NHL "RBK EDGE" Jerseys-> opinions?

**Colin** · 14th September 07, 11:08 AM

That's probably the last time the NHL was smart enough to relocate a team to a Canadian city. It sure seems like Bettman has something against having teams in Canada. We may only represent 1/5 of the teams in the NHL, but the Canadian teams account for 1/3 of the revenue. Maybe one day they will stop trying to force hockey on an oversaturated US sports market and bring it back to the fans that really want it.

Seriously, we have a team in Arizona, 2 in Florida, 3 in California, and talk of a Vegas team (I can picture a hockey team called the Vegas Showgirls now), yet we have no teams left in the Canadian prairies or Maritimes where people can still play on outdoor ice for 5 months a year and they live and breathe hockey.

What can you do? Ever sport is now about the $$$$ rather than the fans.

**MacWage** · 14th September 07, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Colin

That's probably the last time the NHL was smart enough to relocate a team to a Canadian city. It sure seems like Bettman has something against having teams in Canada. We may only represent 1/5 of the teams in the NHL, but the Canadian teams account for 1/3 of the revenue. Maybe one day they will stop trying to force hockey on an oversaturated US sports market and bring it back to the fans that really want it.

Seriously, we have a team in Arizona, 2 in Florida, 3 in California, and talk of a Vegas team (I can picture a hockey team called the Vegas Showgirls now), yet we have no teams left in the Canadian prairies or Maritimes where people can still play on outdoor ice for 5 months a year and they live and breathe hockey.

What can you do? Ever sport is now about the $$$$ rather than the fans.

I understand.

The problem is that 30 teams just isn't ENOUGH to cover this large of a geographic expanse.
Teams are NEEDED, if the sport wants to cover a US market and a Canadian one. My issue with the move of the Flames was that it abandoned a GENERATION of potential fans. Many in the South have NO idea WHAT hockey even is. When I wear my NHL jerseys, people ask me if I am ON THE TEAM. In another decade there WILL be more Southern fans.
The problem with the Southern market is over saturation in a short period. With my apologies to Calgary, they SHOULD have gotten an expansion franchise to model on their own unique town.
The NHL should have "aided" Glen Ford and the rest of the group that sought to keep the Flames in Atlanta and worked a deal with Turner to broadcast games on TBS. People could have gotten "used to" the sport, THEN expand slower into the US, while keeping teams IN Canada. As it is now, there are many teams and not enough fans to adequately support them. EACH is FIGHTING for recognition in their own market.
The Atlanta and Southern news organizations SUDDENLY realized this year that Atlanta HAD an NHL team.

So, I blame the decisions made in 1980 and many between then and now for the problems the NHL is facing. They tried to resolve problems of their own creation in an all-out effort that alienated MANY of their own base fans, leaving many without teams.

In MY opinion, there SHOULD be 40-50 teams in 2 larger conferences (more along the Baseball model) with MORE teams in Canada and a more "even" distribution in the US. Now, I can't say which cities should lose their teams, but some cities have high PR and low attendance, while other have GREAT attendance and almost NO PR (like Atlanta, which has very high attendance with little to no local media support).

Just my own, half-informed opinion.

**macwilkin** · 14th September 07, 11:39 AM

Maybe one day they will stop trying to force hockey on an oversaturated US sports market and bring it back to the fans that really want it.

Hey, now...there are some of us down here who really want hockey! :mrgreen:

T.

**MacWage** · 14th September 07, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by cajunscot

Hey, now...there are some of us down here who really want hockey! :mrgreen:

T.

PS-> I typed my long post above WEARING the old maroon and navy Thrashers "dark" jersey. I am SO ready for this season to START already.
This hockey off-season is a KILLER!

**Barclay** · 14th September 07, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Colin

...yet we have no teams left in the Canadian prairies or Maritimes where people can still play on outdoor ice for 5 months a year and they live and breathe hockey.

It ain't the big-time pros, but there's still some kickin' QMJHL hockey in the Maritimes...PEI Rocket, Cape Breton Screaming Eagles, St. John Sea Dogs, and of course, last but not least, da' Mooseheads.

And talk about it NOT being about money...the b'ys get paid in stew fish and screech.

Speaking of...where's the new jersey for the Halifax Mooseheads, huh??

**kallen** · 14th September 07, 05:08 PM

Being a non-hockey person, really...I don't understand the game at all (I'm not Canadian so I guess thats it)...hit a puck...fight...hit a puck...fight...however I did check out the jerseys. (had a Vulcan moment)

Being an observer of the jerseys I can say that Dallas' home jersey really sux!!! My best friend is a huge Stars fan so I checked it out...it sux.

Panthers looked like a Jeff Gordon pit crew shirt. Penquins looked kind of "old school" but the dropped the "Pittsburgh" colors that a fellow Louisianaian made famous (Terry Bradshaw).

Now, for a question...why is there an H in the Montreal Canadians logo? Inside the big "C" there is an H...or is it something else?

**Colin** · 17th September 07, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by kallen

Now, for a question...why is there an H in the Montreal Canadians logo? Inside the big "C" there is an H...or is it something else?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Canadiens

Logo

Clockwise from top left: the current home, vintage and road jerseys used in the seasonOne of sports' oldest and most recognizable logos, the classic 'C' and 'H' of the Montreal Canadiens was first used together in the 1917-18 season before evolving to its current form in 1952-53. The 'H' does not stand for 'Habs' or Habitants, as this is a misconception stemming from an error by an English language newspaper reporter in the 1950s. It actually stands for 'Hockey', as in 'Club de Hockey Canadien', the official name of the team.

The first logo was a large green maple leaf with a white 'C' in 'Old English' script as all of the NHA O'Brien franchises had similar logos. As the team ownership changed, the logo evolved into today's famous logo.

After being bought in 1911 by George Kennedy, the logo was first changed to a star-like logo of the letters CAC, standing for Club Athletique Canadien. This was then changed to a large C, with an A inside.

After being bought by original Canadien player Leo Dandurant, the team regained their original name, Club de Hockey Canadien, and the H replaced the A. Thus the CH, standing for Club de Hockey Canadien (or CHC) logo was born.