If you don't like the parity minus well go watch basketball.
I love it, the great teams will make the playoffs year in and year out- and be up against the "lesser" teams, but those lesser teams still have a shot, which is how it should be. You have to go out and play your best hockey in the playoffs, and if you don't you'll be heading home.
Parity has its pluses and minuses. The good side is there's a lot of great, competitive games and series, with lots of different teams contending for championships.
The downside is you no longer get those "superteam" matchups, with two powerhouses slugging it out. Many of those meetings are among the most memorable in sports history, even though they often rolled over several teams to get to that point. Even when they roll teams, it's often an impressive demonstration of supreme ability, which has its place in sports as well.
The anticipation of two all-time caliber teams duking it out is fantastic; like in the 80s when you could see the Celtics-Lakers dynastic teams on a collision course, or the Islanders-Oilers back then, or even like the Wings-Avs in the 90s. And on the occasions where they actually get upset before meeting each other, it's REALLY an upset of historic significance. And a Cinderella run was truly an unexpected thing ... when the North Stars made the Finals in '91 despite a losing record, it was far more shocking than any low-seeded runs we've seen recently. 8th seeds don't suck these days.
And taken too far, parity can get really boring ... the NBA in the 70s saw a bunch of teams win one championship each, but it's actually among the most forgettable eras in NBA history. Every team just seems kind of "samey."
What sucks about non-parity though is when only ONE team is at the dynastic level, unchallenged. Then it gets really boring. But if you have at least two, it can make for compelling viewing.
Despite the fact the league had 21 teams for over a decade before Bettman expanded to Tampa, Florida, Anaheim, San Jose and Ottawa? And then we didn't get a cap until a dozen years later?
Point of clarification, otherwise known as an epic fail:
All of the aforementioned teams were granted before Gary Bettman took over the commissioner's office. San Jose, Ottawa and Tampa Bay were granted during John Ziegler's tenure; the Ducks and Panthers were granted while Gil Stein and Bruce McNall ran the League.
I like the fact that there is parity...glad to see every team has a chance to make it to the playoffs...each and every year you can see that this could happen...all fanbases would be happy with this, I would think?
So two years ago you didn't think your Habs were complete underdogs vs the capitals. That was clearly and underdog series that was won. Or that same year when the avs played the sharks.
If you don't like the parity minus well go watch basketball.
I love it, the great teams will make the playoffs year in and year out- and be up against the "lesser" teams, but those lesser teams still have a shot, which is how it should be. You have to go out and play your best hockey in the playoffs, and if you don't you'll be heading home.
I saw what you did there!
I'm not sure what is funnier in this thread. The 'Minus Wells', or the OP 'agreeing with the OP'.
I know it's the playoffs, and it's hard to remember as far back as two to three weeks ago, but the league has 30 teams, and there are a ton of weak sisters in the mix. Parity? Perhaps, but only among a group of 10-15 teams.
In the Original 21 of the 80s, a playoff mix of 16 quality teams might have screamed parity, out of 21. Yet that was also the era of utterly meaningless regular seasons, where it seemed every division's single crap team was a foregone conclusion as early as October (except in the six-team Patrick, where the teams slogged it out to make the playoffs).
In the 30-team league, there is ample disparity. We simply don't see it at the end of April, when half the league has already been sliced off the bottom. It's a cutthroat race to make the playoffs now, and claw for seeding.
The NHL playoffs are the greatest theater the league has to offer. The 2012 edition has been phenomenal. This backlash smacks of entitled fans of traditional power teams, who are used to getting their way, seeing the 'natural order of things' turned on its ear this year.
I know it's the playoffs, and it's hard to remember as far back as two to three weeks ago, but the league has 30 teams, and there are a ton of weak sisters in the mix. Parity? Perhaps, but only among a group of 10-15 teams.
In the Original 21 of the 80s, a playoff mix of 16 quality teams might have screamed parity, out of 21. Yet that was also the era of utterly meaningless regular seasons, where it seemed every division's single crap team was a foregone conclusion as early as October (except in the six-team Patrick, where the teams slogged it out to make the playoffs).
In the 30-team league, there is ample disparity. We simply don't see it at the end of April, when half the league has already been sliced off the bottom. It's a cutthroat race to make the playoffs now, and claw for seeding.
The NHL playoffs are the greatest theater the league has to offer. The 2012 edition has been phenomenal. This backlash smacks of entitled fans of traditional power teams, who are used to getting their way, seeing the 'natural order of things' turned on its ear this year.
Completely agree with most of this. I don't think it's a "backlash" cause not many people agree with the OP. But there have been big upsets before this, didn't edmonton knock the red wings out of the first round when they got to the finals in 2006? Heck, the sabres were a 7 seed when they made their run in 99. some of it is getting hot at the right time, some of its matchups. but it's definitely not a bad thing when almost every series in the playoffs is competitive.
It's funny the Premier League in the UK is massively successful and it has about as much parity as an olympic women's hockey game. Something like 4 teams in the entire league have ever won the championship. The reason for that is the Brits are bigtime soccer fans, much like hockey in Canada.
The NHL needs parity because Americans in general are not hockey fans. Yes they will support a winner or contender but they will not support bad teams. Even the so called strong hockey markets suffer from this. Look at attendance numbers when Boston, Chicago, and Detroit had bad teams.
Parity is needed but stacked teams were fun to watch.
It's funny the Premier League in the UK is massively successful and it has about as much parity as an olympic women's hockey game. Something like 4 teams in the entire league have ever won the championship. The reason for that is the Brits are bigtime soccer fans, much like hockey in Canada.
EPL is bankrupt, just like MLB will be in a few years. Get over with it...
Of course, Leafs fans would like to be Manchester United/Yankees, while Habs fans would like to be Chelsea/Boston Red Sox, but it doesn't werk that way. Wanna be competitive ? Employ competitive front office, instead of throwing money on biggest stars.
The NBA and NFL have power houses who demolish, and are sure bets.
Why have that in the NHL.
Only sure bet we had was St. Louis, and it was stil good hockey.
Yes the NFL has its tiers but you cant say much about powerhouses that are sure bets. Look at Phily "the dream team" who went 8-8, also look at the Giants whom again were predicted to not make the playoffs again and yet beat the "powerhouses" of Green Bay and New England....again to capture the Superbowl for the second time in 5 years with suposidely sub-par teams.
I cant talk about the NBA because I stopped watching basketball when Ewing left the Knicks.
One way to eliminate the randomness of "whoever has a hot week and a half wins" is to cut most of the playoffs. Maybe they should only have a 7 game series between nr 1 in the east and the west. Another good thing about that would be that the regular season would matter much more to more teams, and you'd get a higher level of play, both because of higher game importance and because the 82 game season could be spread out over another month to give the players more energy.
It's funny the Premier League in the UK is massively successful and it has about as much parity as an olympic women's hockey game. Something like 4 teams in the entire league have ever won the championship. The reason for that is the Brits are bigtime soccer fans, much like hockey in Canada.
The reason for that has absolutly nothing to do with whether the British are bigtime soccer fans or not. I have no idea how anyone could even think that, as there is no connection between the two.
It has a lot to do with the sharing of league-wide revenue in the Premier League and even more with UEFA screwing up the whole European market by increasing the size of the Champions League, handing an ungodly amount of money to those teams who participate in it, while giving a pitiful amount to those who participate in the other European competition. Up until fairly recently, the winner of the UEFA-Cup/Europa League made less money than a team that failed to win a single game in the Champions League, that's disgraceful.
I don't see what's supposed to be the problem. Teams still can be great for a long period of time, you just need smart management and players who want to play together. Beyond that, you can count the number of teams who spend up to this years cap in the season before the lockout on one hand, and it's even less if you go back one or two years further. Yes, average salaries increased by quite a bit, but it's not like teams can't afford to have lots of great players.
