Which would you rather see in the NHL? A couple of teams win 8 of the next 10 Stanley Cups or a different team win every year for the next 10 years? Which is better for the NHL? Why? What would most fans prefer to see? Powerhouse teams or 30 teams within 10 points of each other all year?
2007-12-21 04:18:23 · 26 answers · asked by Bob Loblaw 7 in Sports ➔ Hockey
Andrew- For proof of that, look at the Yankees and the Red Sox-teams everybody like to tune in to see, whether you love them and want them to lose or hate them and want them to win.
2007-12-21 04:44:16 · update #1
Kris- As for the parity being good in the places where there are casual fans, my take is that it creates a temporary band-aid, in that, yes, fans in those markets will come out ONLY when the team is competitive. I don't know if it sells the sport as much as it kind of rents it. Good points though. You seem to have the same thought process as the commish. I think the big powerhouse teams in large hockey markets should not suffer to force feed it to small markets. Let's not forget that these stupid 3 point games and shoot-outs play a part in this too. Take Edmonton for example-there record is 16-16, I think they have won something foolish like 10 in shoot-outs.
2007-12-21 05:53:05 · update #2
Very interesting, as the trendy buzzword in all major pro sports is "Parity". The truth is though, that while their is a level of parity now that hasn't been in years past, each sport still seems to have their teams that rise above & continue to stay there. Look no further than the Yanks & Sox, Colts & Pats, Spurs & Pistons, etc. This is still a benefit to all(or most) teams, league wide.
It all depends on how your team fits into it. In the case of the NHL, it does NO good to have too many teams stinking the joint up. In order to grow this sport, especially here in the U.S., fans need to know that their team can put a competitive group on the ice. With all the expansion from recent years (another arguement, for another time) that simply is not happening enough. So in that case, parity is good.
However, dynasties can be good for any sport. With the new rules and some of the outstanding talent coming along, we just may get to the point where a couple teams get to the point of being powerhouses, and their franchises find ways to keep them together. Who doesn't want to see the best of the best performing at a level that is otherworldly ( I can't stand basketball, but even I would tune in to the Jordan era Bulls); or want to see how their team measures up to the conference beast. Dynasties are also the best way to make stars that can help grow your sport. In todays sports world, thats an important factor.
So to answer your question, a little combination of both is whats best (wow what a cop out answer, sorry!).
Lots of great responses here, guys. Its just great to know that so many people still care so much about a great sport that is quickly being lost around here.
Point taken, Bob, but its not just the casual fans that I mean to target. Even in strong markets like Boston, Chicago, St. Louis & others. Some good, longtime fans are losing interest. It does no good for the league for these teams to put a crummy product on the ice. As a Ranger fan, I want the games against the Islanders, Devils, Flyers & "O 6" teams to mean something. I'm still gonna watch no matter what, but its not as fun when their fans aren't into it as much.
2007-12-21 05:26:21 · answer #1 · answered by kris d 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
1. Dynasty
2. Strange non-question
3. A couple of teams
4. Dynasties are better
5. Excellence sells. Look at boring golf. If Tiger's not playing, no ratings.
6. Most fans prefer parity. I call that mediocrity.
7. Powerhouse teams. Doesn't have to be same teams as they go through cycles but , sorry, I don't feel the buzz when TB or Car show up unlike the Oil in the '80s or even the teams that challenged them--the Lames, Flyers, B's, Isles.
2007-12-21 12:32:31 · answer #2 · answered by fugutastic 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Being an old bugger from Toronto I've had my share of Dynasties. The 60's were great. But seriously, The joke that is hockey today with the 3 point games means that all 30 teams are in the playoff hunt until game 80. The difference between 15th and 4th is a 3 game winning streak.
Meanwhile you can't close any gaps or pull away one point at a time. Make the weak market teams pull their weight or fold. I hate it when Toronto pays the other teams to get stronger and beats them with their own money.
2007-12-21 09:22:01 · answer #3 · answered by tomjc43 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have to agree that people like some dynasties. Even if you say oh well this team goes out of the playoffs after a round or two SEEING them there helps. Not as much in the NHL where half the league goes in, but hard to really cut down when you use a best of 7 series. I mean yeah it works in the NFL to use 6 and have the two getting a bye week, but how do you use a first round bye in the NHL. 4 teams wouldn't really be enough either. So back to the point. Give me two or three perennial playoff teams in each conference. Even if they aren't going to/winning the Stanley Cup every year as long as at least ONE goes to the finals(in each Conference) people will be happy. It would attract more fans that their little bandwagon feels good supporting this team that seems to be getting into the playoffs everywhere.
2007-12-21 06:06:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I despise parity. I would have preferred that the Flyers be the team winning the 8 Stanley Cups that the Habs and Isles procured in the mid 70's to early 80's. But dynasties don't happen a lot and I always thought of them as special in any sport. And if a dynasty exists, it says a lot for a team that can break a consecutive streak of championships enjoyed by another team. Much like the Flyers did to the Habs. Montreal could have won 7 in a row had Philly not won the two that they did.
2007-12-21 04:45:23 · answer #5 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This is a great question. I am enjoying how tight everything is in the league right now, it makes for much more interesting games. I wouldn't bet on hockey right now even if you gave me your money to do it.
I would have to go with parity because its good for the game and each teams fan base. If we want to see hockey prosper, it is hard to root for a dynasty, even if it was for your team.
The markets that aren't doing as well have zero chance for growth if they are a doormat to the juggernaut every year.
THAT SAID, I think the only time I ever watched a whole round of golf was when Tiger Wood tore apart the field in the final round of the masters and I am only now paying attention every Sunday to see how the Pats are doing ONLY because they are so dominant. I think people are intrigued by excellence, so a dynasty could bring in more casual fans.
Its tough to say, but I believe that I would vote for parity just because I am really enjoying the fact that Detroit's divison games are less than a lock anymore and that every team has to bring their A game in order to win. Interesting question again.
2007-12-21 08:41:00 · answer #6 · answered by Zam 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Finally, an opinion question, that still makes you think, not just guess. Being a Wings fan, I like the fact, that they are always a contender, even if the collapse once in a while. I enjoy seeing different teams, but I cant stand these teams that win a cup, then disappear off the face of the earth the next year. With that being said, I would go with dynasty, but I would enjoy watching other teams trying to de-thrown them.
2007-12-21 07:09:26 · answer #7 · answered by Puck me, puck u 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not 8 of 10 years.. maybe a 'dynasty' of 3 years.
(but then again it depends who that team to win 8 of 10 years is. ) i think the NHL needs at least a short dynasty. (I'd think they'd make more money the team & the NHL maybe some more fans would start watching..(but then again more likley BANDWAGONERS)
i think a few certain teams NEED to win back to back (well forget that let's just get at least start w/ one cup in my HOCKEY lifetime..)
being I didn't become a fan until my first game (& sporting event I went to) on March 94 it would be nice for me to see at least a back to back.. I jsut hope its a team I can tolerate.
not a (sorry to the fans) say .. Change myu name Change my log... DUCKS!
2007-12-21 14:06:27 · answer #8 · answered by red_e_freddie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Blues versus a different team every year. How's that for straddling the fence? LOL
Fans like parity, although it makes networks cringe. Everyone hates the Yankees because they win all the time. For the same reason, they love the Cubs because they're losers and want them to end their 100-year drought. Some cheered for the Rangers to end their streak in 1994. They rooted for Pittsburgh because they never won before. Just like this Century, people pulled for the teams that had never been there, instead of the powerhouses. Detroit was fun for a few years, then they became the Patriots and everyone started to despise them! Weren't you sick of losing to Montreal year after year?
2007-12-21 04:48:27 · answer #9 · answered by pricehillsaint 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I will be totally honest. If my team is the dynasty, I take the dynasty. Otherwise, give me the parity. I was thrilled to see the Ducks win the cup given that I knew some time in mid-October that we would not be discussing the Flyers in the playoffs.
2007-12-21 17:39:34 · answer #10 · answered by Lubers25 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋