I understand that Nick Kypreos is a pretty passionate guy, but I don't think I'm whining. Or am I? It doesn't matter, I'm just proud of Nick that he could write an article - if you believe that he did it by himself. I think he had help, he sure ain't (yes - i wrote "ain't") no Chris Shultz.
It's pretty obvious that Nick had somebody read some of these blog posts to him. He doesn't come across as being somebody who would read a, um... anything.
Here's a quick rebuttal to Nick, that he'll probably have that same person read to him:
The problems started with expansion. The NHL started to expand in 1991, and continued to add teams over the next decade or so - Columbus joined the NHL in 2000 as the last expansion team of the era. Prior to expansion, the NHL was ruled by speed, scoring and saves. The NHL changed during the expansion years to allow the new teams to compete with the established teams. Would an owner who just paid 50 or 80 million dollars want to have their new toy get broken 82 times every year? Would they want to have their new hockey team lose every game by lopsided scores? They dreaded becoming the 2009-2010 Toronto Maple Leafs. So what was the answer?
Create conditions during gameplay that gave less talented teams the ability to keep the score close. Sensible, except it makes for boring hockey. What can we look at as evidence?
* Don't call so many penalties for obstruction.
* Game Management by referees. See upcoming blog.
* Lou
* Gary Bettman's repeated explanation that he believes exciting hockey is dictated by the score of the game. He would smugly cite the close score of the game, instead of talking about the exciting plays or great flow. That's because there were no exciting plays or great flow to games. We're actually still waiting for that to return.
Nick, you apparently subscribe to the old adage "If something ain't (!) broke, don't fix it". It is 'broke'. You just can't read the signs.
