Talk:Original Six/Archive 1

Mid 1960's TV contract

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habsfannova (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 September 2004 (UTC)

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?

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

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

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

when the original 6 started

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160205214758/http://www.buffnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20120924%2FSPORTS%2F120929419%2F1004 to http://www.buffnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20120924%2FSPORTS%2F120929419%2F1004

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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)