Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Further Thoughts On The Decline of The Big 3
Having lived around LA, Chicago, and New York, I'd like to make some more insights about those teams and how they connect to the fate of the league.
I've been harping on people for making arguments absent data lately, so I will have to qualify this as speculation, and, if someone can prove me wrong, I will retract it. Anyway, here goes...
To a large extent, these three cities are trend makers. Especially LA, the entertainment capital. NY does its fair share of culture creation, and so does Chicago, if to a lesser extent. Now, New Yorkers may have a different kind of disdain for New Jersey than Angelinos do for Orange County (might be slightly more like Long Island in that regard), but no matter what you call the team (ahem, Arte Moreno) Angelinos and New Yorkers are not going to root for the Ducks or Devils, even though they are quality teams and close by.
So, in some sense, for the last roughly 15 years, neither city has had a team generating any buzz in its main trendsetting space. Neither has Chicago.
The Rangers won a Cup in 1994, the Kings were in the finals the year before, 1993, and the Hawks the year before that, 1992. The Kings have made it to the second round once since then. The Rangers were in the Conference final in 1997, and were swept in 2006, their only other playoff year. The Hawks have made the playoffs only once since 1998.
These teams also lost their star players associated with their glory years. The Kings lost Gretzky; the Rangers, Messier; the Hawks, Roenick and Chelios.
Different kinds of incompetent management have ruined all three teams. In Chicago, home games aren't allowed on TV by Bill Wirtz, the owner. A series of bad owners has plagued the Kings, who finally have decent management in Dean Lombardi. In New York, the team has made a series of terrible high priced free agent acquisitions in its vain attempts to prevent rebuilding. Only now is it building a small core of competent from-the-farm players.
In this same timespan, the NHL has suffered dramatically in loss of popularity. I can't remember the last time I saw a hockey reference in a regular movie or TV show--and they used to be somewhat regular.
I'm not saying this is the only thing ailing the league, but fixing it would go a long way to improving the fate of the game in the US (I still believe that keeping the game in Canada in shape is the #1 priority, though). All three of these places (yes, even LA) have proven capable of being excellent hockey markets.
It can be done, but a lot of heads will need to roll in Chicago and New York, and Lombardi will have to repeat his prior successes in LA.
POST-SEASON UPDATE: The Rangers drew some interest in their run to the second round, but I'm not sure it added up to much. California's interest in hockey can't be hurt by the Ducks winning the Cup, even if it only amps up LA fans to Napoleon syndrome interest.
I've been harping on people for making arguments absent data lately, so I will have to qualify this as speculation, and, if someone can prove me wrong, I will retract it. Anyway, here goes...
To a large extent, these three cities are trend makers. Especially LA, the entertainment capital. NY does its fair share of culture creation, and so does Chicago, if to a lesser extent. Now, New Yorkers may have a different kind of disdain for New Jersey than Angelinos do for Orange County (might be slightly more like Long Island in that regard), but no matter what you call the team (ahem, Arte Moreno) Angelinos and New Yorkers are not going to root for the Ducks or Devils, even though they are quality teams and close by.
So, in some sense, for the last roughly 15 years, neither city has had a team generating any buzz in its main trendsetting space. Neither has Chicago.
The Rangers won a Cup in 1994, the Kings were in the finals the year before, 1993, and the Hawks the year before that, 1992. The Kings have made it to the second round once since then. The Rangers were in the Conference final in 1997, and were swept in 2006, their only other playoff year. The Hawks have made the playoffs only once since 1998.
These teams also lost their star players associated with their glory years. The Kings lost Gretzky; the Rangers, Messier; the Hawks, Roenick and Chelios.
Different kinds of incompetent management have ruined all three teams. In Chicago, home games aren't allowed on TV by Bill Wirtz, the owner. A series of bad owners has plagued the Kings, who finally have decent management in Dean Lombardi. In New York, the team has made a series of terrible high priced free agent acquisitions in its vain attempts to prevent rebuilding. Only now is it building a small core of competent from-the-farm players.
In this same timespan, the NHL has suffered dramatically in loss of popularity. I can't remember the last time I saw a hockey reference in a regular movie or TV show--and they used to be somewhat regular.
I'm not saying this is the only thing ailing the league, but fixing it would go a long way to improving the fate of the game in the US (I still believe that keeping the game in Canada in shape is the #1 priority, though). All three of these places (yes, even LA) have proven capable of being excellent hockey markets.
It can be done, but a lot of heads will need to roll in Chicago and New York, and Lombardi will have to repeat his prior successes in LA.
POST-SEASON UPDATE: The Rangers drew some interest in their run to the second round, but I'm not sure it added up to much. California's interest in hockey can't be hurt by the Ducks winning the Cup, even if it only amps up LA fans to Napoleon syndrome interest.
Labels: blackhawks, Kings, rangers
// posted by Rick @ 8:13 AM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]