And what about NHL Reduction?

[zetajerk]

It's like a bunch of toddlers throwing a fit because other kids have the same toy as them.

Or video gamers being angry when new people start playing their favorite game.

This is what happens when you tie so much of your identity to a consumable product.

 

[sonofsamson]

Like I said, I don't disagree with his assessment but it is most certainly a put down seeing as we are on a hockey board and I do not fault southern team supporters for sniping back...the only problem is that it derails legitimate discussion.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Like I said, I don't disagree with his assessment but it is most certainly a put down seeing as we are on a hockey board and I do not fault southern team supporters for sniping back...the only problem is that it derails legitimate discussion.

I get what you're saying. My point is more that posters shouldn't take it personal.

Pointing out that a region as a whole isnt into a sport you love doesnt say a single thing about the validity of your individual love of the sport. It's simply looking at the average, and within that average you have outliers in either direction.

I live in New England. I also follow college football and basketball pretty intently. I dont take it personal when other people crack jokes and point out how god awful New England college football is, or how the region as a whole sucks when it comes to following it.

I dont care because 1. its true, and 2. it doesnt make me any less of a fan

 

[zetajerk]

I get what you're saying. My point is more that posters shouldn't take it personal.

Pointing out that a region as a whole isnt into a sport you love doesnt say a single thing about the validity of your individual love of the sport. It's simply looking at the average, and within that average you have outliers in either direction.

I live in New England. I also follow college football and basketball pretty intently. I dont take it personal when other people crack jokes and point out how god awful New England college football is, or how the region as a whole sucks when it comes to following it.

I dont care because 1. its true, and 2. it doesnt make me any less of a fan

Yes, but do those same people constantly antagonize you, tell you that you don't belong in college football, that your team should go somewhere else or be dissolved, you shouldn't be allowed to see a live game, belittle your passion, degrade your successes, go on and on about how much better college football would be if you were out of the picture, and generally treat you like crap?

 

[edog37]

then you clearly havent seen anything.

the only time there were attendance issues were in the early 2000s because the fans had finally had enough of Jacob's being cheap. They stopped going to games to send a message that the team needed to change.

Also, the league is too big...period.

The talent is too spread out which is causing the boring hockey we get today.

The even spread of talent has let coaches and systems have more effect and take over. It has also led to teams focusing on defense because the scoring isnt guaranteed.

People pine for the excitement of the 80s and early 90s, but fail to realize the reason that was so great was because the league was loaded. You had 3rd lines as good as some 1st lines today.

The league has expanded so that the owners can cash and pocket the expansion fees. But it has diluted their talent, and saddled the league with deadweight teams

This is factually incorrect. I too was a big fan during that era but the talent is far more plentiful today. It is true you had far more Canadian talent, but you did not have the pipeline from Europe you have now. The league at 32 teams has an adequate talent pool to draw from. The biggest issue today regarding excitement isn't the talent level, but the fact that the players today are far better athletes. In other words, when everyone has a baseline of phenomenal athleticism, it becomes more difficult to stand out. This also tends to balance out If you look at old videos from that time, the quality of play was a lot less than it was now. The contrast Most guys back then got into shape at training camp versus year round now. Guys like Crosby, Ovechkin, & McDavid would be perennial 250 point guys back then. I pine for those days as well & remember them fondly, but the truth is, today's athletes have far superior training. Plus, let's look at technique. Goalie technique back then was atrocious. A lot of standup & hope it hits the pad. That had a tendency to overinflate offensive stats.

 

[Oddbob]

Overall, you are probably correct! about those three teams being ripe for contraction! if it were a thing but going on a message board and vaguely ripping a whole region for "clearly not liking hockey" will get people riled up!

It wasn't and isn't an insult at all. For example I don't like basketball, so if there was a team in my area, I wouldn't support it as I have no interest in it. Obviously Florida and Arizona in particular like different sports much more, which is why their basketball teams appear to be absolutely fine as far as fan support goes.

 

[Oddbob]

Yes, but do those same people constantly antagonize you, tell you that you don't belong in college football, that your team should go somewhere else or be dissolved, you shouldn't be allowed to see a live game, belittle your passion, degrade your successes, go on and on about how much better college football would be if you were out of the picture, and generally treat you like crap?

Who was doing this? I didn't belittle anyone, didn't run down any success you had, or talk about anything related to seeing a game live. I don't have a team closer than 2-3 hours from me in the NHL, however that wouldn't and hasn't stopped me from supporting the Wings or going to a game or games live. Having a team close to you is nice, but isn't needed to enjoy the game.

 

[BattleBorn]

Places with teams that have more history will have more support in the lean years since there's generations of people raised on the team. I don't think that's a question. If we're basing team worthiness on fan support, it makes a lot of sense to handicap teams based on how long they've been around. For example, the kids that would have been raised on Coyotes hockey are only now coming to an age where they can afford tickets. I'm not saying new teams get a free pass on crappy attendance, just that if we're getting down to it I see a lot more negative in a team like the Blackhawks suffering like they did than a team like Florida suffering. To take it to the NFL, the Chargers situation is worse than the Jaguars recent situation. The current Pistons situation is worse than the current Memphis situation. However, it all comes down to the operations of the team, IMO. If a team is winning, people will come unless there's something like the Coyotes where the team is just a mess and also winning. In other words, I think it's a lot more complicated than saying "they don't show up, they suck and don't deserve it."

The fact that places that have had hockey teams for 50 years or more support hockey more than places that have had hockey teams for 30 years or less should be the least surprising thing in the world.

When it comes to dilution of talent, that seems like something that should be fairly easily debunked just looking at population growth and the growth of international (non-NA) talent in the league. While the talent will obviously lag 18-24 years behind population growth, the growth of North American (minus Mexico) and European population has kept pace with the addition of new teams since 21 team good ol' days. In 1979, there was one team per 11.85 million North Americans (249 million combined US and Canadian population/21 teams.) Today, there's 11.67 million North Americans per team with 31 teams (11.31 with Seattle added and no additional growth.) Add the Europeans coming over to the league and the talent dilution argument seems ridiculous.

This isn't even touching on the whole stand up versus butterfly/profly thing and all the other changes that have been made that have impacted play since the good ol' days.

The Golden Knights thing could go either way, and the way someone sees it is likely to include their bias based on what they feel is happening with the league. The NHL is either so weak and lacking so much talent that an expansion team can make it to the Stanley Cup Final or the league has so much talent that expendable pieces and third liners can make it to the Stanley Cup Final if they're all given a shot to play. I subscribe to the latter more than the former, and I feel like that viewpoint is a little more supported by evidence than the former.

 

[KevFu]

Now this is an interesting idea, KevFu and I have been thinking of it myself. Here's the problem as I see it:

Since player salaries are linked to league wide HRR, and a large portion of the league wide HRR, and certainly also the rise from year to year in %age, comes from the top end, then that means that.....The financial health of the bottom teams is DIRECTLY affected negatively if the high revenue teams really prosper.

Rather than complete cost certainty league wide, we need cost certainty on a local level.

That's exactly it. The LEAGUE WIDE average calculations only work for everyone is clustered near the average, or first and last are about equal distance from average, and 2nd and 30th are about equal from average, etc. A true Bell-Curve.

The big issue is really the Robin Hood Revenue Sharing Plan as opposed to a baseball style "Central Distribution Pool." If instead of rich cutting checks to poor (which creates animosity), the tactic was "Everyone puts in 33% of local revenues and gets back an equal share" then the end result is a tighter distance between first and last in revenues.

Because allowing teams to spend more or spend less still won't solve it without turning hockey into EPL Soccer. That's fun if you root for rich club, but really sucks for the fans of the other 2/3 of the league!

 

[MNNumbers]

That's exactly it. The LEAGUE WIDE average calculations only work for everyone is clustered near the average, or first and last are about equal distance from average, and 2nd and 30th are about equal from average, etc. A true Bell-Curve.

The big issue is really the Robin Hood Revenue Sharing Plan as opposed to a baseball style "Central Distribution Pool." If instead of rich cutting checks to poor (which creates animosity), the tactic was "Everyone puts in 33% of local revenues and gets back an equal share" then the end result is a tighter distance between first and last in revenues.

Because allowing teams to spend more or spend less still won't solve it without turning hockey into EPL Soccer. That's fun if you root for rich club, but really sucks for the fans of the other 2/3 of the league!

This is very true.

Long term stability for the lower income clubs requires something like:
All in-game revenues are shared 60-40 (NFL model)
or something.

But the rich clubs will never go for that, so we are left with a perpetual set of losing teams hoping that losses are made up in franchise values.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Oh look, someone worried about markets that don't like hockey! Arizona and Florida at the forefront!

Bruins would be among the last to go, since you know, their fans both like and support their team.

I'm pretty sure you missed the entire point of those comments.

Which is why they'd never have to resort to things like free ticket giveaways right?

Those tickets are "free" to the bearers but they've been purchased by ... someone. Well, I'll let you take a guess on who might have done that, and why.

 

[Oddbob]

I'm pretty sure you missed the entire point of those comments.

Nope!

 

[Jeffrey93]

Late to the game.....

Talent has never been higher.....league should expand more. There is too much parity and too many skilled players.

With tv timeouts.....the 4th line is rarely used, and that 4th line would have been a 2nd line 20 years ago.

Every player is too good. The game is too tight. It can be coached to boredom.

Expand to 36....make the 4th line mediocre again. Make line matchups relevant again. Make the 4th line an anchor again.

There is too much talent and too much coaching. If you want fun free skilled and wild hockey......you need more teams. The NHL hasn't expanded as much as the talent pool has.

 

[Bizz]

the NHL can handle 50+ teams. Retraction makes zero sense.