Florida is now the semi-permanent house of the Stanley Cup. What does that mean for Canada? | Stanley Cup
“THere are a lot of things that I do not understand about this proposed expansion, “wrote the sports columnist for the New York Times, George Vecsey, in December 1992, while the NHL heard its annual meeting of the Council of Governors in Palm Beach, Florida. During this week’s meeting, the League received extent proposals for two teams. One was for a team in Anaheim, California, by Disney. Magnant of management and VHS-VIDEO, Wayne Huizenga. Wondered Vecsey.
At the time, the answer was money. With more time, the answer seems to be: because the championship hockey teams can be built anywhere, including in the south. Tuesday evening in Florida, the Panthers won their second consecutive Stanley Cup against the Edmonton Oilers, this time in six games – one less than they needed last season. If anything, you could now say that there is no better place to build a NHL championship team than the southern United States. Since 1990, the Stanley Cup has been awarded a team based in the south nine times – but five of them have come in the past six years. And three of them were also against Canadian teams.
North of the border in 1992, the fear of American domination was palpable, even if, at the time, the most recent expansion of Tampa Bay and San Jose (alongside Ottawa) resembled ice failure. However, the simple presence of these teams, not to mention two others, was a concern.
“This is the era of marketing, my friends, and we sell image names, brands, blurred feelings and opportunities for merchandise,” warned the Globe and Mail sports columnist, John Alleman, after the NHL’s December 1992 meeting, offering sarcastically changes for the more and more Americanized gaming. “Let’s grasp these three periods, let’s present the concept of half-time,” he scorified. “Emilio Estevez learned to skate for Mighty Ducks, give her a chance, tell her the woman [Paula Abdul] can sing the national anthem. The stupid American anthem. Are there others? Beyond the potential for sales of goods and richer owners, “Does anyone else win?” Montreal Gazette columnist Pat Hickey asked about at the same time.
It hardly seems to be repeated that Florida’s victory on Tuesday still extends the drought of the Canadian Stanley Cup at 32, more or less flourishing the worst fears of these sports columnists, and many others, who considered the American growth of the NHL as a threat to the true identity of sport and therefore by extension to that of its country of birth, Canada. And they were not entirely false. This year, more than most others, the existential threat of American domination on ice spoke to a greater Canadian national identity crisis which would have seemed unthinkable in 1992. The idea that Canada, including hockey, could be subsumed by the United States was more urgent than ever. Canadians – like the swimming phenomenon, McIntosh or MVP NBA, Shai Gilgeous -Aalexander – dominate other sports. Hockey numbers for young people can be down, loosen generational links with the game. However, nothing still stimulates a profound national anxiety such as hockey failure.
So yes, yet another cup has raised in the United States – in Florida, once again, no less – certainly stings a little from a nationalist point of view for Canadians. It fills all the worst nightmares of sports writers from 1992. But the loss of the ilers is frankly more frustrating strictly from the point of view of hockey. Overall, the non -disciplined game of the oilers, the general lack of offense, the unequal goalkeepers and the dull defense in the clutch made it difficult not only to believe that they could win, but that they should even. Panthers are a scary hockey club, with a list filled with pure players, like the other teams only have one or two. Florida plays an aggressive and often suffocating attack and are supported by elite guards. Panthers play the big hockey. They are just in Florida. There may not be much else.
It may, in fact, be that the quality of hockey in the south of Florida is so high because, rather than despite all this marketing, money and marketing that the NHL welcomed in the early 1990s. Expansion meant that the League – and by extension, had to find a way to please new audiences, most of whom lived very well. This meant that the NHL had to rethink its product. He had to kiss something that a large part of the world of hockey still often rejects by reflex – change. Over the decades, the NHL has gradually transformed hockey into something new. Along the way, the game has lost certain aspects, such as executors, but added things like goals. It has become faster, finer, more exciting, more observable, even if some have argued that it was somehow softer. It did not always go smoothly (it should be mentioned here that Atlanta seeks to obtain a new team for the third time), but his audience and his profits have also increased, more or less depending on the plan. And so far, hockey has not lost its Canadian identity. After the buzzing and highly marketed tournament of the NHL last spring, it can even be more rooted than ever.
By looking back now, it is clear that cynical and calculated marketing – and of course money – was indeed the purpose of the NHL expansion in a place like Florida. But they did not destroy hockey. Instead, it continues to improve.
