From: gerry@skatter.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Fickle Edmonton Fans(Was Re: Damphouse)
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:04:21 GMT

From article <1992Aug30.104850.1474@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, by golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy):
> In article <1992Aug30.012100.29625@access.usask.ca> gerry@skatter.usask.ca writes:
>>Post-Gretzky-Trauma Syndrome? Is that a polite name for Fickle-Fan-Anemia?
>>
> 
> I don't condone it...but I sort of understand it...there is a withdrawal
> from the transition for a team filled with superstars to a team filled
> with just hard-working very good players...and made more difficult when
> there are major changes in personnel every year.  The Gretzky era was
> sort of like a drug to a lot of fans who had and still somewhat have
> the foolish notion that the Gretzky era would never end.

I could understand it for a couple of years myself. It's now going on five
years since the writings been on the wall however, thus my understanding
has run out. That is to say, an occasional remembrance of a bygone era is
fine, but a continual lack of dealing with reality becomes very boring.
(This is not to say that your not dealing with reality, you seem to have
things well in hand).

> 
>>Still in transition? The Oiler's are going into their *fifth* year
>>without Gretzky, exactly how long is this "transition" supposed to take and
>>what is the expected result? As you said, the Oiler's have won one SC in 3
>>years and been in the final four the past 3 years. I don't call that a 
>>transition I call it carrying on a tradition.
> 
> The Oilers have been moving at least one major player every year...
> Gretzky, the Carson deal and Ranford emerging as a co-#1, Kurri, 
> Messier-Smith-Fuhr, and now Damphousse.  In each case, a significant
> change involving the top two or three players of the team has been
> involved...that is a lot of change on a year to year basis.  It will
> slow down.  Maybe transition isn't the proper word...maybe Gretzky-era
> aftershocks...which are still only beginning to dampen down.
>   

Dealing Gretzky should have been the hardest thing for Edmontonians to deal
with. However, once the team showed they could win without Him(and Coffey)
the dealing of the other stars should have been much easier to swallow.
Losing Fuhr shouldn't have been upsetting, they had already played a
year without him and Ranford showed he was up to the task. Of the others
that you mention, losing Messier would probably have been the worst, even
that should have been tempered by remembering what happened after losing 
Gretzky. The team doesn't just become lousy after losing a major player, it
continues to evolve and grow as well as win. This is especially true when
you have Sather as your GM. Edmontonians should know this, they've had four
years to see how Sather works(on "rebuilding"), how he rebuilds, how he always
gives his team the best chances to win now and in the future.

> The Gretzky era team had a nucleus of 7 or 8 players all within an
> age range of one or two years, and for the Oilers remain competitive
> and not collapse because the team grew old together, 
> Sather had to progressively stage their departures,
> some of them like Coffey and Gretzky, prematurely, to ensure a
> non-catastrosphic transition.  
> 

This is all very true and I am certainly not denying it. But this is evidence
towards suspecting that Edmontonians are either pig-headed, fickle or don't
really know anything about hockey. That a person believes their team is
*always* going to be in the top echelon of teams is plain stupid. Believing
that they're always going to have a shot at the SC however is not. Sather
recognizes this second objective is the main one and gives his teams the best
shot at it he can, fans should be happy about this not sad.

>>
>>Gerald your comments about Sather are well spoken, I have no complaints with
>>them. But your attempts at letting Edmontonians off the hook simply don't
>>cut it. If the recession has hurt the Oilers(attendance) why hasn't it hurt
>>the Flames? Both cities have pretty similar demographics(i.e. the majority of
>>their economy is generated from Oil). My older brother(a big Oiler fan) and I
>>drove from Saskatoon to catch the last game of the Oiler vs. Kings series last
>>year. Now I would have thought it should be hard to get tickets. Yeah right!
>>It wasn't difficult at all and the most disgusting part was that the game
>>wasn't sold out.
>>
> 
> Not really...Calgary and Edmonton are rather different places...Calgary
> is a white-collar town with significantly more corporate head office
> season ticket money...Edmonton is a blue collar working peoples town...
> Edmonton is a much nicer city to live in...the only advantage Calgary
> having is that it is close to Banff.  There is a good reason why it
> took Edmontonians and Winnipeggers to bring NHL hockey to the
> prairies, and not Calgarians who were forced to play catch up.
> (Flame shields on!)

This was pointed out to me by my older brother(the Oiler fan, Yechh!) when
I showed him your comments and my reply. (As far as cities go I like Edmonton
better than Calgary myself, it's much easier to find your way around.) 
However blue collar does not mean poor. I now have a different brother living
in Edmonton. He's a blue collar worker and I can't believe the size of the
house and lot he has. Sure maybe a lot that big costs a few bucks but anybody
who can afford that should easily be able to scrape up ~1500 bucks to buy
season tickets, heck going in with 3 coworkers would only cost them ~$750 each
for a pair and they go to 21 games apiece.

My older brother, being that he's an Oiler fan, always reads the Edmonton
Journal, apparently Sather's comments on the lack of season tickets sold
were that the Oiler's haven't really had to market themselves, now that
they aren't winning so much this will probably have to change. Well this
shows good business sense on Sather's part and thus maybe the Oiler's will
begin to sell out again. But I just can't get over the fact that people would
let their season tickets lapse especially since it isn't like the team has
been in last place for a number of years.

> 
>>Edmontonians have shown their fickleness with the Eskimos and now its coming
>>out with the Oilers. It isn't surprising at all to me that their attendance
>>is down, I expected it to happen once the team became only good rather than
>>great.
>>
>>City of Champions == City of Chumps.
> 
> It is disappointing that some fans are spoiled, but they'll be back because
> Sather has been doing his job...the Oilers are still going to be one
> of the more exciting and competitive teams in the league...and the
> people will eventually come to appreciate the new no-name Oilers.
> Edmonton did endure and sustain a rather pathetic WHA team to see it
> into the NHL.

The main point here being "to see it into the NHL". Where are all these fans
now that they have an NHL team and a winning tradition as well? This is the
west for Christ's sakes this is supposed to be die-hard hockey country. Death
and exhorbitant taxes(and I'd try to work around the death part) would be the
only two things stopping me from putting all my(currently meager) entertainment
dollars on an NHL team in my town. Believe me I will be trying to get tickets
for every one of the 4 games coming to town this winter.
> 
> Gerald
--
Gerald Gryschuk            Saskatoon,Saskatchewan = a place with 9 months
gerry@sask.usask.ca           of hockey and 3 months of poor skating.
Go Habs!!!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey