The Misunderstood O6 era

[Canadiens1958]

By all means, I'm reasonably certain Plante delivered a significant impact on Parent's development during his brief stint in Toronto. Rather fortunately, the mentor/protege relationship isn't unique to the Sponsorship Era but spans across all generations in the historical record of human civilization. In this manner, the argument in support of this hypothesis is specious, at best.



The Flyers were a blip on the radar during the 1970s, but the Bruins were not? From 1969-70 to 1979-80, Boston won two Stanley Cups and appeared in five Stanley Cup Finals. During the exact time period, Philadelphia won two Stanley Cups and appeared in four Stanley Cup Finals. Of a significant note, the Bruins lost in the Stanley Cup Finals to the Flyers in 1974. When drawing comparison it appears very disingenuous to suggest one of those teams as a blip on the radar. That's a remarkably sizeable number of blips for each team and very comparable in scale. Perhaps the Bobby Orr halo effect influences logic and reasoning at times?



I'm at a considerable loss in understanding your perception of the 1980s as a period of more turmoil and relative chaos relative to the 1970s. There were 32 professional teams during the height of the WHA period, dating to 1976. This was reduced to 21 professional teams for the 1979 season and the player totality was reduced over a three year period to be folded within the NHL structure. Your suggestion that the WHA league "was a minor league infused into a professional league" actually weakens your supposition that the 1970s NHL comprised a relatively strong period. Once again, those 1970s WHA teams had a winning record against NHL teams over a large sample size (63 games). The stronger 1970s NHL teams were actually beating up on weaker NHL teams which were marginally inferior to those very WHA teams. Give pause and consider that fact. If this was occurring during the 1980s period, it would be the first point of contention for the detractors of that time period. When it doesn't fit the narrative, it's both completely and unfortunately overlooked. Choosing witty narratives about cars in living rooms does nothing to alter that fact.



This completely misinterprets my point. The reason Montreal was successful for such an incredible period of time was not because of the superiority of the Sponsorship Era, but the inherent unfairness of the system. During the initial years of the Draft Era, the Canadiens were deeply stocked with players unfairly acquired during the Sponsorship Era. They occasionally moved those players to the expansion teams for draft picks because the expansion teams desperately needed NHL-ready players. This structure benefited Montreal significantly, allowing them to trade remnants from the system for draft picks into the early 1980s. Once the benefits of the Sponsorship Era completely dissipated by the 1990s, the Canadiens faded into irrelevancy and have perpetually remained there to present day. I won't digress into the 'French Canadian Rule' as it pertains to the early draft system because I don't believe the Canadiens significantly benefitted from this additional bias.



Similar outputs are not necessarily reflective of identical inputs. It's near certain that increased scoring during the WWII era was reflective of talent depletion and resources redirected to the war effort. The rational for increased scoring during the 1970s and 1980s likely require a more hybrid approach towards such rationalization. I'm having difficulty recognizing why you feel a linear approach most closely approximates objective reasoning. You often note the importance of nuances in one's evaluation procedures but when something aligns with your pre-existing beliefs, it appears refinements are no longer beneficial to the process. I clearly cannot comprehend dismissing the significant probability that skater development/coaching outpaced goaltending evolution during the 1980s. Considering the contraction of the professional player pool and the complete dearth of 1970s transitional goaltending stars, it's the most logical starting point for any critical analysis.



A few? The NHL expanded from 6 to 18 teams. It tripled in size. The WHA also added 14 professional teams. They poached a significant amount of NHL talent from a league which quickly added almost 300 additional players to league size previously recorded at less than 150 players. I find the progression of discussion rather unfair when we are not addressing the facts in proper fashion. This is altogether an astonishing change in league size and an appreciable additional dilution of the talent pool by the WHA. It was certainly not a problem for a short period of time. It was a conspicuous problem for almost the entire 1970s decade.



No offensive taken. I don't find it dismissive in the slightest. I find it profoundly unaware. To that point, I see you're an aspiring scout. Let's consider the possibility you desire to retain an NHL affiliation and you manage to secure an interview to facilitate this career objective. Imagine a scenario where the interviewer requests you to elaborate your thoughts on player development as it relates to the current game. Would you consider a reply which reveals your belief in a need to 'refine' our player development, broadly reflecting the techniques of the 1960s? I can confidently assure you that revealing this perception to any professional organization would immediately disqualify you as a candidate. I wholly cannot perceive how anyone with an active involvement in the modern game regards the technical development from almost 50 years prior as a superior choice. My strictly logical conclusion is a misunderstanding of one era or both. For that reason, I'm apprehensive to tackle anything next.

WHA had a better exhibition schedule record against weak NHL teams. Canadiens for example never played a WHA team, neither did certain other NHL teams.

The Draft Era goes back to 1963.

There was no French Canadian rule. Please provide starting date and conditions of the French Canadian rule you claim.

The bolded in your last paragraph is a joke. AHL teams are moving to the proximity of the NHL team. Winnipeg Jets and Moose(AHL), Montreal and Laval(AHL) plus talk of ECHL in Trois - Rivières, Toronto Maple Leafs and Marlies(AHL), Ottawa and Belleville(AHL).Plus a strong number of American teams. This reflects O6 NHL/farm team relationships.

 

[Doctor No]

I like Liam Maguire's take on the French Canadian rule and how it did or did not benefit the Habs:

https://sihrhockey.org/__a/public/column.cfm?cid=3&aid=361

He's biased, but hell, we're all biased.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'm at a considerable loss in understanding your perception of the 1980s as a period of more turmoil and relative chaos relative to the 1970s. There were 32 professional teams during the height of the WHA period, dating to 1976. This was reduced to 21 professional teams for the 1979 season and the player totality was reduced over a three year period to be folded within the NHL structure. Your suggestion that the WHA league "was a minor league infused into a professional league" actually weakens your supposition that the 1970s NHL comprised a relatively strong period. Once again, those 1970s WHA teams had a winning record against NHL teams over a large sample size (63 games). The stronger 1970s NHL teams were actually beating up on weaker NHL teams which were marginally inferior to those very WHA teams. Give pause and consider that fact. If this was occurring during the 1980s period, it would be the first point of contention for the detractors of that time period. When it doesn't fit the narrative, it's both completely and unfortunately overlooked. Choosing witty narratives about cars in living rooms does nothing to alter that fact.



A few? The NHL expanded from 6 to 18 teams. It tripled in size. The WHA also added 14 professional teams. They poached a significant amount of NHL talent from a league which quickly added almost 300 additional players to league size previously recorded at less than 150 players. I find the progression of discussion rather unfair when we are not addressing the facts in proper fashion. This is altogether an astonishing change in league size and an appreciable additional dilution of the talent pool by the WHA. It was certainly not a problem for a short period of time. It was a conspicuous problem for almost the entire 1970s decade.

You put the height of the WHA at 1976 and claim the WHA added 14 professional teams.

1972-73, the AHL had 12 teams down to 6 by 1976-77, 1972-73 WHL had 6 teams, folded after the 1973-74 season CPHL/CHL,
roller-coastered to a low of four teams but bounced back. net loss of 2 teams.

Effectively, the 14 added WHA teams reflect the lost AHL, WHL, CPHL/CHL teams, 6+6+2=14.

Effectively the WHA relied on minor league talent, mixed with aging NHLers, a few marquee signings(NHL/Euros), juniors leaving early and depth players on weak NHL teams.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I like Liam Maguire's take on the French Canadian rule and how it did or did not benefit the Habs:

https://sihrhockey.org/__a/public/column.cfm?cid=3&aid=361

He's biased, but hell, we're all biased.

A,B,C forms were a post WWII phenomena and required CAHA approval.

 

[Canadiens1958]

A,B,C forms, what they meant and their genesis:

Historical Hockey Stats & Trivia: The Sponsorship System - The Pre-Expansion NHL's Monopsony on Players

 

[TheEye]

WHA had a better exhibition schedule record against weak NHL teams. Canadiens for example never played a WHA team, neither did certain other NHL teams.

Yet again, you've entirely missed the point and attempted to misconstrue my statements rather completely. The point is not 'the Canadiens never played a WHA team.' The point is the Canadiens played extremely watered down NHL teams. Those bottom half NHL teams were so poorly constructed they actually had a losing record against WHA teams. Let that sink in for a moment, when considering the cumulative strength of the 1970s NHL era.

The Draft Era goes back to 1963.

There was no French Canadian rule. Please provide starting date and conditions of the French Canadian rule you claim.

Thanks to Doctor No in providing resource for a fact which clearly appears to represent unknown information for you.

The bolded in your last paragraph is a joke. AHL teams are moving to the proximity of the NHL team.

I can assure you it is not a joke. But claiming that NHL farm teams having proximity to a parent club reflects the superiority of O6 era development? That surely must be one.

 

[TheEye]

A,B,C forms, what they meant and their genesis:

Historical Hockey Stats & Trivia: The Sponsorship System - The Pre-Expansion NHL's Monopsony on Players

You seem to be sidestepping the point made. To reiterate:

Using The French Canadian Rule

For the first five years of the Amateur draft, from 1963 to 1967, the Canadiens never invoked their French Canadian option. In 1968, the Canadiens saw an opportunity and finally made use of their exclusive right for the first time. They selected goaltender Michel Plasse and a centreman from Montreal named Roger Belisle. Plasse played 32 games for the Habs as a backup goalie and was subsequently lost with no compensation in the 1974 Expansion draft. Roger Belisle never played a game in the NHL.
In 1969, the Canadiens used the French Canadian rule again to select Rejean Houle and Marc Tardif before the other teams drafted in regular order. Although both of these 1969 selections were serviceable NHL’ers, they were hardly the foundation of any future Habs dynasty. Both players were lost to the rival WHA after four seasons with Montreal.

habs-french-canadian-rule

It isn't a myth. You simply said it didn't exist. It did.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yet again, you've entirely missed the point and attempted to misconstrue my statements rather completely. The point is not 'the Canadiens never played a WHA team.' The point is the Canadiens played extremely watered down NHL teams. Those bottom half NHL teams were so poorly constructed they actually had a losing record against WHA teams. Let that sink in for a moment, when considering the cumulative strength of the 1970s NHL era.



Thanks to Doctor No in providing resource for a fact which clearly appears to represent unknown information for you.



I can assure you it is not a joke. But claiming that NHL farm teams having proximity to a parent club reflects the superiority of O6 era development? That surely must be one.

See the rebuttal to Dr.No's posts. Liam has a belief, not facts. Facts were provided in the Parsons link.

Every team played watered down teams. Some of the Canadiens, Flyers, Bruins, were not NHL quality neither. This has been granted many times over.

Did not claim superiority just illustrated the return to O6 ideas and efficiences.

 

[TheEye]

You put the height of the WHA at 1976 and claim the WHA added 14 professional teams.

I'm not 'claiming' anything. There were 14 WHA teams for the 1975-76 season. That's a fact.

1975–76 WHA season - Wikipedia

1972-73, the AHL had 12 teams down to 6 by 1976-77, 1972-73 WHL had 6 teams, folded after the 1973-74 season CPHL/CHL,
roller-coastered to a low of four teams but bounced back. net loss of 2 teams.

Effectively, the 14 added WHA teams reflect the lost AHL, WHL, CPHL/CHL teams, 6+6+2=14.

Effectively the WHA relied on minor league talent, mixed with aging NHLers, a few marquee signings(NHL/Euros), juniors leaving early and depth players on weak NHL teams.

You're currently claiming minor professional teams were equivalent to the WHA. They were not. No wonky math will correct that. Furthermore, even if they were, the WHA teams appear marginally superior to the lower rung NHL teams based on the win-loss record during interleague play. You're indirectly implying those NHL teams were no better than many minor professional teams in the ranks during the 1970s. If that's the tact retroactively applied, no wonder Bobby Orr racked up the points. You can probably chop about 25-30% off his seasonal averages throughout the 1970s because of all those games against minor professional (NHL) teams.

 

[TheEye]

See the rebuttal to Dr.No's posts. Liam has a belief, not facts. Facts were provided in the Parsons link.

I linked the facts. Michel Plasse, Roger Belisle, Rejean Houle and Marc Tardif were drafted under this rule.

I don't expect an acknowledgement. In spite of that, the facts speak for themselves.

I'm confident we're about to branch into another subtopic in short order.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You seem to be sidestepping the point made. To reiterate:

Using The French Canadian Rule

For the first five years of the Amateur draft, from 1963 to 1967, the Canadiens never invoked their French Canadian option. In 1968, the Canadiens saw an opportunity and finally made use of their exclusive right for the first time. They selected goaltender Michel Plasse and a centreman from Montreal named Roger Belisle. Plasse played 32 games for the Habs as a backup goalie and was subsequently lost with no compensation in the 1974 Expansion draft. Roger Belisle never played a game in the NHL.
In 1969, the Canadiens used the French Canadian rule again to select Rejean Houle and Marc Tardif before the other teams drafted in regular order. Although both of these 1969 selections were serviceable NHL’ers, they were hardly the foundation of any future Habs dynasty. Both players were lost to the rival WHA after four seasons with Montreal.

habs-french-canadian-rule

It isn't a myth. You simply said it didn't exist. It did.

In Parson's contribution he explains how the Rangers obtained Brad Park from the Toronto organization.

1968 and 1969 are after the 1967 expansion, not during the O6 era.

 

[TheEye]

In Parson's contribution he explains how the Rangers obtained Brad Park from the Toronto organization.

1968 and 1969 are after the 1967 expansion, not during the O6 era.

I was explicitly discussing how the Canadiens benefited during the post-expansion era, into the 1980s. You must not have completely followed or grasped my post. Please go back and re-read for thorough comprehension of my statements.

The point, nevertheless, remains about the 'French Canadian Rule'. It existed in spite of your insistence otherwise. You won't acknowledge that, but I will accept your continual digression as an acceptance of that fact.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'm not 'claiming' anything. There were 14 WHA teams for the 1975-76 season. That's a fact.

1975–76 WHA season - Wikipedia



You're currently claiming minor professional teams were equivalent to the WHA. They were not. No wonky math will correct that. Furthermore, even if they were, the WHA teams appear marginally superior to the lower rung NHL teams based on the win-loss record during interleague play. You're indirectly implying those NHL teams were no better than many minor professional teams in the ranks during the 1970s. If that's the tact retroactively applied, no wonder Bobby Orr racked up the points. You can probably chop about 25-30% off his seasonal averages throughout the 1970s because of all those games against minor professional (NHL) teams.

O6 era AHL, WHL, QHL, EPHL would win pre-season or in season exhibition games. 1956-57 Junior Canadiens beat the Chicago Blackhawks in an exhibition game.

Playing a partial 1956-57 QHL season with a senior goalie - Gilles Boisvert, they went 7-12-1.

1956-57 Quebec Hockey League [QHL] standings at hockeydb.com

The gap between pro leagues and the bottom of the NHL has never been huge.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I linked the facts. Michel Plasse, Roger Belisle, Rejean Houle and Marc Tardif were drafted under this rule.

I don't expect an acknowledgement. In spite of that, the facts speak for themselves.

I'm confident we're about to branch into another subtopic in short order.

Dr. No's link went back to a period before Plasse, Belisle, Tardif and Houle were even born. All you have shown is that the French Canadien rule if that is its actual name was a post 1967 creation.

 

[TheEye]

Dr. No's link went back to a period before Plasse, Belisle, Tardif and Houle were even born. All you have shown is that the French Canadien rule if that is its actual name was a post 1967 creation.

1.) I didn't declare anything about it applying to the O6 era. I noted its presence in the early draft era, but I suggested it was irrelevant to the broader picture. I challenge you to present evidence where I suggested otherwise because you're currently attempting to straw man me into submission. It's not going to work. Here's my exact quote:

I won't digress into the 'French Canadian Rule' as it pertains to the early draft system because I don't believe the Canadiens significantly benefitted from this additional bias.

2.) You said there was no such thing as the 'French Canadian Rule'. Here's your exact quote:

There was no French Canadian rule. Please provide starting date and conditions of the French Canadian rule you claim.

I've subsequently proven there was such a rule. Instead of acknowledging your oversight, we now meander into nomenclature and appropriate applications, as it pertains to this matter?

 

[Canadiens1958]

1.) I didn't declare anything about it applying to the O6 era. I noted its presence in the early draft era, but I suggested it was irrelevant to the broader picture. I challenge you to present evidence where I suggested otherwise because you're currently attempting to straw man me into submission. It's not going to work. Here's my exact quote:



2.) You said there was no such thing as the 'French Canadian Rule'. Here's your exact quote:



I've subsequently proven there was such a rule. Instead of acknowledging your oversight, we now meander into nomenclature and appropriate applications, as it pertains to this matter?

Your are talking about a subsection of the C-Form regulations. Why it is called the French Canadian Rule is beyond comprehension.

Specifically going back to 1936 and before to the NHA, the Canadiens had first refusal on teritorial players who had not signed with another NHL team as juniors/amateurs. This went back to Canadiens and Wanderers days. Examples Lorne Chabot, Phil Watson amongst many. By 1945 this was the foundation 0f the A,B, C form structure adopted by the CAHA and the NHL.

If another NHL team beat the Canadiens and had a player sign a C form even if he was French Canadian - a phantom definition, given that Irish and French married couples were common, the Canadiens could not invoke priority.

This happened with Bernie Parent, Rod Gilbert, Jean Ratelle, Marcel and Jean Pronovost, Camille Henry, down to depth players like Bob Champoux.

 

[TheEye]

Your are talking about a subsection of the C-Form regulations. Why it is called the French Canadian Rule is beyond comprehension.

Specifically going back to 1936 and before to the NHA, the Canadiens had first refusal on teritorial players who had not signed with another NHL team as juniors/amateurs. This went back to Canadiens and Wanderers days. Examples Lorne Chabot, Phil Watson amongst many. By 1945 this was the foundation 0f the A,B, C form structure adopted by the CAHA and the NHL.

If another NHL team beat the Canadiens and had a player sign a C form even if he was French Canadian - a phantom definition, given that Irish and French married couples were common, the Canadiens could not invoke priority.

This happened with Bernie Parent, Rod Gilbert, Jean Ratelle, Marcel and Jean Pronovost, Camille Henry, down to depth players like Bob Champoux.

You need to reference the information I've provided because you are simply not understanding the very explicit information provided to you. From the article:

Having built an unequaled and powerful empire of feeder teams across North America, the Montreal Canadiens stood to lose the most by the institution of the new draft system. In recognition and as compensation, the NHL granted the Canadiens the choice of either drafting in turn with other teams or selecting the two French Canadian players of their choice before any other team drafted.

This may seem like an outrageously biased allowance, given the importance of the NHL’s Entry draft of today. How could they grant so much leverage to one team? But this was 1963, don’t forget — all of the valuable junior talent was already signed and wrapped up through sponsorship. There simply wasn’t much highly desirable talent left to be drafted. Nobody raised an eyebrow. In fact, the Canadiens didn’t even make use of their French Canadian privilege in the inaugural draft. Instead, they drafted Garry Monahan first overall, a young prospect from Barrie, Ontario right out of the back yard of the Toronto Maple Leafs.

I am not referencing any subsections of the A/B/C forms. The NHL allowed the Canadiens to retain a vestige of the Sponsorship Era, a privilege not supplied to the other franchises during the early draft years. I can appreciate how you're unaware, but it's not the same comparable. In fact, believing it's the continuation of a previous era emphatically emphasizes the exact point I'm attempting to illustrate. Circumstances didn't change for the Montreal Canadiens exactly as they did for the other NHL teams at the start of the Draft Era. They retained a variant of first choice, based on territory. That's why it likely remains the same from your perspective, unfortunately.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You need to reference the information I've provided because you are simply not understanding the very explicit information provided to you. From the article:

Having built an unequaled and powerful empire of feeder teams across North America, the Montreal Canadiens stood to lose the most by the institution of the new draft system. In recognition and as compensation, the NHL granted the Canadiens the choice of either drafting in turn with other teams or selecting the two French Canadian players of their choice before any other team drafted.

This may seem like an outrageously biased allowance, given the importance of the NHL’s Entry draft of today. How could they grant so much leverage to one team? But this was 1963, don’t forget — all of the valuable junior talent was already signed and wrapped up through sponsorship. There simply wasn’t much highly desirable talent left to be drafted. Nobody raised an eyebrow. In fact, the Canadiens didn’t even make use of their French Canadian privilege in the inaugural draft. Instead, they drafted Garry Monahan first overall, a young prospect from Barrie, Ontario right out of the back yard of the Toronto Maple Leafs.

I am not referencing any subsections of the A/B/C forms. The NHL allowed the Canadiens to retain a vestige of the Sponsorship Era, a privilege not supplied to the other franchises during the early draft years. I can appreciate how you're unaware, but it's not the same comparable. In fact, believing it's the continuation of a previous era emphatically emphasizes the exact point I'm attempting to illustrate. Circumstances didn't change for the Montreal Canadiens exactly as they did for the other NHL teams at the start of the Draft Era. They retained a variant of first choice, based on territory. That's why it likely remains the same from your perspective, unfortunately.

See the link provided:

The myth of Habs' territorial rights

Only those not signed to a C-Form were eligible. You ignored this critical condition.

This meant the following options. Those released from a C-Form like Brad Park or Michel Plasse drafted from, Drummondville, a Rangers junior team or the drafting of former C-form players like Judes Drouin, Phil Myre who were let go by the Canadiens like Park. Or Players like Ken Dryden who had not signed C-Forms.

It was not a variant of first choice but a right to pick freed C-Form players who were surplus after the 1966 protected lists were submitted.

Regardless C-Form regulations as they were prior to the 1966 Amateur Draft were in effect.

The 1964 Amateur Draft featured Ralph Buchanan, from Montreal East. Had not signed a C-Form with the Rangers(Gilbert/Ratelle spillover). Played for a regional All-Star team sponsored by the Canadiens who tried to claim his rights as a result without a C-Form. No signed C-Form, no rights. Drafted by Detroit.

1964 NHL Amateur Draft | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[TheEye]

See the link provided:

The myth of Habs' territorial rights

1.) You do realize this link directly sources information from the link previously and graciously provided by Dr No, right?

2.) Did you even bother reading the entire article you linked? This is quoting directly from that source, as provided by you:

In 1963, the French Canadian rule was brought back for the Montreal Canadiens. It was not necessary, no question about it, but Selke and Pollock worked a sweet deal and got it back on the books. However the same rules applied. The player could not have signed a C form with any other team.

"From 1963-67 none of the players Montreal selected played one minute in the NHL, ever. Finally in 1968, they drafted their first live one. A goalie named Michel Plasse.

"In 1969, it was determined that this would be the final year of the draft in this manner and the sponsorship of Junior A teams would cease to be. All players were to be 20 years of age or older and they would be eligible for a Universal Amateur Draft.

"Montreal was given one final kick at the French Canadian can and they made the most of it by selecting Rejean Houle and Marc Tardif. That was it for the French rule.

Only those not signed to a C-Form were eligible. You ignored this critical condition.

I didn't overlook anything. This solely refers to players who signed A/B/C forms up to 1967. Players were ineligible to sign those forms by 1968.

I related to you numerous times that I wasn't referring to the O6 era, but the post-expansion era. I've requested you to illustrate otherwise, if that's untrue. You can't because it is accurate. You are trying to present an argument on a premise which never existed, i.e. the 'straw man' discourse. It's very transparent and not a good look.

You were incorrect and now we are playing semantics because you're incapable of admitting lack of knowledge in relation to facts recently presented. Effectively, you've been enlightened with supplementary information. Stop resisting it and please move on.