December 09, 2005

DrJohn is choosing to overlook a few things in his treatise here. I believe that what Willthrill is looking for is whether or not the other five teams on the NHL's list of the Original Six (whether or not it agrees with DrJohn's interpretation) have problems filling their arenas. You assuredly will not find that to be true in Detroit, Montreal, Toronto, or New York. I am unaware of the facts for Boston, due to my non-interest in their team after they let Thornton go last month. Attendance at most of the other venues of the Rangers, the RedWings, the MapleLeafs, and the Canadiens are reasonably difficult to get in to the house with a paid admission, most are pre-sold. And there may or may not be a good reason why the NHL does not consider the group to be seven teams, along with Ottawa, but they did not play in the first year the others did, and that in itself is a reason. But if someone wants to acknowledge teams (3-4 of them) that no longer exist, or haven't existed for 60+ years as the original ones, I guess the problem would be elsewhere.

posted by mrhockey at 10:44 AM on December 09, 2005

The question isn't whether the Original Six fill their arenas, but whether fans still think it's a big deal when one plays another. I'm an NHL fan from 1995 onward, so the six don't have any mystique with me. It seems a bit unrealistic to expect rivalries to survive 40 years in a sports league unless the involved teams are good for most of that period. To me, holding on to a rivalry between the Six is like getting psyched for a 49ers/Cowboys game. Their rivalry was great for 15 years, but too many bad teams have suited up for them since 1995 for it to be anything more than a footnote.

posted by rcade at 11:10 AM on December 09, 2005

I gotta agree with rcade. Rangers-Islanders is bigger than Rangers-B's, Wings-Hawks vs Wings-Av's, no contest (who can forger the blood bath) I still think Leafs-Habs could be good (both are payoff calibur teams, both fan bases fucking despise each other) I think the battle for Alberta (Flames-Oilers for those who are out of the loop) is a good rivalry, see also Flyers-Devs. Geography and playoff series against each other are a better indicator for a good rivalry.

posted by HATER 187 at 11:29 AM on December 09, 2005

You mean to tell me that Leafs-Habs or Leafs-Wings (or Habs-Bruins or Wings-Hawks, especially at the Joe) holds no extra magic? When Boston (or, and this is stretching things but hell they've been around for almost four decades, Philadelphia or the Islanders) comes to Madison Square Garden, it's a madhouse. And from what I've seen, the Rangers draw most other places, the way the Leafs & Habs do most places even in the American South. I agree the Original Six isn't as important now, but that's just because there are other teams with a few generations worth of fans under their belt. I think a lot about St. Louis in this context, actually. At least the Leafs and the Hawks won Cups at some point in the distant past. The Blues are the universal cross-sport apitome of always-good-never-great. It would almost behoove them to tank for a couple of years and hoover up a few high draft picks and make a real push. Not to wish ill on anyone, but I really hope Bill Wirtz finally loses his stranglehold on the Hawks, so they can finally join most of the other teams in this century.

posted by chicobangs at 11:34 AM on December 09, 2005

It's not even the rivalries that are in question here to me. There are rivalries between two teams in every sport no doubt. Some are bigger and more intense than others. Here We have the Blackhawks and Red Wings, Cubs and Cardinals, Bears and Packers and that applies in other towns everywhere. My problem is with the Hawks and Boston {although they are coming on a bit lately} playing so bad and the owners doing little to fix that problem. These are the type of owners who run a team into the ground before they are given a chance to prove anything. Trent Yawney may be a good guy and all but how does he become a head coach of a "big" team like the BlackHawks without provong anything first? I'm sure there were better choices out there before Wirtz decided on him. It is very obvious that opening up the pocket book and spending a few bucks more was just for the benefit of keeping talk like this from happening but Wirtz needs to realize that this is a sports city and the fans here crave a winner from all of our sports teams. He doesn't care nor will he ever if the hawks have any success. Just because an owner spends the cash doesn't have to mean a team will be a winner, but would it kill Wirtz to actually try to back up the team he owns?

posted by melcarek69 at 12:34 PM on December 09, 2005

Blackhawks vs. RedWings, as well as Bears vs. Packers, are two noted and ancient rivalries. Tickets for those games can approach the thousand dollar mark when the box office has none. I know, I paid that for a Wings/Hawks New Years eve game once. Age contributes to rivalry, especially when they have been rivals for most of their existence. I won't debate whether Chicago's owner is contributing to the team's failures. It's continually obvious. But Mike Ilitch has owned the RedWings through a long losing stretch in the seventies, and nobody questions him, because for the last ten years they've been excellent. But I lived through the DeadWings era and still am a fan, although I think they should at least hang a RedWings Winged Wheel in Little Caesar's. But that's another issue.

posted by mrhockey at 01:33 PM on December 09, 2005

I'm done with the Bruins. The owner's a jerk and a joke and the Thornton trade was the final nail in this fan's coffin.

posted by Venicemenace at 04:02 PM on December 09, 2005

Venicemenace, hang in there. You don't have to go to games, but take it from one of the Leaf fans here who lived through the dark decades of Harold Ballard: it ends. In other news, they just announced tonight's Capitals game as a sellout. The Red Wings are in town, so that's two pieces of purely anecodtal evidence that supports some of the hypotheses in this thread. (I'm watching it on inDemand. They're pretty raucous, too. This makes me happy.)

posted by chicobangs at 07:06 PM on December 09, 2005

I'd really like to see the Red Wings get to play an original six team instead of some crap team like the Blue Jackets...

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 01:57 PM on December 10, 2005

But they aren't beating up just on the Blue Jackets, although they play them on New Year's Eve. I first met R. Scotty Bowman on New Year's Eve 1982 after a broken shoulder ended my playing days (although I still play adult league duty at age 51). The Wings are going to have to (I suspect) revive their classic left-wing lock defense system if they are going to re-overtake the teams they have been confounded by this year, viz, Calgary and Vancouver. As fot YingYang, the RedWings have played the Blackhawks in three hom-at-home series dated October 27,29, and November 1, and beaten them by a collective score of 13-5 (5-2)(4-2)(4-1). The unfortunate relative stature of this does not change much, due to the new CBA of the league, which dictates that, for the majority of the schedule, Western Conference teams play mostly Western Conference teams, and the RedWings and Blackhawks are the only Original Six teams in the Western Conference. Boston, New York, Montreal, and Toronto are all Eastern Conference teams. Of course, geographically, all 6 Original Six teams still in existence SHOUL be in th EASTERN Conference, as the dividing line of the USA is generally considered to be the Mississippi River, and all 6 are east of there. Go figure. But in a technical sense, when one divides the teams equally by number and geography. one of two things becomes apparant. 1) The Eastern Conference has too many teams as per population and economic basis. 2) The Western Conference has far too much investment capital for the number of teams in existence. This would be exacerbated by, for example, if the Pittsburgh Penguins would move to Kansas City (unlikely due to NHL regulation prohibiting teams within 125 miles of one another) there would be a necessity to move the Columbus Blue Jackets to the Eastern Conference to balance the teams (either they or Nashville, but logistically it's Columbus). Again, go figure. Something is amiss with the map,as Dr. Who once said.

posted by mrhockey at 01:01 AM on December 13, 2005