Do You Think Parity Works in the NHL?

[Firehawk 305]

I would really like to get opinions on this because it has had me thinking for quite some time. I understand the need for salary caps. I think it works in the NFL. I think it works in the NBA. But I am not convinced it works in the NHL. How do we get average people interested in the NHL?

My view of it is that if we had less teams, it would be alright. There would be much better talent on the fewer teams and then I think it could work. But right now, I just don't think it does. Maybe I'm spoiled by the great success the Red Wings have had pre-salary cap era. But, most teams have 1-2 players most people have heard of, and then the rest are role players. Wouldn't it be better to have 5 high flying stars on every team?

I think the games have become watered down.

Instead what we have now, are filler on most teams. Players that lack talent try to attack the stars, whether by trying to injure them, or beat them up enough to have a chance to skate with them. Maybe this is part of the problem with the increase in serious injury lately. Just a thought.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Firehawk

[kook_10 1,705]

I would really like to get opinions on this because it has had me thinking for quite some time. I understand the need for salary caps. I think it works in the NFL. I think it works in the NBA. But I am not convinced it works in the NHL. How do we get average people interested in the NHL?

My view of it is that if we had less teams, it would be alright. There would be much better talent on the fewer teams and then I think it could work. But right now, I just don't think it does. Maybe I'm spoiled by the great success the Red Wings have had pre-salary cap era. But, most teams have 1-2 players most people have heard of, and then the rest are role players. Wouldn't it be better to have 5 high flying stars on every team?

I think the games have become watered down.

Instead what we have now, are filler on most teams. Players that lack talent try to attack the stars, whether by trying to injure them, or beat them up enough to have a chance to skate with them. Maybe this is part of the problem with the increase in serious injury lately. Just a thought.

Theoretically the talent would be better with a smaller league, but to say that it is watered down from years past is incorrect. There are actually a good number fewer Canadians in the league than there were in 1980 when there were far fewer teams then. I don't think they have become worse at hockey, so it must be that better players are coming from a larger global talent pool.

[Z and D for the C 712]

The salary cap doesn't prohibit 5 really good players on every team it prohibits having 5 really good players on a few teams and the rest having 1 or 2. It seems to me the salary cap isn't your problem, it's the amount of teams.

[Firehawk 305]

Perhaps you are correct, that it is the amount of teams. I just find the NHL to be very dull. If I didn't love the wings and hockey so much I would turn off wings/predator games, or wings/columbus.

Who watches a florids versus nashville matchup?

[kylee 727]

Can't remember a time in any other league where two bottom seeded teams made it to the championship (the oil and hurricanes)

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Can't remember a time in any other league where two bottom seeded teams made it to the championship (the oil and hurricanes)

The Hurricanes were the top seed in the East that year.

They were not an underdog.

Underdogs have gotten to the Finals many times in recent memory, but none of them have won the Cup.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

I would really like to get opinions on this because it has had me thinking for quite some time. I understand the need for salary caps. I think it works in the NFL. I think it works in the NBA. But I am not convinced it works in the NHL. How do we get average people interested in the NHL?

My view of it is that if we had less teams, it would be alright. There would be much better talent on the fewer teams and then I think it could work. But right now, I just don't think it does. Maybe I'm spoiled by the great success the Red Wings have had pre-salary cap era. But, most teams have 1-2 players most people have heard of, and then the rest are role players. Wouldn't it be better to have 5 high flying stars on every team?

I think the games have become watered down.

Instead what we have now, are filler on most teams. Players that lack talent try to attack the stars, whether by trying to injure them, or beat them up enough to have a chance to skate with them. Maybe this is part of the problem with the increase in serious injury lately. Just a thought.

Have you seen the playoff race this year? There are only a few teams that have been out of it for the past month. This year and least year have had great competition for the 6-8 spots in each conference. IMO this is parity.

You speak of the salary cap having an effect, but I think it is more the salary floor. There are teams in the NHL that don't spend anywhere near the cap.

I don't think fans are attracted to star players as much as we think. Fans are (generally) attracted to winning, which is usually correlated with star players. If the league contracts, so would the amount of playoff teams, and there would still be teams that aren't as good. In fact, removing teams would likely make less people interested in hockey. I don't see many Phoenix fans flying/driving to other arenas if the Coyotes cease to exist. I think the NHL is at a good amount of teams, now they just need to fix the markets.

Please point me in the direct of the filler players that attempt to injure, beat up, and attack the star players. Other than Cooke, who would likely have the skill to play in an NHL with ~4 less teams, I'm not sure what games you are watching the have this conclusion.

I think attracting fans to the NHL is more of a grassroots thing. Hockey is a difficult sport to understand; therefore, many potential fans are too confused to pick up the game. I think people like us, those who are knowledgeable about hockey, need to help educate our interested friends, family, etc.

[Z and D for the C 712]

Hockey is a difficult sport to understand; therefore, many potential fans are too confused to pick up the game. I think people like us, those who are knowledgeable about hockey, need to help educate our interested friends, family, etc.

If that was true, football wouldn't be the biggest league in the US by far.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

If that was true, football wouldn't be the biggest league in the US by far.

I think football being the most popular US league supports my point. You can ask most 10 year old children and they can tell you the basic rules of football- this is not true for hockey. Football is educated to most Americans at a young age, and therefore most Americans can follow an NFL game. However, a lot of people who don't grow up playing hockey don't know the rules. Therefore, they are less likely to watch hockey.

[Barrie 900]

Actually I think the league that has the most parity is the one without a salary cap, Baseball. Since 2001 there's been only one team to win the World Series more than once, the Boston Red Sox. Small payroll teams win the World Series almost as much as the big payroll ones.

List of World Series Champions

[DyingAlive 27]

If you think the NBA has parity, than you really need to go look at the standings...it is extremely top heavy.

Honestly, I think the NHL has great parity. You don't see half a league of 20 games above .500 and then half the league 20 games below. It's very nicely spread around for the most part.

[Firehawk 305]

Have you seen the playoff race this year? There are only a few teams that have been out of it for the past month. This year and least year have had great competition for the 6-8 spots in each conference. IMO this is parity.

You speak of the salary cap having an effect, but I think it is more the salary floor. There are teams in the NHL that don't spend anywhere near the cap.

I don't think fans are attracted to star players as much as we think. Fans are (generally) attracted to winning, which is usually correlated with star players. If the league contracts, so would the amount of playoff teams, and there would still be teams that aren't as good. In fact, removing teams would likely make less people interested in hockey. I don't see many Phoenix fans flying/driving to other arenas if the Coyotes cease to exist. I think the NHL is at a good amount of teams, now they just need to fix the markets.

Please point me in the direct of the filler players that attempt to injure, beat up, and attack the star players. Other than Cooke, who would likely have the skill to play in an NHL with ~4 less teams, I'm not sure what games you are watching the have this conclusion.

I think attracting fans to the NHL is more of a grassroots thing. Hockey is a difficult sport to understand; therefore, many potential fans are too confused to pick up the game. I think people like us, those who are knowledgeable about hockey, need to help educate our interested friends, family, etc.

I do not understand this line of thinking at all. I have been following the playoff race in the west and yes, there's a jam of many teams just a game away from being in or out. But what I argue here is that the overall level is lower. You are not going to convince me that a battle of chicago and nashville for a playoff spot is the same as Detroit versus Colorado in the 90s. Two star studded teams that were equal in talent was far more interesting to watch than calgary and Dallas battling for a playoff spot.

What I'm getting at is the players today battling for these spots are not stars. They are mainly role players. I would rather watch stars battle than role players nobody's heard of. This is what I'm getting at. Look deeper than just points. Disagree with you that fans aren't attracted to stars like we think. Shy of hockey snobs, nobody wants to watch the NHL. It's obvious. Nobody knows most of the players on Calgary, or Nashville.

By your line of thinking, the NHL will always be what it is. And this is simply not true because 10 years ago it wasn't true.

[Firehawk 305]

I think football being the most popular US league supports my point. You can ask most 10 year old children and they can tell you the basic rules of football- this is not true for hockey. Football is educated to most Americans at a young age, and therefore most Americans can follow an NFL game. However, a lot of people who don't grow up playing hockey don't know the rules. Therefore, they are less likely to watch hockey.

You don't need to be a NASA scientist to understand hockey, give me a break. Maybe the difference is football is covered on TV far more than hockey is. The very young generations have never seen hockey on TV. Since the NHL has been off ESPN, most people don't even have the right channels to watch the NHL. It has become almost an underground sport. The only people that follow hockey are hockey snobs.

[SidAbelsSon 50]

There have been teams loaded with stars that have underacheived just as there have been teams of no names have overacheived. Why? It all comes down to playing as a team. A superstar will not win playing alone.

[Firehawk 305]

There have been teams loaded with stars that have underacheived just as there have been teams of no names have overacheived. Why? It all comes down to playing as a team. A superstar will not win playing alone.

I understand. You can build a case that the Wings over the past 20 years have under-achieved. 96 for example, 95, 99, etc. They were good enough to win 10 cups in that span.

The point being, I'd still rather watch a lineup of stars than a lineup of role players.

[blgillett 48]

personally i think the whole parity thing in any sport is just wrong. just because the NHL has teams in places that has no business putting a team doesn't mean successful team should have to have a ball and chain around there necks plus if you have a GM like Holland he just works around the whole cap thing and we still have been a power house in the post cap world of Gary Bettman

[Barrie 900]

There have been teams loaded with stars that have underacheived just as there have been teams of no names have overacheived. Why? It all comes down to playing as a team. A superstar will not win playing alone.

I agree. The Yankees are a perfect example. People complain about them all the time, but the only time they put a dominate run together was 1996-2001, when they played as a team. Since then, they've forgotten team play and only won 1 Championship since.

Drafting is the way to go, big spending teams still need to have a system to win.

If you think the NBA has parity, than you really need to go look at the standings...it is extremely top heavy.

Right, the NBA is by far the worst. They have 5 super teams, and then everyone else.

[Guest Shoreline]

Parity does work but the only reason it does is because teams get points for OT losses and shootouts.

That's why at the end of the season playoff races artificially look closer than they really are -- makes things somewhat more competitive in the sense of not seeing teams with 20 wins and 50+ losses. Hell, I remember there being more 40+ loss teams than today. A good chunk of those losses today would have been points from getting past 3 periods, whereas before it didn't matter if you lost in post-regulation or not, a loss was a loss.

[kook_10 1,705]

Parity does work but the only reason it does is because teams get points for OT losses and shootouts.

That's why at the end of the season playoff races artificially look closer than they really are -- makes things somewhat more competitive in the sense of not seeing teams with 20 wins and 50+ losses. Hell, I remember there being more 40+ loss teams than today. A good chunk of those losses today would have been points from getting past 3 periods, whereas before it didn't matter if you lost in post-regulation or not, a loss was a loss.

Goals for / goals against is a better measure of parity than wins and losses. I posted mid-season last year about historical parity in the league (to a chorus of silence):

[Guest Shoreline]

Goals for / goals against is a better measure of parity than wins and losses. I posted mid-season last year about historical parity in the league (to a chorus of silence):

Well, most thought provoking discussion goes ignored in favor of those which require less effort and a quick retort.

However, I will disagree greatly. Not because the issue of GF/GAA. I can't really disagree there, but when people see the NHL and parity, they aren't going to calculate these ratios. They're going to look at the standings. They are also going to look at empty seats, and ask themselves if being in the playoff hunt might draw more fans into the seats. In truth, the way most fans or potential ticket buyers in this country work, is that if you see a team hovering 40 and 50+ losses in a season, you aren't going to be inclined to go see them. However, if they change the point system to artificially put your team closer to the playoff race, certainly it will put more asses into seats.

That is the type of "parity" that interests the NHL.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Shoreline

[kook_10 1,705]

Well, most thought provoking discussion goes ignored in favor of those which require less effort and a quick retort.

However, I will disagree greatly. Not because the issue of GF/GAA. I can't really disagree there, but when people see the NHL and parity, they aren't going to calculate these ratios. They're going to look at the standings. They are also going to look at empty seats, and ask themselves if being in the playoff hunt might draw more fans into the seats. In truth, the way most fans or potential ticket buyers in this country work, is that if you see a team hovering 40 and 50+ losses in a season, you aren't going to be inclined to go see them. However, if they change the point system to artificially put your team closer to the playoff race, certainly it will put more asses into seats.

That is the type of "parity" that interests the NHL.

Right - its artificial parity for marketing purposes. The league just wants the fans to believe every team has a chance. I agree the point system has created that artifice, not the salary cap or expansion. It has little to do with the parity of play on the ice, or the "product" on the ice that Bettman is always blathering on about. The irony is that most people would concede that it is tougher for teams outside of the bubble to make up ground, despite their appearance of a winning record (only six teams are under .500 points % wise).

Edited March 27, 2011 by kook_10

[WorkingOvertime 536]

I do not understand this line of thinking at all. I have been following the playoff race in the west and yes, there's a jam of many teams just a game away from being in or out. But what I argue here is that the overall level is lower. You are not going to convince me that a battle of chicago and nashville for a playoff spot is the same as Detroit versus Colorado in the 90s. Two star studded teams that were equal in talent was far more interesting to watch than calgary and Dallas battling for a playoff spot.

What I'm getting at is the players today battling for these spots are not stars. They are mainly role players. I would rather watch stars battle than role players nobody's heard of. This is what I'm getting at. Look deeper than just points. Disagree with you that fans aren't attracted to stars like we think. Shy of hockey snobs, nobody wants to watch the NHL. It's obvious. Nobody knows most of the players on Calgary, or Nashville.

By your line of thinking, the NHL will always be what it is. And this is simply not true because 10 years ago it wasn't true.

So you would like the NHL to be the size it was in the 90's? During the 90's the NHL had between 22-28 teams. Even if 8 teams were eliminated, I don't think you would see teams as stacked as you suggest. The teams to fold would likely be those who have little support. These teams don't have many stars either. I would argue that the average fan can name the same percentage of players.

Your example including the Red Wings and Colorado is an extreme outlier. The Wings compiled some of the best rosters of that era and their battles with Colorado are a result of that. Also, both teams were in the playoffs every season 1995-2000. Therefore, you example is of two of the leagues best teams. Can you name anyone on the 1990's Edmonton teams? How about any of the other rivalries during the 90's? If anything, the Wings not having a great rivalry now is due to parity.

You don't need to be a NASA scientist to understand hockey, give me a break. Maybe the difference is football is covered on TV far more than hockey is. The very young generations have never seen hockey on TV. Since the NHL has been off ESPN, most people don't even have the right channels to watch the NHL. It has become almost an underground sport. The only people that follow hockey are hockey snobs.

The average person will not watch a sport they don't understand. Hockey isn't difficult to understand- either is changing your car's oil- but people who are ignorant about the rules will have less interest. Obviously, more exposure would lead to more viewers, but interest has to proceed exposure.

Right - its artificial parity for marketing purposes. The league just wants the fans to believe every team has a chance. I agree the point system has created that artifice, not the salary cap or expansion. It has little to do with the parity of play on the ice, or the "product" on the ice that Bettman is always blathering on about. The irony is that most people would concede that it is tougher for teams outside of the bubble to make up ground, despite their appearance of a winning record (only six teams are under .500 points % wise).

I agree, the shootout is terrible and creates the appearance of parity. Here is a thread on HFBoards with rankings using a three point season. http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=31879135

[T.Low 1,011]

I would really like to get opinions on this because it has had me thinking for quite some time. I understand the need for salary caps. I think it works in the NFL. I think it works in the NBA. But I am not convinced it works in the NHL. How do we get average people interested in the NHL?

My view of it is that if we had less teams, it would be alright. There would be much better talent on the fewer teams and then I think it could work. But right now, I just don't think it does. Maybe I'm spoiled by the great success the Red Wings have had pre-salary cap era. But, most teams have 1-2 players most people have heard of, and then the rest are role players. Wouldn't it be better to have 5 high flying stars on every team?

I think the games have become watered down.

Instead what we have now, are filler on most teams. Players that lack talent try to attack the stars, whether by trying to injure them, or beat them up enough to have a chance to skate with them. Maybe this is part of the problem with the increase in serious injury lately. Just a thought.

First off, getting the average guy interested in hockey is exactly what waters down the game atmoshpere in general. Leave the game for the real enthusiast. Too many average guys in Detroit are already semi interested in the Wings, enough so that the crowd is too quite. Watch a Wings game with a lot of average guys in attendence, then watch a Flames game and a Canadians game where it's just hockey enthusiasts at the game and you will notice a huge difference.

Second, the talent level in the NHL has never been higher than it is today. Every aspect, the skating, the stick handling, the thinking, the goal tending; it's all much higher today than ever before due to better youth programs and the natural evolution of a sport in general.

The parity you speak of comes from two main elements of the NHL that are different from the other major sports.

1. Hockey itself has a much more randon nature to it's game than basketball, fooball, and baseball and therefore the law of averages has a lesser role in the outcome of a given game. Or simply put, the better team wins less often in hockey than in the other major sports.

Think of how many times in past years the Wings have dominated a game, but because of the nature of the game of hockey, they have not been able to pull away and then a couple bad bounces go to their opponents and they end up losing the game.

The speed of the game, the close confines of the "field of play", the ice, the bouncing puck; all combine for a lesser amount of "control" than found in the other sports. The puck bouncing off multiple players on both teams and then finding it's way into the net.

For such a skill based game, there certainly is a lot fo slop in hockey that determines the overall outcome of the game.

2. The simple fact that over 50% of the teams make the playoffs is ridiculous. 16 teams in and only 14 teams out is a shamless revenue grab by the owners, nothing more. There is nothing "sporting" or competive about having teams with such poor records making the playoffs. Only 6 teams from each conference should go.

[Buppy 1,720]

Actually I think the league that has the most parity is the one without a salary cap, Baseball. Since 2001 there's been only one team to win the World Series more than once, the Boston Red Sox. Small payroll teams win the World Series almost as much as the big payroll ones.

Since 2001, only one NHL team has won more than one Cup.

Also, the NBA does not have a real cap. They have a luxury tax system that really isn't much different than baseball.

Finally, championship wins is not the only factor determining parity.

I do not understand this line of thinking at all. I have been following the playoff race in the west and yes, there's a jam of many teams just a game away from being in or out. But what I argue here is that the overall level is lower. You are not going to convince me that a battle of chicago and nashville for a playoff spot is the same as Detroit versus Colorado in the 90s. Two star studded teams that were equal in talent was far more interesting to watch than calgary and Dallas battling for a playoff spot.

What I'm getting at is the players today battling for these spots are not stars. They are mainly role players. I would rather watch stars battle than role players nobody's heard of. This is what I'm getting at. Look deeper than just points. Disagree with you that fans aren't attracted to stars like we think. Shy of hockey snobs, nobody wants to watch the NHL. It's obvious. Nobody knows most of the players on Calgary, or Nashville.

By your line of thinking, the NHL will always be what it is. And this is simply not true because 10 years ago it wasn't true.

Did you know many players from Calgary, Vancouver, Anaheim, San Jose, Winnipeg, Florida, Pittsburgh, Carolina etc. in the 90s? Do you remember any of those playoff battles?

The league has never been full of stars or great teams. The best teams to day are pretty much as star-studded as the best teams pre-cap. Of course two mediocre teams from today aren't as exciting to watch as two of the best teams from the 90s. But the Wings, Sharks, Pens, Hawks, Flyers, and Canucks in recent years are at least close.

[Buppy 1,720]

...2. The simple fact that over 50% of the teams make the playoffs is ridiculous. 16 teams in and only 14 teams out is a shamless revenue grab by the owners, nothing more. There is nothing "sporting" or competive about having teams with such poor records making the playoffs. Only 6 teams from each conference should go.

Cutting the number of playoffs teams could marginally increase the interest in the regular season, but it would make the playoffs much worse.

First, a bye round for some teams would be terrible. It would have to be 4 or 8.

Second, in the last 10 playoffs, teams seeded 7th or 8th have produced 13 first round upsets. Another 15 from teams seeded 5th or 6th. And that's only counting the first round.

All things considered, having 4 competetive playoff rounds is much better than 3 with a slightly better regular season.