Canada and start rooting for say, Team Sweeden should the Swedes one year put together an Olympic Gold Medal Winner? Or if the best players on the Peterborough Petes were swapped for those on the Oshawa Generals, would the hockey lovers in Peterborough flip to the Gens? Again, to argue that it's not the team betrays a secret agenda.
-HckyFght!

 

[Smart Alek]

What is happening here is that some folks, for reasons they refuse to disclose, are trying to redefine or alter the semantics of what is essentially a basic premise: A sports fan, simply put, is someone who loves a game. If it's a team sport, the fan's allegiance is to the team that plays the sport the fan loves.

I understand you are attempting to be pseudo-intellectual here, but what is "If it's a team sport, the fan's allegiance is to the team that plays the sport the fan loves" supposed to mean exactly? It doesn't really make any sense since all the teams in the sport play the same sport.

As far as your basic premise goes, that a sports fan is somebody who loves the sport in question, you would obviously be correct. But to make any leap from that, without providing sensible evidence, is not logical, and therefore not an argument... regardless of your use of the word 'sophistry.'

 

[misterjaggers]

Please elaborate on what you mean by 'cheering for the Buffalo Sabres'.

What/who are the Buffalo Sabres if the players are insignficant?

What exactly does 'cheering for the Buffalo Sabres' entail if the players do not factor in your decision to cheer for the Sabres? IF the players werent there, what would you cheer for?

Answer my questions, if you can (and I mean rationally, please).

Teams have good seasons and bad seasons. We support them through these ups and downs. We have a (perhaps irrational) faith that our team will eventually have a great season and win it all.