Quote:
Originally Posted by John F
You know what gets me the most about the NHL the last 12 years or so (since the Rangers won the cup -- but actually longer)? It's the lack of competition and traditional rivalries elevated to new levels.
While the Rangers will always draw, while that is also true for the Maple Leafs, Habs, Bruins and Red Wings, there is a divide among the traditional six teams every season, it seems. Every one of these teams (sans the Blackhawks) might be a playoff team, but they also tend to be also-rans when Playoff time comes around.
The NHL has expanded all over and I don't deplore that... It's made headway in non-traditional markets but it's lost itself along the way. The base markets -- the traditional six -- are always separated a little too much in the standings or on a competitive level each year.
I know that, after the lockout, there was a contingent clamouring for the Rangers to be "given" Sidney Crosby in order to strengthen that franchise and draw more media attention to the NHL... That was a foolish idea, but I understand where it was coming from -- having a strong team in the New York market would help the league. But so would having a strong team in the Chicago market, or having an electric rivalry between some of the oldest franchises in the NHL.
Instead, we're getting mediocrity and overhype from the broadcasters.
If the NHL wants to regain some pizzaz, they need strength in all six of their traditional markets. I don't mean good attendance, I mean good franchises that are solidly competitive. I also believe in a non-regional re-alignment of the league that would bring relevance to unpopular opponents and some geographical sanity to the NHL as well (Chicago, Detroit, Columbus, Nashville? These are NOT western cities)...
But the first order of business should be makign sure all six of the leagues marquee franchises -- Toronto, New York, Montreal, Boston, Detroit and Chicago -- are strong and elite. That's a tall order (especially in Chicago and overhyped Toronto) but it must be done...
|
That's a nice theory, but is it the NHL's responsibility to have strong franchises in the Orig6 markets? I would think that responsibility falls in the hands of their respective GMs.
In a perfect world, sure, you'd want these franchises to be strong. I'd also want strong franchises in LA and Anaheim - that's a big market that could use some more rivalry. I'd also want strong franchises in Colorado, Calgary and Edmonton. The BOA is always exciting, and Colorado has some strong rivalries when you take into account that they were once the Quebec Nordiques.
The only thing the NHL can really do is get rid of this skewed schedule. You'll lose some of the divisional rivalries, but you'll see Detroit and Chicago come to the East more than twice every 3 years.
As for a non-traditional reallignment...if you bring Chicago, Detroit, Columbus and Nashville to the East, who goes to the West?
I honestly think that the only thing that can be done is a reworking of the schedule to bring more east/west rivalries (and also, it would force the East to actually leave their timezone for road games). The strength of the individual teams is up to the individual teams, not the NHL.