Doesn't this point kind of contradict your previous one about the math?
American teams win 10 in a row, the odds the next year are still 78% that an american team will win again.
Is it time for a Canadian only professional hockey league?
- Thread starter sawchuk1971
- Start date
American teams win 10 in a row, the odds the next year are still 78% that an american team will win again.
KnightofBoston
Registered User
Bruins have won once in the last like 60 friggan years
New York hasnt won since 94
Isles since the 80's
Nashville has never won, snt louis once, florida never, dallas once in 99, anaheim once in 2007, san jose never, carolina once in 2006, atlanta never and then moved to winnepeg, arizona never, buffalo never, flyers havent since like 75 iirc, columbus never, detroit hasnt in 20 years...
the issue is sample sizes and the number of variables that change every single year
more american teams lose every year than canadian teams, and plenty never have won before. If taxes were a significant factor, you'd see more championships in dallas, the panthers would have made the dance more often, atlanta wouldn't have failed, nashville would have won by now, carolina would have gone on more runs etc
in the end, you need to have a really well managed team and hit a streak of luck on top of it. things just have to go right for you
The bruins very very narrowly avoided elimination several times against montreal in 2011
Marchand has one more second on the clock and probably ends it in game 5 and we're talking about a battle between them and carolina right now (sorry leaf fans but I think we can safely say toronto would not have beaten boston this year had they met)
it's a wild wild ride and probably not the sport you want to follow if you put too much stock into your one out of 32 teams favorite to win every year
New York hasnt won since 94
Isles since the 80's
Nashville has never won, snt louis once, florida never, dallas once in 99, anaheim once in 2007, san jose never, carolina once in 2006, atlanta never and then moved to winnepeg, arizona never, buffalo never, flyers havent since like 75 iirc, columbus never, detroit hasnt in 20 years...
the issue is sample sizes and the number of variables that change every single year
more american teams lose every year than canadian teams, and plenty never have won before. If taxes were a significant factor, you'd see more championships in dallas, the panthers would have made the dance more often, atlanta wouldn't have failed, nashville would have won by now, carolina would have gone on more runs etc
in the end, you need to have a really well managed team and hit a streak of luck on top of it. things just have to go right for you
The bruins very very narrowly avoided elimination several times against montreal in 2011
Marchand has one more second on the clock and probably ends it in game 5 and we're talking about a battle between them and carolina right now (sorry leaf fans but I think we can safely say toronto would not have beaten boston this year had they met)
it's a wild wild ride and probably not the sport you want to follow if you put too much stock into your one out of 32 teams favorite to win every year
Culture, media, and fans. Because hockey is so big in the country, the pressure to win is at an all-time high and that pressure leads GMs and other front-office staff to make risky and potentially foolish decisions for the sake of the pressure to "win" as soon as possible.
Another aspect is that a lot of these Canadian teams have old-boy gangs that went back to Canada after their playing days and eventually got into roles due to connections and not due to talent. Think about how many times these Canadian teams have done re-re-re-rebuilds due to hiring just rubbish personnel in prime positions? The Oilers were rebuilding for 15 years before gift-wrapped McDavid. Canucks did make a great core and just barely lost (with injuries playing a big part). Toronto was the only team that properly rebuild and actually built a very solid core (at least on paper). If more Canadian teams forsake the pressure and desire to win by spending the time to accumulate draft picks, draft high, develop, and create a solid core to build around. Players, regardless of location are more likely to stay if there is a winning culture. Colorado is a small market in terms of the NHL, but have been able to keep more players than the likes of Edmonton or Calgary and winning is a big reason why. I would say though that everything in this paragraph is probably the most important reason why Canadian teams haven't been able to win.
Next is the location aspect and one of the reasons why a lot of the teams are sort of irrelevant on the national spectrum. A percentage of non-Canadian players don't really want to stay in Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, or Winnipeg. Hell, even some Canadian players didn't want to stay unless overpayment which happened to Darnell Nurse. It's one of the reasons why the Jets won't really be able to keep talent because nobody wants to stay half of the year in -25 C temps. The percentage of Stamkos' staying in Tampa or Dallas is much higher than DeBrincats' staying in Ottawa. More options and quicker years towards free agency allow players to go where they want and the majority of the time those are big markets in big cities like NY, Chicago, Montreal, and Toronto, which then got expanded by California, the Atlantic coast, and warmer weather where people are naturally drawn to.
Another aspect is that a lot of these Canadian teams have old-boy gangs that went back to Canada after their playing days and eventually got into roles due to connections and not due to talent. Think about how many times these Canadian teams have done re-re-re-rebuilds due to hiring just rubbish personnel in prime positions? The Oilers were rebuilding for 15 years before gift-wrapped McDavid. Canucks did make a great core and just barely lost (with injuries playing a big part). Toronto was the only team that properly rebuild and actually built a very solid core (at least on paper). If more Canadian teams forsake the pressure and desire to win by spending the time to accumulate draft picks, draft high, develop, and create a solid core to build around. Players, regardless of location are more likely to stay if there is a winning culture. Colorado is a small market in terms of the NHL, but have been able to keep more players than the likes of Edmonton or Calgary and winning is a big reason why. I would say though that everything in this paragraph is probably the most important reason why Canadian teams haven't been able to win.
Next is the location aspect and one of the reasons why a lot of the teams are sort of irrelevant on the national spectrum. A percentage of non-Canadian players don't really want to stay in Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, or Winnipeg. Hell, even some Canadian players didn't want to stay unless overpayment which happened to Darnell Nurse. It's one of the reasons why the Jets won't really be able to keep talent because nobody wants to stay half of the year in -25 C temps. The percentage of Stamkos' staying in Tampa or Dallas is much higher than DeBrincats' staying in Ottawa. More options and quicker years towards free agency allow players to go where they want and the majority of the time those are big markets in big cities like NY, Chicago, Montreal, and Toronto, which then got expanded by California, the Atlantic coast, and warmer weather where people are naturally drawn to.
Last edited:
A structural issue that never gets brought up is that for most of the drought, the Canadian teams (minus Winnipeg when it has been around) have, for obvious reasons, all been in the same two divisions (even when there were 6), which means that they generally take points off each other throughout the season. It will be highly unlikely for all of them to be good at the same time. So rather than a starting point of 6/7/8 candidates each year, it has been closer to 3-3.5 realistically.
banks
Only got 3 of 16.
- Aug 29, 2019
- 3,698
- 5,401
It's hard to win a Cup, that's why. There's an alternate universe somewhere where the puck bounces a little bit less. And in that universe the Sedin twins retired as 2x Cup winners, McDavid already has a Cup with Edmonton, and the Leafs are up 3-0 over Carolina right now.
Those specific examples are obviously in jest. But the point is that some Canadian teams have been contenders. And the factors that got them eliminated have nothing to do with the border.
Those specific examples are obviously in jest. But the point is that some Canadian teams have been contenders. And the factors that got them eliminated have nothing to do with the border.
- Mar 4, 2004
- 29,166
- 28,387
Which is exactly why a Canadian team not winning is not some huge anomaly. When a US team wins the Cup, it doesn't make it more likely that a Canadian team will win the next year. The odds are the exact same every season (other than adding franchises).
As I said in another thread on the subject, sure 30 years is a long time. But there's only 1 Cup winner per year, so we're only talking about 29 instances.
Then factor in that 5 of those 29 instances a Canadian team came within a single win of the Cup. Now consider how some of the Canadian franchises have been run in the last 30 years. That blows the "all things being equal" portion out of the water.
It's not a great mystery.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,039
- 14,285
Biggest reasons are that there are so many more American teams and also plain old luck. Canadian teams came very close in 1994, 2004, 2006, and 2011. If any two of those last three finals had gone the other way these threads wouldn't exist.
I do think that there are other factors. I think that the Canadian teams being the big fish in their city is a hindrance to some degree. The owners become famous, the ticket sales will be good regardless, GMs read discussion over unimportant players who are treated like big deals, and the Canadian teams often misread when to make the right move. Another small factor is that the Canadian teams are generally unattractive free agent options, to varying degrees.
I do think that there are other factors. I think that the Canadian teams being the big fish in their city is a hindrance to some degree. The owners become famous, the ticket sales will be good regardless, GMs read discussion over unimportant players who are treated like big deals, and the Canadian teams often misread when to make the right move. Another small factor is that the Canadian teams are generally unattractive free agent options, to varying degrees.
This isn’t apples to apples.
In other sports big market teams don’t have hard cap and gauranteed contracts and tax differences
It’s very possible that it would be easier to win in no pressure markets in the states
But those big teams can compensate for that problem by over paying etc
Do you think no state tax markets which are less than canadian markets making the final 6 of the last 7 years is an anomaly or random chance
barkovcanfinnish
Stanley Cup Champs 2024
7 out of the current 32 teams are Canadian. Even in a vacuum they’re at a big disadvantage
Toronto haven’t made it to the finals since 1967.
Winnipeg never made it that far in their original incarnation and hasn’t in their current incarnation.
Ottawa has only made it to the finals once (2007).
Edmonton made it last in 2006 and before that it was 1990.
Calgary’s last appearance was 2004. Before that it was 1989.
Vancouver’s last appearance was 2011. Before that it was 1994.
Montreal’s last appearance was 2021. Before that it was in 1993.
It’s not just that a Canadian team hasn’t won a cup in 30 years. They’ve rarely even gotten to the finals in that span.
Toronto haven’t made it to the finals since 1967.
Winnipeg never made it that far in their original incarnation and hasn’t in their current incarnation.
Ottawa has only made it to the finals once (2007).
Edmonton made it last in 2006 and before that it was 1990.
Calgary’s last appearance was 2004. Before that it was 1989.
Vancouver’s last appearance was 2011. Before that it was 1994.
Montreal’s last appearance was 2021. Before that it was in 1993.
It’s not just that a Canadian team hasn’t won a cup in 30 years. They’ve rarely even gotten to the finals in that span.
Lady Stanley
Registered User
- May 26, 2021
- 727
- 538
To get the oilers/habs/leafs in their arena more often I'm sure they'd do just about anything, especially if they know 1 of the canadian teams will be in the 3rd round.
The real obstacle is the 8th team.
You'd still have 48 games against the rest of the league. The Vancouver trips could just be doubles.
It works out because people from all over can come in for the weekend to see a pair of games, versus fly in for just the 1.
Arthur Morgan
Registered User
The NHL doesnt want a Canadian team to win. and they will make things a hard as possible for one to get through. the last Canadian team to win the cup was the year Bettman came into the league. coincidence? maybe, maybe not but it's impossible to think otherwise as a Canadian. it just seems the shady calls ALWAYS go against us. hell I even see the refs do things that Ive never seen them do before against us. how often when a player is cut do the refs look back on the replay to call it?
the NHL is shady and the league will never grow if Canadian teams win. so the NHL will 100% make it as hard as possible. we may very well never see a Canadian team win the cup again
the NHL is shady and the league will never grow if Canadian teams win. so the NHL will 100% make it as hard as possible. we may very well never see a Canadian team win the cup again
It's not ONE single reason , the number of teams IS relevant, but it's not the only reason.
There might be other reasons - before the CAP era some teams probably had a lot more economic resources than others etc.
KingPuckChoo
Go kinGs Go !
- Jun 24, 2007
- 10,044
- 3,916
Just putting the definitions of conspiracy out there, because for 1) people think it's more likely that Santa exists than to "conspire" for some reason and 2) so that people know what they are not allowed to bring up in this discussion (MOD WARNING THIS ISN'T POLICITAL, TAKE A GLASS OF WATER, CALM DOWN, BREATHE... read the headline post and reread what i wrote. I do not endorse any conspiracies)
1 as in Mafia
a group involved in secret or criminal activities
"members of the conspiracy recognized each other by a secret handshake"
2 as in complicity
a secret agreement or cooperation between two parties for an illegal or dishonest purpose "a conspiracy among the leading manufacturers to fix prices"
3 as in scheme
a secret plan for accomplishing evil or unlawful ends "several generals were engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow the government"
If I may, based on these three definitions, conspiracies most likely happen on a daily, throughout the planet, just sayin'
Now, is the NHL involved in all this? Why would it not? A world where money is king, by default conspiracies have to exist (when you think about it). So to just completely ignore a conspiracy theory as a possibility, is being very daft.
And because of this, I now crown the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Edmonton Oilers as official finalist for your 2022-23 Stanley Cup Playoffs! Enjoy!
1 as in Mafia
a group involved in secret or criminal activities
"members of the conspiracy recognized each other by a secret handshake"
2 as in complicity
a secret agreement or cooperation between two parties for an illegal or dishonest purpose "a conspiracy among the leading manufacturers to fix prices"
3 as in scheme
a secret plan for accomplishing evil or unlawful ends "several generals were engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow the government"
If I may, based on these three definitions, conspiracies most likely happen on a daily, throughout the planet, just sayin'
Now, is the NHL involved in all this? Why would it not? A world where money is king, by default conspiracies have to exist (when you think about it). So to just completely ignore a conspiracy theory as a possibility, is being very daft.
And because of this, I now crown the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Edmonton Oilers as official finalist for your 2022-23 Stanley Cup Playoffs! Enjoy!
I didn't dispute that. But successful teams make many good decisions outside of their top picks, Leafs and Oilers haven't done that.
- Mar 4, 2004
- 29,166
- 28,387
lol. oh god this myth again.
It's neither. It's bitter fans who don't understand how taxes work inventing a narrative now that non-traditional markets are actually good.
It also conveniently ignores that 3 of those are accounted for by the same team.
LTIR
Registered User
- Nov 8, 2013
- 27,322
- 14,574
It is really not equal shot at the cup for all teams.
The chance of a non Canadian team finding the right balance and lucking out was higher and teams like BOS, PIT, TB etc became good for long stretches. If a team like TML get the right combo and clicks it could be a Canadian cup for most of next decade. Oilers were in a decade long darkness.. actually they have been in a 30 yr long era of darkness aside from a flukey run with Pronger and some Doug Weight and Cujo magic earlier.
The chance of a non Canadian team finding the right balance and lucking out was higher and teams like BOS, PIT, TB etc became good for long stretches. If a team like TML get the right combo and clicks it could be a Canadian cup for most of next decade. Oilers were in a decade long darkness.. actually they have been in a 30 yr long era of darkness aside from a flukey run with Pronger and some Doug Weight and Cujo magic earlier.
There was a controversial high sticking incident just last night.
Take off the tinfoil hat and start watching hockey.
I think Canadian management groups tend to be a bit like retail investors. The desire to perform over a shorter term rarely beats the market.
There's enough teams south of the border now that don't have the same media frenzy and fan pressure of Canadian markets. American teams tend to ride the wave of being bad when you are bad (long term investments for capital in the future) and being good when you are good (mortgaging the future for capital now) with far more patience. They end up holding the most capital at their peaks (i.e. good players on good contracts who were given enough time and resources to develop as a group, supported by some key acquisitions) whereas Canadian teams are less patient and make more ill-timed moves. It leads them to mediocrity instead of riding the higher highs and lower lows.
With the salary cap putting a huge emphasis on management (you can no longer buy your way to success) and the number of teams now, generally there will always be a few patient teams peaking higher at any given time.
There's enough teams south of the border now that don't have the same media frenzy and fan pressure of Canadian markets. American teams tend to ride the wave of being bad when you are bad (long term investments for capital in the future) and being good when you are good (mortgaging the future for capital now) with far more patience. They end up holding the most capital at their peaks (i.e. good players on good contracts who were given enough time and resources to develop as a group, supported by some key acquisitions) whereas Canadian teams are less patient and make more ill-timed moves. It leads them to mediocrity instead of riding the higher highs and lower lows.
With the salary cap putting a huge emphasis on management (you can no longer buy your way to success) and the number of teams now, generally there will always be a few patient teams peaking higher at any given time.
Short answer is really bad management/owners.
Longer text:
Oilers practically had decade long dynasty hangover after 80s, plus iirc owner was piss poor too that point (in nhl standards) and sold/traded off all their high earners/good players. They started to pick up in the early 2000s again, but generally their team was full of slightly overpaid journeymen and a lot failed/subpar draft picks. Until they got McDavid, Draisaitl and Nugent-Hopkins, though their issue with bad GMs still existed and lack of depth outside forwards. Been getting slowly better though, imo.
Flames not really sure what was their problem, except they seemed super reluctant ever getting proper depth to their rosters, usually tried to rely couple stars and then rest full of grinders, very similarly as "Mighty" Ducks used to do. So occasionally had great year when everything was clicking, but usually fringe playoff team at best.
Montreal was never the same after Roy left, spent more or less past two decades in limbo where they were mediocre at best, awful at worst. Personally I partially blame their massive hard on for only having coaches and GMs who could speak french, which limited their pool of already very limited options for those spots severely. Also always lacked depth, either they had good forward core, but defense and goaltending was questionable at best, or had good goaltending and defense, but had questionable forward core.
Leafs had really bad owners and GMs in the early 90s, though had few decent years in the late 90s and early 2000s (they had Sundin and Joseph at the time iirc), then it again fell into awfulness till they got the Matthews. Then a lot good regular seasons and first round exists. Not super familiar with this team though (not enough good finns for me to care, in the past or present).
Jets spent 15 years without team for begin with. OG Jets lacked depth and money otherwise it wasn't all that bad iirc. New Jets had first to fix the dumpster fire of Thrashers problems, then they got kinda decent, but never just good enough, partially think reason is that Cheveldayoff is kinda mediocre at his job and really unwilling to do any major changes as long as he can just sweep problems under the rug.
Senators I just blame the owner, who was cheap af. If they had kept even half of their good star players they had in the past 20+ years they probably would have won cup or two already.
Canucks I'm not super familiar either, though to extent I feel like they have been most stable team out of all canadian teams. Had solid rosters here and there which failed to get over the final steps. Though do remember them having issues with stars here and there in the 90s, plus whole Messier fiasco too.
Longer text:
Oilers practically had decade long dynasty hangover after 80s, plus iirc owner was piss poor too that point (in nhl standards) and sold/traded off all their high earners/good players. They started to pick up in the early 2000s again, but generally their team was full of slightly overpaid journeymen and a lot failed/subpar draft picks. Until they got McDavid, Draisaitl and Nugent-Hopkins, though their issue with bad GMs still existed and lack of depth outside forwards. Been getting slowly better though, imo.
Flames not really sure what was their problem, except they seemed super reluctant ever getting proper depth to their rosters, usually tried to rely couple stars and then rest full of grinders, very similarly as "Mighty" Ducks used to do. So occasionally had great year when everything was clicking, but usually fringe playoff team at best.
Montreal was never the same after Roy left, spent more or less past two decades in limbo where they were mediocre at best, awful at worst. Personally I partially blame their massive hard on for only having coaches and GMs who could speak french, which limited their pool of already very limited options for those spots severely. Also always lacked depth, either they had good forward core, but defense and goaltending was questionable at best, or had good goaltending and defense, but had questionable forward core.
Leafs had really bad owners and GMs in the early 90s, though had few decent years in the late 90s and early 2000s (they had Sundin and Joseph at the time iirc), then it again fell into awfulness till they got the Matthews. Then a lot good regular seasons and first round exists. Not super familiar with this team though (not enough good finns for me to care, in the past or present).
Jets spent 15 years without team for begin with. OG Jets lacked depth and money otherwise it wasn't all that bad iirc. New Jets had first to fix the dumpster fire of Thrashers problems, then they got kinda decent, but never just good enough, partially think reason is that Cheveldayoff is kinda mediocre at his job and really unwilling to do any major changes as long as he can just sweep problems under the rug.
Senators I just blame the owner, who was cheap af. If they had kept even half of their good star players they had in the past 20+ years they probably would have won cup or two already.
Canucks I'm not super familiar either, though to extent I feel like they have been most stable team out of all canadian teams. Had solid rosters here and there which failed to get over the final steps. Though do remember them having issues with stars here and there in the 90s, plus whole Messier fiasco too.
BardownMagic
Registered User
It depends on how you view that probability. Is that probability best meaured by a simple target teams/total teams? Or is it a number that emerges with like 20+ key variables, such as income tax? If it is a simple one, then the independent analysis is probably the best number to use, but if it isn’t, use the more complex model where permutations(?) can be accurately used the way they were previously.
Either way it should be consistent what number you use.
BlackFrancis
Athletic Supporter Patch Partner
- Dec 14, 2013
- 5,986
- 9,598
Bear of Bad News
"The Worst Guy on the Site" - user feedback
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,894
- 28,662
That's called "confirmation bias", perhaps including some narrative bias.
Arthur Morgan
Registered User
I do watch hockey it always does feel that the NHL is against Canadian teams or try to make it as difficult as possible. you can disagree all you like I really dont care what you think
I dont want to. take my comment for what it is. agree or disagree.... I dont care
