Open again. Todd Gill was getting away with some things that need to be challenged.
One could say that those other teams are already getting the shaft because they don't have any of the prime Divisional matchups.
Yes, Detroit comes to mind while Boston, Montreal and the Leafs sit cozily in the most secure place. The two economic juggernauts of the NHL in one division? Hmmm.
Uh, no. It makes me a longtime, hardcore hockey fan who HATES what the New NHL has done to the overall content and quality of the league thanks to runaway, misguided expansion.
I agree with the sentiment, however weren't our Original Six teams the ones who caused it all? Once upon a time, there were only six teams. They controlled their destinies. This didn't happen "to them" but due to their own desires to grow the league.
Jersey is an awful, unnecessary franchise. The NYC area does not need three freaking teams, for starters, as there are enough fans in the region for one. Does anybody really give a damn about the Devils aside from a few thousand hardcore types? The attendance is always flaky unless the team is winning big time, or the Rangers are in, and even then it's always a life-and-death struggle to make money. If not for the ownership, the Devils would be prime targets for relocation like their neighbor on Long Island.
Why aren't there more teams in the world's largest hockey market? You don't have to look very far in fact in attributing some of the blame for the league's choices in expanding -- the why and the where.
If this is truly how you feel, why blame the result of the expansions and bad business plans on the fans in the newer market, yet never look at the root behind these things. Toronto, the franchise, has had far more to say about these matters than any fan you choose to blame. Far more.
So what? Why does that mean Toronto fans should be force-fed crap games with Florida and Atlanta? Why should Toronto have to basically prop up these crap teams that by all sane measurements of fan bases should not exist?
As a Detroit fan, my question is why do four of my fellow Original Six teams get away with being cozy while Detroit is forced to shoulder a disproportionate cost in "propping up" or helping the expansion take hold. Wrong time zone, greater travel costs, loss of its traditional rivals (like the Leafs), etc.
You think we don't miss seeing teams we grew up watching visit more often? The buzz at the Joe last month when the Habs visited was incredible. You could tell the fans were having a BLAST. There was singing and fans poking fun at each other, but all proclaiming they had a great time.
So if the expansion is water under the bridge and you can't set the clock back type of thing--- share the pain with us. Instead, you grouse about the expansion and that you don't want to be unfairly burdened, but don't allot any of the blame to local ownership. Furthermore, you don't recognize the sacrifice fellow fans [and teams] in O-6 markets are asked to make.
That's a part of it. There's a certain cachet that teams bring with them. Original Six clubs. Younger teams with real history like LA, the Oilers, and Dallas. But what do you get with, say, Columbus? Or Carolina? Or Florida? Not much history, not much in the way of image, not much drama, not much when it comes to long-standing rivalries.
There was a time when there were only six. Did LA or Dallas or Philly have that cachet when they were first added?
If we're honest, we'll recognize that what helped a team like Philly or LA take hold was time and especially in Philly's case, challenging the status quo of the Original Six. Not sure if you remember the Bobby Clarke days, but guess who they were trying to unseat?
That's what happens when you shoehorn too many new teams into a league too quickly. The NHL added almost 10 teams in very short order to blitz into apparently underserved US markets as a result of the Gretzky popularity blip in the early and mid-90s. Whoops. That turned out to be a mirage and interest in the NHL in the US soon subsided. So the league has been left stuck with a bunch of teams founded to serve what turned out to be a lost cause.
This may be true to a certain extent, in that overexpansion weakens everyone, even teams that might be bolstered and 'salvageable' in the so-called failing markets were it not for talent levels and the level of overall competition for said talent.
My point though in challenging your position is that I feel your blame is misdirected, and as I said above, much closer to home than you may wish to acknowledge.
