NHL favorite team straw poll (End of Week 1: Devils gaining, but Rangers in control)

Hillel Hoffmann · April 15, 2009, 11:59:41 PM

Rangers open up what may be an insurmountable lead.

Team(s) from largest metropolitan area not represented yet: Kings, Ducks

Most recent Stanley Cup winner not represented yet: Ducks

Team that's closest to Ithaca not represented yet: Maple Leafs

Team that's closest to Cornell alumni epicenter (NYC) not represented yet: Penguins

Only original six team not represented yet: Maple Leafs

imafrshmn · April 16, 2009, 03:03:14 AM

I'm a half-assed Rangers fan. Count me for 0.5.

RichH · April 16, 2009, 11:09:31 AM

[quote Hillel Hoffmann]
Team that's closest to Ithaca not represented yet: Maple Leafs[/quote]

I guess I got counted in the billhoward 0 point category. :-/

oceanst41 · April 16, 2009, 11:33:46 AM

Bruins fan...watching the clock seemingly go in reverse as I get ready for tonight's game.

BigRedBrouhaha · April 16, 2009, 12:33:34 PM

Islanders Fan, through the ups, downs, 75 year goalie contracts, and the drafting of two goalies with the 1st and 4th pick in the draft within three years of each other.

Naturally I missed out on a lot of the fun as I was born the year after they won their last Stanley cup, and only really started paying attention in the early 90s. That 93 upset of Penguins was amazing though.

Count me down for 1 point

Hillel Hoffmann · April 16, 2009, 02:23:28 PM

[quote RichH][quote Hillel Hoffmann]
Team that's closest to Ithaca not represented yet: Maple Leafs[/quote]

I guess I got counted in the billhoward 0 point category. :-/[/quote]
Sorry, Rich, the judges grudgingly accept a split, but having three or more favorite teams with (exactly) equal emotional investment meets the universal standard for power-waffling.

ugarte · April 16, 2009, 03:00:13 PM

[quote Hillel Hoffmann][quote RichH][quote Hillel Hoffmann]
Team that's closest to Ithaca not represented yet: Maple Leafs[/quote]

I guess I got counted in the billhoward 0 point category. :-/[/quote]
Sorry, Rich, the judges grudgingly accept a split, but having three or more favorite teams with (exactly) no emotional investment meets the universal standard for power-waffling.[/quote]
FYP.

ftyuv · April 16, 2009, 03:22:26 PM

[quote oceanst41]Bruins fan...watching the clock seemingly go in reverse as I get ready for tonight's game.[/quote]Ditto that.

I'm hoping we take it in 5* and that the Rangers win a 7-game grinder with plenty of double-OTs. :-)

* I'd take a win in 4 too, of course...

RichH · April 16, 2009, 03:25:22 PM

[quote Hillel Hoffmann][quote RichH][quote Hillel Hoffmann]
Team that's closest to Ithaca not represented yet: Maple Leafs[/quote]

I guess I got counted in the billhoward 0 point category. :-/[/quote]
Sorry, Rich, the judges grudgingly accept a split, but having three or more favorite teams with (exactly) equal emotional investment meets the universal standard for power-waffling.[/quote]

Fair enough. But when two of your teams have awful, ancient, tightwad owners who say things like "I won't listen to any plan to win a Stanley Cup...they cost too much money," and keep their team off of TV because it might adversely affect attendance, there's little you can do BUT find a 3rd team to get through the bad times.

But hey, look what happens when bad ownership finally kicks the bucket!

Leafs under Ballard: 13 straight seasons without a winning record.
Ballard died in 1990. The Leafs were in the Conference finals by 1993, and were solid the rest of the decade.

Blackhawks under Wirtz: In addition to the above, they were named "worst franchise in professional sports" in 2004 by espn. The Wolves outdrew them. The Cup drought stands at 48 years, closing in on the 54 of the Rangers. No playoffs since 2002.
Wirtz died in 2007. 2009, back in the playoffs, seeded 4th. It's not embarassing to have their jersey anymore.

Jacob '06 · April 16, 2009, 03:54:23 PM

Guess my half a vote for the Kings didn't count. Hey, I did buy center ice this year just so I could see a bunch of their games!

KeithK · April 16, 2009, 04:39:09 PM

I love the "can't televise because it might hurt attendance" argument. I can understand how baseball owners might have thought that about radio back in the 30's. But we now have 75 years of data to disprove this silly theory.

Jeff Hopkins '82 · April 16, 2009, 04:46:07 PM

[quote Flyers1037]Flyers (duh)[/quote]

Yay! I'm not alone ::banana::

DeltaOne81 · April 16, 2009, 05:04:41 PM

[quote KeithK]I love the "can't televise because it might hurt attendance" argument. I can understand how baseball owners might have thought that about radio back in the 30's. But we now have 75 years of data to disprove this silly theory.[/quote]

Was that in response to Center Ice? Considering Center Ice is for out-of-market games, it doesn't really have anything to do with concerns about tv taking away attendance.

Rita · April 16, 2009, 05:53:51 PM

[quote DeltaOne81][quote KeithK]I love the "can't televise because it might hurt attendance" argument. I can understand how baseball owners might have thought that about radio back in the 30's. But we now have 75 years of data to disprove this silly theory.[/quote]

Was that in response to Center Ice? Considering Center Ice is for out-of-market games, it doesn't really have anything to do with concerns about tv taking away attendance.[/quote]

I think Keith's response was to Rich's post about certain owners (Ballard, Wurtz) finally kicking the bucket thereby allowing their teams to join the 21st century of sports team ownership.

I was shocked that when I moved out here in 2004, that I couldn't watch the Blackhawks on TV due to Wurtz's belief that televising games would decrease attendance. My "hockey fix" (besides internet college hockey) was from an occasional STL Blues games that didn't get blacked out on the apartment's satellite system (which was based out of STL).

Now that the 'Hawks games are on TV, a few more people in this state acknowledge that hockey does indeed exist. Lo and behold, people in Chicago-land are going to the games because 1) they have seen a few games on TV and have liked what they have seen, 2) they are playing some exciting hockey and 3) have a good group of young, talented kids.

Hillel Hoffmann · April 17, 2009, 10:34:27 AM

[quote Jacob '06]Guess my half a vote for the Kings didn't count. Hey, I did buy center ice this year just so I could see a bunch of their games![/quote]
I will count it since you seem to be saying it's a true split and not a "second favorite" situation. But that means taking away 0.5 from the Rangers.