Any good hockey fan knows that ESPN is not their number-one source for hockey news. Writer Scott Burnside once again proved ESPN’s complete lack of any real hockey knowledge when he decided to post his NHL team rankings.
(If you have no idea what I am talking about, make sure to waste two minutes of your life by reading Burnside's Summer Power Rankings article.)
Burnside started off by ranking the Eastern Conference teams, and I was already done with him after the first team. He ranked the Pittsburgh Penguins the best team in the East—even with the mass migration of players from last year’s team.
Apparently Burnside has the same delusions as every bandwagon Penguins fan has that only four players matter on a team and “never mind the absence of Marian Hossa, Ryan Malone, Jarkko Ruutu and Georges Laraque.”
Now, I am not saying the Penguins are the worst team in the East—but to rank them above the Montreal Canadians is just stupid.
Burnside then goes on to rank the Rangers at number four—even though they are, as he put it, “Different, but not necessarily better.”
How can a team not be better, but still climb in the rankings?
Fourth is pretty high for a boom-or-bust team, but it is the “logic” he used to come to his conclusion that makes me angry.
This so called “sports expert” then ranks the Carolina Hurricanes at number seven. Yes, the team that missed the playoffs twice in a row, and lost Erik Cole for Joni Pitkanen. Replacing 51 points with 26 points does not make your team better.
He ranked the Bruins at number 11, despite Boston making the playoffs last year and improving their team while losing no one of importance (sorry, Glenn Murray).
In the West, Burnside did a little bit better, but I still have some major grievances.
16 comments Last one added 11 months ago — Leave a Comment
Spencer Callaghan 11 months ago
While I agree with your general thesis, the Penguins ARE better than the Habs, and are probably the only team ranking that makes sense in Burnside's picks.
The Habs are definitely a playoff team but they will not win the conference again.
Edit Comment Cancel
Alan Bass 11 months ago
pens are much better than habs...but yeah, his power rankings were a bit strange
Edit Comment Cancel
NYI Fan Central 11 months ago
Burnside always caters to his version of big market for hockey or a place with an Espn zone. Another example of why Espn needs a bigger staff of hockey writers because one person cannot write about thirty clubs and tell the local fan something they do not already know
It's like a writer like myself in New York trying to do an article on the Coyotes, but have been to the Coliseum once since 2002. My article would be more background going back to Winnipeg and an insult to the Coyote fans in terms of knowledge.
Burnside plays the shock jock game also which is also a huge negative.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Mason 11 months ago
Thank you for writing an article that is long overdue. My two biggest beefs are with the Sabres and Coyotes. The Sabres are not behind Carolina and the Rangers and even Tampa Bay. The coyotes are vastly improved on offense with Olli Jokien and Kyle Turris. I think they have a real shot at making the playoffs and i just don't quite get the avs at 13th. They won't finish last in the division that will be Vancouver and the i think Minnesota without Demitra and Rolston will be huge to them
Edit Comment Cancel
Jersey 11 months ago
Yikes! I mean, we all knew ESPN is lousy in its hockey coverage, but how does this guy justify his rankings? Not that it makes sense to rank teams in July anyway, but come on.
Edit Comment Cancel
Keith Lundquist 11 months ago
wow, no other NHL news source ranks teams in July, but I'm sure that's because they realize how ridiculous it is. If you look at the previous season predictions, not even 50% of the stuff turns out like the predictions say. so, I wouldn't get to wound up about this article. By the way the NHL operates, 26-28 out of the 30 teams are capable of being in the playoffs.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Quinn 11 months ago
Meh, while I don't necessarily agree with most of the rankings, I don't think they're completely wrong. As others have said, it is too early to judge right now.. but i guess if you are going to, you as well take some chances.
And I would put the Pens ahead of the Habs on my list as well.
Edit Comment Cancel
Robbie Fabes 11 months ago
They're pretty bad. The strange thing is that TSN is owned by the same company. You'd think they would ask for a little help...
Edit Comment Cancel
Spencer Callaghan 11 months ago
ESPN owns only 20% of TSN, the majority is owned by Bell Globemedia.
A 20% stake is merely an investment on ESPN's part with a little bit of overlapping programming and branding, they have little to no influence over TSN.
Edit Comment Cancel
John LoGiudice 11 months ago
The late, great Tom Mees was the last person at ESPN who knew hockey. You can make arguments about the Penguins being number one. I will make judgments when the camps are in full swing, but I kind of like the Habs. But back to the subject at hand, ESPN is possibly worse at hockey coverage than NBC or Vs. , at least they show games. Bettman has to get a REAL network covering the NHL in the US. he should stop worrying about heated skates and sleeker jerseys and get back to the basics and have people watch the game down here again. ESPN is not the answer. Build a Hockey Network like the Fox Soccer Channel, show games from the new KHL, show Swedish, Swiss and German games. Hell, start showing games from England's Elite league. Anything to get people watching again.
Edit Comment Cancel
PJ Edelman 11 months ago
Good article. I would like to hear more about the crappiness of ESPN's coverage of hockey--not just Burnside's "ballsy" picks.
Edit Comment Cancel
S M Napier 11 months ago
I see the point of your article and not a Burnside's fan. But as a ESPN junkie, you cannot over look the fact that they lost millions on the broadcast deal with the NHL, during the 2004 - 2005 lockout season. Can't blame them for remembering that, really it's just basic coverage and it is what it is. Don't like it, change the channel, don't like what their writer writes, don't read it.
Edit Comment Cancel
E L 11 months ago
In #7 your reasoning is to compare the points lost from one player to points gained by the added player. You are comparing a forward to a defensemen without looking at the situation. Pitkanen is bringing something the 'Canes didn't have last year. A puck moving, offensive minded defensemen. But that doesn't mean Pitkanen was brought in only to score points. He was brought in to also move the puck up the ice safely out of your zone in all situations, not just on the power play. The 'Canes had too many turn overs last year that decreased their puck possession time (at least) and lead to goals against (at most). The 'Canes have plenty of fire power, this move makes the 'Canes a better team, and a harder team to play against. Jim Rutheford did what he had to.
Edit Comment Cancel
Joseph Cosentino 11 months ago
Good Article, but I think ESPN should get it's hockey coverage back in the states, in terms of televison, no other network in the states did a great job of showing hockey as espn did. I think VERSUS is a joke. Bring back Garry Thorne and bring back ESPN hockey.
Edit Comment Cancel
Kate 11 months ago
Amen to ESPN being the WWLeaders in hockey writing. Especially Terry Frei.
Edit Comment Cancel
Kate 11 months ago
I mean the worst writers!
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.