NC WINGS FAN
-
Content Count
262 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by NC WINGS FAN
-
-
Some of this success can be attributed to the marketing of Cyndy and Ovechkin and also with the teams who are in the playoffs.
-
You've got this right on in your assessment this is an eerily similar makeup to the first winning Wings teams of 15 years ago
But we all know with little Gary's parity /salary cap experiment nobody will ever be able to build dominant teams for the long term so all his owner buddies in the poor markets of the US will get a chance to win too via endless free agency and cap , rotating players throughout the league
People in 2004 were saying the cap would sink the Redwings, and look how that turned out.
-
I look at it this way. At least it is not a bunch of Anaheim and New Jersey-like teams left in the chase. 3 of the 4 remaining teams play in markets where hockey is relevant, and 2 of those are very large US markets with huge fan bases and have not won in a long time. If anything, it is a big win for the NHL that does not involve Crosby.
-
The question is do they want money through viewership or to expand the league?
1)if Money put a Canadian team in it, and why not the eventual SC champion Chicago again, they will have just as many accolades as Pitt.
2) Or they could expand viewership by not just pimping 2 players so people may actually care about teams in there area as opposed to 2 teams that are across the country because they aren't exposed to the youth in there area.
I agree that the league should promote more than two players and their teams.
To answer your question, it is a balancing act.
The league must first establish an image to non/moderate fans. Part of their strategy has been to push two players in hopes of creating the household names they have lacked since Gretzky retired. I will agree that it would make sense to promote a few more players, but not too many more.
As for expanding the league? Look no further than the New Jersey Devils. They have been, by far, one of the most successful teams over the last two decades, and they still can't get people in their home arena.
Unfair as it may be, you will not see a WC match-up comprising of any small market, Canadian, or Sunbelt teams, unless they have a star the likes of Crysby or Ovechkin. It is all about viewership, and any teams in the above categories are busts in terms of US television ratings.
-
As much as I despise the Penguins, and I do, this actually makes perfect sense.
Face it, hockey is a marginalized sport, so that leaves only a handful of teams(8-10) that can participate in this game. That is good news, b/c we will be in another before too long.
How many people do you think would tune in to see Nashville and New Jersey?
-
Remember, a lot of people were saying the same thing about the Redwings a few years ago, that they were simply racking up wins in a weak division. We, of course, all knew that to be crap, but that is what other fans were saying.
As others have pointed out, look what happened in the east. I would not want to face the Flyers in the Finals after seeing what they did to Boston.
With that said, of course it's possible, and not all that unlikely imho.
-
The NBA has a luxury tax system, and its always the same few teams that contend for the title. This year's NBA playoffs have been awful, with teams getting blown out left and right. The NHL playoffs on the other hand have been exciting.
Hockey and basketball are two very different sports. Hockey is much more of a team sport for sure. Look at the difference a Shaq or Lebron makes in a team's on court performance. You do not see that in hockey, so there is bound to be more parity in hockey, or baseball and football for that matter.
One can argue that since the cap, there have been dominant teams in the NHL. The same has become the case for the NFL over the last decade.
I like the ideas presented in this post for the reason that they would allow teams to keep their talented players that they drafted. It would reward good organizations rather than punish them. Despite the cap, you still have teams like Nashville and Phoenix barely staying afloat.
stevkrause reacted to this -
For all of Bettman's desire to have NHL teams playing at parity in the post-cap world, and for all the 3 point games this year that helped inflate point totals around the league, the NHL is still very imbalanced. All we have to do is look at these playoffs. In the West the top 2 seeds have made it where they are suppose to have, the semi finals, while in the east you have two teams left in Philly ad Montreal that are so awful they would have been 12 and 13 seeds in the West. While some might say that having them make it this far shows parity (personally I think it shows PARODY), but all it proves to me is that the East is terrible. There is a awful imbalance between the two conferences. In fact, 4 of the 8 eastern playoff teams would have finished behind Colorado for the 8th seed. how crazy is that? It only further pushes the idea that playoffs should be seeded 1-16, regardless of conference. Would have been a very different playoffs this year:
Washington/Calgary
San Jose/St. Louis
Chicago/Boston
Phoenix/Ottawa
Vancouver/Colorado
New Jersey/Buffalo
Detroit/Nashville
Pittsburgh/Los Angeles
notice that the two eastern conference finalists are not even in the playoffs! no wonder this league isn't taken seriously sometimes.
Another thing you must consider is that the owners would not go for it for a few reasons.
On problem here would be travel costs. Another reason is television ratings. How many fans of East Coast teams do you think would stay up until 10:30 on a weeknight to watch their team play a game in the first round of the playoffs against some team on the West Coast?
Imagine if you are Boston and you have to play San Jose in the first round. The travel would be daunting to say the least and who in Boston gives a rat's ass about the Sharks?
I agree that the Redwings and a few other teams get screwed by the status quo
-
For all of Bettman's desire to have NHL teams playing at parity in the post-cap world, and for all the 3 point games this year that helped inflate point totals around the league, the NHL is still very imbalanced. All we have to do is look at these playoffs. In the West the top 2 seeds have made it where they are suppose to have, the semi finals, while in the east you have two teams left in Philly ad Montreal that are so awful they would have been 12 and 13 seeds in the West. While some might say that having them make it this far shows parity (personally I think it shows PARODY), but all it proves to me is that the East is terrible. There is a awful imbalance between the two conferences. In fact, 4 of the 8 eastern playoff teams would have finished behind Colorado for the 8th seed. how crazy is that? It only further pushes the idea that playoffs should be seeded 1-16, regardless of conference. Would have been a very different playoffs this year:
Washington/Calgary
San Jose/St. Louis
Chicago/Boston
Phoenix/Ottawa
Vancouver/Colorado
New Jersey/Buffalo
Detroit/Nashville
Pittsburgh/Los Angeles
notice that the two eastern conference finalists are not even in the playoffs! no wonder this league isn't taken seriously sometimes.
The problem I see with this set-up is that it would diminish rivalries.
Most of the NHL's best rivalries come from memories of past playoff bouts. The Canadiens/Bruins, Redwings/Avalanche, Blues, Blackhawks, Oilers/Flames, etc either originated and/or were greatly intensified from meeting in the playoffs numerous times.
You add more teams to the realm, and you decrease the likelihood of teams meeting in the playoffs. As a result, rivalries may suffer. Some would argue they already have diminished rivalries since the league abandoned the divisional rounds.
-
detroit red wings is a pretty bad name
As a kid, I used to think the same and wonder why they ever changed their name from the Detroit Cougars.
Now, I love it as it sounds classy, yet not wimpy, or like it is trying to be "tough", like XFL team.
What a Redwing is is anyone's guess, so fans can use their imaginations and develop their own image of the name.
-
No one will say it because they're an original six team, but the "Canadiens" is a really dumb name. Whenever I talk about playing or watching the "Montreal Canadiens" to my non-hockey fan friends, they are sure to emphasize how terrible of a name it is. From tradition it's grown on people I guess.
I like Canadiens. It is very classy, in my opinion. It is far better than Ducks, Avalanche, Penguins, or Wild. Those have to be some of the worst names in all of North American pro sports.
-
The way I see it, the salary cap really has not changed the league much in terms of parity.
Prior to the salary cap, top seeded teams were ousted in the first and second rounds almost every year by teams no one thought even belonged in the post season.
The 1990s and 2000s were full of Cinderella stories and one-hit wonders.
Here are just a few:
1991 North Stars
1994 Sharks
1997 Oilers
1998 Capitals
2000 Sharks
2001 Kings
2002 Hurricans
2003 Mighty Ducks
As organizations become better at building around the salary cap, parity will become less evident. Look at the NFL. In my opinion, that is a good thing as too much parity is boring.
-
That's the general point... the picked the wrong guy... I think Ovechkin would be, if it weren't for the language barrier... but they need to choose a new "face"
Could it be that the league views his crybaby antics as a plus?
Often times, it seems that class acts are overlooked in sports in favor of the more vocal or controversial characters.
Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic, etc.
-
He reminds me of Patrick Roy.
I find that they choose a guy everyone hates for all the wrong reasons the "Face of the New NHL". What a joke.
-
It would be nice to see Chicago win the whole thing since they have not a Stanley Cup since 1961.
It would make the rivalry that much better and could be a motivator.
It would also be funny to hear Chicago fans start calling themselves "Hockeytown 2" or something stupid like that.
-
In general, I think there's too much money to be made for owners and executives to not have any influence on the game and officials bias.
At the same time, I believe that most if not all people involved are perfectly aware of this and thus they're aware that they have to play through it.
It's just part of the game.
The real problem is the consistency. The NHL, NBA, whoever, has not been consistent with what they want to call. Coaches receive word from the officials that they will emphasize calls on obstruction, goalie interference, whatever and the coaches plan accordingly but all of sudden one instance of a hook isn't really a hook for one team but it is for the other. And then interference for one team but not interference for the other. Nobody knows what's fair.
I don't know. With that being the case, the NHL really shot itself in the foot with that lousy call in the final seconds of game 5 of the 2007 WCF against (Lidsrom I believe?) that resulted in a tying goal and a Wings loss. My memory is a little fuzzy at the moment, but it proved to be the back breaker in the series, as Anaslime cruised through game 6 despite a late Wings comeback attempt on their way to the Finals.
In the end, it left many viewers thinking "Ana who?" "the Ottawa What?" "Where is that?" It ended up being one of the least viewed SCF in history. Way to "grow the game"!!
-
I've been thinking about this throughout this year's playoffs. I have always dismissed the conspiracy theorists around here as just being tin foil hat nutjobs, but I don't think that they are completely off-base.
Let me say first and foremost that I do not believe that there is a blatant conspiracy or intent by the league to selectively eliminate certain teams from the playoffs, or help other teams to get deeper in than they normally would.
What I do believe is that Gary Bettman, and I assume those under him, places a strong emphasis on the expansion and extension of the league into new markets as well as an increase in popularity in already-established markets. Everything that he does is to this end. I have no doubt that people in the upper echelons of the NHL casually discuss how it will help the league for Sidney Crosby to win cups (being the next Wayne Gretzky and all) to help with universal league appeal, and how it will help the league for small and non-traditional market teams to achieve success in the post season. That's why the salary cap was such a sticking point in the negotiations that culminated in the league losing a season due to a lockout. Bettman would rather not play an entire season of hockey than allow the league to continue with no salary cap, because that's how important league parity is to him. Parity means that small market teams will start to experience more success. (Ironic that the last team to hoist the Cup before the lockout was Tampa.)
I think that it is an attitude that pervades the league's offices, not some sort of unwritten policy. I don't think that Bettman or Colin Campbell calls up Terry Gregson and tells him that his officials need to make sure that the Sharks beat the Wings or that the Penguins win the Stanley Cup. I have little doubt that people in the league feel that the Wings going deep into the playoffs every year is detrimental to the NHL because it is keeping other teams out, thereby preventing the growth of those teams' fan bases. Again, no one tells anyone that the Wings need to get jobbed, but I think that there is a pervasive attitude in the league that leads to negative feelings towards Detroit.
Ultimately, I think that the League's front office places more emphasis on marketing and monetary expansion through the development of under-performing markets and lucrative television contracts (that really have yet to materialize) than they do on officiating and making sure that games are run properly. It's possible that young refs aren't as experienced as they should be or aren't trained as much as they should be. Not because the league is purposefully trying to screw over certain teams, but because their priorities are elsewhere. Instead of worrying about putting out a quality product that will appeal first and foremost to hockey enthusiasts, they are spending their time trying to appeal to the mouth-breathing masses. It's the same reason that reality television dominates the airwaves instead of higher-quality programming. In terms of fans, the league is going for quantity, not quality.
Anyway, those are my feelings on the matter. I think that as long as Bettman or someone with his mindset is running the league, it is never going to be as good as it could or should be. The recent news about the Coyotes and what happened in Winnipeg further supports that. It doesn't make sense that cities like Quebec City, Winnipeg, Hartford, and Minneapolis lose NHL franchises while warm-weather cities that don't traditionally care about hockey gain franchises. These cities all ostensibly have bandwagon fans that jump ship as soon as their team starts sucking, while the cities that lost their teams are left to wonder if they will ever have an NHL team again. Again, this is bad for hockey as a whole, but it's where Bettman's priorities lie.
Chris
Double post.
I will agree that they seem to be aiming for quantity rather than quality, and that is, in my opinion, a detriment to the game and the league in the long run.
I think what Bettman must realize is that people prefer originality to commercialism, especially in a day and age where we are constantly bombarded with redundant ads and marketing gimmicks. Sure, clever marketing schemes and changing the game drastically may get people's attention at first, but people might eventually see the NHL for what it has become, something that is unoriginal rather than unique. In doing so, they run the risk of alienating traditional fans and boring new ones into extinction, similar to what happened with NASCAR.
They seem so caught up in marketing the game for what it could be rather than what it already is. How does Bettman expect anyone to respect the game when he clearly does not? That is simple psychology right there.
55fan reacted to this -
I've been thinking about this throughout this year's playoffs. I have always dismissed the conspiracy theorists around here as just being tin foil hat nutjobs, but I don't think that they are completely off-base.
Let me say first and foremost that I do not believe that there is a blatant conspiracy or intent by the league to selectively eliminate certain teams from the playoffs, or help other teams to get deeper in than they normally would.
What I do believe is that Gary Bettman, and I assume those under him, places a strong emphasis on the expansion and extension of the league into new markets as well as an increase in popularity in already-established markets. Everything that he does is to this end. I have no doubt that people in the upper echelons of the NHL casually discuss how it will help the league for Sidney Crosby to win cups (being the next Wayne Gretzky and all) to help with universal league appeal, and how it will help the league for small and non-traditional market teams to achieve success in the post season. That's why the salary cap was such a sticking point in the negotiations that culminated in the league losing a season due to a lockout. Bettman would rather not play an entire season of hockey than allow the league to continue with no salary cap, because that's how important league parity is to him. Parity means that small market teams will start to experience more success. (Ironic that the last team to hoist the Cup before the lockout was Tampa.)
I think that it is an attitude that pervades the league's offices, not some sort of unwritten policy. I don't think that Bettman or Colin Campbell calls up Terry Gregson and tells him that his officials need to make sure that the Sharks beat the Wings or that the Penguins win the Stanley Cup. I have little doubt that people in the league feel that the Wings going deep into the playoffs every year is detrimental to the NHL because it is keeping other teams out, thereby preventing the growth of those teams' fan bases. Again, no one tells anyone that the Wings need to get jobbed, but I think that there is a pervasive attitude in the league that leads to negative feelings towards Detroit.
Ultimately, I think that the League's front office places more emphasis on marketing and monetary expansion through the development of under-performing markets and lucrative television contracts (that really have yet to materialize) than they do on officiating and making sure that games are run properly. It's possible that young refs aren't as experienced as they should be or aren't trained as much as they should be. Not because the league is purposefully trying to screw over certain teams, but because their priorities are elsewhere. Instead of worrying about putting out a quality product that will appeal first and foremost to hockey enthusiasts, they are spending their time trying to appeal to the mouth-breathing masses. It's the same reason that reality television dominates the airwaves instead of higher-quality programming. In terms of fans, the league is going for quantity, not quality.
Anyway, those are my feelings on the matter. I think that as long as Bettman or someone with his mindset is running the league, it is never going to be as good as it could or should be. The recent news about the Coyotes and what happened in Winnipeg further supports that. It doesn't make sense that cities like Quebec City, Winnipeg, Hartford, and Minneapolis lose NHL franchises while warm-weather cities that don't traditionally care about hockey gain franchises. These cities all ostensibly have bandwagon fans that jump ship as soon as their team starts sucking, while the cities that lost their teams are left to wonder if they will ever have an NHL team again. Again, this is bad for hockey as a whole, but it's where Bettman's priorities lie.
Chris
The problem I have with your post is the notion that the league wants the Redwings to lose. Why would they? They are one of the league's biggest draws.
Do you remember the Stanley Cup Finals from the years 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007?
All of those series were made up of small market teams where at least one of the contenders was from a non traditional market such as Anaheim, Carolina, and Tampa Bay. Who did they play? They played Calgary, New Jersey, Ottawa, and Edmonton respectfully, none of whom are big draws. Those lame match-ups, combined with the lockout practically marginalized the sport.
Do you remember what happened when the Redwings got back to the Finals? The ratings went way up.
Now with that said, if there were any conspiracy to help certain teams win, then I am sure it would lean more towards large traditional markets such as Detroit, Chicago, New York Rangers, Boston, Philadelphia, and Toronto.
Sure, they want to "grow the game", but the bottom line is television ratings and exposure.
crotty99 reacted to this -
Anyone but Pittsburgh would be great. Go Habs!!
I will pull for Chicago for a few reasons.
1. They have not won in 49 years, so they are due.
2. They play in our division which would make for a more interesting division.
3. Chicago is a huge market which means more exposure for the sport and league.
4. Original Six Team
If not the Blackhawks, then I will pull for the Bruins or the Flyers.
-
I was perusing hockey message boards for various reactions to the Habs-Caps game, and stumbled across this thread. I guess I'll chime in.
For Blackhawks fans, the pre-cap Wings seemed to "buy" their way to the Cup. Hull, Robitaille, Hasek... Even though "only" one Cup came out of that spending spree, it certainly drew the ire of Hawks fans, as well as many other fans around the league.
There's no salary cap anymore, so that has let up a bit. However, the fact the Red Wings are still competitive, even with many great players leaving, is amazing. Despite the fact that the team has some of the best players in the world (Lidstrom has fallen off just a bit, but he's still top 5, and Datsyuk, in my opinion, is not only the second best forward in the game, he's also underrated), the team still chugs along. And all of that, to me, stems from the fact the organization is classy from the top down. The management and scouting team are the best in all of professional sports, and there's a tradition of excellence and pedigree that makes players want to come to the team, and take pay cuts to do so. The Wings always seem so disciplined, always ready to take it to another level. There isn't really any douchebag on the team to hate either. So where does the hate come from? The Red Wings don't even have to try anymore to be good, it comes so naturally. The organization is better than any other team's. And, well, that kind of pisses a lot of people the f*** off. Probably, as a few people alluded to, because of jealousy.
For me, the feeling isn't so much hate as it is respect. Lots and lots of respect. I can't hate management for overspending, because the salary cap won't allow that anymore. I can't really hate any of the players either. All I can do is just shake me head that the Red Wings have somehow done it again. Which does elicit a few "f***in' Red Wings" under my breath.
If you want to ask why other NHL team's fans hate the Canucks, that'd be a much easier topic.
I can relate and I noticed you mentioned how a lot of Hawks fans hated the Wings b/c they were willing to spend the money to acquire free agents and keep their roster together. They did spend more than most to do it, but they did it wisely. That was a common misconception among many haters that the Wings bought championships. In doing so, the failed to recognize their ability to scout and develop young talent. That is a part of what separated the Redwings from other "big spenders" such as the Maple Leafs and Rangers in the post-lockout era.
How many Hawks fans do you think would have held that against the Wings if Bill Wirtz was not such a cheapskate. I would bet not many.
With that said, it is nice to see your team winning again. It is better than the Ducks!! That is for sure.
-
And what happens when those bottom dwellers suddenly become unsuccessful again?
It depends on the situation, but they generally go back to being ignored. When a "bottom dweller" becomes successful for a period of time (like the Boston Bruins from the late 60s through the mid 90s), they are no longer seen that way.
It is safe to say that most hockey fans are more likely to think of our team as the envy of the league as opposed to just some team that used to suck but got good in the early 1990s.
-
Oh I didn't mean to imply that we, or any team is bandwagon-free, it just seems like that is a much bigger portion of the fan base for the Capitals. No one wore Caps gear around town before 2008, they didn't even really in 1998 when they made it to the Cup finals. lol and then I got s*** talked the whole ride home on the Metro from the January Wings game about how 1) the Red Wings were definitely not making the playoffs and 2) the Capitals were definitely winning the Cup. I just had to chuckle.
I still love going to games and sitting in entire sections of Ovie sweaters.
It is like that because the Capitals have never really done anything and they have only been around since 1974. Add to that the fact that they play in the South, in a non-traditional hockey market. Not very appealing is it?
They are not like the Redwings who have been around for 84 years and won 11 Stanley Cups. Many of us are fans b/c our parents, grandparents, and even great grandparents were fans. Outside of the original six markets, you will be hard pressed to find such fans.
-
People too often look down on sports franchises that go from the outhouse to the penthouse.
Personally, I think it is the other way around. People like to see consistent bottom dwellers suddenly become successful.
The problem most have with the Redwings is that very few remember the days when they could not give away seats to the old Olympia or shiny new Joe. The fans who do remember those days were either too young or did not follow the Redwings as closely as they do today.
With that said, it's likely not "Rags to Riches" that comes to mind when people think of the Detroit Redwings.
-
After Sunday's game, I figured they were done. Shame on me, because I came in at the beginning of the 3rd and when I saw they were up 4-1, I thought I was hallucinating. Although they were relentless until the end, it was not until the stoppage of play in the final 16 seconds that I was finally able to convince myself that there is no way the Coyotes can come back, illogical as it sounds.
To answer the question, the Redwings looked like a team on steroids last night as I had not seen them dominate a team like that in who knows how long. I would love to see them play that way all of the time, but am not sure that is possible.
That game was a sprint to the finish while the NHL playoffs are more of a marathon.
Why would anyone want MTL to win.
in General
Posted · Report reply
Watching the Philadelphia Flyers(35 yrs) or Chicago Blackhawks(49 yrs) win another Stanley Cup would for me bring back fond memories of the 1997 Redwings ending a 42 year championship drought.
Watching the Montreal Canadiens win Stanley Cup number 25 would be sort of like watching the Yankees, Celtics, or Lakers win another championship.