HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: umturne4@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Daryl Turner)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Consecutive seasons over .500
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:19:11 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Apr14.192516.28767@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs902159@ariel.yorku.ca (DAVID A LISOGURSKI) writes:
>
>Well, my records only go up to 1982-83, so we'll assume they've been over-.500
>every year since then.
>This would mean they've been a winning club since the 1967-68 season.
>This also means they've made the playoffs every year since 1967-68, which
>is a record for ALL sports, I think.

Not sure on all sports, but the fact they have been above .500 since
the original expansion is correct.
>
>BTW, they had 44 points in 70 games the year before.  Is there a reason
>for the 40-point increase they had from one year to the next?
>Is the reason Bobby Orr, by any chance?

Probably.
>
>Now for my daily dose of pro-Habs propaganda...   :-)

You mean lies, don't you?  :)
>
>1)  1950-51 was the last year the Canadiens were sub-.500 !!!!!!
>    And they made it to the Cup finals that year!!!

You should inform the NHL about this, since their records show the Habs
going 35-40-5 in 1983-84.  >


Don't get me wrong, I like the Habs...but the truth is kinda important too!

   Daryl Turner
    <umturne4@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
      r.s.h. contact for the Winnipeg Jets
From: dwarf@bcarh601.bnr.ca (W. Jim Jordan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Expansion?
Keywords: expansion, southern US, tongue-in-cheek, history
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:15:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

In article <1992Apr9.043954.1621@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <gmarven.702785741@sanjuan> gmarven@sanjuan.UVic.CA (Grant Marven) writes:

>>Expansion with more teams hinders the league financially and lowers
>>the level of play:  	    	    	    
>>   i) Go into markets which may financially jeopardize the whole league.
>>   ii) specific teams will meet less often.
>>   iii) more players in the league (lowers the level) 
>>       Just think if we still had 12 teams?
>>         -> The farm teams would be better 
>>            and each team would have more premium players. 
 
>Why stop there?  Go all the way back to the original six...

Original six?  Why not the original *four*?  I think they were
Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, and (uhhh, uhhh) a place deemed unfit for
professional hockey called Hamilton.  Looks like a good league
to me, and Copps Coliseum would finally have a suitable full-time
tenant.  I guess my friends in Hamilton will have to wait until
the Lightning fold in 1994 . . . 

--
W. Jim Jordan                         I work for BNR; I do not speak for it.
Bell-Northern Research   
Ottawa, Ontario          ESN:    393-7448
K1Y 4H7                  Phone:  613/763-7448                               
From: scottb@col.hp.com (Scott Brunton)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:05:04 GMT
Subject: Re: IHL in Denver? (was Muskegon to Cleveland)
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey

	But Denver has already had a recent shot at the IHL in the form
of the Colorado Rangers.  They lasted a couple of years and played out
of the Denver Colliseum.  The main reason being that the 'cut' the city wanted
to have them play at McNichols via parking and concessions was too high.
As it turned out, the first row seats were ~15 feet from the glass!  Really.
Also the PR director, I think it was Greg Ahbee, made no noticable attempt
to promote the team through specials to groups.

	Here in Colorado Springs, the Sky Sox (now a farm team to the 
Colorado Rockies) has been exceptionally efficient in encouraging groups
and positive in promotional deals.

	Playing IHL hockey in Denver again ... I don't expect to see it.
From: am2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Anna Matyas)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Penguin Marketing Meeting
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:46:07 GMT
Organization: H&SS Dean's Office, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


I underestimated the interest level in this subject!!  I will go through
all the questions I got and do another posting, probably tomorrow.
Remember that what I have to say is based on fan perception -- nobody
told us any definite plans of the organization -- but I think you all
realize that.

I know I'm setting myself up for some bashing here, but I'm in a
GREAT mood today since there is Joy in Mudville, or Iceville, such
as it is  -- 8:30am and already thinking about watching the
Pens-Devils game tonight! -- and nothing you say can rattle me.  While
we talked about PPV at that meeting, the moderator asked if we would
pay based on the opponent (i.e., more for Patrick Division teams, and
less for others).  He said, "For instance, would you pay just $5 to
watch the Penguins play, oh, say, Los Angeles."  My hand shot up
immediately and I said, "Oh! I'd pay MORE to watch Paul Coffey!"
Then another woman said, "I'd pay $100 to watch Paul Coffey!"  Everyone
thought that was pretty funny.  So if the Pens go to PPV and the L.A.
games are more expensive than the others, you can blame it on me. :)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
From: ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: What the world needs now is an AMERICAN TV CONTRACT.
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:56:17 GMT
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia

In article <allan.702803291@kitscoty> allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan) writes:
>ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast) writes:

>>In article <allan.702679696@kitscoty> allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan) writes:
>>>ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast) writes:

>>>>In article <allan.702362807@so-heart-rv> allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan) writes:

>>If 560 players can get together on this strike thing, why in the world, as 
>>some of the best athletes in the world, can't they get together and protect 
>>their bodies?  Your suggesstion that they need a rule to protect themselves 
>>from beating each other with bare hands is like the owners claim 
>>that they need rules to prtect themselves from themselves.  

>Well, for one, the strike vote wasn't unanimous; there were 4 people
>who voted against it. 

That's why I said if 560 players can get together on this strike thing and 
not 564. The vote was 560-4.  But you dodged my point, if all but four 
players can get together on issues, why in the world don't you think they 
can get together, as athletes, and protect and respect their bodies?

>And in the case of fighting, all you need is
>one 'goof' (like Ulf Samuelson) who is careless with the stick,
>or throws dirty checks. (Ulfie would thrive in a no fighting
>league... He doesn't fight, he just plays dirty.)

>With most fights, its usually two 'heavy-weights' who are going
>at it. (I doubt any team would send a Probert or a Crowder
>to beat up on Gretzky). And they are rarely hurt.
>(There's sort of a 'code of honour' among the 'goons'.)

So even the goons can get together an establish a code of "honor" (now 
that's an ironic choice of words) as to respect and disrespect of the body.
I believe, perhaps unkowingly, you are agreeing with me.

>For the record, I don't watch hockey because of the fights. But I do
>appreciate the results; namely, the reduction in stick infractions
>and as a type of 'release mechanism'.

Oh, please. This sounds like stuff from Ziegler's marketing plan 2000.

Warren
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: HNIC (was: Toronto Maple Leafs)
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:39:27 GMT

shayne@cs.mcgill.ca (Lydia MANCINI) writes:
>ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) writes:
>
>>I can blame Leafs management for this, but I can also blame HNIC for 
>>not televising the Leafs, and the NHL for not putting any more teams 
>>in Ontario until now.
>
>The Leafs aren't the only team that they've screwed over.     
>HNIC's broadcasting basically sucks. 
>They have a monopoly, so I don't think things will get any better.

[n.b., Quoted out of order, but not out of context.]

Are you guys serious???  Those two teams *own* HNIC (and Les Habs own
La Soiree unless they're idle that night).  During the Oilers/Flames
years of the 80's, the most common complaint I had heard was that
their games were not shown even if two hot teams on a roll were facing
each other.  How many of you grumble over a Laffs-Whalers game knowing
that a Flames-Oilers rumble was happening at the same time?  

If anything, the partitioning of HNIC into more regional broadcasts
gave the West a breather, to see some Jets/Oilers/Flames games, and
double-headers that were only introduced recently meant that Canuck
home games can also be seen outside of B.C. now and again.  And the
Nordiques are still locked out of Saturday nights, only getting some
national airtime on Sunday afternoons when they can get it.  TSN has
shown a number of Canucks-Nordiques games this year (from newspapers
that get down to me), but this is still not the same as begin on The
Institution.  Even now, saturday night is seen by most Canadians as
the night for the Maple Leafs and/or the Canadiens.  That's why it's
even more imperative for the other five franchises to get their games
on cable the rest of the week, even by pulling down their road games
from SCA if they can't afford to send a local broadcaster on the road.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				U.S. Elections 1992, Vote Now:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		a) Elvis 50's stamp, or
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			b) Elvis 70's stamp?
From: John_Carson@mindlink.bc.ca (John Carson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: TV CONTRACTS IN THE USA
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:52:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: mindlink.11341
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

I have been veiwing hockey on TV for years and I am under the impression that
the NHL is trying to sign one deal and only one deal to promote hockey in the
USA. Would it not be better to sign contracts with INDEPENDENT stations or
network stations that have an audience locally. CBC is famous for it SATURDAY
evening "HOCKEY NIGHT IN CANADA". I would suggest that it be a specific night
and have a slate of games to show depending on the area.


All this would most probably generate real good dollars to help pay for those
outageous dollars in wages.

FYI each NFL team gets 43 million each from televison revenue.

John
--
***********************************************************************
* D.John Carson    J & H Concepts   a29@mindlink.UUCP   604-589-5118  *
*                                    John_Carson@mindlink.bc.ca        *
***********************************************************************
From: as16@quads.uchicago.edu (adam  shah)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Rangers Layoff Problem (Was: NHL Regular Season Revised)
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:06:35 GMT
Reply-To: as16@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr14.191520.9562@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>jjm+@andrew.cmu.edu (James J. Murawski) writes:
>
>The Rangers have been getting in 5 practices in 4 days, but other than
>the guys who really need the rest (Tie Domi was playing street hockey
>with John Ogrodnick while coming back from a minor knee injury, watch
>out! (-;) the layoff may well hurt other guys who are otherwise pumped
>to go out and play.  A lot of the waiting takes a mental price, as you
>just don't know how ready you really are, no matter how many practices
>you're put through.  Considering how rusty the other teams have looked
>these last couple of nights, Roger Neilson must at least ramp-up every
>one of his charges to game shape both physically and mentally (the
>latter being a factor that depends much upon the individual player,
>too).  Losing one game badly or both games closely could set off a
>wave of panic in Rangerland, with their playoffs starting on Sunday
>night ...
>
>gld
>--

The New York Times ran an article on Sunday or Monday saying that Ranger
fans should not use the strike as an excuse to explain another missed
Stanley Cup.  (At least that's what I think it said---I didnt have time to
read much of it).

Anyway, I disagree with this.  If for some strange reason, the Rangers don't
win the Cup, I think this will be the perfect excuse.  It can either
be used instead of the jinx theory (now they have a tangible reason for having
lost) or in tandem with the jinx theory (the Rangers are cursed by God).

There's my $.02.  I have lurked in this newsgroup for over a year, but just now
decided to join the fray.  Go Rangers.


-- 
adam
(aka as16@midway.uchicago.edu aka mercutio) telephone (312) 702-2896
I would give my real address but who would write?
(I guess I do believe in signature files after all)
From: neal@atmos.washington.edu (Neal Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: I Was Once A Big Fan
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:00:27 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

In article <EdvTL0_00iUyA7XowU@andrew.cmu.edu> Anna Matyas <am2x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

   >>From adam  shah

   >>I know that it is probably boring to lodge another complaint against the 
   >>NHL management, but they really have no idea how many fans they are 
   >>actually losing because of their tv contracts.

>   No, this isn't boring.  It's one of the biggest concerns of hockey
>   fans.  Not only will the league losing fans but they aren't getting as many
>   new ones as they could.  Years ago, around 1970 B.C. (Before Cable)
>   I remember watching NHL games on Sunday afternoons once football
>   season was over.  Even if the league could somehow come up with a
>   "game-of-the-week" kind of deal it would help.  But other pro and
>   college sports are fierce competition.  

>   In conjunction with a tv contract, the league has image and visibility
>   problems.  Perhaps the lack of a tv contract is a symptom of the
>   larger problem rather than being a problem itself.  But the opposite
>   of this could be true as well.  I think that the San Jose Sharks have
>   done a lot for the visibility of the league.  I don't remember a new
>   team in any other sport that has garnered as much support as quickly
>   as have the Sharks.  Pittsburgh is crawling with people in Sharks
>   gear, and many of them aren't even hockey fans -- they just love the
>   logo and the colors.  This is a major marketing coup by the Sharks and
>   it could serve to help the league's business.  But, of course, it isn't
>   going to get the league a nice contract.  Much more needs to be done.


   I just got to wondering ... is there anything that we as fans could
do to promote the idea of a user-friendly TV contract?  Unfortunately
I don't have cable access and my wife's idea of home beautification
doesn't call for a dish on the roof(!) so for me user-friendly means free
network coverage.

   I don't think writing a letter to the NHL offices would have much
of an impact.   I can't think of anything that would.

   
--
Neal C. Johnson		INTERNET: neal@atmos.washington.edu
                 	UUCP:	  uw-beaver!atmos.washington.edu!neal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
         "No Harrylock!  Don't squirt me with that acid." 
Organization: H&SS Dean's Office, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:57:02 -0400 
From: Anna Matyas <am2x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: So long, Stanley Cup playoffs

>From Mark Shneyder
>In article <wdts8se00WBNM3blxt@andrew.cmu.edu> am2x+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Anna Matya
>s) writes:
> 
>Listen,you're not compassionate. End of story. I supported the players
>from the very start  and I knew down deep inside that they'd get what
>they wanted sooner or later. You bashed the players' motives for
>striking when they struck. You only see one side of things - the fan's
>side. Guess what, even if they had to play the finals in the August
>I would have watched them play.

I don't like taking up this space for one-on-one confrontations,
but when you attack my integrity and me personally as a human being
I don't take too kindly to it.

I supported the players on the issues.  How many times do I have to
say that to get it through your fat head?  And do you want a gold medal
for supporting the players 100%?  You won't get it from me.

I agree with you about how the league has been mismanaged at the
expense of the players.  I maintain  that
if it had to come down to a strike, I would have preferred it at
a different time.  Most people disagree with that; that's their
right.  We'll never know what a strike at the beginning of next
season would have produced.  We can speculate all we want; it isn't
going to get us anywhere.  

My perspective on all of this is that we're talking about HOCKEY,
for God's sake.  Yes, to the players it's their livelihood and they
certainly have a right to see to it to their utmost ability that
it is managed properly and fairly.  I have no problem with that.
But from where I am, it's a game; it's entertainment.  And when I
have to think about things like the millions of people who cannot
afford health care, the increasing number of homeless on the streets
in my residential neighborhood, the continuing loss of jobs, etc.,
then I'm sorry, but retirement benefits for hockey players and revenue
from hockey cards does not top my list as a primary concern.  I'm not
being over-dramatic; this is my perspective.  The owners have screwed
the players no less that our own government has screwed us.  I think
I'm just a tad more affected by the latter.  (And I have no choice BUT
to support the government -- season hockey tickets are my choice.  I
haven't changed my mind about supporting the Penguins.  I love them,
I love hockey, and I'll be back next year, no matter what it costs.)

Bash away again if you like.  It's been a while since I've had to say
this, but...I'm pulling an Ulf Samuelsson and walking away from this
discussion.  I have nothing else to say.
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Sharks Rumor Mill
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:13:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: apple.65532
Organization: I is a writur

claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:

>Not exactly.  He was riding in his *Jeep* but his friend (who was suspected
>to be DWI) was driving.  It rolled over as they attempted to exit off a ramp.
>The friend (who might face DWI charges) is only hurt slightly, but Link has
>massive facial injuries.

According to the reports I saw, it wasn't a Jeep, but a Camaro. He was
passenger. The driver's blood tests showed an alcohol level of .18 (legal
intoxication in CA is .08, the police report this would require drinking
seven beers in an hour for a 150 pound male).

Link's alcohol was not tested. The Sharks (via comments made by Kingston)
say they believe Link "had a setback" on his attempt to deal with his
alcohol problems. (They also made positive/supportive noises, which is
encouraging).

Link lost a good chunk of his left eyelid and (I believe) part of a lip,
plus major scratching and general cruftiness of his face. He's been
transferred to a rehab center, but still has a fair amount of reconstructive
surgery ahead of him.

-- 
            Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, Enterprise Products Support
            chuq@apple.com | GEnie:CHUQ & MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ
               Book Reviewer, Amazing Stories =+= Member, SFWA
           Editor, OtherRealms =+= #include <standard/disclaimer.h>

And lo, though I travel through the valley of the archetypes, I shall fear
no evil, for I know that the author can't kill me off for at least another
150 pages, no matter how stupid or trite I become, or he ruins the book.
From: ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast)
Subject: Re: I Was Once A Big Fan
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 16:51:29 GMT

In article <NEAL.92Apr16160027@eos-airsea.atmos.washington.edu> neal@atmos.washington.edu (Neal Johnson) writes:
>In article <EdvTL0_00iUyA7XowU@andrew.cmu.edu> Anna Matyas <am2x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:


>   I just got to wondering ... is there anything that we as fans could
>do to promote the idea of a user-friendly TV contract?  Unfortunately
>I don't have cable access and my wife's idea of home beautification
>doesn't call for a dish on the roof(!) so for me user-friendly means free
>network coverage.

I have no ideas for what fans can do to get together on a better contract; 
however, in December 1993 the US government plans to launch a satellite that 
will allow people with spouses like ours to use newer satellite 
communications technology that is small enough to sit on a window shelf.

1993 is a long way off, and we're counting on the government, but, 
unfortunately this is probably the best chance for people like you and me.
I don't see the NHL doing too much about anything but pay-per-view by the 
winter of 1993.  Even then, it wouldn't help fans without cable access.

Let me know if you'd like more information.

Warren
From: cadams@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Chris Adams)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:25:25 GMT
Subject: Re: NHL Season is over.
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey

from Gerald

>I have only supported free agency in combination with revenue-sharing
>and a salary cap/floor...the problem is that the players want free
>agency without revenue-sharing and a salary cap, and the owners want
>no revenue-sharing and no free agency.

I was just reading our r.s.h faq file and according to it the NHL owners
want a one year deal so that a revenue sharing or salary cap plan can be
negotiated over the next year.  The players position is that they want
complete chaos and they want it now.


 _______________
/ |   | | |   | \  Chris Adams
| | O |.|.| O | |  (415)857-7864
|[|   | | |   |]|  cadams%hpspd%hplabs@hp.com
| | O |.|.| O | |
\_|___|_|_|___|_/  GO CANUCKS!!!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
From: cs902159@ariel.yorku.ca (DAVID A LISOGURSKI)
Subject: Re: Consecutive seasons over .500
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:34:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.231147.1118@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911030@ariel.yorku.ca (STAVROS TSOKOS) writes:
>
>Tony...Dave...I think you've both said too much!
>
>San Jose  will go all the way ... sometime in the future!
>
>Steve
>

According to Tony, the San Jose could've easily won the Cup this year
if they would've had the good fortune of being placed into the Adams
division alongside Hartford and Quebec.  :-)

--Dave
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
From: ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast)
Subject: Re: Toronto Maple Leafs
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 00:47:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.023902.9921@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> cs4gp6al@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Peter Granic) writes:

>Ok, I have finally gotten together enough courage and strength to make
>my end of year Leaf statement.  It's an empty feeling, but I will survive
>it.  You don't have a Toronto Maple Leaf logo tatooed on your chest
>for nothing.  

Reading your post made me think of Peter Zezel and Bob Rouse.  And, what 
with the tatoo and all, I figured you might be the one to ask how Peter 
and Bob did this year.

I always hated Zezel in Philly and I really liked him when he was with the 
Caps and Bob Rouse always seemed to give 100% and was first class with my 
kids.

By the way, Iafrate has done well and has been a lot of fun to watch.  I was 
at a game before the strike and two incredibly good-looking women bid $1500 
in a charity auction for a ride on his motorcycle.  Needless to say, Al is 
doing well on and off the ice.

Thanks in advance for any information...

Warren