This gave the province of Ontario its second team; something that the city of Ottawa was thrilled about, but most Ontario locals were not. The Toronto Maple Leafs had been Ontario's only professional hockey team since 1927 (Though the Maple Leaf franchise under various names had been in Ontario since 1917).
The Maple Leafs won 11 Stanley Cups in the years between 1927 - 1967. This was in an NHL comprised of only 6 teams, which are now known as the "Original 6"; the Montreal Canadians, Boston Bruins, Detroit Red Wings, Chicago Blackhawks, New York Rangers, and the Maple Leafs.
In the season of 1967 - 1968, the league expanded, adding 6 new teams to double the NHL's size to 12 teams.
Since the expansion;
Montreal Canadians: 10 Stanley Cups, 12 Stanley Cup Final Appearances
Detroit Red Wings: 3 Stanley Cups, 4 Stanley Cup Final Appearances
Boston Bruins: 2 Stanley Cups, 4 Stanley Cup Final Appearances
New York Rangers: 1 Stanley Cup, 1 Stanley Cup Final Appearance
Chicago Blackhawks: 0 Stanley Cups, 1 Stanley Cup Final Appearance
Toronto Maple Leafs: 0 Stanley Cups, 0 Stanley Cup Final Appearances
Bitter much lately?
The Senators, who have only been in the league for 15 years, are now 4 wins away from winning a Stanley Cup. Where is the justice? Why should the fans that jumped ship from the province's original team, the Toronto Maple Leafs, be awarded with a Cup?
One year after the Ottawa Senators joined the league in the 1992 expansion, two more teams joined the league for the 1993 season; the Florida Panthers and the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim.
The Anaheim Ducks joined the Los Angeles Kings as the only other team in Southern California. Remember that 1967-68 expansion that made the NHL into 12 teams? One of those teams was the Los Angeles Kings. They were Southern California's only team for 26 years, and the entire state's only team for 24 (the San Jose Sharks joined the league in 1991).
Despite having a history rich with some of the greats to ever play the game, including the greatest of them all in Wayne Gretzky, the Kings were never able to win a Stanley Cup. In fact, they made only one Stanley Cup Finals appearance in the 1992 - 93 season; the season preceding the Ducks entering the league. They lost in 5 games to the Montreal Canadians.
It took the Ducks only 9 years to do what it had taken the Kings 25 years to do; make it to the Finals. The Ducks ended up losing the series, but they did win 3 games in the series, tripling the amount of wins the Kings have in Stanley Cup Finals history.
The Ducks, who have only been in the league for 14 years, are now 3 wins away from winning a Stanley Cup. Where is the justice? Why should the fans that jumped ship from Southern California's original team, the Los Angeles Kings, be awarded with a Cup?
Feeling the déjà vu?
Lets get one thing straight. The Ottawa Senators and the Anaheim Ducks deserve to be in the finals. Not only have their players worked as hard or harder than every other teams' in the league, but they also have been brilliantly run franchises. Ottawa has done an excellent job drafting and keeping talent, while the Ducks have not only done a good job drafting but have also made a number of brilliant transactions over the past few years to solidify them as legitimate contenders.
This isn't about the teams. Any Maple Leaf or Kings fan could tell you that they know the Senators and Ducks are great teams. It's the damn fans. Yes, many of them simply lived in the city; both Anaheim and Ottawa are large cities and of course hockey fans are going to be excited to get their own team. Then again, does a team being built in your front yard give you a great opportunity to abandon your current team just because a new one is closer? And what about all the bandwagon fans that simply hopped on for the ride when these teams started becoming playoff forces. You can't deny their presence. They make up a great deal of these young franchises fans. Why are Maple Leafs and Kings fans being punished for their loyalty, while Ducks and Senators fans are being rewarded for their infidelity?
Leafs and Kings fans have every right to be upset, in my opinion. But who should be angrier?
Kings fans. By a MILE.
"Why, Dave? Because you are a Kings fan?"
Actually, no. Two important reasons.
1) THE TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS HAVE HAD THEIR NAMES INGRAINED INTO THE STANLEY CUP 11 TIMES!
I understand that that isn't much condolence to those fans born in the last 40 years. Think it matters to me that the Raiders were great, once upon a time? We want results in the here and now. But whether it happened long ago or just yesterday, the Stanley Cup is eternal; once a team's name and roster is ingrained into the Cup, it stays there forever. The Maple Leafs have won the cup more than all other teams in the league with the exception of only the Montreal Canadians. No one can ever take those championships away from you. Even if the Sens go on to win 12 Stanley Cups before the Maple Leafs win another; and trust me, I know how bad that would hurt; it would never erase their legacy. A legacy that the Kings don't have. If the Ducks win the Stanley Cup first, it could be the Kings to win the next 3; but no one could ever take away the fact that the Ducks won a Stanley Cup before the Los Angeles Kings.
2) OTTAWA FANS ACTUALLY LOVE HOCKEY AND SUPPORT THEIR TEAM!
Here is an article on how little Southern California cares about the Ducks heading to the Stanley Cup Finals; Ducks aren't hot topic in town.
Meanwhile, celebrities and thousands of fans show up for this pep rally in Ottawa.
As if those two articles were needed to point out the obvious. But lets take a look at the numbers.
Team / League Standing /Fan Attendance Ranking / Average Attendance per home game:
2000-2001 Season:
Leafs / 14th / 5th / 19,257
Sens / 4th / 10th / 17,793
Kings / 13th / 17th / 16,057
Ducks / 26th / 28th / 13,499
2001-2002 Season:
Leafs / 3rd / 4th / 19,279
Sens / 14th / 15th / 16,919
Kings / 12th / 16th / 16,756
Ducks / 24th / 30th / 12,002
2002-2003 Season:
Leafs / 9th / 4th / 19,240
Kings / 18th / 12th / 17,569
Sens / 1st / 14th / 17,198
Ducks / 11th / 26th / 13,988 <----Year Ducks go to Stanley Cup Finals 2003-2004 Season:
Leafs / 5th / 3th / 19,376
Kings / 20th / 11th / 17,855
Sens / 6th / 13th / 17,758
Ducks / 22nd / 23rd / 14,987
2005-2006 Season:
Sens / 2nd / 5th / 19,474
Leafs / 18th / 6th / 19,408
Kings / 20th / 12th / 17,840
Ducks / 12th / 24th / 15,106 <---- Ducks go to Conference Finals 2006-2007 Season:
Leafs / 18th / 4th / 19,487
Sens / 9th / 5th / 19,372
Kings / 28th / 16th / 16,859
Ducks / 4th / 20th / 16,363
Despite the fact that the Kings were in a season long struggle to be the second worst team in hockey, Kings fans still paid MORE money to see MORE games than Ducks fans, who were in a season long struggle to be the BEST IN THE NHL!
Want to bring up the fact that the stadium the Ducks play in is smaller and can't seat as many people as Staples and the Canadian stadiums? Then you'll love the stat that going by percentage of seats sold, the Ducks ranked 17th in the league this year with a 95.3%. The team with the 4th best record in the league.
Want to bring up the fact that the culture is different, and that Canada loves hockey much more than the US does? Of course it does. That doesn't take away from the fact that subtracting the 6 Canadian teams from the totals, there were still 22, 24, 20, 17, 18, and this year 14 US cities that had more fans go out and support their team, INCLUDING Los Angeles, San Jose, Dallas, and Tampa Bay... really icy climates, perfect for hockey I'm sure.
Face it: Ducks fans suck, and they don't deserve the satisfaction of seeing their team win the cup.
I've been asked, Dave, what about the true fans? The ones that were there from the beginning? Kids raised Ducks fans, etc? And truthfully, there are a few of those types of fans out there that deserve to see their team win as much as anyone. Then again, I know what its like to be thrown in with a big fan stereotype; again, I bring up that I'm a Raiders fan. That means I must be a criminal? A gangster? A freak? Violent? Of course not. But that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that they exist.
I'm a fan of my teams because I'm loyal to those teams, not to the other fans that support them. And I can almost guarantee you that when you come across one of those rare, true Duck fans, that didn't abandon the Kings and actually loves and supports the team, they'll agree with everything I've said about 95% of their fellow fans.
Go Senators. For the love of hockey, go Senators.
4 comments:
In regards to the Kings being the only team in California for 24 years that is incorrect. The Oakland/California Seals were in the league throught the 75-76 season
Great catch. One of the problems with writing an entry at 5 in the morning (yes, I know it says 8:44 PM, but thats just when I opened it up... didn't start it until 5 AM) are the mental slip ups. Thank you, Anonymous, I will correct that error.
Okay, Vegas, I just want to know - in your mind - how long would a team like the Ducks or the Senators have to exist for the fans there no root for their team without charges of sports-infidelity? Think about what things were like 14 years ago when the Ducks came into the NHL.
For example, my mom is from Kansas City. She's a die-hard Chiefs fan and remembers their glory days of the late 1960s when they went the first- and fourth-ever Super Bowls. But she moved to Dallas in 1979 and after a while became a Dallas Cowboys fan. Sure, if the Cowboys play the Chiefs, she's going to root for KC -- no doubt about it.
However she had no problem cheering on the Cowboys when they went to three Super Bowls in four years during the 1990s (roughly 14 years after she got to Dallas). Considering the Cowboys didn't play the Chiefs in any of those three Super Bowls (all of which, they won, I just have to throw that in), would my mom have committed sports-infidelity by rooting for Big D in those games?
And if so, then how long would she have to live in Dallas to officially adopt the Cowboys as a "secondary team"?
Now, in the case that you feel this is not a case of sports-infidelity, then what is the statute of limitations on new teams and getting a chance to root for them? I know that it's a little different because the Kings and Ducks not only share a market, but are in the same division. Does that division rivalry offset the ability for locals to root for the so-called "home team" when they advance as far as the Stanley Cup Finals?
I can't answer that, considering the fact that its just one man's opinion anyway, the sports infidelity claim would have to be brought up in a large forum to iron out its details. I really shouldn't be the police of what is right or wrong in being a fan.
One thing is for sure; what your mother is doing is absolutely completely different.
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with it. Lots of people have other teams that they like after their favorite team. The fact that the Chiefs and Cowboys not only don't share location or the same division, but in fact aren't even in the same CONFERENCE, makes it very easy to support her decision. In the case that someone takes on a team that isn't in their own division; especially if its due to the fact that they live in the city the team plays; it makes perfect sense.
Dropping your team out of convenience because a new team moved in closer is different than what your mom is doing.
Dropping your team because you just want a change is different.
Dropping your team because there is a better one you'd rather follow instead is different.
Decide for yourself which are okay and which are not.
Post a Comment