I have wondered aloud about turning back the clock in terms of different outcomes (revisionist history). This question involves a decision the Board Of Governors made over forty years ago that changed the NHL forever: expansion. What if the NHL remained a six team outfit?
Can you imagine the talent pool available to just six teams? Imagine the further dominance of the Montreal Canadiens if not only did they have to compete for talent with five other teams, but regained territorial rights? Talk about at least a three decade rein as the top NHL team! Toronto alone would have won at least four more Stanley Cups (provided there was no World Hockey Association and Wayne Gretzky fell into their laps)!
But here's the downside to the wishful thinking: could the league survive despite featuring the 180 best players in the entire world, given the other sports leagues grew as planned? This is where your imput is greatly needed, Hockey fans!
2007-11-02 11:54:37 · 10 answers · asked by Snoop 5 in Sports ➔ Hockey
No, the league would have crumbled under lawsuits. The primary driver for expansion in 1967 was the number of American cities that wanted into the league and were suing the league to force that right.
In 1965, MLB had 20 teams
In 1965, the AFL and NFL combined to have 28 teams
In 1965, the NBA the NBA had 9 teams
The NHL had 6
One of the things about the NHL was that outside of the 4 US cities, the NHL was largely unknown. The AHL was a 'bigger' thing to Americans and teams like Pittsburgh, and Cleveland, and people like Jerry Buss wanted in on the action.
At the time, the NHL had CFL like salaries compared to the other leagues. In 1966-67, the average salary in the NHL was $11,000............compared to $18,000 in the MLB. Sure, Bobby Hull was making $125,000 and Jean Beliveau was m,aking $75,000...but other were making $7,000.00.
After several threats of lawsuits, and Molson wanting money, the NHL decided to expand, and created a list of 40 cities worth expanding to (only one was Canadian) and then underwent an aggressive expansion under Clarenbce Campbell that saw 12 teams added in 8 years, 2 of which eventually moved (Kansas City and Oakland).
John Ziegler sealed his Hall of Fame position in 1978 by brokering the merger between the NHL and WHA. Under Ziegler's administration, 9 teams were added (4 from the WHA and 5 from early 90s expansion) all because of greed.
Unfortunately for the league, they have never managed to get higher than 13th in US TV ratings (1974-75) so expansion to various US markets has been a failure for 40 years in some people's eyes.
So, in short, the league would never have survived as a 6 team league. At best, it could have become the Canadian Hockey League and then in the 70s would have folded due to an emerging US league that would have outbid it for players much the sam,e way the upstart USFL outbid the NFL for two years.
Sadly, the USFL, XFL, etc never learned from the WHA that taking on an established league is a very difficult task. You can outbid for players, but you can'ty outbid for hard core dedicated fans.
2007-11-02 14:19:57 · answer #1 · answered by Like I'm Telling You Who I A 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well Snoop, to be honest with you, I can't imagine the NHL staying at 6 teams past the 70's in any hypothetical scenario. But if I were to try, I would say that they would have been successful because of that. Whether they have 6 teams or 30, there would be an interest nonetheless and the more enjoyable aspect of this is trying to figure out where players like Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Messier, Brodeur, etc., would have ended up playing and how the Stanley Cup would have been "passed" around such a small circuit.
2007-11-02 13:36:01 · answer #2 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it would work today. Look at the other major leagues, all of them have at least 30 teams. Six teams would not be enough at all today. Think of all the deserving cities that wouldn't have teams. There would be much much less hockey fans if there were only 6 teams. All pro leagues have gained even world wide exposure through expansion. If the NHL stayed at 6 teams, it would be comparable to the MLL today which only has 10 teams.
2007-11-02 12:11:25 · answer #3 · answered by N/A 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Too many competitor leagues would have sprouted in the interim.
A 16 team NHL had to battle and fend off the rival WHA. A 6 team league would likely have folded or been absorbed under pressure from a strategically organized, formidable entity.
2007-11-02 13:39:38 · answer #4 · answered by zapcity29 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the Original six were all Canadian teams for sure. I don't think the nhl would be considered Big League with only 6 teams today. They could get away with 20 (I wish they would).
2007-11-02 13:53:25 · answer #5 · answered by PuckDat 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You can blame the incident on Morgan. He brought it all on himself. It all started when he unnecessarily collided with the Cardinals catcher, I don't think Molina (Yadier) was catching that game. And that sparked the interest with his code of conduct. Even Morgans manager apologized to La Russa (Cardinals manager) about it. Then Morgan does the same thing to the Marlins catcher (don't remember name), then he gets thrown at. Can you blame them? It's the same thing in any sport, you protect your teammates. One disrespectful play draws another. That can be said in any sport, and maybe its my biasness, but I don't think you see it in hockey as much as any other sport. So Volstad throws at Morgan, can you blame him? Then his next AB, throws behind him. Maybe that part was unnecessary, but then Morgan charges the mound. Can't blame him either, have to protect yourself. Getting hit once is a sign, he took his base like he was suppost to. The incident should've ended right there, but neither side let go and thats when all this happened. So it started with Morgan and unnecessary plays. Can you blame it on hockey? Absolutely not. What about when Sheffield started the Detroit/Cleveland brawl in 08, whos fault was that? Sheffields, he started it when he charged the mound. Everyone has an attitude, no matter what sport they play. If you wanna pin this brawl on hockey, what about the other brawls? Afraid that your sports atheletes might have a temper? Suck it up.
2016-04-02 01:19:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the NHL could have survived as a six team league, however they would not have the popularity that they have today, I think another league would have surfaced and survived that would have eventually overtaken the NHL and brought them into the fold.
I think once the popularity of the sport reached greater levels, you have a demand for it, and the product is going to expand to match the demand.
2007-11-02 12:08:33 · answer #7 · answered by tdr8256 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
simply put.....no,it could not.expansion not only created more interest throughout north America,it created more publicity,marketing,TV,radio...and the bottom line....MONEY.if they still had just the original 6 they wouldn't be able to afford the top players.they would be playing in another country,possibly their home country.but why would the best bother to leave their home land if the money wasn't their.even the Canadians would leave to follow the big money.no,without expansion the NHL would have died.
2007-11-02 12:07:05 · answer #8 · answered by mojo569 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
ah no
i believe it would just be out of business
there is no way the league would have as many fans or hockey in north america would be as good
if it was then there would be a big league probably in europe and all the good players would go there
2007-11-02 12:09:14 · answer #9 · answered by ~~~~~~~~ 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not even going to try. LITY said it all. Great question Snoop.
2007-11-02 16:26:38 · answer #10 · answered by Laying Low- Not an Ivy Leaguer 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋