Talk:Original Six

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

How "lucrative" was the U.S. tv contract in the mid 1960's with CBS, really? Can someone say? Also, the old WHA, which I assume was the competing league in question, really threatening back as far as the mid 1960's, since it didn't actually start until 1972 which much of the NHL expansion was already in place? (I'm sure something of the sort could have been being discussed, but was it really close enough for the NHL owners to make a pre-emptive move? Or were they just taking advantage of a new business opportunity?)

Rlquall 15:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, the league specificaly was NOT the WHA, but the basic threat of a new league arising. The TV contract wish came from the fact that baseball and football were making loads of money off of them, and they decided it would be worth it to extend their US coverage (Note LA, Oakland/San Fran, St. Louis) around so that the contract they were hoping to get would be worth more. So, they were expanding, essentially betting on a huge TV contract. Similar to today, no?

Well, if the current level of expansion to thirty teams was an effort to get a giant U.S. television contract, it has certainly been a spectacular failure. I hope that the players will realize, soon, that there isn't one nor the prospect of one, and will agree, if not to a salary cap, then to something that will allow the thing to work financially, especially in "non-traditonal" markets. The owners need to stop their "smoke and mirrors" accounting, too, and give everyone some real numbers to work with. The lockout has been so long in the making that, while disappointed, I had pretty much already adjusted to the prospect of living without the immediate prospect of hockey this fall, and maybe much longer.

Rlquall 15:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I just hope they fix it...I'm willing to wait a season for them if they do. If not, guess it's just gonna be QMJHL for me. --Habsfannova 21:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good Article – Still a stub?[edit]

This has gotten to be a pretty good article. My question, as the heading suggests, is whether it still needs to be tagged as a "stub". Rlquall 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine why, and have just removed it. Ravenswing 17:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Playoff Frequency for Detroit and Toronto[edit]

I have changed the part of the article that said from 1949 to 1967, the Leafs missed the playoffs once while Detroit missed twice. I just went through the Wikipedia articles for each of the seasons included in that period, and if eligibility for the playoffs during the entire Original Six era was in fact determined as stated in this article (i.e., the top four teams at the end of the regular season made the playoffs), then Detroit and Toronto would have missed the playoffs three times each by my count (Detroit in 1959, 1962, and 1967, and Toronto in 1953, 1957, and 1958). I have changed the text to reflect this information, but if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct it. Thanks. Gujuguy 22:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you're correct; I just doublechecked it myself. Ravenswing 05:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

the new original six[edit]

they have been doing weel and i herd that they are the true backbone sweet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitespear (talkcontribs) 17:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

when the original 6 started[edit]

i cant find the year the original 6 started IDK!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.74.63 (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is stated in the lead that the original six era began in 1942–43, and ended in 1967. Resolute 18:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Original Six. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


"Criticisms" section[edit]

The section entitled "Criticisms" doesn't actually come out and say who was criticising the league, although there are plenty of references to various books printed in the 1970s thriugh 1990s (none of which I have copies of.) The comments about the league's arguably unfair (and certainly restrictive) labor practices are fair enough, as are the comments about how few non-Canadian players there were, even on the four US-based teams. Even though I edited that part of the section, I am not sure if the comment about the playoff system being too easy is a fair one: the only alternatives would have been even easier. (Not to belabor the point, but the only other options would have been to have no playoffs at all, a 1-round 2-team playoff, or a system where one or more of the top teams got a bye.) The 50-mile territorial rights rule did give Montreal and Toronto a huge advantage, and Detroit a smaller advantage— but I marked "Boston" as dubious because then as now there was a lively amateur hockey scene in the Boston area. The Bruins' problem wasn't that young men weren't playing hockey in and around Boston so much as that the team was only recruiting players from the remainder of Canada outside the Montreal and Toronto areas. As for the Red Wings, they signed few if any players from Michigan, even though there were doubtless good young players on both sides of the St. Clair River. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  • One can make such a speculative argument, but the fact of the matter was that the NHL was devoid of American players, not just through the most of the Original Six era but for years after expansion; major American-born stars didn't emerge before the 1980s. It's tough to argue that Boston had a leg up because it could sign Massachusetts-born players, when both plainly few (if any) in the league thought American players could compete, and Boston in that era suffered the longest playoff drought in NHL history up to the 1967 expansion. As far as books for which you personally have no copies, I commend ordering copies up through your public library if you'd like to review them yourself. Ravenswing 22:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The Bruins' first regular local player seems to have been Mike Milbury, who was born in 1952 and postdates the Original Six era. He played college hockey and was signed as a free agent. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep, Milbury was the first (tough to count Myles Lane, who only spent parts of two seasons with the Bruins). As to that, only one Massachusetts-born and raised player played so much as fifty games in the whole Original Six era -- Bill Moe, and there were just two others in NHL history up until that time. Even now, over forty years after Milbury's debut, looking over the list of New England-born and raised players, if I were to pick out significant stars, there's not as much as a dozen: Amonte, Barrasso, Ftorek, Carpenter, Stevens (coincidentally, a freshman in my high school when I was a senior), Roenick, Tkachuk, Guerin, Janney, Quick and Leclair. By contrast, never mind mere significant stars, there are nearly twice as many Hall of Famers born within the municipal limits of Montreal. Ravenswing 08:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Original Six vs Solid Six[edit]

The popular term Original Six is incorrect. It perpetuates a false history of the NHL. I suggest that the term Solid Six be substituted in the name of accuracy.

The NHL began in 1917 with 4 (and sometimes 3) "original" teams over the first 7 seasons. (Only two of those [MTL & TOR] still exist in 2018.) The Boston Bruins, the first American team, didn't join until the 8th NHL season. Only in the 10th NHL season did the NY Rangers, Chicago Black Hawks and Detroit Red Wings (née Cougars) finally join the league. Hardly "original" teams with 7 previously existing clubs already playing.

However, by the beginning of the 1942 season the league had been decimated by WW II and reduced to six major market teams. These remaining teams, while they constituted the entire league for the next 25 years, are erroneously referred to the "Original Six" when they are clearly not. Even the NHL does not acknowledge four of these six teams as being "original" members of the league.

I propose that this article, and other Wikipedia references to "Original Six", be changed to the "Solid Six". In support of this suggestion, I refer to "The Complete Encyclopedia of Ice Hockey" (Prentice-Hall, 1970), Part IV, "From a Solid Six...To Expansion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eustance McGargle (talkcontribs) 02:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • The answer to that is supplied by WP:COMMONNAME, which holds that the proper name for an article is the name for a subject most frequently used in English-language sources; thus, Bill Clinton instead of William Jefferson Clinton, or Rhode Island instead of The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. I'm sure you can agree that the number of uses for "Original Six" would overwhelmingly dwarf all other terms combined. Ravenswing 03:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)