my Alex Jones perspective on the NHL, the Commissioner, and the evil L.A. Kings

i got a comment a lil bit ago.  it was in regard to my overt outrage at this year's Stanley Cup seeming NHL FIX.

said comment:  "Yeah.... Clearly the sport is rigged when major sports markets like Carolina, Tampa Bay, and Anaheim have won the Cup.... I wonder how long both teams worked to get the timing for that last second goal down, lol."

my retort?

under Commissioner Gary Bettman, the NHL expanded the League from their 21-team era, to include (among others) the Tampa Bay Lightning in 92, the Florida Panthers, Nashville Predators, Dallas Stars, and the Anaheim Ducks in 1993.  under Bettman, the League focused on expansion and relocation thru the 90's, with it's primary focus on expanding the South.

stay with me now...

there was exceeding upset in Canada with Bettman expanding away from traditional hockey markets...until...Bettman created the Canadian Assistance Plan:  a revenue sharing agreement that gave money to the four small-market Canadian teams – Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, and Vancouver – throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s.

thus...Southern teams win...EVERYBODY CASHES IN.

so.  isn't it interesting how the Colorado Avalanche played the Florida Panthers in 1996 for the Cup??
RIGHT AFTER THE 94-95 LOCKOUT??

then the DALLAS STARS come in and win in 99. (i think they were probably supposed to win in 2000, also, but they didn't.  heheh...) then the Avalanche win once again in 2001.

Tampa Bay won in 2003-04.  NHL lockout again, 2004-05.  Carolina Hurricane win 2005-06...Anaheim Ducks win 2006-07.

i mean.  when you consider that Bettman was once the right-hand-man to the commissioner of the NBA, David Stern, and you peruse the Stanley Cup Champions since he took on the role of Commissioner, you see some really interesting things.  basically, since 1993, Bettman has done JUST what he has set out to do:  sell the game, expand the League, rake in the dough, and abolish the "old guard" owners and their mentality.
for...prior to 93, take a look at who won Cups.

then take a look at who has won them SINCE.  it's a healthy combination of ORIGINAL SIX, ORIGINAL SIX, NEWBIE, NEWBIE, ORIGINAL SIX, ORIGINAL SIX, NEWBIE, NEWBIE, and so on and so forth...(considering the 1974 expansion period teams are newbies compared to the 1967 expansion).

in my opinion...i think that whole World Hockey Association dealio really spoke volumes to Bettman...and for all intents and purposes, the last thing he wants in the league are dynasties.  rather, the Cup must be won by NEWBIE, southern teams.  California not excluded.

(especially with a gazillion dollars residing in LA, alone, if hockey could reeeeally get noticed there....)

so.  that brings us to recent rocky NHL history.  2012. the League was looking at another lockout.  (the third in less than ten seasons with Bettman as Commissioner, i might add)  time to make one last ditch effort to expand interest and gain revenue before the lockout: KINGS win.  next season, said lockout reduces the season to merely 48 games, time to go back to capturing the interest of the old guard, the ORIGINAL SIX, Chicago v. Bruins.  and this season, omg.  we have a literal potpourri of newbies and O.S. teams vying for the Cup.  but yes.  the market BEGS for the LA dollars.  give it to them.  after all, maybe next season an Original Sixer can cash in...that's assuming the Florida Panthers don't need a little NHL help  :P

in the words of the Commissioner himself, just days ago:

 "This will be our 15th consecutive year without a repeat champion, which is also a testimony to the NHL's unparalleled competitive balance."

it's also a testimony to the NHL's agenda:  sell the game, expand the League, and rake in the dough...

of Underdogs and Overtime...

the popular media (and Vegas odds) have gone to great lengths to inform the world of how exceedingly dominant the Kings would be over the Rangers in this Stanley Cup Final series for 2014.

hmmm.  jus sayin.  let's look at some interesting facts regarding the alleged Underdogs.

the Rangers took two of their Playoff Series' to 7 games, one to 6.

of course, we know the Kings went 7 games each in all three of their previous Series'.

however, as for tonight -- Game One -- the alleged "Underdog" Rangers did some fairly interesting things through their 64 minutes and 36 seconds on the ice amidst their opponent, the allegedly Dominant L.A. Kings:  the Rangers managed to find their way to the puck, especially when it was in the Kings possession.

the Kings had six Takeaways (two from Kopitar, who's kind of a big deal with the Kings)...the Rangers only had the puck taken away ONE TIME.

skip ahead to Giveaways.  (this would indicate somewhat BAD PASSING and, perhaps, being rushed into making mistakes).  the Kings had GIVEAWAYS from ALL BUT SEVEN of their 19 players used tonight,  including their goaltender Quick. of the 12 Kings players giving the puck away to the Rangers, each had anywhere between 1 and 2 Giveaways,  18 total.

(blame four giveaways on Willie Mitchell alone).

where is this obscene dominance, again?

i mean, i get it.  the Kings won the game.

but, remember, we're talking about dominance and underdogs, right?

and. if what the popular media, NBC announcers, and Vegas are alleging is true, then how in the WORLD did the underdogs take the dominant into Overtime??

for, aside from a fluky bounce-in goal with Drew Doughty in the 2nd (which tied the score), the Kings would wind up massively assaulting the Rangers' netminder with (get this now) 43 shots on goal.

(but only 3 got in?)

(this is Dominance??)

the Rangers, yeah, they finished the game with merely 27 shots on goal -- two of which had such a dynamic impact upon the game, that the game was taken into Overtime on those two shots alone (the ones that found their way to the back of the net, of course).

interestingly, the Rangers only took three shots on goal in the 3rd period.

the Kings took 20.

defense?  lack of offense?  either way you want to dissect the 3rd period, the fact remains:  the game went into Overtime. 

(and...in actuality...with the Corsi and Fenwick being literally 1% difference between the two teams in the entire game, the winner could have been either team.)

thus...Dominance?  Underdog?

imagine what might happen in Games 2, 3, 4, if the Rangers were to take 13 shots on goal each period, like they did in the 1st period tonight...

if tonight's game is any indication of the dynamics or propensity of aptitude for each team within this Stanley Cup Finals -- and their respective possible consequences for Giveaways, Takeaways, defense, shots on goal and such --  i do believe the Kings are in for more than a 4-game sweep of the alleged Ranger "Underdogs."

Vegas may want to reconsider their points, odds, and assumptions toward the Dominant and Underdog... lest a fraction of hockey betters cash in HUGE when all is said and done.

ask anyone who laid down cold, hard cash on the Bruins.  jus sayin.