View Single Post
Old
07-03-2012, 03:49 PM
  #90
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
#1, a few people on this site are the only people I see who are against the alignment. The new alignment would be great. My guess is you are too young to remember the rivalries in the 80's. The division rivalries were much more intense. You think Rangers-Isles, Rangers-Flyer is big now? Nothing compared to the 80's.

#2, the players rejecting it was nothing more than a negotiating ploy. If you really think the players are against it, you are crazy. The attitude was "reject it now, and then we will use it as a bargaining chip." The re-alignment will be in place for the 2013-14 season.
You're forgetting one important fact: there were only 21 teams in the "good old days." In a 80 game season you got to see all the rivalries--both within and outside the divsion.

In the "new" NHL the teams that used to be (assuming the new alignment actually happens) in the conference with the Rangers (Boston, Montreal, Buffalo,Toronto and Ottawa--the latter gaining in status since the two teams finally met in the playoffs) will only come to the Garden once a season, the extra game being replaced by the ability to see all the teams from the old "western" conference come every year.

Do you really think that seeing a team like Anaheim or Nashville or Columbus or Winnipeg or Dallas or Colorado every year is going to somehow create a real rivalry? I don't and I'm a hardcore fan who goes to many of those games during the season. The hockey may decent, but the atmosphere in the Garden is completely dead. There's no passion to see western conference teams.

While another significant increase in price, might force me to give up my seasons, having this re-alignment forced on me would probably get me to give them, even if the price went down (which it won't).

Brooklyn Ranger is online now   Reply With Quote