jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (11/19/85)
> Since the four charter members of the NHL were all from Canada, does the > word 'National' in 'NHL' imply Canada? I'm willing to wager that most > Americans believe that 'National' stands for U.S. > > If this truly is Canada's league, how come the Blues weren't allowed to > go to Saskatoon? Is the U.S. running a Canadian league? How did this > evolve? It seems to me that the league is now a joint Canadian/American venture, and to say that it's Canada's league is not really appropriate. Anyway, how things got started and evolved may be interesting, so here's a little history lesson (it's all from memory, so I'm not certain about the details, but the basic facts are correct): The NHL was formed in 1917, out of the National Hockey Association (NHA), which had been around since about 1910. The owners of the NHA teams didn't like the owner of the Toronto team, and they wanted to get rid of him. NHA laws said they couldn't kick him out of the league, so they formed the new league, pulled their teams out of the NHA and entered them in the NHL, and they awarded the Toronto NHL franchise to somebody else. (Maybe the NHL owners should try something like that now :-) ) The first NHL teams were the Montreal Wanderers, the Montreal Canadiens, the Ottawa Senators and the Toronto Arenas, who later became the St. Pats (my grandmother remembers going to their games) and in the mid-1920's the Maple Leafs. The Quebec Bulldogs were another NHA team that wanted to join the NHL, but they couldn't get things together in time for the first season, so they joined the NHL in 1918. I believe there was also a NHA team in Renfrew (a small town up the river a bit from Ottawa) which decided to fold instead of joining the new league, and an Ontario-based military team that had to withdraw because they got called overseas. I guess this means that the "National" meant Canada, but it was never really a national Canadian league because all the teams were from the same part of the country, and at the same time, there was another professional league, the Pacific Coast Hockey League, that was composed mainly of teams from Western Canada, though there was at least one American team (in Seattle). The PCHL was regarded as being pretty well the equal of the NHL; in fact, for several years, the NHL champ had to play the winner of the PCHL for the Stanley Cup, and the PCHL occasionally won. However, in the mid or late 1920's, the PCHL folded, and many of its players and executives came east to join the NHL, which decided that with all these extra hockey people available, the time was right to expand to the US. The expansion teams included the New York Rangers, Chicago Black Hawks, Pittsburgh Pirates, Detroit Falcons, who later became the Red Wings, and maybe the Montreal Maroons and Boston Bruins, though it seems to me that they came in a year earlier than the others. A couple of years later, the Hamilton team, which had moved from Quebec, became the New York Americans, who gave the NHL a team with very fancy uniforms, and an American majority for the first time. That American expansion was the best thing that happened to the NHL. It began to prosper and it gained the strength and stability it needed to survive the depression, though the league did lose three of its ten teams then (Pittsburgh after moving a couple of times, Ottawa, and the Maroons). The Americans folded during World War II leaving the league with what is now called the "original six" teams, two from Canada, four from the US, and still none from anywhere west of Chicago. Clarence Campbell, a Canadian, probably remembered how much the first US expansion helped the league, so he ignored Canada in the 1967 expansion, which was his attempt to make hockey a major North American sport like football and baseball. It took the World Hockey Association to make the NHL realize that Canada was the best place to put new hockey teams, since three of the four WHA survivors were Canadian (Edmonton, Winnipeg and Quebec), but I think most NHL people believe that the last Canadian market was taken when they moved the Flames to Calgary. Saskatoon was shot down because there just aren't enough people there. It wasn't a case of the Americans ganging up against the Canadians either, because the most vocal person against the move was Toronto's Harold Ballard. (He has influence over some of the American owners, so you might even say that he personally kept Saskatoon out of the NHL.) Quebec City doesn't have a much bigger population, but there are a lot of towns near Quebec from which to draw fans, while Saskatoon is much more isolated. Still, I doubt that Quebec would have been given a NHL team if it hadn't come in from the WHA. Because of the Nordiques' success though, I think Hamilton has a chance of landing a team. I'm certain they could support one, especially if they get an established team that's better than the Leafs. Questions and comments are encouraged, as always. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
absary@watmath.UUCP (Al Sary) (11/19/85)
In article <1732@dciem.UUCP> jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) writes: > ... >Because of the Nordiques' success though, I think Hamilton has a chance of >landing a team. I'm certain they could support one, especially if they get an >established team that's better than the Leafs. > Especially new that really nice arena they have; I really doubt they'll be able to land a team though. Maybe if one of the weaker American teams threatens to fold unless they can move somewhere else. (Come to think of it, there seems to be a rule in the NHL that a team can't fold, or something like that). There seems to be a lot of conservative people governing the NHL who really oppose any change. I really don't see any expension teams in the near future. There is also a lot of bureaucracy in pro sports nowdays; just look at the CFL - they have trouble changing from 16 to 18 games a year, because the players oppose the move; or baseball - the umpires threatened to strike (or something like that) if the playoff series was changed from best of 5 to best of 7 (I know these are not quite hockey topics). One more problem with Hamilton is I wonder if there is anybody willing to put up the kind money a team would require. And I am not talking about the first few years when they may have all season tickets sold (?), but later in case the team isn't performing as well, like the Leafs now. A lot of hockey fans don't pay hundreds of dollars to see a strugling hockey team (especially when they can go see the Leafs). (Harold Ballard would oppose a team in Hamilton I am sure).
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (11/20/85)
In article <161@watmath.UUCP> absary@watmath.UUCP (Al Sary) writes: > >One more problem with Hamilton is I wonder if there is anybody willing to put >up the kind money a team would require. Yes, there is. At least three willing owners. Their names are Molson's, Labatt's and Carling O'Keefe. >(Harold Ballard would oppose a team in Hamilton I am sure). Pal Hal has said he will vote for a team in Hamilton *IF* the City of Hamilton renovates Ivor Wynne Stadium where his beloved CFL team, the Tiger-Cats, play. \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen I'm all lost in the Supermarket I can no longer shop happily I came in here for that special offer Guaranteed personality (c) The Clash, 1979