Parity

[elocomotive]

So, I don't know if this was already discussed after the Stanley Cup, but we've now had an NHL-high 9 different champions over the past 9 seasons.

Outside of this recent parity, you would be hard pressed to find any 5-year span where there was not a repeat champion. In fact, NHL franchises have won either back-to-back Cups or 2 Cups in a 3-year span a total of 21 times. And the series in the Cup final have been closer as well. While we've had 5 finals go to game 7 in the last 9 years, you have to go back more than 30 years prior to that to tally up 5 finals that went the distance.

So a few questions...

Do you like the parity?
Does it make a more marketable product?
What are the odds we get a back-to-back champ again soon or is this largely a thing of the past?

(I figured it was something for us to talk about while a number of fans are holding their breathe on Parise and Suter)

 

[Trudem]

I loved the Wings dominating the Central year in and year out however it was kinda nice to see the Blues do well this year.

I think I like the parity.

 

[DChero]

I definitely prefer the parity. One of the biggest knocks on dynasty eras was that the league was extremely watered down. That's no longer the case, which is great for the game.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I like parody.

 

[mattola]

Do you like the parity? -

Yes I do. It really gives fan bases something to be excited about. You always think you have a chance. I miss the dynasties they were really really FUN to hate and despise because they were so good. but I would rather have parity although I believe that OTL gives false parity as (without looking at the standings of last year) what if the OTL is what put LA in the playoffs and the 8th seed? can you imagine how close they could have been to not even competing for the Cup and therefore not winning it? they deserve it 100% damn they were good but not season long good

Does it make a more marketable product? -

Yes but it also depends on the stars on those teams. does each team have a star they can market. and with the way the NHL controls marketing I can see that it would be done somewhat properly. I can't imagine the ISles controlling their own marketing 100% and being effective I think wang is a nut job.

What are the odds we get a back-to-back champ again soon or is this largely a thing of the past? -

Remote. I think that the parity is too rich and the coaching too strong. once a team wins all teams focus on that one team to be the ones to knock off the champs. they want to be able to be that team. all teams gunning for you make it hard.

I typed this whole answer not even looking at the screen or keyboard. lol


edit: corrected some bad spelling I blame on autocorrect

 

[elocomotive]

I think it makes more some exciting playoff series, but I wonder if it hurts ratings in the big picture for two reasons. (1) I wonder if the closer teams causes teams to play more defensive and adopt more defensive strategies which means less goals which means "it's less exciting" and fewer eyeballs stay with it. (2) Dynasties bring viewers. They polarize people who either love to watch greatness or love to cheer for the underdog to defeat that greatness. NBA Finals is a pretty good example with its highest ratings in almost a decade.

As a fan, I guess I enjoy that even if my team isn't that great, we have a shot at the playoffs. And once you get there, no sport has cinderella stories in the playoffs quite like hockey.

 

[DChero]

I think it makes more some exciting playoff series, but I wonder if it hurts ratings in the big picture for two reasons. (1) I wonder if the closer teams causes teams to play more defensive and adopt more defensive strategies which means less goals which means "it's less exciting" and fewer eyeballs stay with it. (2) Dynasties bring viewers. They polarize people who either love to watch greatness or love to cheer for the underdog to defeat that greatness. NBA Finals is a pretty good example with its highest ratings in almost a decade.

As a fan, I guess I enjoy that even if my team isn't that great, we have a shot at the playoffs. And once you get there, no sport has cinderella stories in the playoffs quite like hockey.

Sure that it wasn't just because the NBA is better at marketing their stars? Hell, they had the country convinced that the Thunder had a "big three" that was just as good as the Heat's!

 

[elocomotive]

Sure that it wasn't just because the NBA is better at marketing their stars?

Well, no, because I wasn't comparing it to other sports, I was comparing it to itself. The NBA will always market it's stars better than other team sports because (1) they spend nearly all the game on the court unlike every other sport where they are on the bench roughly half or more of the game, (2) their faces are not obscured by the game's equipment, and (3) individuals can have more impact on the results than in any other team sport.

But starketing probably does help with their product when you have the best player/most hated player in the Finals. (But this was also true last year)

 

[DChero]

Well, no, because I wasn't comparing it to other sports, I was comparing it to itself. The NBA will always market it's stars better than other team sports because (1) they spend nearly all the game on the court unlike every other sport where they are on the bench roughly half or more of the game, (2) their faces are not obscured by the game's equipment, and (3) individuals can have more impact on the results than in any other team sport.

But starketing probably does help with their product when you have the best player/most hated player in the Finals. (But this was also true last year)

I have four points to make here, but three of them are the same.

1) /Rep for Starketing.

2-4) I agree that basketball is a unique sport in that it takes one great player to turn a team from a bottom-feeder into a contender. However, the NHL has the opportunity to market there players that way, even though it's more of a stretch. The issue is that our fanbase is overly focused on historical players and we don't give the current guys a chance to measure up. We keep saying the there will never be another Gretzky, Lemieux or Orr, but the truth is that those players wouldn't live up to the hype in they had played in the modern era. This really hurts the NHL in attracting more casual fans because we downplay how great today's players are. This obviously leads into a separate topic, but you get it.

 

[dash]

Some people argue that with the salary cap, we've lost "elite" teams because you can no longer keep them together, but in a 30 team league, do we realy want to see the same 6-8 teams or so teams battling it out each and every season?!? Two weeks before the end of the regular season, the Kings weren't even in the playoffs and they go on to win the Cup. Isn't one of the main reasons we watch sports for the drama and unpredicatability?

 

[DChero]

Some people argue that with the salary cap, we've lost "elite" teams because you can no longer keep them together, but in a 30 team league, do we realy want to see the same 6-8 teams or so teams battling it out each and every season?!? Two weeks before the end of the regular season, the Kings weren't even in the playoffs and they go on to win the Cup. Isn't one of the main reasons we watch sports for the drama and unpredicatability?

If there was no salary cap, we wouldn't have more than 16-20 teams.

 

[dash]

If there was no salary cap, we wouldn't have more than 16-20 teams.

I think you're right (or the big market teams would have to pay a shitload in luxury taxes to help out the smaller markets). Either way, there's no way 30 teams would still be in the league (24 max would be my guess).

 

[DChero]

I think you're right (or the big market teams would have to pay a shitload in luxury taxes to help out the smaller markets). Either way, there's no way 30 teams would still be in the league (24 max would be my guess).

I think that we can safely drop the Thrashers, Coyotes, BJs, Predators, etc. Newer expansions wouldn't happen to the cities that wouldn't have the immediate market to keep up.

 

[elocomotive]

I think that we can safely drop the Thrashers, Coyotes, BJs, Predators, etc. Newer expansions wouldn't happen to the cities that wouldn't have the immediate market to keep up.

Oh, DC... I got some bad news for ya. You're going to want to sit down for this.

 

[Darkstone42]

I like the parity. You know, as long as the Penguins remain Cup contenders every year.

 

[elocomotive]

...The issue is that our fanbase is overly focused on historical players and we don't give the current guys a chance to measure up. We keep saying the there will never be another Gretzky, Lemieux or Orr, but the truth is that those players wouldn't live up to the hype in they had played in the modern era. This really hurts the NHL in attracting more casual fans because we downplay how great today's players are. This obviously leads into a separate topic, but you get it.

Excellent point. I agree. I actually think that if you look at the goals per era, that Ovechkin's 65 a few years back was comparable to Gretzky's 90+ and that Crosby would have point totals up in the ridiculous range with the Great One and Lemieux.

Some people argue that with the salary cap, we've lost "elite" teams because you can no longer keep them together, but in a 30 team league, do we realy want to see the same 6-8 teams or so teams battling it out each and every season?!? Two weeks before the end of the regular season, the Kings weren't even in the playoffs and they go on to win the Cup. Isn't one of the main reasons we watch sports for the drama and unpredicatability?

I think there are two parts to this puzzle. (1) I think that true hockey fans really appreciate and enjoy the parity and become more engaged in their teams. (2) I think the casual fan is much more likely to watch when you have a dynasty and greatness on the big stage. I've heard a number of sports analysts say "the hockey playoffs are just kind of random." And to a degree, they are right, and I think for whatever reason that takes some legitimacy away from the sport in some viewers eyes.

 

[DChero]

Excellent point. I agree. I actually think that if you look at the goals per era, that Ovechkin's 65 a few years back was comparable to Gretzky's 90+ and that Crosby would have point totals up in the ridiculous range with the Great One and Lemieux.

I think that you're right about this. To me, 100 pts is the new 150pts. Hell, it's hard to find a point-per-game forward anymore. The current guys are also shooting against more prepared netminders.

 

[Darkstone42]

I think that you're right about this. To me, 100 pts is the new 150pts. Hell, it's hard to find a point-per-game forward anymore. The current guys are also shooting against more prepared netminders.

The defensive systems are better, too.