Tampa Bay wins the cup

[Rosey]

I don't give a crap, honestly: if it isn't the Rangers, I don't care.  But I thought I'd point out that one of the guys we were deriding as a midget several years ago---one Martin St. Louis formerly of UVM---will shortly (no pun intended) be drinking from Lord Stanley's Cup.  How many of our players from '94-'98 can say that?  Just food for thought. B-]

Cheers,
Kyle

[cbuckser]

[Q]krose Wrote:

 I don't give a crap, honestly: if it isn't the Rangers, I don't care.  But I thought I'd point out that one of the guys we were deriding as a midget several years ago---one Martin St. Louis formerly of UVM---will shortly (no pun intended) be drinking from Lord Stanley's Cup.  How many of our players from '94-'98 can say that?  Just food for thought.

Cheers,
Kyle[/q]

Excluding those who took advantage of Joe Nieuwendyk bringing the Cup to Ithaca, one.  Jason Elliott had his day with the Cup in 2002.  Obviously, Martin St. Louis played a more central role for the Lightning than Elliott did for the Red Wings.  Nevertheless, being able to take the Cup for a day is an unforgettable experience, especially for someone who has never played in a single NHL game.

[Greg]

It would have been nice for a Canadian team to win the last Cup of the pre-contraction era.

[Rosey]

I think it's fitting that a team with no fans won the Cup.  I personally hope the NHL goes bankrupt, and some of the older teams with fans form a new, smaller league (12 teams or so) and just leave it at that.  I hate watching the Rangers play and lose to teams whose names I don't even recognize, and apparently whose home cities are full of people who also don't recognize them.

Cheers,
Kyle

::banana::

[Robb]

Yeah, but our players from 94-98 have two Whitelaws that St. Loius will never get...  Heh-heh-heh...  ::rock::

[CUlater 89]

Chill out Kyle.  Tampa Bay was 12th in the league in attendance during the regular season, only about 200 fans per game behind your beloved Rangers.  And about 1200 fans per game more than Calgary.

[Rosey]

Yep, and when they start losing (as inevitably they will), all those fans will jump right off the bandwagon.

And you almost made my point: my Rangers had 200 fans more per game during a multi-season "so bad we're missing the NHL playoffs, which 60% of the teams in the league make" skid.

So I will not chill out: overexpansion has killed the NHL, both for the teams involved by thinning the talent pool and for the fans who have to endure games full of goons who can't skate, dribble, or shoot against teams that don't matter one whit.  And I say: good riddance.  It would be great IMO if everyone involved simply accepted the fact that hockey won't appeal to just everyone, and bring the game back to a point where real fans can enjoy it.  North American hockey is long overdue for demanufacture.

Cheers,
Kyle

::banana::

[DisplacedCornellian]

I don't think the talent pool is thinning significantly, Kyle.  The fact that the league has expanded and is reaching new markets undoubtedly increases the net size of the talent pool as talent is being found in previously untapped areas (see McKee, David), so it sort of balances out.  The bigger problem is the style of game the teams are choosing to play.  Big, brusing goons are in; speedy talent guys are out.

I was actually pleased to see Tampa Bay win.  Their style of play was refreshing, and it was nice to see Andreychuk finally get to skate the cup.

[Rosey]

My point is that there are fewer professional-caliber speedy, talented guys relative to the total number of required players.  I don't think the league has gone full-bore goon because it's a more-effective game: as you say, TB didn't play that game, and won the Cup.

Cheers,
Kyle

::banana::

[KeithK]

[Q]krose Wrote:

 I think it's fitting that a team with no fans won the Cup.  I personally hope the NHL goes bankrupt, and some of the older teams with fans form a new, smaller league (12 teams or so) and just leave it at that.  I hate watching the Rangers play and lose to teams whose names I don't even recognize, and apparently whose home cities are full of people who also don't recognize them.

Cheers,
Kyle

[/q]

Ever heard the line "There are 20,000 Rangers fans in NY and all of them have season tickets"?  The Rangers aren't exactly the talk of New York either, IMO (even on the occasions that they are good).  It's just easier to fill a rink drawing from a market that size.

Attendance isn't really a good measure of overall success anyway.  The league could sell every seat for every game and would still struggle because the TV market doesn't bring in enough revenue.

I agree that the league has probably over expanded.  Columbus and Nashville with NHL teams?  But at least we don't have everyone making the playoffs anymore (what was it, 16 out of 21 at one point?)

[Tom Lento]

[Q]krose Wrote:

thinning the talent pool and for the fans who have to endure games full of goons who can't skate, dribble, or shoot against teams that don't matter one whit.  And I say: good riddance.  [/q]

Dribble?

[Rosey]

[Q]Tom Lento Wrote:

Dribble?[/q]

We use the term where I play: it just refers to moving with the puck close to your stick (i.e., as opposed to pushing it ahead of you to keep it in front of you).  Perhaps this isn't universal?

Cheers,
Kyle

::banana::

[Rosey]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

Ever heard the line "There are 20,000 Rangers fans in NY and all of them have season tickets"?[/q]

No, but it wouldn't surprise me.  FWIW, this only lends credence to my point that hockey simply isn't going to appeal to everyone, so the sport should downsize to the point at which it can be successful.  NHL expansion has been an unqualified failure both from a geographic and marketing perspective: those who are turned on by the game are relatively few in number (i.e., as compared with other major sports), and as a result (a) local fan support is non-existent for all but the hottest of the expansion teams and (b) the sport can't command a TV audience sufficient to bring in the advertising dollars required to pay for national coverage.

[q]The Rangers aren't exactly the talk of New York either, IMO (even on the occasions that they are good).  It's just easier to fill a rink drawing from a market that size.[/q]

...making it even more obvious that they shouldn't try expanding simultaneously into multiple markets with a combined total number of hockey fans less than the capacity of Lynah Rink.

[q]Attendance isn't really a good measure of overall success anyway.  The league could sell every seat for every game and would still struggle because the TV market doesn't bring in enough revenue.[/q]

You're still not disproving my point.  The insane salaries they're paying these days were based on expectations of future earnings: the NHL's own internet bubble, if you will.  With their ridicul....er, ambitious expansion plans now clearly gone awry, the NHL probably will not be able to dig itself out of its current hole, so new leagues with players willing to play for salaries more in line with the actual popularity of the game are inevitable if professional hockey survives at all.

Cheers,
Kyle

::banana::

[CowbellGuy]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Ever heard the line "There are 20,000 Rangers fans in NY and all of them have season tickets"?  The Rangers aren't exactly the talk of New York either, IMO (even on the occasions that they are good).[/q]
Can't quite tell you how much that irks me every time I hear it. It's so full of crap. Must be Islanders fans talking. Want numbers? How about franchise value:

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/1208/094tab.html

Despite the annual crapfest that is Rangers hockey, they're still #1 in value and revenue.

[Jordan 04]

You could probably put a pee-wee team on the ice at 33rd and 7th in a market of 10+ million people and find yourself with the #1 dollar value in the league.

The fact that a New York team is #1 in value isn't exactly the best measure of fan support or intensity.