The Mountain Man Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Click on the image to enlarge to view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mountain Man Posted September 12, 2015 Author Share Posted September 12, 2015 Im not very tech savvy...so i am struggling trying to get this posted nicely... help ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 None of the Euros and few, if any, Americans would be in the league.The CHL would also not be developing the Canadian talent to the extent it has.And we'd have a lot less to talk aboot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Im not very tech savvy...so i am struggling trying to get this posted nicely... help ? no worries, once you click on the attached image it is easily readable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 No Mason?No Simmonds The league would look like a fantasy hockey league and probably play like an All Star Game too. Hockey surely wouldn't be what it is today with only 6 teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The league wouldn't exist with only six teams. It would have folded awhile ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPuk Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 I just feel sorry for you folks who never saw the 6 team league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Came in here to say that the league and players wouldn't have developed remotely to the extent they have now, but have been beaten to the punch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The NHL would have ceased to exist. In my opinion the original 6 Cups are irrelevant. If it had stated only 6 many of us would never have heard of the one time in ancient history NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TropicalFruitGirl26 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 heh...yea, if the league still had only 6 teams, it would be pretty damned boring...........and that is aside from the logic already stated that the league wouldn't even exist today under those conditions. TBH, I never really understood the 'romance' some hockey fans have with Original Six teams.Ok, sure, they are the longest tenured, have the longest history, and were the ones who were there from the NHL's Day 1.Great. Fantastic. Outstanding.But it doesn't make them any "better" of an organization simply because of that. Maybe its because I started following the NHL in the 90's, maybe its because I am used to having about 30 teams, maybe its because I am originally from South-Of-The-Mason-Dixon, USA....but I can enjoy a Montreal vs NY Rangers game if both teams are competitive, but can find a Columbus vs Tampa Bay game equally, if not more compelling if they are just as competitive. The 'Original Six' label of a Mon v NYR game means nothing to me, if they are both terrible teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 heh...yea, if the league still had only 6 teams, it would be pretty damned boring...........and that is aside from the logic already stated that the league wouldn't even exist today under those conditions. TBH, I never really understood the 'romance' some hockey fans have with Original Six teams.Ok, sure, they are the longest tenured, have the longest history, and were the ones who were there from the NHL's Day 1.Great. Fantastic. Outstanding.But it doesn't make them any "better" of an organization simply because of that. Maybe its because I started following the NHL in the 90's, maybe its because I am used to having about 30 teams, maybe its because I am originally from South-Of-The-Mason-Dixon, USA....but I can enjoy a Montreal vs NY Rangers game if both teams are competitive, but can find a Columbus vs Tampa Bay game equally, if not more compelling if they are just as competitive. The 'Original Six' label of a Mon v NYR game means nothing to me, if they are both terrible teams. Fact! (I'll spare you from the animated GIF lol.) To me, the only added appeal of original six teams is that they have history associated with them. It's more interesting to me when teams with longer NHL histories face each other (in the playoffs at least) because you can look back at previous encounters and it may add some intrigue. The teams I don't like watching are teams located in cities where little to no fan interest exists because it bugs me to a certain extent that only one side cares about the game that is happening. When the Leafs play the Coyotes for example, and the Coyotes win (for argument sake), you have 20,000 disappointed fans in Toronto at the ACC, and another x million fans watching on TV in Ontario that are pissed, and then maybe 100 fans in Phoenix that actually bothered to watch the game on TV that are happy. So it's like one team is fighting for something and the other isn't. Would you "fight a battle" on behalf of people that didn't care whether you won or lost? I wouldn't. If that makes sense.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mountain Man Posted September 13, 2015 Author Share Posted September 13, 2015 my original post was to just look at the talent that could possibly exist if there were only 6 teams. I realize that there wouldnt be a league, etc etc. but it is just fun to see how much talent would be on each team and how much would not even be playing. Take it as fun guys and nothing serious. Btw if any of you are in the Bantam A league of the hockey pool...Im gonna kick your ass Best wishes, Kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 If there were only six teams in the NHL none of the top Europeans would be in it. The strongest league in the world would probably be somewhere on the other side of the Atlantic. Money talks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 my original post was to just look at the talent that could possibly exist if there were only 6 teams. I realize that there wouldnt be a league, etc etc. but it is just fun to see how much talent would be on each team and how much would not even be playing. Take it as fun guys and nothing serious. Btw if any of you are in the Bantam A league of the hockey pool...Im gonna kick your ass Best wishes, Kev Fun to think about but the reality is that some of the players that you think would be playing might be playing a different sport. There's no way to know what the level of talent would be if the league had never expanded beyond 6 teams. And if anyone wonders what fewer teams with a greater concentration of talent would be like, all they have to do is watch the Olympics. Canada, USA, Russia, Sweden at minimum would probably mop the ice with any original 6 team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPuk Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I don't understand why anyone would say that the NHL could not survive today with just 6 teams. Why not? (For the record I think 16 teams would be ideal.) Seems to me that the NHL did just fine up until expansion (actually, it was more like explosion ), allbeit with fewer objectionable billionaire owners, and I think they would do just fine without all the problem teams they have now, and so, by the way, would the game itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 @blupakYou cannot use pre-1970 time period "success" to gauge current. The fact of the matter is that increasingly for the last 40 years, revenue and interest is generated by television revenue and coverage, which is sustained by local fan interest, etc. If you only had six teams, you only have six fan bases (only four in the states) with any emotional tie to a team, have ever actually seen a live game, or would remotely care. Or even heard of it, for that matter. That circumstance would not generate any national coverage on any station. At the same time, six teams would limit big league jobs to roughly 120 positions. The average kid in the states and elsewhere (in the unlikely event he was even aware of the NHL) would not delude himself into aspiring to play in the NHL (an assertion supported by historical circumstantial fact). Additionally, there'd be absolutely no pay in it as the teams would have zero revenue. The NHL would have its oxygen supply cut off verses any other sport and cease to exist. I doubt they could continue even as a niche sport in such a circumstance. The expansion was necessary to maintain exposure, interest, and (most importantly) therefore, television coverage. The six team league is not an option and has not been for some time (this knowledge was the reason for expansion, not simply "eh, why not?"). It's expanded league or nothingPeople are saying it because it's inarguably the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TropicalFruitGirl26 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 @ruxpin Dude, you need to stop making so much sense.I am beginning to think some alien pod overtook the real Rux and replaced him with a logical replica. Does the irrational Rux show up when the season starts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Once again nixpur hits the proverbial nail on the head. If the NHL had never gone the expansion route they would the nichiest of niche leagues. There would be no network TV contract, and without that I would question whether the US based teams could even survive in today's economic landscape. I don't see how a team like the Rangers could afford the rent to play in Madison Square Garden. Same for the other US teams, and maybe the Canadian teams as well. But nature abhors a vacuum so if the NHL hadn't expanded the most likely thing is that another league would have started up (as the WHA eventually did) and the NHL would have been forced to adapt or die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 That circumstance would not generate any national coverage on any station.I might agree with the idea that "the game" would be purer and possibly "better" by a number of measures, but that "pure" game wouldn't, as you say, generate the interest necessary to develop the type of players we're seeing today, nor grab the attention of major Europeans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I might agree with the idea that "the game" would be purer and possibly "better" by a number of measures, but that "pure" game wouldn't, as you say, generate the interest necessary to develop the type of players we're seeing today, nor grab the attention of major Europeans. I would be inclined to agree with the first part. But I wonder. In theory, with only 120 players (give or take) one could argue that you would only see the very best players playing and, therefore, the game would be "purer" and the quality that much higher. But I would argue it would only be the 120 best players (give or take) available. You already touched on this with the end of your post with the "generate the interest necessary to develop..." I just wonder about the Mike Richters (arguably a bad example since he'd have been near the NY Rangers' market) or Mike Madanos or Steven Stamkos, etc that would never have been exposed to the NHL game to aspire to be a part of it. I agree with @JackStraw about the vacuum thing. If the NHL hadn't expanded, probably some other league would have taken its place and some other league (NAHANA) would now be randomly locking out its players and millions of fans flocking back each time despite being screwed in every orifice they own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Does the irrational Rux show up when the season starts? Blind squirrel and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Dude, you need to stop making so much sense.I am beginning to think some alien pod overtook the real Rux and replaced him with a logical replica. At the risk of being ripped into by Michael Stipe for using it without permission: It's the end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPuk Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 @ruxpin Are you Gary Bettman??? Food for thought for sure, but I don't care about any of the busines aspects of the game. I still say fewer teams would make a better NHL. If your take is correct, we need 60 teams, not 30.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TropicalFruitGirl26 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 @ruxpin Are you Gary Bettman??? Food for thought for sure, but I don't care about any of the busines aspects of the game. I still say fewer teams would make a better NHL. If your take is correct, we need 60 teams, not 30.... Meh...why stop there? What this league REALLY needs is 83 teams.That way, each team plays every other team ONCE in the schedule over the course of 82 games (they can coin flip the home/away splits), no one can cry about certain teams getting to play bottom feeders more, and the networks can promote this as "variety is the spice of life" campaign and EVERYONE is happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 @ruxpin Are you Gary Bettman??? Food for thought for sure, but I don't care about any of the business aspects of the game (or it's very existence, apparently). I still say fewer teams would make a better NHL. If your take is correct, we need 60 teams, not 30.... (this is silliness and certainly not my take. I'm hoping this was tongue-in-cheek since clearly there is a line between healthy and watered down. If still at six, the league simply does not exist. Period. It's not business aspects or anything else. It simply does not exist. At 60, you're watching Division III NCAA football talent masquerading as big league. 30 is already arguably too many, but talent supply is catching up. I don't like the current idea of expanding two more. But that's not my call.) I'm not a big fan of "logical extreme" rhetorical arguments. They're often silly and usually make it clear that the person using them doesn't understand (or refuses to) the arguments put forth. And that is exemplified by the "if your take is correct, we need 60 teams, not 30." That was not my take. But somehow the idea is that blowing up the argument regarding what actually has and does clearly exist to a preposterous extreme dismisses a factual argument based on realistic circumstances. "It's good to drink water to stay hydrated." "So, if your take is correct, you should drink 20 gallons an hour. That's stupid; you'd drown!" "What if the world didn't exist as it does and wasn't based on revenue or whether anyone could actually know the product existed." Okay, that's a nice "good ol' days" question and if that's the actual point to this exercise then I'm already bored with the subject and don't need to bother to continue. But if the question is actually "what if the league still had 6 teams," then the honest reality-based answer is: It would not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.