The Rule of the Six

John F · 12-17-2006, 01:05 PM

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...

CTDucksFan · 12-17-2006, 02:49 PM

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.

John F · 12-17-2006, 03:09 PM

If you change alignment -- I'm talking total reworking here.

We've got East vs. West and that's crap. It's the NBA and the NHL is decidedly not the NBA. You do need two conferences but a set up more along the lines of MLB and the NFL (Conference A: East/central/west; conference B east/central/west) would be more ideal.

Of course, that's going to have the traditionalists up in arms because it'd have it's effects on rivalries (what if Toronto and Montreal end up in seperate conferences?!? Or the Rangers and Islanders or Bruins?!?! etc)

John F · 12-18-2006, 03:47 PM

BTW -- it's not a GM issue with Chicago -- a hockey hotbed and the middle of the rust belt -- being a weak franchise. It's ownership which has run the franchise into the ground since the 60's.

The league seriously needs to intervene. Limited-to-no exposure in Chicago because of Bill Wirtz preference NOT to televise hockey games at home limits the exposure of what SHOULD be one of the NHL's marquee franchises. That hurts the league directly. Even if Chicago was playing great hockey, they wouldn't be getting exposure where they needed it the most -- in the Chicagoland and midwest television markets.

Amberelise · 12-18-2006, 04:59 PM

Well, for the record, they are televising six home games this year. I can't find anything to back this up, but I SWEAR the comcast sports channel said that and I KNOW I watched a home game on tv. I KNOW that.

You know, as if that's going to help a whole lot.

Wirtz has put **** on the ice since the early 90s. The sad thing is, he HAS had a good product on the ice, it's just been a long time. And, we should not forget that they have made playoffs within the last decade, they just had a nice early first round exit.

Regardless, at this point the televising thing isn't even the issue. The issue is that the marketing for the Hawks is worthless. Those commercials that they are airing are STUPID. Just looking at the player for 30 seconds while somebody tells me how many minutes Duncan Keith has played - does nothing for me. Absolutely nothing.

And the ticket prices? Who can afford to go watch a crappy team?

Chicago won't draw a crowd unless the Hawks make the playoffs for about four years in a row and get past the first round at least twice.

TOOLS · 01-19-2007, 06:28 PM

I've been a Hawks fan since before they had a Zamboni.
I know, I know

I suffered through years of failure and frustration with the Sox but, I never felt the complete disgust as I have with wirtzless and his obviously deliberate abuse of this franchise.

It's rare when you really wish someone would die however, that is truly what I wish.
It seems to be the ONLY way for the Hawks to be a great team again.

When Savard took over and won some games, I had thought I'd get the center ice pkg on my dish.
Now, I'm glad I didn't throw away the money.
I get Vs and the Wild on FSN so, I can watch better hockey for fre than paying to watch a team that causes me pain.

12-17-2006, 01:05 PM	#1 (permalink)
John F Administrator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tampa Bay area, Florida Posts: 2,497	The Rule of the Six 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...

12-18-2006, 04:59 PM	#5 (permalink)
Amberelise Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 61	Well, for the record, they are televising six home games this year. I can't find anything to back this up, but I SWEAR the comcast sports channel said that and I KNOW I watched a home game on tv. I KNOW that. You know, as if that's going to help a whole lot. Wirtz has put **** on the ice since the early 90s. The sad thing is, he HAS had a good product on the ice, it's just been a long time. And, we should not forget that they have made playoffs within the last decade, they just had a nice early first round exit. Regardless, at this point the televising thing isn't even the issue. The issue is that the marketing for the Hawks is worthless. Those commercials that they are airing are STUPID. Just looking at the player for 30 seconds while somebody tells me how many minutes Duncan Keith has played - does nothing for me. Absolutely nothing. And the ticket prices? Who can afford to go watch a crappy team? Chicago won't draw a crowd unless the Hawks make the playoffs for about four years in a row and get past the first round at least twice. Last edited by Amberelise; 12-18-2006 at 05:02 PM.

12-17-2006, 03:09 PM	#3 (permalink)
John F Administrator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tampa Bay area, Florida Posts: 2,497	If you change alignment -- I'm talking total reworking here. We've got East vs. West and that's crap. It's the NBA and the NHL is decidedly not the NBA. You do need two conferences but a set up more along the lines of MLB and the NFL (Conference A: East/central/west; conference B east/central/west) would be more ideal. Of course, that's going to have the traditionalists up in arms because it'd have it's effects on rivalries (what if Toronto and Montreal end up in seperate conferences?!? Or the Rangers and Islanders or Bruins?!?! etc)

12-18-2006, 03:47 PM	#4 (permalink)
John F Administrator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tampa Bay area, Florida Posts: 2,497	BTW -- it's not a GM issue with Chicago -- a hockey hotbed and the middle of the rust belt -- being a weak franchise. It's ownership which has run the franchise into the ground since the 60's. The league seriously needs to intervene. Limited-to-no exposure in Chicago because of Bill Wirtz preference NOT to televise hockey games at home limits the exposure of what SHOULD be one of the NHL's marquee franchises. That hurts the league directly. Even if Chicago was playing great hockey, they wouldn't be getting exposure where they needed it the most -- in the Chicagoland and midwest television markets.

01-19-2007, 06:28 PM	#6 (permalink)
TOOLS Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 32	I've been a Hawks fan since before they had a Zamboni. I know, I know I suffered through years of failure and frustration with the Sox but, I never felt the complete disgust as I have with wirtzless and his obviously deliberate abuse of this franchise. It's rare when you really wish someone would die however, that is truly what I wish. It seems to be the ONLY way for the Hawks to be a great team again. When Savard took over and won some games, I had thought I'd get the center ice pkg on my dish. Now, I'm glad I didn't throw away the money. I get Vs and the Wild on FSN so, I can watch better hockey for fre than paying to watch a team that causes me pain.