SabreFan1 Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 The Original 6 is actually the Original 1.... Who knew?! I sure didn't. He takes a veiled shot at Bettman a minute before the video ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Vancouver Blazers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Vancouver Blazers! You mean the Calgary Cowboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 PCHA!!!!! Vancouver Millionaires Victoria Cougars Seattle Metropolitans Portland Rosebuds New Westminster Royals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Betcha didn't know about the Philly Quakers, or Pittsburgh Pirates (NHL), or St. Louis Eagles (Formally the Ottawa Senators)! Or even the New York Americans! How about the Hamilton Tigers? And the Montreal Maroons! And the Quebec Bulldogs! (What a great name!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Original Six is not about the "starting six", it's a marketing gimmick that's meant, for quite a long time, the six teams before the great expansion. For a guy who pedants about hockey, he sure has no clue about hockey. There was a time I used to be irritated that ESPN didn't give hockey enough coverage.. now I can see, in hindsight, it was for the better. Why TSN2 even airs this nonsense is beyond me. ESPN blows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Fun fact, the Maroons were the last defunct team to win the Cup in 1935. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bissurnette Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Further solidifies the undisputed history of the Montreal Canadiens =) this makes me happy. But this is pretty cool to know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Original Six is not about the "starting six", it's a marketing gimmick that's meant, for quite a long time, the six teams before the great expansion. For a guy who pedants about hockey, he sure has no clue about hockey. There was a time I used to be irritated that ESPN didn't give hockey enough coverage.. now I can see, in hindsight, it was for the better. Why TSN2 even airs this nonsense is beyond me. ESPN blows. That's the major point in the video that he's trying to make. It's a marketing gimmick that most people just take as a truth. Until I saw the video, I was one of the millions of people that just took the marketing as truth. I've loved hockey for decades, but I never bothered to check and see if they all actually began at the same time at the onset of the first season of the NHL. I'll bet if people here were honest at least 90% thought the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Sparkle Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 i can say i liked KO here before it was cool. remember "the boxing hobo on skates"? i was probably the only person on this forum who understands KO's humour and loled when KO took that 12 year old moron kid to school, while everyone here thought a 12 year old kid took someone highly regarded in media, but an actual hockey fan "to school" via tweet. KO took the publicity of butthurt cauncks fans and ran with it, like gimme a break Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue90 Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Have some respect. It's the "Surrey Six" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Original Six is not about the "starting six", it's a marketing gimmick that's meant, for quite a long time, the six teams before the great expansion. For a guy who pedants about hockey, he sure has no clue about hockey. There was a time I used to be irritated that ESPN didn't give hockey enough coverage.. now I can see, in hindsight, it was for the better. Why TSN2 even airs this nonsense is beyond me. ESPN blows. So you didn't watch the video where he said exactly that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I thought this was common knowledge already and people understood that the Original Six doesn't actually mean the first teams in the league. For example when people talk about the Original Six era it's understood they're not talking about the early days of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I thought this was common knowledge already and people understood that the Original Six doesn't actually mean the first teams in the league. For example when people talk about the Original Six era it's understood they're not talking about the early days of the league. Keith Olbermann is probably talking to the people in Phoenix or southern Florida. He seems rather lost in his diatribe like Gary Bettman discovering a bottle of Jergens in the Glendale City Council bathroom the day the Coyotes sale was approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Keith Olbermann is probably talking to the people in Phoenix or southern Florida. He seems rather lost in his diatribe like Gary Bettman discovering a bottle of Jergens in the Glendale City Council bathroom the day the Coyotes sale was approved. You do understand that what he was railing about was really the way the league markets the original 6 over the "next 24"? The information about the Original 6 not actually being the Original 6 was all just a preface to the actual argument. I only ask because it doesn't seem like you watched the video at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 You do understand that what he was railing about was really the way the league markets the original 6 over the "next 24"? The information about the Original 6 not actually being the Original 6 was all just a preface to the actual argument. I only ask because it doesn't seem like you watched the video at all. Longest "preface" ever. He spent 90% of the time obsessively musing about his own definition of the word "original". Let me start a point off by making a huge paragraph about apples. Then I'll give a sentence to talk about oranges. I bet people are gonna give a toss and be receptive about my point concerning oranges. But of course, I didn't watch the video. I'm sure he spent the time discussing why his subjectively literal interpretation of a single word was relevant to the next 24 teams, as if most hockey fans are oblivious that it's a marketing point and he's discovered fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Longest "preface" ever. He spent 90% of the time obsessively musing about his own definition of the word "original". Let me start a point off by making a huge paragraph about apples. Then I'll give a sentence to talk about oranges. I bet people are gonna give a toss and be receptive about my point concerning oranges. But of course, I didn't watch the video. I'm sure he spent the time discussing why his subjectively literal interpretation of a single word was relevant to the next 24 teams. Except that the huge paragraph was about apples and then he explained why he was talking about apples. In general arguments end with a conclusion and in general the conclusion is the smallest part of the argument. It also wasn't him talking about his own definition it was him discussing why there is a problem with the marketing of the original 6 teams. I'm not generally a big Olberman fan but your argument against here seem a little misdirected. Your statement seems more based on the title than it is the actual video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Of course its a marketing gimmick, and a successful one at that. The Original 6 are consistently in the top 5/10 in attendance and revenue earned. I am actually surprised that people don't know about this. The NHL started out as a league with only Canadian teams. Canucks fans should also know about this considering the Canucks gave tribute to the Vancouver Millionaires not too long ago. Even the Leafs who are the 2nd oldest franchise are celebrating their centennial in 2017. Montreal had their centennial year in 2009. If the original 6 were really the original 6 they would all share the same centennial year. To be honest it should be an obvious fact to all fans who have paid attention over the years lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Except that the huge paragraph was about apples and then he explained why he was talking about apples. In general arguments end with a conclusion and in general the conclusion is the smallest part of the argument. It also wasn't him talking about his own definition it was him discussing why there is a problem with the marketing of the original 6 teams. I'm not generally a big Olberman fan but your argument against here seem a little misdirected. Your statement seems more based on the title than it is the actual video. Why exactly is it a "problem"? Its an effective marketing ploy used by the NHL and it seems to be quite successful considering the success of the "Original 6" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Except that the huge paragraph was about apples and then he explained why he was talking about apples. In general arguments end with a conclusion and in general the conclusion is the smallest part of the argument. It also wasn't him talking about his own definition it was him discussing why there is a problem with the marketing of the original 6 teams. I'm not generally a big Olberman fan but your argument against here seem a little misdirected. Your statement seems more based on the title than it is the actual video. There really isn't, or hasn't been a problem with marketing the Original Six.. it has worked fine. The issue I have is that Olbermann treats fans like idiots because they don't take his interpretation of "original" as a basis for his diatribe. Most fans already know what Original Six means. It's probably also why he's on ESPN and not on, say, an actual hockey network. I can imagine the fan reactions on CDC if it were Ron MacLean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.