View Single Post
06-21-2013, 02:36 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Doakes View Post
The Rangers never had a truly iconic player.
There was no Orr, Hull, or Howe.
Wasn't a truly dominant era.

In the US, the Rangers all things equal have the second biggest following after Detroit. When the Rangers won the cup in 1994 they drew on the road and on TV Yankee like support.

I think it is completely unfair to 2013 act and treat the Rangers as the ugly duckling of the original six.
I'd like to see how the Bruins would be followed if they won ONE division in twenty years (oh wait, back pre -2008 they couldn't sell out playoff games) or the Hawks (oh wait...again pre 2009 the madhouse was half full).

Give the Rangers a consistent contender and recent cup champ and just watch how their ratings explode and how the league does even better.

Doakes I know you're getting a lot of flack on here about your I will meet you halfway on most of your stuff. I disagree a little on the player side. They did have Messier for that run in the early years albeit at the end of his prime....The Rangers were the "team" along with Detroit that was a huge foundation block for ratings for the NHL in the 90's. It would be interesting to see if the Rangers did have the grade A star power like Pittsburgh has.....and a couple finals runs in their back pocket.

Now if you look at Boston. They don't really have any flat out big "stars" they have some damn good hockey players, but nobody that transcends outside of their city or reaches out to casual-non-casual fans. Now I agree Boston did win a cup and stuff.

It was a little disappointing last year to see in the Eastern Finals that they couldn't out do. Boston/TB in the ratings and little disappointing this year. I still believe and hope New York can turn in a high-calibre team. Cause it would only benefit hockey and the league general.

showstopper99 is offline   Reply With Quote