Were you less of a fan during the 'dynasty days'?

[puckyeah]

Sports leagues in this day and age try and create as much parity as possible, nobody can be dominant, teams 'take turns' beating each other but back in the day you had Islanders dynasties, Oiler dynasties and even before that, Montreal dynasties.

Do you like the 'new age' of hockey where the league is set up so that everyone gets a chance? I have to admit i'd prefer no cap and every man for themselves, if you can create a dynasty, try and create one.

Were you 'less' of a fan when dynasties were around? How has your fanhood changed (for those of you who remember the Dynasty days)?

Click to read more...

 

[Rals]

Yes, because I was an embryo.





And no, I won't get off your lawn.

 

[Voight]

I was less of a fan when every scoring trophy from 1981 until 2001 went to one of three people

Also, somewhat random and cool piece of trivia -

From 1963 to 2001, Marcel Dionne and Bryan Trottier were the only single-time winners of the scoring title, while Stan Mikita, Phil Esposito, Bobby Orr, Guy Lafleur, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, and Jaromir Jagr had won it on multiple occasions. For two decades, from 1981 to 2001, only three players won the Art Ross Trophy: Gretzky, Lemieux and Jagr. The streak ended when Jarome Iginla won the trophy in 2002.

 

[PALE PWNR]

Yes. I was a twinkle in my fathers eye

 

[Ogopogo*]

I am less of a fan today because of the boring-ass defensive hockey we see these days. Back in the "dynasty" era, hockey was entertaining. Loved it.

 

[Ducks in a row]

I was born during a NHL Dynasty and was young when the last one ended but not yet a NHL fan didn't become a fan of the NHL until the Mighty Ducks became a team. I have seen a Dynasty in Basketball,Baseball and Football and hated it. I hate seeing the same team win so much (unless it is my team) more variety of winners makes me happy like seeing more total fans celebrate a championship. I love salary caps in sports.

 

[Jray42]

Yes, because I wasn't even alive.

 

[Flamer12]

I was just as big of a fan but I like today's way better. Everyone has a chance as opposed to two or three teams. I mean, when the North Stars and Canucks played the Isles in the finals, you knew they had no chance in hell.

 

[UnrefinedCrude]

Well... My team was the last dynasty, and currently it's like rubbing raw sewage in my eyes 82 times a year, so I'll go with Dynasty days.

 

[cgf]

The true dynasty days were before my time, but I enjoyed the times where my avs, the wings, stars and devils dominated the league.

 

[boredmale]

Do you like the 'new age' of hockey where the league is set up so that everyone gets a chance? I have to admit i'd prefer no cap and every man for themselves, if you can create a dynasty, try and create one

To be honest I would have no problem with no caps if all teams were on equal footing financially(and that was how it was back in the 80s since the players basically played for peanuts compared to today) but with the salary structure like it is now you need a cap or you will get baseball(the haves and have nots, then the odd team that has one good season before losing all it's players)

 

[mmbt]

Overlapping dynasties makes for epic sports. Lakers-Celtics (and 76ers) in the 80s was the NBA at its absolute peak. I kind of wish the Oilers-Isles dynasties had overlapped for more than two years.

A single team dynasty is awful, a la the Bulls of the 90s.

Total parity makes for some exciting competition across the board, but you don't get true super-teams slugging it out either. Tell me those 90's battles between the Avs and Wings weren't beautiful to watch, whether you liked either team or not.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The Internet changed the landscape far more than parity or any other factor.

If you want, you can pretty much sit around analyzing and discussing hockey for every waking hour of your life. That wasn't feasible 30 years ago, when sports radio was the closest you could get to that level of round-the-clock fandom.

 

[mmbt]

The Internet changed the landscape far more than parity or any other factor.

If you want, you can pretty much sit around analyzing and discussing hockey for every waking hour of your life. That wasn't feasible 30 years ago, when sports radio was the closest you could get to that level of round-the-clock fandom.

Yes but the sports geeks had Usenet. alt.sports.hockey.nhl.* anyone? I remember some great discussions on various team groups back in the day. And most posters you got to know by real name in those days since accounts were generally school or work based.

 

[cgf]

Overlapping dynasties makes for epic sports. Lakers-Celtics (and 76ers) in the 80s was the NBA at its absolute peak. I kind of wish the Oilers-Isles dynasties had overlapped for more than two years.

A single team dynasty is awful, a la the Bulls of the 90s.

Total parity makes for some exciting competition across the board, but you don't get true super-teams slugging it out either. Tell me those 90's battles between the Avs and Wings weren't beautiful to watch, whether you liked either team or not.

Disagree, the 90s was the NBA at its peak, the bulls may have dominated but the rest of the NBA was as strong as it ever has been. And many of those titles involved a lot of moments where we could've seen a different champ if only one play had gone differently...and not just in games involving my knicks

 

[KingsFan7824]

Free agency is why there are no dynasties anymore. Even the high spending Wings, Avs, and Stars weren't traditionally defined dynasty teams. They all took turns beating each other year after year. Blame players wanting freedom more than leagues wanting parity.

 

[Sirius Vivace]

Dynasty fan....though I wasn't too happy when the Isles won 4 cups.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yes but the sports geeks had Usenet. alt.sports.hockey.nhl.* anyone? I remember some great discussions on various team groups back in the day. And most posters you got to know by real name in those days since accounts were generally school or work based.

Maybe I was a late adopter or something, but I associate Usenet with the mid-90s, after the dynasty era was over.

 

[dukeofjive]

I am old enough to remember the early 80s, watching hockey night in canada at my grandmas house, good times. I dont think i liked hockey more back then, just have great memories.

 

[CanadaBacon]

Nope, I want to see the best players on the best team. Parity is trash when it is implemented like trash. Im not even taking about the salary cap as a whole. Hell make it a soft cap and let the big boys spend.

 

[puckyeah]

Here's one thing i'll add to this about everyone getting a chance.

With parity, because a lot of the top teams are so evenly matched, when a team wins the Cup, its SO hard to get back the following year and do it again, it takes a lot out of you because you're not much better than the 2nd best team, you can't win it 2 or 3 years in a row.

Look at the NFL for a second, you had that southwest division (or whatever its called) with the Panthers, Saints, Falcons, wasnt there a stretch of a few years where the team who finished 1st, finished last the following year? To me, that's really bad because if you win it one year and finish last the next year, what did we really watch?

NFL was amazing when you had the Steelers dynasties, the Cowboys were always good, the Vikings were always good, the Raiders were always good and you had teams like the Bengals who were always bad.....i dont remember watching football in the late 70s and early 80s thinking "man this is a terrible product". the product was awesome, if you needed to win, you needed to select a "Favorite team" who won...just remember, the Cubs have rabid fanbase and they NEVER win, so winning isn't vital to most people or else the Cubs would have very few fans.

When i see a team win a cup or a super bowl or a world series, i dont want to see them "punk out" the following year and be nowhere and not even make the playoffs...parity means there's no greatness, you take away the greatness in order to give everyone a chance? Its like the 'everyone gets a trophy' syndrome.

 

[exporta]

Well, if I learned one thing on this thread is that most posters are pretty young here.

Also, I am just about 30, and I wasn't really a avid hockey fan of significance. First real memories of hockey are the early 90's but had been always watching the games before. The era I recall, just before the dead puck era was the most exciting for me but the North Stars then the Leafs (teams I liked ) had some nice runs.

If you liked any of the dynasty teams I am sure it was a blast.

 

[DaveG]

Overlapping dynasties are interesting to watch, but I'm really not a fan of dynasty eras in sports if that makes any sense.

For instance, I liked the NBA a LOT in the 80s and early 90s when you had Lakers and Celtics dynasties going strong. You also had some other truly great teams in the Pistons, Rockets, and Knicks for part of that era. But once Chicago won their 4th in 6 years that was when the NBA started to die off for me big time, I now have absolutely no interest in it. It's a sport with far too many teams and all the star players prettymuch on a few teams, knowing what the outcome of any game or even season is highly likely to be is not fun to watch at all IMHO.

Baseball took a similar path with me, but has managed to win me back. I nearly lost interest in the sport completely with the Yankees dynasty in the 90s, even more so then the 94 players strike, and quite literally the only thing that saved my interest in the sport was seeing the Diamondbacks beat those ****ers in the World Series. As a Pirates fan it still pisses me off to see teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, and Red Sox all able to go out and individually spend the GDP of ****ing Palau on free agents to win, but teams like the Orioles, Pirates, A's, and Royals are showing you can win on a budget and quite often be more successful then those big market teams.

 

[jeangauthier]

Dynasty`s are fun when it`s your team.......not so much if it isn`t..........

Habs,Yankees,Celtics,and Lakers are hated because of their dynasties...........everyone hates a dominate winner..........been watching Hockey for 48 years and I like the parity today...........

 

[txpd]

The question has never been so much about who wins but who has a realistic chance to win. Yea, I am a much more interested fan now than I was in the day when the Red Wings and Rangers were spending $30m USD more than the median payroll in the league.